Clinton's Memory

I have to say I find Slick-Willy a bit obtuse. He decries the the partisan times and whines loudly about how such partisan times leads to violence. I just don't quite understand how he seems to come off all innocent when the trigger to the terrorist attack in Oklahoma City happened to be the Governments destruction of the Waco Compound of the Branch Davidians. No doubt nut jobs go over board, but they don't typically act without stimulus.

Was McVeigh's actions wrong? No shit, of course they were. Were the FBI actions wrong at Waco? You betcha.

I just can't quite figure what his point is with this:

We are again dealing with difficulties in a contentious, partisan time. We are more connected than ever before, more able to spread our ideas and beliefs, our anger and fears. As we exercise the right to advocate our views, and as we animate our supporters, we must all assume responsibility for our words and actions before they enter a vast echo chamber and reach those both serious and delirious, connected and unhinged.

Civic virtue can include harsh criticism, protest, even civil disobedience. But not violence or its advocacy. That is the bright line that protects our freedom. It has held for a long time, since President George Washington called out 13,000 troops in response to the Whiskey Rebellion.

Is he really trying to push the tea party into the cause of any disaster that does happen? I think so. It strikes me as pretty obvious, even if he doesn't clearly state it. Of course, I didn't think he would come out and say it straight.

Note that Clinton does not have the guts to say outright that people who criticize the government too harshly have blood on their hands. Instead he strongly suggests it, then retreats to the position that criticism is OK, though violence isn't, as if anyone were suggesting otherwise. Still, he wants to draw a line between "criticizing a policy or a politician," which is "part of the lifeblood of democracy," and "demonizing the government that guarantees our freedoms and the public servants who enforce our laws," which encourages mass homicide. But since he offers no examples of either, it's hard to know what sort of speech he considers beyond the pale. For example, if I call Clinton a state-worshiping crybaby who equates opposition with sedition, is that legitimate criticism or demonization?

Must be demonization, because it doesn't follow the talking point of the Liberal administration that is standing as the victim in all things at present. I think the tea party should watch the governments actions very closely now. Things can become really ugly really fast with very little cause, especially if they are set up by some far left fanatic trying to twist the politics of today to what he really wants.

UPDATE: Stephen Green (VodkaPundit) talks on this in his Hair of the Dog this week.

AgitProp

I guess I have to agree with everything in this article. I'm glad the tea party goers have learned to video everything as many times as possible. This makes the MSM look foolish in a massive way, and the commentators like Olberman look more foolish than ever.

In composing it, I checked with my source on the scene, Greg Farrell, to get a timeline on the passage of the Black Caucus members from the Cannon Building to the Capitol and back. According to Farrell, they left the Cannon Building about 2:30 PM on March 20^th and returned about 3:15 PM. He had no reason to exaggerate.

I asked because at 4:51 that same day, McClatchy reporter William Douglas posted an article on the McClatchy website with the inflammatory headline, "Tea party protesters scream 'nigger' at black congressman."

Go watch the video and any others if that one isn't good enough for you.

Hopefully the tea partiers will all carry video and when anyone tries to stop them filming, everyone will start to film. It will keep the police honest, and will prove as this does that not only is the MSM pushing an agenda, but they are openly lying to the public.

No doubt many of the MSM are seeing those little video recorders and youtube as being double-plus-ungood.

Don't Quit Your Day Job

I honestly can't tell from his delivery if he's trying to be funny, but if he is, he really needs to work on his delivery.

On April 1, anything suspiciously bizarre or interesting is to be taken with a shaker full of salt. Still, a recent comment from (D-GA) has many wondering if he's misguided on gravity and geography or just a very gifted deadpan comedian.

At a March 25 meeting of the Armed Services Committee, of which Rep. Johnson is a member, the esteemed congressman had an interesting discussion with Robert Willard, commander of the United States Pacific fleet. The topic: Guam. Specifically, how an influx of Marines and their families may cause the tiny island to "tip over and capsize."

I guess I'd disagree with the gifted adjective. Gifted would be if he were doing this comedy line in say a comedy venue and not in a congressional committee meeting. This is just foolish.

