Boston Globe: Huckabee's deadly gamble

Jeff Jacoby (The Boston Globe) writes:

FORMER ARKANSAS governor Mike Huckabee wasn’t mincing words last week when he blasted criticism of the clemency he granted Maurice Clemmons in 2000 - clemency that ultimately led to the Thanksgiving weekend murder of four Washington state police officers - as “disgusting,’’ or when he deplored “how sick our society has become that people are more concerned about a campaign three years from now’’ - the 2012 presidential campaign - “than those grieving families in Washington.’’

“Disgusting’’ and “sick’’ are strong words. But this isn’t the first time Huckabee has lashed out at critics of his clemency decisions.

In 2004, when the then-governor’s commutation enabled convicted drunk driver Eugene Fields to walk free after less than eight months of a six-year sentence, the director of Arkansas Mothers Against Drunk Driving complained. “We are deeply disturbed,’’ she said, “at the message this sends to those who faithfully enforce, prosecute, adjudicate, serve on juries, and suffer the consequences of drunk driving offenders.’’ Huckabee angrily accused MADD of trying to “fan the flames of controversy’’ and pandering to “the unusual curiosity of certain media members.’’

That was nothing to the supercilious reply received by prosecutor Robert Herzfeld, who wrote a letter calling Huckabee’s clemency policies “fatally flawed’’ and suggesting that he explain his reasons when issuing a pardon or commutation. From Huckabee’s office came a mocking rejoinder: “The governor read your letter and laughed out loud. He wanted me to respond to you. I wish you success as you cut down on your caffeine consumption.’’

For full article, visit The Boston Globe.

Obama's jobs solution: 'Major new burst of federal spending'

Wow.

Just wow.

After swearing that he was ready to cut back on federal spending, that it was time to reduce the deficit, after Democrats were ready to tax the American people in order to fund the Afghanistan War, Barack Obama today announced that he had discovered the solution to America's jobs problem:

President Barack Obama called for a major new burst of federal spending Tuesday, perhaps $150 billion or more, aiming to jolt the wobbly economy into a stronger recovery and reduce painfully persistent double-digit unemployment.

He did not give a price tag for the new package but said he would work with Congress on deciding how to pay for it.

On Capitol Hill, estimates of a potential jobs bill range from $75 to $150 billion, said Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 Democrat in the House.

"100 billion, 150 billion, 75 billion — those are all figures that are being talked about," Hoyer told reporters.

Some lawmakers put the total cost of the new proposals at $200 billion or more.

Once again, the words of Obama prove to be empty. He never intended to actually reduce federal spending. Many of us saw through that initial announcement, and now we've been proven right. Over and over again, Obama has touted government as the solution to all of our problems. Government is not the solution to our problems. Government cannot create real jobs. Earlier today, GOPToast linked to a National Review article about the jobs Obama has claimed his government has created. Let us repeat the very valid points made by Thomas Sowell:

President Obama keeps talking about the jobs his administration is “creating,” but there are more people unemployed now than before he took office. How can there be more unemployment after so many jobs have been “created”?

Let’s go back to square one. What does it take to create a job? It takes wealth to pay someone who is hired, not to mention additional wealth to buy the material that person will use.

But government creates no wealth. Ignoring that plain and simple fact enables politicians to claim to be able to do all sorts of miraculous things that they cannot do in fact. Without creating wealth, how can they create jobs? By taking wealth from others, whether by taxation, selling bonds, or imposing mandates.

However it is done, transferring wealth is not creating wealth. When government uses transferred wealth to hire people, it is essentially transferring jobs from the private sector, not adding to the net number of jobs in the economy.

Any job created with government money is not a true job created. Whether $1 or $1 trillion are spent to artificially create jobs, the government is wasting America's money. Jobs are created through demand. There has to be a need to create jobs. Taking money from the American people, taking money from the business that truly create new jobs doesn't help the economy.

Just last week, Mitt Romney was in Provo, Utah, to attend the opening of a new business there. That business and those jobs were created because the business needed to hire new employees and because they had the money to do so. Sadly, the Obama job summit was held without having true business leaders and innovators like Romney in attendance. We knew it was a sham to begin with and today's announcement by Obama only reinforces that. Did we really need to hold a jobs summit for Obama to reach the conclusion that he should spend hundreds of billions of dollars? That's been his solution to every problem so far – what was the point of the summit?

Our nation cannot bear the weight of another $200 billion of debt stacked upon it. While the majority of Americans see that we need to reduce spending or at the very least spend wiser, Obama and his inept economic team are going to continue upon their reckless course of out-of-control spending.

Let's all hope Congress is wise enough this time to say 'no.'

National Review: The Job-Creation Snow Job

Thomas Sowell (National Review) writes:

President Obama keeps talking about the jobs his administration is “creating,” but there are more people unemployed now than before he took office. How can there be more unemployment after so many jobs have been “created”?

Let’s go back to square one. What does it take to create a job? It takes wealth to pay someone who is hired, not to mention additional wealth to buy the material that person will use.

But government creates no wealth. Ignoring that plain and simple fact enables politicians to claim to be able to do all sorts of miraculous things that they cannot do in fact. Without creating wealth, how can they create jobs? By taking wealth from others, whether by taxation, selling bonds, or imposing mandates.

However it is done, transferring wealth is not creating wealth. When government uses transferred wealth to hire people, it is essentially transferring jobs from the private sector, not adding to the net number of jobs in the economy.

For full article, visit National Review.

