The Real Scandal: No Jobs
Note from Erick: Andy Puzder is CEO of CKE Restaurants, Inc., which employs about 21,000 people at Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s restaurants. He is co-author of “Job Creation: How it Really Works and Why the Government Doesn’t Understand it.” Puzder serves as co-chair of the American Freedom and Enterprise Foundation.While the unemployment numbers for June contained some positive news, the coverage to date has obscured the continuing negative trends and ObamaCare’s increasing impact. It’s time to take a realistic look at how the fragility of our economy and the specter of big government are restricting both growth and job creation. The actual state of our labor market is a good place to start.
The “official” unemployment rate held steady at 7.6%. The economy created 195,000 jobs in June. The BLS revised payrolls for the last three months upwards and the labor participation rate (the percentage of the total population over the age of 16 in the labor force) improved slightly moving from 63.4% to 63.5%.
However, there were several very troubling indicators. The number of people who gave up looking for work because they believe no jobs were available increased by 206,000 from a year earlier to 1 million. The number of individuals who were working part time increased by 432,000, twice the number of jobs created. Full time jobs actually declined by 272,000.
In part, this increase in part time jobs and decline in full time jobs reflects a change in hiring practices in anticipation of ObamaCare taking effect. The new law substantially increases the cost of businesses providing employees health insurance but only requires that they provide coverage to full time employees. As result, employers are dividing available hours of work among more jobs, creating more part time employees and reducing the number of full time jobs. This actually reduces the official unemployment rate which counts part time jobs as equal to full time jobs.
Not surprisingly, many of the jobs the economy created last month were service jobs such as restaurant employees and store clerks that are easily converted from full to part time. The official unemployment rate may consider part time and full time jobs as equal, but American workers do not. Of the 432,000 part time jobs created last month, 322,000 went to Americans who wanted full time work but could only find part time work (increasing the total number of people working part time but wanting full time work to 8.3 million).
The BLS also calculates an unemployment rate that includes all persons who have searched for work during the prior twelve months (as opposed to the official rate’s 30 day cut off), plus all people who want a full-time job but are employed part-time for “economic reasons,” such as reduced hours or an inability to find a full-time job. This is known as the U6 unemployment rate and it is the widest measure the government calculates.
While, the impact of ObamaCare turning full time jobs into part time jobs decreases the official unemployment rate, it increases the U6 rate to the extent that people working part time jobs are doing so because they are unable to find full time jobs. As noted above, that number increased by 322,000 people in June to 8.3 million. Not surprisingly then, the U6 measure of unemployment significantly increased rising from 13.8% in May to 14.3% in June, clear evidence that the labor market is getting worse for people who want a full time job, probably because of Obamacare
The decline in the labor participation rate also hides the labor market’s anemic state. The recession’s unemployment rate peaked in October of 2009 at 10% when the labor participation rate was 65%. Had the participation rate continued at 65%, the “official” unemployment rate in June would have been 9.7% rather than 7.6%. In other words, the labor market hasn’t materially improved in the nearly four years since unemployment peaked in October of 2009; rather the unemployment rate has declined because a smaller percentage of the total population is now in the labor force. The question is then: Why has the labor participation rate declined?
Some claim that as baby boomers are retiring and leaving the labor force, the participation rate will naturally decline. But the Boston Federal Reserve published a study recently finding that the bulk of the decline in labor-force-participation is due to economic factors (a declining economy) rather than demographic ones (an increase in retirees). The BLS reports a number each month which it labels “Not in the Labor Force – Want a Job Now” that seems to confirm this study’s conclusion.
According to the BLS, in June there were 6,580,000 people out of work who “want a job now” but who BLS excluded from the ranks of the officially unemployed, including those who were too discouraged to look for a job in the past 30 days. Adding these people back into the labor force produces an unemployment rate of 11.3%, again well in excess of the “official” 7.6%.
Michael Talent and I have previously written about the unreliability of the “official” unemployment rate and the significance of a labor force that has dwindled to Carter era lows as a percentage of the total population. We have advocated a new and more reliable metric to measure the labor market’s performance that we call the “Growth Ratio”. We publish the Growth Ratio each month on line. http://growthratio.com/.
The Growth Ratio is the year-over-year growth in the number of jobs (measured through the BLS’s household survey) divided by the year-over-year growth in the civilian non-institutional population (the number of people who could be in the labor force). This fraction tells us whether job creation is keeping pace with, running ahead of, or falling behind population growth. Like the official rate, the Growth Ratio considers full and part time work equally. As such, it may actually overstate the strength of the labor market but is nonetheless an effective measure of the relationship between job creation and population growth.
A growth ratio equal to one indicates that employment grew as fast as the population; in that case, the real unemployment rate should remain unchanged. A growth ratio above one indicates job growth in excess of population growth, which should reduce the number of unemployed people and result in a lower unemployment rate. A ratio lower than one indicates that employment either fell or grew but failed to keep pace with population growth; in that case, an honest assessment of labor market health should show that unemployment has gone up.
In June, the growth ratio clocked in at 1.15%, indicating that employment growth over the previous twelve months was slightly greater than population growth. The average for the recovery to date is a dismal 0.97%. In other words, the labor market has actually gotten slightly worse since the recovery began. Yet the early years of a recovery should be its most robust, especially where a recession was severe. Considering the loss in employment during the last recession, the growth ratio should be consistently hitting 1.5% or better, as it did following prior recoveries once the Growth Ratio went positive.
In short, real unemployment is well above the “official” 7.6%. The official rate has only declined because of a very disturbing decline in the number of people the BLS considers in the labor force. In addition, as employers divide the number of available full time work hours among a larger group of part time workers, the official unemployment rate makes it appear as though our economy is growing and creating more jobs than it is. Dividing full time jobs into more numerous part time jobs is not an indication of economic growth. Yet, even with this false positive, job creation is barely exceeding population growth.
What misleadingly appears to be an improvement in the labor market is actually stagnation at best. This is not a labor market in recovery. It’s an economy in serious trouble and disturbingly unprepared for any future crises. Big government as a solution has failed. It’s time to re-energize the private sector with tax and regulatory policies that make sense.
http://www.redstate.com/andypuzder/2013/07/12/the-real-scandal-no-jobs/
The Left, Wal-Mart, and the D.C. City Council Fiasco
[This week], the liberal majority of the D.C. City Council voted that if Wal-Mart opens three stores in the underserviced poor areas of the nation’s capital — inhabited largely by African-Americans — it cannot do so unless the chain raises the minimum wage of its employees to $12.50 per hour.