National Health Service - Maybe Congress Should Read These Reports

Informative article out of the UK on the NHS. Suppressed by that managerial overlords to ensure their little fiefdom is unaffected no doubt.

DAMNING reports on the state of the National Health Service, suppressed by the government, reveal how patients’ needs have been neglected.

They diagnose a blind pursuit of political and managerial targets as the root cause of a string of hospital scandals that have cost thousands of lives.

The harsh verdict on the state of the NHS, after a spending splurge under Labour between 2000 and 2008, raises worrying questions about the future quality of the health service as budgets are squeezed.

One report, based on the advice of almost 200 top managers and doctors, says hospitals ignored basic hygiene to cram in patients to meet waiting-time targets.

Oh it gets better, read for yourself.

And this is the health care system that the liberals think we should emulate here? Nice.

Just the Facts

AP fact checking Obama's SOTU. I found this interesting:

OBAMA: "I've called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. This can't be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline. Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans."

THE FACTS: Any commission that Obama creates would be a weak substitute for what he really wanted — a commission created by Congress that could force lawmakers to consider unpopular remedies to reduce the debt, including curbing politically sensitive entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. That idea crashed in the Senate this week, defeated by equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans. Any commission set up by Obama alone would lack authority to force its recommendations before Congress, and would stand almost no chance of success.

Makes you wonder when the Congress will get upset with Obama grabbing at their responsibilities.

This is good too:

OBAMA: Drawing on classified information, he claimed more success than his predecessor at killing terrorists: "And in the last year, hundreds of al-Qaida's fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed — far more than in 2008."

THE FACTS: It is an impossible claim to verify. Neither the Bush nor the Obama administration has published enemy body counts, particularly those targeted by armed drones in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region. The pace of drone attacks has increased dramatically in the last 18 months, according to congressional officials briefed on the secret program.

I guess I can give him the credit on that one. Not that it matters really. His dawdling around doing anything in Afghanistan did more damage than his drones have done good, so maybe he'll now let the generals actually do their jobs.

Oh, and one very poorly covered fact, that the ONE didn't bother discussing is Iraq.

December was the first month since the beginning of the Iraq war in which there were no U.S. combat deaths, the U.S. military reported.

There were three noncombat fatalities.

"That is a very significant milestone for us as we continue to move forward, and I think that also speaks to the level of violence and how it has decreased over time," said Army Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq.

Must be related to the Iraqi's stepping up and taking the casualties in Harry Reid's "lost war."

November recorded the lowest casualty figures for Iraqis since the U.S.-led invasion, with 88 civilians killed and 332 wounded. In addition, 12 Iraqi soldiers died in November and 44 were wounded. Among Iraqi police, 22 died and 56 were wounded.

Previously, January 2009 had the lowest Iraqi civilian casualty figures since 2003. Since then, figures had been fluctuating, with August being the deadliest month for Iraqi civilians in more than a year.

Now just imagine a world where Obama would give at least the military credit for getting it right.

McCain-Feingold Reversed

Looks like the McCain-Feingold suppression of political speach law has been seriously reversed.

The ruling represents a tremendous victory for free speech and a serious blow to proponents of campaign-finance “reform,” who have roundly denounced the ruling and have all but predicted the downfall of the Republic as a result. But the reformers’ rhetoric is just that; the Court’s ruling will simply result in a more diverse mix of political speech, and that is a good thing for American democracy.

The ruling in Citizens United is a straightforward application of basic First Amendment principles: “When Government seeks to use its full power . . . to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”

I have to say, I really am fascinated at just how many of the Dems are coming down against this. Especially telling is the fact that all the liberal justices dissented from most of the findings. So much for those bastions protecting your rights. I just don't see why the politicos on both sides can't realize that those rights were codified because they were of extreme value. Get Obambi's whine:

"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. ... We are going to talk with bipartisan congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision." - President Barack Obama.

What forceful response would you like? And what response would not be unconstitutional? It's a victory for everyone, not just big companies.

Also, the disclosure and disclaimer parts of the bill are still standing. If anything this is the part that will aid in transparency and detection of corruption.