Politico: Sarah Palin: Mike Huckabee made 'horrible decision'

Andy Barr (Politico) writes:

Sarah Palin says former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee made a “horrible decision” nine years ago in granting clemency to a man suspected of killing four police officers two weeks ago in Washington state.

“It was a bad decision obviously, but my heart goes out to Huckabee,” the former Alaska governor said of her potential 2012 GOP presidential rival during an interview Monday with conservative radio host Lars Larson. “I love him, and I feel bad for him to be in this position. But I feel even worse for the victims’ families in this situation.”

In 2000, Huckabee granted clemency to Maurice Clemmons, the suspected killer of the four police officers. He had served 11 years in prison after being sentenced as a teenager to 108 years on burglary, theft and other felony charges.

For full article, visit Politico.

Mitt Romney on CNN's State of the Union

How long until CNN and other news organizations just start titling Mitt Romney as "2012 Republican presidential candidate"? Romney really has had a stellar week, hitting all the right points, making appropriate appearances and maintaining his position as the GOP's top choice for 2012.

Politico: Dems mull limits to Christie powers

Democrats are back to their dirty tricks when it comes to replacing senators of their own party. The people of New Jersey spoke on Election Day 2009 – they chose Chris Christie and they chose to bring America back. Democrats who support these tactics will soon see themselves out of office.

Alex Isenstadt and Jessica Taylor (Politico) write:

Two months after Massachusetts lawmakers came under criticism for altering the state’s succession laws for partisan purposes, New Jersey Democrats have launched a similar effort designed to limit Republican Gov.-elect Chris Christie’s appointment powers in the event of a Senate vacancy.

Amid concerns about 85-year-old Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg’s ability to serve out his full term, which expires in 2015, a Democratic state legislative leader last week introduced a bill that would require the governor to appoint a lawmaker from the same party as the departing officeholder within 30 days of the vacancy.

The measure, if passed, stands to affect the Senate balance of power since it would guarantee that Lautenberg’s seat remains in Democratic hands in the event it becomes vacant. The temporary appointee would serve until the next regularly-scheduled general election.

Current New Jersey law provides governors the option of filling a vacant Senate seat with a candidate of their choice, regardless of party, who serves until the next general election; calling a special election; or allowing the seat to remain vacant until the next general election.

The measure drew a sharp response from Republicans—particularly Christie, the incoming governor whose appointment powers would be restricted.

“It's garbage. It’s political lying,” Christie said at a press conference earlier this week. “There are no niceties to be put around this. This is a political power play by the party that's losing power, and it's wrong.”

For full article, visit Politico.

Mitt Romney: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Should Face Military Justice

On his Free & Strong America PAC Web site, Mitt Romney yesterday asked Americans to stand with him in letting Barack Obama know that we need to change our course of action regarding the civilian trial of Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Stand With Me

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Should Face Military Justice

Like you, I remember where I was on 9/11. I was in Washington, and my mind is seared with the memory of driving past a smoldering Pentagon after it was hit by a hijacked airliner. I never thought I'd smell the smoke of war in my own country.

Now we learn that Attorney General Eric Holder has decided that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-admitted mastermind behind the terrorist attack against New York City and our nation's capital, will be tried in civilian court.

President Obama must act now to overrule his Attorney General. The slaughter that day of thousands of our fellow Americans was an act of war, not a law enforcement matter.

Those responsible should face justice in a military tribunal, like other war criminals in our nation's history. By resorting to the federal courts, we are giving our enemies all the rights and benefits the U.S. Constitution provides to citizens, as well as a propaganda platform to spout their messages of hate. Through the legal discovery process, we will have to turn over sensititve intelligence information that could potentially put more Americans in harm's way. President Obama, please reverse this decision now!

Mitt Romney

National Review: Uncertain Trumpet

Charles Krauthammer (National Review) writes:

We shall fight in the air, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields, we shall fight in the hills — for 18 months. Then we start packing for home.

We shall never surrender — unless the war gets too expensive, in which case, we shall quote Eisenhower on “the need to maintain balance in and among national programs” and then insist that “we can’t simply afford to ignore the price of these wars.”

The quotes are from President Obama’s West Point speech announcing the Afghanistan troop surge. What a strange speech it was — a call to arms so ambivalent, so tentative, so defensive.

Which made his last-minute assertion of “resolve unwavering” so hollow. It was meant to be stirring. It fell flat. In August, he called Afghanistan “a war of necessity.” On Tuesday night, he defined “what’s at stake” as “the common security of the world.” The world, no less. Yet, we begin leaving in July 2011?

Does he think that such ambivalence is not heard by the Taliban, by Afghan peasants deciding which side to choose, by Pakistani generals hedging their bets, by NATO allies already with one foot out of Afghanistan?

For full article, visit the National Review.

Politico: Republicans push on 'Climategate'

Lisa Lerer (Politico) writes:

A series of embarrassing e-mails stolen from a British climate research center last month has wreaked havoc in the obscure academic circles of climate science.

Now, Republicans hope the “climategate” scandal will do the same to the Obama administration’s environmental agenda.

Global warming skeptics believe that the correspondence, which shows scientists debating whether to manipulate scientific data to strengthen the case for man-made global warming, is a smoking gun that will unalterably change the dynamics of the climate debate. Activists also hope the purloined e-mails will derail Democratic climate negotiations on Capitol Hill and the upcoming international talks in Copenhagen.

“The elephant in the room is the questions raised by the e-mails which have been made public,” said Rep. John Shadegg, (R-Ariz), on Wednesday. “Anyone who thinks that the e-mails are insignificant, that they don’t damage the credibility of the entire movement, is naïve.”

For full article, visit Politico.