No Oil for Pacifists

Though linked to on Sunday, it's worth quoting BBC's Jane Corbin's interview with Bülent Yildirim, president of the IHH (the Turkish "charity" that sponsored the Gaza blockade-busting ship flotilla this summer). It was aired on an August 16th BBC Panorama broadcast "Death in the Med," as transcribed on Just Journalism (emphasis added):

Panorama exhibited footage taken from the Mavi Marmara showing IHH head Bülent Yildirim saying the following:

We’re going to defeat the Israeli commandoes--we’re declaring it now. If you bring your soldiers here, we will throw you off the ship and you’ll be humiliated in front of the whole world.

Corbin:

You said that if they board the ship you would throw them into the sea. Isn’t that a provocation, saying that to your supporters on the ship?

Yildirim:

I spoke correctly there. I spoke beautifully. I watched it again afterwards. Israel stole these images from us, but we’re not denying it. If we organised another boat, and Israel attempted to illegally invade it, we’d use our right to passive resistance. We’d throw them into the sea.

Naturally, the Beeb's rare honesty provoked ethics complaints from pro-Palestinian groups annoyed that the network was less anti-Israel than usual.

(via The Corner)

One reason I don't poll filmmakers for politics is because they're incoherent. Take this report from the recent American Renewable Energy Day Summit in Aspen Colorado (emphasis added):

"A lot of really good American people are being lied to," added Peter Byck, the director of an upcoming climate change documentary called "Carbon Nation."

Byck stressed that Americans' hearts are in the right places, but that skeptics of climate change have such a vast infrastructure in getting what he called their false message out, many don't know whom to believe. . .

They also criticized the media for giving half of its attention to a very small -- less than 1 percent, they said -- portion of scientists who say global warming is not caused by humans.

So which is it? Skeptics are a "vast infrastructure" or "less than 1 percent"?

Another reason to ignore movie directors--they're obnoxious:

James Cameron doesn't mince words when talking about people who are skeptical that humans are causing global warming.

"I think they're swine," the renowned filmmaker told an audience member Sunday on the final day of the American Renewable Energy Day summit in Aspen.

Cameron, by the way, promised to debate warming skeptics, then canceled at the last moment.

I'm not surprised (emphasis added):

Greene, Cameron and a host of other climate-change activists said there needs to be a broad educational campaign, one aimed at convincing voters and politicians that not being able to prove that fossil fuel-produced carbon is changing the temperature of Earth is not a license for inaction.

Really, why debate when syllogism and support are scorned?

This is what the left means by "restor[ing] science to its rightful place."

WELCOME DOUG ROSS READERS -- hope you look around at other posts.


A Macomb county, Michigan, Judge recently refused to stop a suit by two former "Hooters" waitresses alleging "weight discrimination." The restaurant sought to dismiss the case claiming the servers had signed agreements obliging arbitration, not legal action, for employment discrimination claims.

The lead plaintiff says she was put on "weight probation" and told to join a gym, which she equated to being fired. She claims to be 5 foot, 8 inch tall, and weigh 132 pounds -- 13 pounds, she says, less than when Hooters recruited her in 2008. For what it's worth, she's pictured here--and, in my view, is well-qualified to work at Hooters. Not that I've ever been.

To be fair, the ruling can't really be blamed on the judge. Rather, Michigan is the sole state to prohibit discrimination based on weight. Hooters argues the law does not apply to "entertainers," and denies setting a weight limit--but vows to keep fighting the suit in order to uphold the restaurant's "image".

This suit largely is stupid, based on an over-broad law. But on such heavy matters are our judges stretched, the jurisdiction of our courts expanded and our legal system weighed-down.

Senator Max Baucus (D-Mont.) chairs the Finance Committee and was one of the chief authors of the healthcare law. Apparently, his role was "write-only," as he admitted when answering constituent questions in Libby, Montana:

Judy Matott asked Baucus if he would work to improve Libby’s image, and then asked him and Sebelius, "if either of you read the health care bill before it was passed and if not, that is the most despicable, irresponsible thing."

Baucus replied that if Libby residents assembled an economic development plan, he would do what he could to help, and he took credit for "essentially" writing the health care bill that passed the Senate.

"I don’t think you want me to waste my time to read every page of the health care bill. You know why? It’s statutory language," Baucus said. "We hire experts."

For the job of not reading, Baucus makes $174,000 per year.

Given how bad Obamacare turned out, I wonder if the expert Baucus hired was Nancy Pelosi.

(via Don Surber)

UPDATE: see also W. Joseph Campbell and the fractured media.


On the five year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, Instapundit recalls Lou Dolinar's 2006 expose of biased media coverage of the disaster:

Remember the dozens, maybe hundreds, of rapes, murders, stabbings and deaths resulting from official neglect at the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina? The ones that never happened, as even the national media later admitted?