** Disclosure requirement: Any corporation that spends more than $10,000 in a year to produce or air the kind of election season ad covered by federal restrictions must file a report with the Federal Election Commission revealing the names and addresses of anyone who contributed $1,000 or more to the ad’s preparation or distribution.

** Disclaimer requirement: If a political ad is not authorized by a candidate or a political committee, the broadcast of the ad must say who is responsible for its content, plus the name and address of the group behind the ad.

Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter as the Court upheld those requirements.

I understand the finding is very large, so it will be interesting to see what comes out in the analysis.

Global Warming Demonstrably Disproven - Hell Freezes Over in MA

OK, I am still having problems with this. I'm quite pleased, mainly because I can't wait to see the Democratic leaderships head exploding. I'm even stunned that Coakley is reported to have conceded. At lest the BoGlob said so. Very strange times.

Now let's see how Deval can try to delay Brown's taking the seat, if he dares.

Then there is the play of the Senate Dems to get in a vote before he's seated. Or if that fails they can use the nuclear option. But I'm sure they won't choose that. They think this is bad, they play that game and 2010 regular elections will be a catastrophe. And personally, I don't want to see the Republicans with a super majority either. Well, unless the Dems do rush healthcare "reform" through. Then I could live with it for just long enough to repeal that abomination.

Another Government Meddling Mess

I'd be surprised if this didn't cause a mess. As usual the politicians put in place a foolish law and its results are warping the economy and damaging industry. This is a Bush mess that was brought to you by a democratically controlled congress.

It sounded like a good idea: Provide a little government money to convert wood shavings and plant waste into renewable energy.

But as laudable as that goal sounds, it could end up causing more economic damage than good -- driving up the price of raw timber, undermining an industry that has long used sawdust and wood shavings to make affordable cabinetry, and highlighting the many challenges involved in decreasing the nation's dependence on oil by using organic materials to create biofuels.

In a matter of months, the Biomass Crop Assistance Program -- a small provision tucked into the 2008 farm bill -- has mushroomed into a half-a-billion dollar subsidy that is funneling taxpayer dollars to sawmills and lumber wholesalers, encouraging them to sell their waste to be converted into high-tech biofuels. In doing so, it is shutting off the supply of cheap timber byproducts to the nation's composite wood manufacturers, who make panels for home entertainment centers and kitchen cabinets.

Imagine if politicians just did nothing for a while. Things would go so much more smoothly.

Obama's EO and that Inconvenient Constitution

This is startling.

Last Thursday, December 17, 2009, The White House released an Executive Order "Amending Executive Order 12425." It grants INTERPOL (International Criminal Police Organization) a new level of full diplomatic immunity afforded to foreign embassies and select other "International Organizations" as set forth in the United States International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945.

By removing language from President Reagan's 1983 Executive Order 12425, this international law enforcement body now operates - now operates - on American soil beyond the reach of our own top law enforcement arm, the FBI, and is immune from Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

Go and read it. INTERPOL can now arrest anyone in the country and completely ignore our constitution. No fourth amendment protections. Makes you wonder how many CIA and Military personnel will now be hauled off to the ICC for war crimes by the definition of those fuckers.

Top 10 Corrupt Politicians

Bruce linked this at No Looking Backwards.

Read the details. These scumbags no doubt will have a long and successful career in politics.

1. Chris Dodd (second year on the list)
   
2. John Ensign
3. Barney Frank
4. Timothy Geithner
5. Eric Holder
6. Roland Burris/Jesse Jackson, Jr.
7. Barack Obama (third year on the list if you ignore dishonorable mention)
8. Nancy Pelosi (third year on the list)
9. John Murtha (dishonorable mention a couple of times)
   
10. Charles Rangel (second year on the list)

I wonder how Reid, Conyers and Feinstein got off the list. Or maybe this list has gotten that much scummier. I guess Hillary finally got off the list because she's an appointee now and not an official political scumbag.