That action reflects how far removed from reality the council members are. Their supposed concern for the poor will only hurt those they claim to be representing. The action also displays how the arguments and activism of left-wing groups — who have for years campaigned for what they continually call a “living wage” — have had an influence on Democratic Party politicians.
In the District of Columbia, the minimum wage is already $8.25 an hour, higher than the established federal minimum wage. Moreover, the Council’s action would apply only to the three stores that Wal-Mart planned to build. It is clearly a discriminatory piece of legislation, since it targets only one employer — a firm which we all know is the chain most hated by Left activists like those of the old ACORN. (To see typical leftist arguments on the issue, read here.)
Investor’s Business Daily notes that if Wal-Mart cancels the three stores under construction and the other three that were being planned, it means a loss to D.C. residents of 900 retail jobs and 600 construction jobs — 1500 people who would be able to gain much-needed work. More important, however, is that Wal-Mart is building in areas of the city that have few, if any, supermarkets or chains at which residents can locally buy produce at prices they can afford.
The Daily editors write:
At a time when millions of marginally employed Americans are scraping by, prices at Wal-Mart average 10% to 40% below other retailers for food, clothing, medicines and many other items.In that manner, consumers shopping at the popular chain — popular except among the denizens of the Left who get their produce at Whole Foods and other upscale chains — achieve savings totaling over $50 billion per year. On the individual level, a shopper buying his food and other items exclusively at Wal-Mart saves up to $2000 per year.
To the poor, Wal-Mart is actually “progressive.” Local resident Yvonne Williams informed a D.C. weekly free paper:
We’ve been praying for food in this neighborhood for about 40 years. … God has brought what was supposed to be here — a first-class progressive thing.Evidently, Ms. Williams has not taken the leftist message to heart that anything or anyone “progressive” must oppose Wal-Mart, and oppose saving money when buying groceries.
To stop the chain from building the new facilities, one University of Michigan economist told IBD, was a “politically motivated ‘economic death wish.’” Fortunately, the vote passed with one vote shy of a majority, and the mayor of D.C. has said he would veto the council’s resolution. Already, the leftist Daily Kos site is urging its readers to send a letter of protest to Mayor Vincent Gray, who wisely supports the opening of the Wal-Mart stores, and to threaten to oppose him if he goes through with a veto.
The Left might recall the experience of the residents of some California towns, whose councils had passed a similar increase in the minimum wage. The result was that scores of small businesses fled to other states and communities, since the forced increase in wages meant they would have been put out of business.
As the centrist Washington Post editor Charles Lane put it, if legislators want to increase jobs and help the poor, they might actually consider lowering the minimum wage:
Minimum wage laws do indeed reduce job opportunities for less-skilled workers and even tend to reduce their earnings. … If Obama and Congress were really as serious as they say they are about reducing unemployment, they would at least be willing to discuss rolling back last July’s minimum wage increase. It would create some jobs for those who need them most, and it would not cost taxpayers a dime.Lane, of course, knows he is being sarcastic. There is not a ghost of a chance that Democratic liberals and leftists in the House and Senate would ever take such a wise step. Instead, they prefer to think that a foolish act of legislative leftism is all it takes to create prosperity. It is akin to a leader who wants an educated populace awarding a Ph.D. to every citizen.
Once again, leftist politicians, listening to middle and upper-class leftist activists, have taken a step to assuage their guilty consciences by opposing an industry and firm that helps create jobs and thus increases economic well-being for all. As they shop at Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods, you can be sure that the fate of the poor is the furthest thing from their minds.
http://pjmedia.com/ronradosh/2013/07/11/the-left-wal-mart-and-the-fiasco-at-the-d-c-city-council/?singlepage=true
Here We Go: Alabama to Implement “Race-Based Standards” in Public Schools
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to post-racial America. Via the Wall Street Journal:
The implicit assumption here is that minority students can’t compete with white students. And while it’s certainly true that perhaps some students lag significantly behind their white counterparts in the classroom, what kind of message does it send to persons of color when the achievement bar is purposefully lowered for non-academic reasons? Uniform academic benchmarks might be impossible in Alabama, but I find it reprehensible that minority students would be consigned to dumbed down standards solely because of the color of their skin and/or their parents’ level of income.
It’s self-evidently true that any child -- regardless of race, class or gender -- has the ability to attain the highest levels of academic achievement. Lowering standards and racial profiling in public schools is a terrible idea, not least because it seems to suggest otherwise.
UPDATE: Note also how the organization in Alabama that opposes race-based standards is not comprised of progressives but of conservative women. Remember that the next time someone on MSNBC shrieks that Republicans down in Dixie are “racists.”
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/danieldoherty/2013/07/12/here-we-go-alabama-to-implement-racebased-standards-in-public-schools-n1639326
“We were informed that these are unacceptable, inherently religious activities and the Department of Justice would not be able to fund the programs if it continued,” Sheriff Julian Whittington told Fox News. “They wanted a letter from me stating that I would no longer have voluntary prayer and I would also have to remove ‘God’ from the Young Marine’s oath.”
The sheriff refused to sign any document pledging not to pray and as a result the department lost its funding. The Liberty Institute is representing the sheriff’s office as they try to get back $30,000 in government funding.
Meanwhile, Gov. Bobby Jindal has issued a proclamation urging the DOJ to restore funding and U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu has introduced legislation to forbid the federal government from defunding programs because of religious activity.
The DOJ originally funneled the money through the Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement. The DOJ did not return telephone calls seeking comment.
Young Marines describes itself as a private service program for boys and girls. Its national website says members should attend church and pledge not to dishonor God. The Justice Department took exception to that.
Liberty Institute attorney Michael Berry told Fox News that the Obama Administration’s decision is disturbing.
“We are deeply troubled that the DOJ, the agency in charge of defending the civil rights of us all, would engage in this type of discrimination by denying permission to fund the outstanding Young Marine’s program,” Berry said. “It is shameful that a mere mention of God sends the DOJ officials running as if they had seen a ghost.”
Berry sent a letter to the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division calling on them to reinstate the lost funding.
“The DOJ’s denial of funds to BPSO youth programs is a violation of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause because it constitutes unlawful viewpoint discrimination,” he wrote.