Sure, we all remember the original reporting, if not the back-pedaling.

Here's another one: Do you remember the dramatic TV footage of National Guard helicopters landing at the Superdome as soon as Katrina passed, dropping off tens of thousands saved from certain death? The corpsmen running with stretchers, in an echo of M*A*S*H, carrying the survivors to ambulances and the medical center? About how the operation, which also included the Coast Guard, regular military units, and local first responders, continued for more than a week?

Me neither. Except that it did happen, and got at best an occasional, parenthetical mention in the national media. The National Guard had its headquarters for Katrina, not just a few peacekeeping troops, in what the media portrayed as the pit of Hell. Hell was one of the safest places to be in New Orleans, smelly as it was. The situation was always under control, not surprisingly because the people in control were always there.

From the Dome, the Louisiana Guard's main command ran at least 2,500 troops who rode out the storm inside the city, a dozen emergency shelters, 200-plus boats, dozens of high-water vehicles, 150 helicopters, and a triage and medical center that handled up to 5,000 patients (and delivered 7 babies). The Guard command headquarters also coordinated efforts of the police, firefighters and scores of volunteers after the storm knocked out local radio, as well as other regular military and other state Guard units.

Jack Harrison, a spokesman for the National Guard Bureau in Arlington, Virginia, cited "10,244 sorties flown, 88,181 passengers moved, 18,834 cargo tons hauled, 17,411 saves" by air. Unlike the politicians, they had a working chain of command that commandeered more relief aid from other Guard units outside the state. From day one. . .

"The Coast Guard, the National Guard, the military in general performed heroically," said Sen. Robert Barham, R-Oak Ridge, who monitored the Superdome operation from Baton Rouge as head of the Louisiana State Senate's Homeland Security Committee. His opposite number in the Louisiana House, Rep. Francis Thompson, D-Delhi, said, "They (the Guard) did a yeoman's job." Both said they were getting very different pictures from TV than they got from the Guardsmen at the Dome, and the state fish and wildlife department, another key player in the rescue operation.

(via reader Doug, Michelle Malkin)

No matter what happens in the Middle East, the press blames Israel. Here's the latest example:

• Former Israeli position -- Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, May 24, 2006:

  On behalf of the state of Israel, we are willing to negotiate with the Palestinian Authority. This authority must renounce terrorism, dismantle the terrorist infrastructure, accept previous agreements and commitments, and recognize the right of Israel to exist.

• Reaction -- Associated Press, March 18, 2007 (emphasis added):

  Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Sunday that peace talks with the Palestinian coalition government would be impossible as long as it refuses to renounce violence and recognize Israel's right to exist.
  
  In a break from the Israelis, the U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem said the U.S. wouldn't rule out contact with non-Hamas members of the new government.
  
  The Israeli Cabinet endorsed Olmert's hard line, urging the West to maintain harsh economic sanctions imposed with last year's election of the militant Islamic Hamas.

• New Israeli position -- Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, June 14, 2009:

  I appeal tonight to the leaders of the Arab countries and say: Let us meet. Let us talk about peace. Let us make peace. I am willing to meet at any time, at any place, in Damascus, in Riyadh, in Beirut, and in Jerusalem as well. . .
  
  I appeal to you, our Palestinian neighbors, and to the leadership of the Palestinian Authority. Let us begin peace negotiations immediately without prior conditions.

  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, July 7, 2010:

  There are all sorts of impediments in negotiations that have been put up; all sorts of preconditions; all sorts of excuses. I suggest we do away with them. You either put up excuses or you lead. I proposed to lead. I want to enter direct talks with the Palestinian leadership now. I call on President Mahmoud Abbas to meet me in the coming days to begin peace talks so that we can have and fashion a final peace between Israel and its Palestinian neighbors.

• Reaction -- Associated Press, August 15, 2010 (emphasis added):

  Israel will not accept conditions for resuming direct negotiations with the Palestinians, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and top Cabinet ministers affirmed in a meeting late Sunday, reflecting a hard line just as invitations to the talks appeared to be near.

Got that? -- When Israel wants preconditions to negotiations, Israel is taking a hard line. When the Palestinians want preconditions to negotiations, Israel still is taking a hard line. In other words, whether the facts are (X) or not(X), Israel's at fault.

Talks between the two sides begin next month. Expect Israel to be blamed for any hiccup.

It's part of a wrong-headed myth of the poor, poor, Palestinians. Which elides their terrorist targeting of civilians.

This is neither logical nor objective. But the media seldom is when the topic is the Middle East (kudos to the normally biased BBC for getting it right for once). Lefty blogs and NGOs are no better; in contrast, former British PM Tony Blair is spot-on.