Obama's Xmas Present to Fannie and Freddy Execs

Did we just hear about what bastards the Wall Street guys or the Bankers were for paying out big bonuses, even when they were contractually required or just deserved? Well, apparently Obambi is now throwing money bonuses at Freddy and Fannie execs. Well that and handing them huge wads of money to accelerate their destruction of the economy.

Best of all, he hides it by handing it all out on Xmas eve.

The Obama administration pledged Thursday to provide unlimited financial assistance to mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, an eleventh-hour move that allows the government to exceed the current $400 billion cap on emergency aid without seeking permission from a bailout-weary Congress.

The Christmas Eve announcement by the Treasury Department means that it can continue to run the companies, which were seized last year, as arms of the government for the rest of President Obama's current term.

But even as the administration was making this open-ended financial commitment, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac disclosed that they had received approval from their federal regulator to pay $42 million in Wall Street-style compensation packages to 12 top executives for 2009.

The compensation packages, including up to $6 million each to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's chief executives, come amid an ongoing public debate about lavish payments to executives at banks and other financial firms that have received taxpayer aid. But while many firms on Wall Street have repaid the assistance, there is no prospect that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will do so.

But hey, don't worry, he's and his lackies are only hear to try and help the little guys.

Can't Give a Straight Answer

This baffled me when I saw it and I still can't figure out how she made the statement. It is obvious that the system failed terribly.

Making the rounds of the Sunday news shows, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano declared, "One thing I'd like to point out is that the system worked."

That drew the fire of Republicans and other critics, who said a tragedy had only been narrowly averted.

On morning news shows today, Napolitano sought to clarify her remarks, saying she was referring to the system of quickly notifying other flights and law enforcement on the ground.

"Our system did not work in this instance," she said on NBC's "Today" show. "No one is happy or satisfied with that. An extensive review is under way."

Of course the Republican critics were wrong as well. It wasn't averted, the attack failed. Averted would mean that someone did something to stop it. At the point anyone did anything the device was a failure.

Napolitano should be angering people with such statements. Be truthful right from the beginning. Don't choose what you meant the answer to be. Answer directly.

Of course the terrorists succeeded. The flight the next day to Detroit had the crew freaking out about a guy who was sick. Not to mention all the changes to the internal monitoring, that had nothing to do with the issue in the first place.

Obama's Afghan Policy

You can find the speech and transcript at Small Wars Journal.

Looks like it's not popular. The military types don't like it, putting it mildly, and the loony left, better known as "the base" don't like it either. James Taranto has a decent piece discussing some points. (title link) I especially enjoyed reading Rumsfeld's response that he linked to. I'm oh so very tired of hearing about how someone else buggered it up while the ditherer in chief delayed for months.

I personally preferred the drunk blogging of it. Stephen Green makes it easier to swallow especially with a martini (or bucket of vodka) chaser.

A couple of entries at Blackfive gives some taste of what military types are thinking.
Uncle Jimbo has this bit. Though I am a bit pained by the Palin quote he starts the discussion with.

UPDATE: Sarah Palin makes an interesting statement.

At long last, President Obama decided to give his military commanders much of what they need to accomplish their mission in Afghanistan. In the end, he decided to endorse a “surge” for Afghanistan, applying the counterinsurgency principles of “clear, hold and build” that worked so well in Iraq. Given that he opposed the surge in Iraq, it is even more welcome that he now supports a surge in Afghanistan.

I'm sorry did I miss something? He never said he was gonna do COIN and he certainly didn't say anything about "clear, hold and build". He didn't articulate any strategy at all. He had a goal of knocking back the Taliban, but didn't mention what our troops were going to do. Let me know if I missed something.

He also has a short bit here.

McQ (usually at QandO) has this piece.

Robert Haddick at SWJ has an interesting piece on the strategy. Here's a pretty damning bit that he starts off with.

The most controversial feature of President Obama’s strategy for Afghanistan is his decision to begin withdrawing U.S. forces from the country in July 2011. This feature (no doubt aligned with his re-election plans – why else withdraw troops at the start of the Afghan summer fighting season?) is a fatal flaw and makes it very likely that little will go right for his Afghan strategy. Indeed, it negates the point of hastily adding over 30,000 U.S. and European soldiers in 2010.