According to documents obtained by Fox News, the DOJ took exception to the Young Marines obligation oath.
“From this day forward, I sincerely promise I will set an example for all other youth to follow, and I shall never do anything that would bring disgrace or dishonor upon my God, my Country and its flag, my parents, myself, or the Young Marines,” the oath read. “These I will honor and respect in a manner that will reflect credit upon them and myself. Semper Fidelis.”
The Young Marines Creed also references a promise to “keep myself clean in mind by attending the church of my faith.”
In March 2012, a DOJ audit of the program noted their “special emphasis on the love of God and fidelity to our country.”
In October 2012, the sheriff’s office was told to cease voluntary prayers unless they were conducted in a separate time and location from the class.
In March 2013, the DOJ raised more concerns over approving funding because of the references to ‘God.’
And in May funding was denied.
That decision drew bipartisan outrage – starting with Gov. Bobby Jindal who signed a proclamation supporting the sheriff’s office and the Young Marines.
“The First Amendment guarantees us freedom of religion, not freedom from religion,” Jindal said. “It was written to protect people of faith from government officials, and we are going to hold on to that freedom.”
Jindal said he would do whatever he could to convince the Obama Administration to refund the program.“I hope we can, but I know we are not going to give up our religious freedom,” he said, noting that the sheriff’s program has helped a number of Louisiana’s young people.
“We are calling on the Department of Justice to restore the funding to the Young Marines so it can continue improving the lives of our young men and women through prayer,” the governor said.
On Thursday Landrieu introduced the “Freedom to Pray Act.” The bill would forbid the federal government from withholding money from programs whose participants engage in voluntary religious activity.
“This is clearly a serious overreach by the Department of Justice and I intend to do something about it,” Landrieu said. “These kids are working to improve themselves and their communities; they deserve support, not unnecessary hurdles.”
Landrieu chastised the DOJ’s decision and said they had no right to single out the Bossier Parish programs. “The DOJ has plenty of problems to worry about,” she said. “It should focus more on them and not a program that is doing good work for kids in our community.”
http://townhall.com/columnists/toddstarnes/2013/07/12/lawmakers-angry-after-doj-defunds-young-marines-n1639551/page/full
The Alabama Federation of Republican Women (AFRW) strongly opposes "race-based standards for student achievement" pushed by the Alabama Department of Education, as reported in The Tuscaloosa News on Sunday, June 30. Minority students will be held to a lower standard, and would be tracked at a lower standard throughout their academic career from K-12.
According to this article by Jamon Smith, "Beginning this fall, Alabama public schools will be under a new state-created academic accountability system that sets different goals for students in math and reading based on their race, economic status, ability to speak English and disabilities." Alabama's Plan 2020 "sets a different standard for students in each of several subgroups -- American Indian, Asian/Pacific islander, black, English language learners, Hispanic, multirace, poverty, special education and white."
The "race-based" standards are part of Common Core, adopted by the state board of education in November 2010.Walter Russell Mead points out that race-based standards are hardly new. Indeed, he writes, 27 out of the 33 states that received waivers from No Child Left Behind’s strict academic requirements in 2012 “now have different achievement goals for different groups of students.” This in turn works out well for public schools who can keep receiving federal funds even though many of their students are falling by the wayside. But just because this practice is exceedingly common and popular doesn’t necessarily mean it’s morally defensible. One of the more powerful arguments against Plessy vs. Ferguson -- the infamous “separate but equal” Supreme Court ruling in 1896 -- was that sending white and black students to separate but unequal school systems seriously harmed children. Why? Because it made young blacks feel inferior. Question: How on earth would lowering academic standards for non-whites in Alabama’s public schools be any less discriminatory?
The implicit assumption here is that minority students can’t compete with white students. And while it’s certainly true that perhaps some students lag significantly behind their white counterparts in the classroom, what kind of message does it send to persons of color when the achievement bar is purposefully lowered for non-academic reasons? Uniform academic benchmarks might be impossible in Alabama, but I find it reprehensible that minority students would be consigned to dumbed down standards solely because of the color of their skin and/or their parents’ level of income.
It’s self-evidently true that any child -- regardless of race, class or gender -- has the ability to attain the highest levels of academic achievement. Lowering standards and racial profiling in public schools is a terrible idea, not least because it seems to suggest otherwise.
UPDATE: Note also how the organization in Alabama that opposes race-based standards is not comprised of progressives but of conservative women. Remember that the next time someone on MSNBC shrieks that Republicans down in Dixie are “racists.”
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/danieldoherty/2013/07/12/here-we-go-alabama-to-implement-racebased-standards-in-public-schools-n1639326
Lawmakers Angry after DOJ Defunds Young Marines
A Louisiana sheriff has received bipartisan support in his fight against the Department of Justice after they denied thousands of dollars in funding to the Young Marines because the program’s oath placed “special emphasis on the love of God and fidelity to our country.”“We were informed that these are unacceptable, inherently religious activities and the Department of Justice would not be able to fund the programs if it continued,” Sheriff Julian Whittington told Fox News. “They wanted a letter from me stating that I would no longer have voluntary prayer and I would also have to remove ‘God’ from the Young Marine’s oath.”
The sheriff refused to sign any document pledging not to pray and as a result the department lost its funding. The Liberty Institute is representing the sheriff’s office as they try to get back $30,000 in government funding.
Meanwhile, Gov. Bobby Jindal has issued a proclamation urging the DOJ to restore funding and U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu has introduced legislation to forbid the federal government from defunding programs because of religious activity.
The DOJ originally funneled the money through the Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement. The DOJ did not return telephone calls seeking comment.
Young Marines describes itself as a private service program for boys and girls. Its national website says members should attend church and pledge not to dishonor God. The Justice Department took exception to that.
Liberty Institute attorney Michael Berry told Fox News that the Obama Administration’s decision is disturbing.
“We are deeply troubled that the DOJ, the agency in charge of defending the civil rights of us all, would engage in this type of discrimination by denying permission to fund the outstanding Young Marine’s program,” Berry said. “It is shameful that a mere mention of God sends the DOJ officials running as if they had seen a ghost.”
Berry sent a letter to the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division calling on them to reinstate the lost funding.
“The DOJ’s denial of funds to BPSO youth programs is a violation of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause because it constitutes unlawful viewpoint discrimination,” he wrote.