Over the past three months President Obama and his team have analyzed the Afghanistan problem from first principles. Yet in spite of this effort, their solution is not likely to make the problem go away. Regrettably, the next few years are likely to reveal that America still lacks a winning strategy for modern irregular conflict.

Yep, I pretty much read this all as only politics. No doubt it ends up outside of politics, but the calculations only came up with a strategy that will help him get re-elected. Anyone surprised?

Lots of other links, but I have to go to work.

Shoe Based Karma

Heh, this kills me:

PARIS (Reuters) - An Iraqi reporter imprisoned for throwing his shoes at U.S. President George W. Bush found himself on the receiving end of a similar footwear attack in Paris on Tuesday.

Muntazer al-Zaidi, whose flare-up against Bush last December turned into a symbol of Iraqi anger, was speaking at a news conference to promote his campaign for victims of the war in Iraq when a man in the audience hurled a shoe at him.

Now that's karma.

Not So Stimulating

Niall Ferguson in Newsweak. Not sure what they are doing publishing Niall's commentary since it is definitely NOT supportive of Obamanism, but hey, maybe they had a troubled conscience. Or not.

This bit pretty much validates what I am continually arguing is the fact.

Meanwhile, let's consider the cost of this muted stimulus. The deficit for the fiscal year 2009 came in at more than $1.4 trillion—about 11.2 percent of GDP, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). That's a bigger deficit than any seen in the past 60 years—only slightly larger in relative terms than the deficit in 1942. We are, it seems, having the fiscal policy of a world war, without the war. Yes, I know, the United States is at war in Afghanistan and still has a significant contingent of troops in Iraq. But these are trivial conflicts compared with the world wars, and their contribution to the gathering fiscal storm has in fact been quite modest (little more than 1.8 percent of GDP, even if you accept the estimated cumulative cost of $3.2 trillion published by Columbia economist Joseph Stiglitz in February 2008).

I think a lot of people are still in denial over this stimulus and its affects. Most people I work with seem to think the stimulus is going swimmingly and deny that this is an unprecedented spending spree.

Well, read it all. It's long, but he makes some outstanding points on the whole economic mess we're living in.

Six Bills to be Worried About

I heard of S. 1619 from a Trifecta show at PJTV. I hadn't heard of it anywhere else and for good reason. I tried googling it under news and came up with the title link only. No other analysis or reporting. None.

I'm only going to briefly discuss S. 1619. It does read like a bill only a government could love. Too much of it relates to how the government can incentivize people to live in more urban settings. No doubt the intent by the sponsors who all are Democrats and all who come from states whose majorities are in large urban settings.

Look at this section on Mortgage definitions.

(A) the term ‘energy-efficient mortgage’ means a mortgage loan under which the income of the borrower, for purposes of qualification for such loan, is considered to be increased by not less than $1 for each $1 of savings projected to be realized by the borrower as a result of cost-effective energy-saving design, construction, or improvements (including use of renewable energy sources, such as solar, geothermal, biomass, and wind, super-insulation, energy-saving windows, insulating glass and film, and radiant barrier) for the home for which the loan is made; and

(B) the term ‘location-efficient mortgage’ means a mortgage loan under which--

(i) the income of the borrower, for purposes of qualification for such loan, is considered to be increased by not less than $1 for each $1 of savings projected to be realized by the borrower because the location of the home for which the loan is made will result in decreased transportation costs for the household of the borrower; or

(ii) the sum of the principal, interest, taxes, and insurance due under the mortgage loan is decreased by not less than $1 for each $1 of savings projected to be realized by the borrower because the location of the home for which the loan is made will result in decreased transportation costs for the household of the borrower.

Wonderful that. Giving out mortgages based on peoples decisions to meet the definitions not on their ability to pay. Sound like part of the problem that caused the housing bubble?

What about the "interagency councils?" I'm not quite certain about the executive director. Is this a position requiring confirmation? Or is this just an appointee without oversight? And is this a position that you really want your opposition filling at a later date? Because there is little doubt that the Republicans will be back in power at some point, so how wise is it to create such a position? Sounds in total like another agency run to tamper with existing agencies. Just another layer of bureaucracy that makes things less efficient and more cumbersome.

They also start with $100M of appropriations for the grants. Nice way to start something with really vague definitions. Makes you wonder what the oversight will be like for all that money. Nothing in the bill describes the oversight though. No corruption will be involved though, no doubt. Not that we don't have any worries like we have with ACORN.

Read the bills, and be concerned.

Give Me My Goddamn Nuclear Hot Shower...

First go watch the Trifecta show at PJTV. The title of this post is Bill Whittle quote from the end of the show. I don't usually expect his statements like that one, but it cracked me up.

Now, to the climatologist Liars. I guess this is documented evidence of my contention that scientists have no moral or ethical standing above the normal citizen. Go read these emails and other documents and you'll be amazed that they conciously and intentionally h

id evidence rather than open it to scientific debate.

This justifies the debate and the doubts of anyone questioning the "data" that is used for the supposed scientific "consensus" on human caused global warming.

And for those that think this indicates that I discount all of the science, you are wrong. I'm not of the opinion that all the science is wrong, I have found justification for questioning the results and the scientists who have found religious level belief in their own results.

Unemployment Crest

Not a pleasant overview of the economy. James Pethokoukis quotes Gluskin Sheff economist David Rosenberg. There are 12 points, but the last is the most disturbing, at least to me.

12. After all, the recession ended in November 2001 with an unemployment rate at 5.5% and yet the unemployment rate did not peak until June 2003, at 6.3%. The recession ended in March 1991 when the jobless rate was 6.8% and it did not peak until June 1992, at 7.8%. In both cases, the unemployment rate peaked well more than a year after the recession technically ended. The 2001 cycle was a tech capital stock deflation; the 1991 cycle was the Savings & Loan debacle; this past cycle was an asset deflation and credit collapse of epic proportions. And economists think that the unemployment rate is in the process of cresting now? Just remember it is the same consensus community that predicted at the beginning of 2008 that the jobless rate would peak out below 6% this cycle.

Great. Hope & Change is doing so very well. Another stupid belief that the government could actually affect this recession by throwing money at it. Let's not forget that they throw the money at the wrong people as well.

Barry's Peace Prize - Consent

I knew there was a restriction in the constitution. I didn't know there was a law. But I'm still waiting to see if Obama will prove his constitutional credentials or his contempt for the law.

Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, Rep. Cliff Stearns, and Rep. Ron Paul say “no,” and have sent a letter to the President asking him to request congressional consent, which they expect would be speedily given. They point to the example of President Theodore Roosevelt, who created a committee, including the Chief Justice, to hold Roosevelt’s Nobel Peace Prize money in trust until he left office. After leaving office, Roosevelt asked for congressional consent to disburse the money to particular charities.

Article I, § 9, clause 8, of the Constitution states that “no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

When Roosevelt won the Peace Prize, there was apparently no controlling statute. Today there is: 5 USC § 7342 (titled “Receipt and disposition of foreign gifts and decorations”) sets out the conditions under which foreign gifts can be accepted without a separate action of Congress. The statute applies to an “employee,” which includes “the President and the Vice President.”

A “foreign government” includes ” any agent or representative of any such [foreign] unit or such organization, while acting as such.” Since the Nobel Peace Prize committee is, as the Representatives note, appointed by the Norwegian Storting (the legislature), it would seem to be within the scope of the statute.

A “gift” is “a tangible or intangible present (other than a decoration) .” A “decoration” includes a ” medal, badge, insignia, emblem, or award.”

By the statute, Congress explicitly consents to employee receipt of gifts of “minimal value,” which is “means a retail value in the United States at the time of acceptance of $100 or less.” The statute authorizes the Administrator of General Services to make regulations to adjust “minimal value” to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index, beginning in 1981, and reflecting CPI changes in the previous three years. Roughly speaking, $100 in 1978 is about $327 today.