According to documents obtained by Fox News, the DOJ took exception to the Young Marines obligation oath.
“From this day forward, I sincerely promise I will set an example for all other youth to follow, and I shall never do anything that would bring disgrace or dishonor upon my God, my Country and its flag, my parents, myself, or the Young Marines,” the oath read. “These I will honor and respect in a manner that will reflect credit upon them and myself. Semper Fidelis.”
The Young Marines Creed also references a promise to “keep myself clean in mind by attending the church of my faith.”
In March 2012, a DOJ audit of the program noted their “special emphasis on the love of God and fidelity to our country.”
In October 2012, the sheriff’s office was told to cease voluntary prayers unless they were conducted in a separate time and location from the class.
In March 2013, the DOJ raised more concerns over approving funding because of the references to ‘God.’
And in May funding was denied.
That decision drew bipartisan outrage – starting with Gov. Bobby Jindal who signed a proclamation supporting the sheriff’s office and the Young Marines.
“The First Amendment guarantees us freedom of religion, not freedom from religion,” Jindal said. “It was written to protect people of faith from government officials, and we are going to hold on to that freedom.”
Jindal said he would do whatever he could to convince the Obama Administration to refund the program.“I hope we can, but I know we are not going to give up our religious freedom,” he said, noting that the sheriff’s program has helped a number of Louisiana’s young people.
“We are calling on the Department of Justice to restore the funding to the Young Marines so it can continue improving the lives of our young men and women through prayer,” the governor said.
On Thursday Landrieu introduced the “Freedom to Pray Act.” The bill would forbid the federal government from withholding money from programs whose participants engage in voluntary religious activity.
“This is clearly a serious overreach by the Department of Justice and I intend to do something about it,” Landrieu said. “These kids are working to improve themselves and their communities; they deserve support, not unnecessary hurdles.”
Landrieu chastised the DOJ’s decision and said they had no right to single out the Bossier Parish programs. “The DOJ has plenty of problems to worry about,” she said. “It should focus more on them and not a program that is doing good work for kids in our community.”
http://townhall.com/columnists/toddstarnes/2013/07/12/lawmakers-angry-after-doj-defunds-young-marines-n1639551/page/full
Shocker: U.S. Weapons Showing Up in the Hands of Terrrorists
When President Obama announced a few weeks ago that the United States would be sending arms to the Syrian "rebels," the majority of Americans let out a disappointing sigh and many warned weapons intended for good would end up in the wrong, violent hands. Turns out, those warnings were correct. Weapons sent to the Middle East by the U.S. are now in the hands of Hezbollah, the largest terrorist organization in world with direct connections to Iran.U.S. and Western weapons have been reaching Iranian-backed Shiite militias fighting to keep Bashar Assad's forces in power in Syria.There's no doubt these weapons will be used to attack Israel.
Analysts say it's unclear if the weapons were captured, stolen or bought on the black market in Syria, Turkey, Iraq or Libya. Propaganda photographs from Shiite militias posted on dozens of websites and Facebook pages show the weapons were acquired in new condition, said Phillip Smyth, an analyst for Jihadology.net, a site affiliated with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
Many of the weapons are things the militias "shouldn't really have their hands on," Smyth said. Iranians love to show "they have weapons and systems that are very close to the Americans."
The ability of Assad's allies to obtain U.S. weapons is one of many reasons the United States should not supply Syrian rebels with weapons, which President Obama said he would start to do last month, said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., former chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
A recent Rasmussen Poll shows an overwhelming majority of Americans want the U.S. to stay out of Syria and the Washington Post editorial board predicts Obama's policies on the country will fail.
Obama’s feckless Syria policy is likely to failhttp://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/07/12/shocker-us-weapons-showing-up-in-the-hands-of-terrrorists-n1639333
A decision to intervene in a foreign war, even in a small way, ought to be the subject of a direct presidential address to the country and an open debate in Congress. Yet the news that the United States would, after more than two years of dithering, finally provide direct military aid to rebels came in a conference call with reporters by White House aide Ben Rhodes on June 13. While letting the world know about it, Mr. Obama chose to designate his action as covert, stifling public discussion and restricting details on the arms supplies to members of the congressional intelligence committees. In some of his most extensive public comments on Syria since then, in an interview with PBS’s Charlie Rose on June 17, Mr. Obama spent much of his time arguing the case against intervention, insisting that “we have to not rush into one more war in the Middle East.”
Obama’s Packing of NLRB Reminiscent of FDR
Way back in 1937, Democrat hero and Republican villain, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, proposed the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill. Essentially, Roosevelt was having trouble getting the Supreme Court to rule his New Deal as constitutional so, being the “reformer” he was, he decided to pack the court by expanding it to as many as 15 justices. Of course as president, Roosevelt would then have the duty to appoint 6 new justices to fill the roles and totally coincidentally, they’d all be friendly to his ideas.After revealing the plan in February during one of his “Fireside chats,” Roosevelt was saved from having to make the court “more efficient” when a little over a month later, Justice Owen Roberts moved to the left in what has been called “the switch in time to save the nine.”
Fast forward to January of 2012.
President Obama, not having to contest with lifetime appointments on the National Labor Relations Board, the powerful government agency charged with overseeing fair union elections and making decisions about labor disputes, packed the agency with more success than FDR by simply openly defying the constitution.
He did this by abusing his power to issue recess appointments. Recess appointments are of course designed to allow the President to appoint a necessary position that normally requires Congressional oversight. Its purpose is to allow those necessary appointments to happen in the off chance that Congress is in recess.
It’s hard to imagine however that it was designed to allow a president to wait until a 3 week recess after New Years, and then recess appoint a majority to assist in pushing through various positions the administration holds.
The move was ruled unconstitutional by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit (none of whom were recess appointed) and is now set to appear before the Supreme Court.
Websites have even started popping up such as NLRBTruth.com whose tagline is “The NLRB cannot be for jobs and against employers.” Lawsuits from Boeing and Cablevision have been in the news (as well as reported here) and yet, President Obama stands by his decision to pack the agency in defiance of the Constitution.