A Peace Prize laureate receives a diploma, a 196-gram gold medal, and a large check (10 million Swedish crowns in 2007). The spot price of gold is $33 a gram, so the medal and the check obviously do not qualify for the “minimal value” exception. The diploma, as a piece of paper, could, although not if it were delivered with an expensive frame.

In the statute, Congress also formally “consents” to an employee receiving and keeping “a decoration tendered in recognition of active field service in time of combat operations or awarded for other outstanding or unusually meritorious performance, subject to the approval of the employing agency of such employee.” The diploma and the medal both fit within the definition of “decoration.” As President, Obama is the head of his own “employing agency,” and therefore can approve his receipt of the medal and the diploma.

The check is not a “decoration” and is of much more than “minimal value.” Employees may not accept gifts of more than minimal value. However, there are various exceptions, and the relevant one is that a gift may be accepted “when it appears that to refuse the gift would likely cause offense or embarrassment or otherwise adversely affect the foreign relations of the United States, except that– (i) a tangible gift of more than minimal value is deemed to have been accepted on behalf of the United States and, upon acceptance, shall become the property of the United States.” It would seem to be within the foreign policy discretion of President Obama to determine that refusing the Nobel check could cause offense, embarrassment, or an adverse effect on foreign relations.

Then, “Within 60 days after accepting a tangible gift of more than minimal value,...an employee shall– (A) deposit the gift for disposal with his or her employing agency; or (B) subject to the approval of the employing agency, deposit the gift with that agency for official use.” Accordingly, it would appear that President Obama must turn the check over to the United States government, for official use. I have not researched whether there are regulations detailing precisely how gifts which a President receives are to be disposed. It would appear that President Obama cannot personally give the Nobel money to charity.

Thus, it seems clear that the statute already supplies the constitutionally-required congressional consent for President Obama to accept the Nobel Peace Prize, and no further action by Congress is needed, provided that President Obama signs the check over the government, as the statute requires.

Makes you wonder if the check will be signed over to the government.

In a lot of ways this is more about what Obama will do with regards to the law rather than the money. But, it does appear to be something that should be noted as a real world indication of what he does rather than says.

Crime and Criminilizing the Citizen

I've been reading a bit on this topic and have to admit this does scare me. I don't even know if I would understand what laws I'd be breaking if this is accurate, and from what I've been reading, it sounds to be.

Fear makes for easy politics. It both wins votes and primes us to give government more power at the expense of personal liberty. And that's certainly true when it comes to crime. With the possible exception of an incumbent mayor, politicians only benefit from exaggerating the threat of violent crime. Senators, Congressmen, and even governors are rarely held responsible when the crime rate goes up. But they do win votes by proposing new powers for police and prosecutors to bring it down.

The result has been a one-way ratchet effect on crime policy. We're perpetually expanding police and prosecutorial power, a process only occasionally slowed by the courts. Congress and state legislatures rarely take old criminal statutes off the books, but they're always adding new ones. A 2008 report from the Heritage Foundation estimates that at the federal level alone, Congress has been adding about 55 new crimes to the federal criminal code each year since the 1980s. There are now about 4,500 separate federal crimes. And that doesn't include federal regulations, which are increasingly being enforced with criminal, not administrative, penalties. It also doesn't include the increasing leeway with which prosecutors can enforce broadly written federal conspiracy, racketeering, and money laundering laws. And this is before we even get to the states' criminal codes.

In his new book, the Boston-based civil liberties advocate and occasional Reason contributor Harvey Silverglate estimates that in 2009, the average American commits about three federal felonies per day. And yet, we aren’t a nation of degenerates. On the contrary, most social indicators have been moving in a positive direction for a generation. Silverglate argues we're committing these crimes unwittingly. The federal criminal code has become so vast and open to interpretation, Silverglate argues, that a U.S. Attorney can find a way to charge just about anyone with violating federal law. In fact, it's nearly impossible for some business owners to comply with one federal regulation without violating another one. We're no longer governed by laws, we're governed by the whims of lawyers.

Just more reasons to avoid the police. And people wonder why LEO jobs are so hard. People don't want to talk to police because you could innocently be stepping into a felony arrest that you neither understand nor can avoid.