So where FDR failed to usurp the constitution to push his agenda, President Obama is succeeding. At least for now.
http://www.redstate.com/2013/07/12/obamas-packing-of-nlrb-reminiscent-of-fdr/
Report: Energy Department Sitting on Billions of Dollars in Natural Gas Projects
Approval could add nearly 500,000 jobs, up to $73.6B in revenue
A report by American Council for Capital Formation estimated LNG exports would create up to 452,300 jobs between 2016 and 2035. Over the same period, the United States could add between $15. 6 billion and $73.6 billion annually to the gross domestic product.
“Each project can take five years or more to move from approval to export flow,” the report stated. “Without a faster approval process, it is unlikely that the United States will achieve the economic and job growth benefits that would arise from the higher production of natural gas since other countries may gain market share at our expense.”
The advent of hydraulic fracturing, commonly called “fracking,” has opened up huge natural gas deposits in the United States, and the country now has the potential to become a net exporter of natural gas by 2016, according to energy forecasts.
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, speaking earlier this year at a congressional hearing, said the department “will expeditiously work through the remaining applications, … reviewing each one on a case-by-case basis to ensure that all approvals are in the public interest.”
Moniz said there would “absolutely” be decisions on the export terminals sometime this year.
However, increased natural gas exports have been opposed by environmental groups, who argue the long-term environmental impacts are still unclear, and manufacturers, who fear spikes in energy prices.
The ACCF report argues exports will allow the free market to determine prices and accomplish the Obama administration’s energy goals.
“The administration has an opportunity to advance the president’s goal to double exports within five years by utilizing one of our most vital and plentiful natural resources in a manner that carries comprehensive benefits for our economy both today and far into the future,” the report reads “DOE should allow free markets to determine how much LNG is exported and allow free trade of this valuable resource to aid our recovering economy. From corn to cars to wheat, exports have proven to be a net positive boost for the U.S. economy and LNG exports shouldn’t be treated differently.”
The Energy Department declined to comment on the report and directed the Washington Free Beacon to Moniz’ earlier statements.
http://freebeacon.com/report-energy-department-sitting-on-billions-in-dollars-of-natural-gas-projects/
Military spending millions to protect gophers, while workers go on furlough
A total of 650,000 civilian employees are now being furloughed
at U.S. military bases in response to sequester cuts -- but the
Department of Defense is still spending millions to protect fuzzy
critters.
Joint Base Lewis-McChord (JBLM) in Washington state just received a $3.5 million department grant to purchase land around the base in an effort to protect the Mazama pocket gopher, a species that has not even been listed as endangered or threatened.
The expense is not sitting well with furloughed workers.
"That really makes me mad that they would do that," said Matt Hines, one of 10,000 civilian employees forced to take a 20 percent pay cut. "I'm all for saving animals, but at what cost?"
Under REPI (Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative), the Department of Defense and other federal agencies have spent $397 million to protect 264,000 acres around bases since 2003.
Sarah Hamman, from the Center for National Lands Management, has been tracking the Mazama pocket gopher in the prairie land around JBLM and says the military's involvement has been critical.
"The Department of Defense is a really important partner in this process in terms of providing the funding and providing the land for these species," Hamman said.
In addition to the Mazama pocket gopher, environmentalists say the purchase of 2,600 acres of prairie land around JBLM will also help Taylor's checkerspot butterflies and streaked horned larks.
"Although our primary mission is fighting wars and military training, like other federal agencies, we have a requirement to support the recovery of listed species," said Jeffrey Foster, a civilian ecologist at JBLM and wrote the grant proposal.
The Endangered Species Act does allow the military to appeal for exemptions from the land use restrictions on designated critical habitats.
Glen Morgan, of the Freedom Foundation based in Olympia, Wash., has represented landowners who have been fighting what he calls the government takeover of private land. He said the Mazama pocket gopher is not distinct from gophers that are thriving throughout the Midwest and indeed survive remarkably well even on the JBLM artillery ranges.
"It shows our government is out of control and our priorities are completely out of whack," Morgan said. "And they're skewed in a strange way that has no benefit for people who live here or even the animals they claim they're trying to protect."
In addition to the $12 million in federal and state funding to buy 2,600 acres around JBLM, the Department of Defense also issued a $1.75 million REPI grant to Eglin Air Force Base in Florida to protect tortoise habitat.
A DOD spokesman said the program accounts for a relatively small amount of money and provides a buffer around bases to lessen conflicts with human neighbors over training. JBLM commander, Col. Charles Hodges, would not comment on the gopher spending, but he is upset about the furlough's impact on his civilian workforce.
"It's frustrating after all the sacrifices these folks have made that we're asking them to sacrifice more," he said.
Hines' family is sacrificing more than most. His wife and son are also civilian base employees. His household is losing $1,300 a month in pay.
"I think when this is all said and done, some people are going to lose their houses," said Hines. "They're going to be in financial ruin and I just don't think the government really, really understands that."
Joint Base Lewis-McChord (JBLM) in Washington state just received a $3.5 million department grant to purchase land around the base in an effort to protect the Mazama pocket gopher, a species that has not even been listed as endangered or threatened.
The expense is not sitting well with furloughed workers.
"That really makes me mad that they would do that," said Matt Hines, one of 10,000 civilian employees forced to take a 20 percent pay cut. "I'm all for saving animals, but at what cost?"
Under REPI (Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative), the Department of Defense and other federal agencies have spent $397 million to protect 264,000 acres around bases since 2003.
Sarah Hamman, from the Center for National Lands Management, has been tracking the Mazama pocket gopher in the prairie land around JBLM and says the military's involvement has been critical.
"The Department of Defense is a really important partner in this process in terms of providing the funding and providing the land for these species," Hamman said.
In addition to the Mazama pocket gopher, environmentalists say the purchase of 2,600 acres of prairie land around JBLM will also help Taylor's checkerspot butterflies and streaked horned larks.
"Although our primary mission is fighting wars and military training, like other federal agencies, we have a requirement to support the recovery of listed species," said Jeffrey Foster, a civilian ecologist at JBLM and wrote the grant proposal.
The Endangered Species Act does allow the military to appeal for exemptions from the land use restrictions on designated critical habitats.
Glen Morgan, of the Freedom Foundation based in Olympia, Wash., has represented landowners who have been fighting what he calls the government takeover of private land. He said the Mazama pocket gopher is not distinct from gophers that are thriving throughout the Midwest and indeed survive remarkably well even on the JBLM artillery ranges.
"It shows our government is out of control and our priorities are completely out of whack," Morgan said. "And they're skewed in a strange way that has no benefit for people who live here or even the animals they claim they're trying to protect."
In addition to the $12 million in federal and state funding to buy 2,600 acres around JBLM, the Department of Defense also issued a $1.75 million REPI grant to Eglin Air Force Base in Florida to protect tortoise habitat.
A DOD spokesman said the program accounts for a relatively small amount of money and provides a buffer around bases to lessen conflicts with human neighbors over training. JBLM commander, Col. Charles Hodges, would not comment on the gopher spending, but he is upset about the furlough's impact on his civilian workforce.
"It's frustrating after all the sacrifices these folks have made that we're asking them to sacrifice more," he said.
Hines' family is sacrificing more than most. His wife and son are also civilian base employees. His household is losing $1,300 a month in pay.
"I think when this is all said and done, some people are going to lose their houses," said Hines. "They're going to be in financial ruin and I just don't think the government really, really understands that."
PK'S NOTE: As of this posting, there is no verdict yet for Zimmerman. And to add to the commentary here, what about that sleazy move Prosecutors did at the 11th hour to argue that instructions for third-degree murder should be included on the premise that Mr Zimmerman committed child abuse when he fatally shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin because Martin was underage.
Why the Zimmerman Prosecutors Should Be Disbarred
Toward the end of his closing statement on Thursday, Florida Assistant State Attorney Bernie de la Rionda posted a slide on a screen in a fifth-floor Seminole County courtroom.
"Which Owner would be more inclined to yell for help?" read the banner on the top of the slide. The slide was divided in two. On the left was a photo of George Zimmerman's Kel-Tec PF-9 9mm handgun, and on the right was a can of Arizona Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail. Beneath the photo of the gun was the question, "Who followed?" Under the can was the question, "Who ran?"
So absurd was de la Rionda's presentation, and the whole case for that matter, that the can was turned sideways so the label could not be read. Throughout the trial, prosecutors have called the drink "iced tea" lest the word "watermelon" be said in court. "F***ing" was okay. De la Rionda said it more times than the average rapper, but "watermelon," apparently because of its racial connotations, was not.
Hiding the word "watermelon" was the least of de la Rionda's dishonesties. This one slide had several built in. As to who ran, Martin had four minutes to run the 100 or so yards to the house he was visiting. When he attacked Zimmerman, he was still 70 or so yards from that townhouse. Do the math.
Then, too, from the day the State took over the case, prosecutors knew that Zimmerman was the one screaming for help. All evidence supported that save for the dubious identification by Martin's mother. If the State's jobs were to sow the seeds of reasonable doubt, one could forgive them this deception, but that's not the State's job. That's the defense's.
The State's job is to make the case for the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Fifty years ago, in Brady v. Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court established that a prosecutor's responsibility was "to seek justice fairly, not merely win convictions by any means." In the case at hand, this meant that the State of Florida had the responsibility to share promptly all exculpatory evidence with the defense. It did not.
One substantial block of evidence that it kept to itself until a whistleblower alerted the defense was the content of Martin's cell phone. On Tuesday night of this week, phone expert Richard Connor made a detailed presentation. Although the jury was not present, the respective attorneys were, as were the media.
For dubious and probably reversible reasons, Judge Debra Nelson disallowed Connor's testimony, but prosecutors have known for many months about the downward spiral of Martin's life. In the course of his close, de la Rionda called Martin an "innocent young boy" and made several other allusions to that effect. He was intentionally deceiving the jury. Martin was neither little nor innocent.
Consider the following exchange from November 2011, three months before the shooting. After Martin told a female friend he was "tired and sore" from a fight, she asked him why he fought. "Bae" is shorthand for "babe."
The fight followed the mixed martial arts (MMA) format. A day later, Martin would tell a friend that his opponent "got mo hits cause in da 1st round he had me on da ground nd I couldn't do ntn."
As the girl complained, Martin was "always" fighting. He was also something of a sadist. His opponent, after all, did not bleed enough. Why might this be relevant?
Jonathan Good, the closest of the eyewitnesses to the shooting, confirmed last week the testimony he gave on the night of the shooting, specifically that there was a "black man in a black hoodie on top of either a white guy ... or an Hispanic guy in a red sweater on the ground yelling out help," and that black man on top was "throwing down blows on the guy MMA [mixed martial arts] style." That is right: "yelling out help."
On January 6, 2012, Martin got into trouble at school again. When asked why, he told a friend, "Caus I was watcn a fight nd a teacher say I hit em." Said the friend, "Idk how u be getting in trouble an sh**." By this time, Martin's mother had thrown him out of the house for "fightn," and he had moved in with his aunt and uncle.
Martin's younger half-brother, Demetrius Martin, sent one of the more indicative messages. Last seen in the media crying as he remembered his brother during a "March for Peace," Demetrius asked Martin when he was "going to teach me to fight."
"This defendant didn't give Trayvon Martin a chance," said de la Rionda. No, it was the State of Florida, the Department of Justice, and even the president that didn't give Zimmerman a chance. Someone should pay.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/why_the_zimmerman_prosecutors_should_be_disbarred.html#ixzz2YqKEL0eb
"Which Owner would be more inclined to yell for help?" read the banner on the top of the slide. The slide was divided in two. On the left was a photo of George Zimmerman's Kel-Tec PF-9 9mm handgun, and on the right was a can of Arizona Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail. Beneath the photo of the gun was the question, "Who followed?" Under the can was the question, "Who ran?"
So absurd was de la Rionda's presentation, and the whole case for that matter, that the can was turned sideways so the label could not be read. Throughout the trial, prosecutors have called the drink "iced tea" lest the word "watermelon" be said in court. "F***ing" was okay. De la Rionda said it more times than the average rapper, but "watermelon," apparently because of its racial connotations, was not.
Hiding the word "watermelon" was the least of de la Rionda's dishonesties. This one slide had several built in. As to who ran, Martin had four minutes to run the 100 or so yards to the house he was visiting. When he attacked Zimmerman, he was still 70 or so yards from that townhouse. Do the math.
Then, too, from the day the State took over the case, prosecutors knew that Zimmerman was the one screaming for help. All evidence supported that save for the dubious identification by Martin's mother. If the State's jobs were to sow the seeds of reasonable doubt, one could forgive them this deception, but that's not the State's job. That's the defense's.
The State's job is to make the case for the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Fifty years ago, in Brady v. Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court established that a prosecutor's responsibility was "to seek justice fairly, not merely win convictions by any means." In the case at hand, this meant that the State of Florida had the responsibility to share promptly all exculpatory evidence with the defense. It did not.
One substantial block of evidence that it kept to itself until a whistleblower alerted the defense was the content of Martin's cell phone. On Tuesday night of this week, phone expert Richard Connor made a detailed presentation. Although the jury was not present, the respective attorneys were, as were the media.
For dubious and probably reversible reasons, Judge Debra Nelson disallowed Connor's testimony, but prosecutors have known for many months about the downward spiral of Martin's life. In the course of his close, de la Rionda called Martin an "innocent young boy" and made several other allusions to that effect. He was intentionally deceiving the jury. Martin was neither little nor innocent.
Consider the following exchange from November 2011, three months before the shooting. After Martin told a female friend he was "tired and sore" from a fight, she asked him why he fought. "Bae" is shorthand for "babe."
MARTIN: Cause man dat nigga snitched on me
FRIEND: Bae y you always fightinqq man, you got suspended?
MARTIN: Naw we thumped afta skool in a duckd off spot
FRIEND: Ohh, Well Damee
MARTIN: I lost da 1st round :( but won da 2nd nd 3rd . . . .
FRIEND: Ohhh So It Wass 3 Rounds? Damn well at least yu wonn lol but yuu needa stop fighting bae Forreal
MARTIN: Nay im not done with fool..... he gone hav 2 see me again
FRIEND: Nooo... Stop, yuu waint gonn bee satisified till yuh suspended again, huh?
MARTIN: Naw but he aint breed nuff 4 me, only his nose
The fight followed the mixed martial arts (MMA) format. A day later, Martin would tell a friend that his opponent "got mo hits cause in da 1st round he had me on da ground nd I couldn't do ntn."
As the girl complained, Martin was "always" fighting. He was also something of a sadist. His opponent, after all, did not bleed enough. Why might this be relevant?
Jonathan Good, the closest of the eyewitnesses to the shooting, confirmed last week the testimony he gave on the night of the shooting, specifically that there was a "black man in a black hoodie on top of either a white guy ... or an Hispanic guy in a red sweater on the ground yelling out help," and that black man on top was "throwing down blows on the guy MMA [mixed martial arts] style." That is right: "yelling out help."
On January 6, 2012, Martin got into trouble at school again. When asked why, he told a friend, "Caus I was watcn a fight nd a teacher say I hit em." Said the friend, "Idk how u be getting in trouble an sh**." By this time, Martin's mother had thrown him out of the house for "fightn," and he had moved in with his aunt and uncle.
Martin's younger half-brother, Demetrius Martin, sent one of the more indicative messages. Last seen in the media crying as he remembered his brother during a "March for Peace," Demetrius asked Martin when he was "going to teach me to fight."
"This defendant didn't give Trayvon Martin a chance," said de la Rionda. No, it was the State of Florida, the Department of Justice, and even the president that didn't give Zimmerman a chance. Someone should pay.
America's Sociopath Fetish
By Michelle MalkinI would like to declare a war on women -- namely, all those cringe-inducing ninnies who lust after every celebrity criminal defendant with big muscles, tattoos, puppy-dog eyes or Hollywood hair.
You know who I'm talking about, right? America's Bad Boy groupies. They're on the courthouse steps with their "Free Jahar" signs, cooing over how "hot" and "cute" the bloodstained Boston Marathon bombing suspect is. He "can blow me up with babies," one moral reprobate quipped shortly after his capture. "I'm not gonna lie, the second bombing suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, is hot. #sorrynotsorry," another young girl boasted.
Among the callous accused killer's victims, in case you'd forgotten: 8-year-old boy Martin Richard, who had been cheering on his dad and other family friends at the race. But who cares about an innocent dead child blown to bits by pressure cooker bombs in the name of Allah?
Far from a minuscule fringe, the Ja-harem is a growing social media phenomenon. Its members mimic Justin Bieber's Beliebers, adopting the last name of their Tiger Beat terrorist and doodling hearts around his mug shot. In heat or in jest, these depraved females continue to spread viral photos, memes and hashtags of their Islamist Idol. One woman showed up at Tsarnaev's court appearance Wednesday donning a "Free the Lion" T-shirt. Another sported a "Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is innocent" tee, while her gal pal shouted, "Exonerate!"
For those ladies who prefer jocks to jihadis, there's accused murderer/NFL star Aaron Hernandez. He's "fine as wine," one woman lusted. He's "too damned sexy to go to prison," another lamented. "He can come to jail at my house," sighed yet another. In response to one of gangsta Hernandez's Glock-wielding Instagram pics, one sick chick slavered, "Soooo hot with the combination handgun-mirror selfie."
Fugitive cop-killer Christopher Dorner also had his own fan club. Parked in front of their TV sets, women cheered on the "kinda sexy" homicidal maniac as he terrorized Southern California before perishing in a cabin inferno. "I'd honestly hide Dorner in my house," one fan girl enthused. Tens of thousands "liked" Dorner's various support pages on Facebook.
Harmless Internet chitter-chatter? Don't kid yourselves. While some of the murderers' panting minions may be joking, it's irresponsible women like these who end up enabling, marrying and conspiring with public menaces.
They're your neighbors and relatives, suburban gals like Colleen "Jihad Jane" LaRose and Jamie "Jihad Jamie" Paulin-Ramirez of Colorado, who agreed to wed Muslim terrorists and conspired to kill Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks. Paulin-Ramirez dragged her 6-year-old (whom she renamed "Walid") to Ireland to assist with the plot. Family members said she was "easily influenced" and that "any man that came along ... she kind of followed like a lost puppy."
It would be one thing if these morally stunted followers segregated themselves in enclaves outside the American mainstream. But some of these damaged goods end up on juries, entrusted to weigh evidence fairly, digest complex instructions, and render impartial verdicts in matters of life and death. Indeed, they are aggressively sought after by predatory defense lawyers. I'll never forget the female jurors of the first murder trial of confessed parent-killers Lyle and Erik Menendez. Star-struck by "glamorous" defense lawyer Jill Abramson, the women of the Menendez jury told Los Angeles reporters that "they admired her wardrobe and biting wit."
Their swooning for the hunky Menendez brothers, whom they praised as "bright" and "nice," was obscene. After a mistrial was declared, Abramson arranged for "her jurors" to meet the boys. Soon after, talk show queen Sally Jesse Raphael hosted a program on "women who would leave their husbands to marry a Menendez."
From Menendez mania to Free Jahar, the pathologies persist: Easily led. Emotion-driven. Desperate for male approbation. Prone to acting with their lady parts instead of their lady smarts. Heckuva job, feminism! All the equalization and parity in education and the workplace are for naught if women can't distinguish right from wrong and "hot" from evil.
Lesson learned: You can indoctrinate generations of American women in the ways of gender empowerment, but you can't make a goodly portion of them think straight. Hormones trump basic human decency and good judgment in the crowded coven of sociopaths.
http://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2013/07/12/americas-sociopath-fetish-n1639023/page/full
Why Does Egypt's Turmoil Matter to Us?
Egypt has been rocked by protests that some say are the largest in history and has unseated its second leader in three years. It's a bit difficult for us to imagine ousting a president in such a way—so what do the events in Egypt mean to Americans?
The Obama Administration has bungled the entire Egyptian revolution, Heritage experts say, and that will have lasting consequences.
President Obama backed the administration of Mohamed Morsi, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, who was just ousted by the protesters and the military. As Heritage expert James Phillips noted, "Egyptian protesters have been carrying signs denouncing President Obama for supporting terrorism, because they are disappointed by Obama's uncritical support for Morsi, whom they consider to be a terrorist."
Heritage Distinguished Fellow Kim Holmes says there are two reasons why Obama has gone wrong in Egypt:
The first is he sincerely believes that too much American influence is a bad thing. Believing deeply that American power is a problem, he seems to think remaining aloof will prove that America is not an inveterate enemy of political Islam.The "Arab Spring" is a messy thing. Democracy is a goal, yes, but Egyptians desperately need economic freedom. As Heritage's Charlotte Florance explains:
… The other reason? Obama is confused about what constitutes democracy. Even though he himself said democracy is "more than elections," that is not the way he's acted. He watched as the election process chose the worst of the political lot in Egypt, all the while claiming that the U.S. should not "interfere" with the democratic rights of the people. He talked a good game, but his passivity only legitimized the claims that the Brotherhood is a "true" democratic force in Egypt (which they decidedly are not).
Egyptians need to see results, which they have been waiting for since 2011, when the army ousted Mubarak. The events of the Arab Spring in Egypt were triggered by legitimate economic grievances that, two years later, remain unanswered.To bring back their economy, the Egyptian people will need a stable rule of law. The military has control of the country now, but it will have to hold elections soon to establish a government. Meanwhile, the U.S. is waiting—or should be waiting—to see how it goes before promising further aid to the country.
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/07/12/why-does-egypt-turmoil-matter-to-us/?roi=echo3-16233477831-13637150-8d2e25fcba00b7610e1d35f1c7eb464f&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
Former Obama advisers call WH foreign policy “broken”
Most Republicans and conservatives would give Barack Obama a failing grade on foreign policy. So would some of his own advisers. David Francis writes that the lack of preparation and strategy has become painfully apparent over the last few weeks, and has produced an America unable to “dictate the national conversation.” The problem has become so apparent that even some of Obama’s former colleagues are aghast at the situation:For instance, Vali Nasr, who served as senior adviser to Richard Holbrooke when he was ambassador to Pakistan and Afghanistan, said this of Obama’s Afghan policies: “Their primary concern was how any action in Afghanistan or the Middle East would play on the nightly news, or which talking point it would give the Republicans. The Obama administration’s reputation for competence on foreign policy has less to do with its accomplishments in Afghanistan or the Middle East than with how U.S. actions in that region have been reshaped to accommodate partisan political concerns.”
Anne-Marie Slaughter, director of policy planning at the State Department from 2009 to 2011, said this about Obama’s Syria policy: “Obama must realize the tremendous damage he will do to the United States and to his legacy if he fails to act. He should understand the deep and lasting damage done when the gap between words and deeds becomes too great to ignore, when those who wield power are exposed as not saying what they mean or meaning what they say.”
And Rosa Brookes, a former senior adviser at the Pentagon, attacked Obama for his failure to outline a broad, sweeping foreign policy strategy. “The Obama administration initially waffled over the Arab Spring, unable to decide whether and when to support the status quo and when to support the protesters. The United States used military force to help oust Libya’s Muammar al-Qaddafi, but insisted at first that this wasn’t the purpose of the airstrikes — and without any clear rationale being articulated, the use of force in seemingly parallel situations seems to have been ruled out.”
All three no longer work for the president. But all of their criticisms share one central theme – Obama does not have the personnel in place to outline and execute a broad international strategy. At the heart of this problem is a disconnect between the State Department and the White House’s national security team.Francis chalks this up in part to the switch at State, but only in part. The Bush administration integrated its national-security team tightly with the President, with key roles going to close, long-time confidantes of the President — Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld. Although Francis doesn’t mention it, Bush also had plenty of experience watching his father deal with foreign-policy issues while working as his father’s hatchet man, and developed those relationships before taking the job.
In contrast, Obama had nearly no foreign policy experience before being elected President, and it became clear that he hadn’t cultivated the kind of relationships he’d need to tackle it. Susan Rice and Samantha Power worked on his campaign, but Rice went to the UN and Power initially was sidelined after calling Hillary Clinton a “monster” during the 2008 campaign. Francis notes that Hillary got the State job not because of any foreign-policy expertise but because of domestic political considerations. Obama and John Kerry don’t have much more of a relationship, and already seem at cross purposes:
While Egypt moved closer to chaos, Kerry was in the Middle East attempting to restart a long-dormant peace process between Israel and Palestine. On the day of the Egyptian coup, he was on a yacht.
“The State Department has really struggled post-Hillary,” Faust said. Kerry “was born to be a diplomat. He wasn’t born to be a department head.”The problems in Obama’s foreign policy long predate Kerry’s arrival, however. It’s due to a lack of strategy, a lack of interest, and a passivity that occasionally switches to recklessness, as in the coup Obama and NATO conducted against Moammar Qaddafi, with disastrous results in Libya. US foreign policy has turned entirely reactive, and the situation now in Egypt is just a milder result.
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/07/12/former-obama-advisers-call-wh-foreign-policy-broken/
No comments:
Post a Comment