Is this humorous look-back-from-2016 the inevitable result?

(via reader Warren, Norm Geras, The Corner)

UPDATE: below

1) Washington Post, November 14, 2009:

The administration also announced that Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, a Saudi accused of orchestrating the bombing of the USS Cole when it was docked off the coast of Yemen in 2000, will be tried at a military commission. Holder said one factor in deciding to keep Nashiri's case within the military justice system was that the attack targeted a U.S. warship docked in foreign territory, rather than a civilian target on American soil. Seventeen sailors were killed in the bombing.

2) Washington Post, August 27, 2010:

The Obama administration has shelved the planned prosecution of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the alleged coordinator of the Oct. 2000 suicide attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, according to a court filing.

The decision at least temporarily scuttles what was supposed to be the signature trial of a major al-Qaeda figure under a reformed system of military commissions. . .

Military officials said a team of prosecutors in the Nashiri case has been ready go to trial for some time. And several months ago, military officials seemed confident that Nashiri would be arraigned this summer.

"It's politics at this point," said one military official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss policy. He said he thinks the administration does not want to proceed against a high-value detainee without some prospect of civilian trials for other major figures at Guantanamo Bay.

A White House official disputed that.

Conclusion: It didn't have to be this way. As I have shown, nothing compels civilian criminal trials for non-citizens captured for terrorism committed abroad. But, at least the Obama administration agreed that military commissions were appropriate to try attacks on our military outside the United States. Now, even that concession appears in jeopardy because, as Andy McCarthy says, "They want to treat the war like a crime and endow our enemies with all the rights and advantages of civilian courts." Meanwhile, the Pentagon is contemptuous of the voting rights of U.S. military personnel.

At his confirmation hearings, Attorney General Eric Holder vowed to "work to restore the credibility of a department badly shaken by allegations of improper political interference. Law enforcement decisions and personnel actions must be untainted by partisanship." Having (wrongly) excoriated the Bush administration for playing politics with the judicial system and outrageously delaying the prosecution of Guantanamo detainees, this new approach is, as Jennifer Rubin observes in Commentary:

Pretty unconscionable stuff. . . And a final decision on KSM has also been delayed, it is widely assumed, so that the administration need not disclose its intentions before the election. In an administration with plenty of both, this ranks near the top when it comes to hypocrisy and politicizing the administration of justice.

Still blaming Bush?

MORE:

Remind me why America's always accused of war crimes when it's the terrorists that routinely commit them?:

Afghan militants in US uniforms storm 2 NATO bases

U.S. and Afghan troops repelled attackers wearing American uniforms and suicide vests in a pair of simultaneous assaults on NATO bases near the Pakistani border, including one where seven CIA employees died in a suicide attack last year.

The raids before dawn Saturday appear part of an insurgent strategy to step up attacks in widely scattered parts of the country as the U.S. focuses its resources on the battle around the Taliban's southern birthplace of Kandahar.

Compare 1949 Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Art. 4(2) (definition of protected prisoner of war).

(via Right Wing News)

Second quarter GDP numbers were released Friday. Most observers focused on the sobering adjustment to GDP growth, which was "revised lower to 1.6% for April through June from the initial estimate of 2.4% made a month earlier."

MaxedOutMama, however, identifies the problem-behind-the-problem. Pointing to Table 10 of the full release, she notes that while personal income rose (slowly) between 2007 ($11.9 trillion) and mid-2010 ($12.5 trillion), the share of income derived from government transfers over the same period jumped from $1.7 trillion to $2.3 trillion. In other words, right now, public assistance is what's keeping our economy moving. As M_O_M says, "This explains EVERYTHING about our current fiscal crisis." And, as I have argued, about our future if we don't change course. Such "social engineering" doesn't work, Wolf Howling concludes. Even Arnold Schwarzenegger is worried.

It doesn't have to stay this way, says Victor Davis Hanson:

In the age of Obama, the notion of not being exceptional or preeminent comes as a relief to millions on the left who pretty much are in sync with the protocols of the United Nations. On the right, there is a sense that Obama is the ultimate expression of downfall; given the wild spending, the iconic efforts abroad at apology, and the rampant entitlements we simply aren’t what we once were. In between, most aren’t quite sure--but sure are worried that we may never climb out of our self-created indebtedness crater, and that the culture’s education, the nation’s borders, and the civilization’s values are eroding. . .

On the plus side, as I mentioned last time, our economy is almost three times larger than China’s. American agriculture is the most productive in the world. There is simply nothing like the farmland in the Great Plains, or the 400 miles of irrigated expanse between Bakersfield and Red Bluff. For all the damage done by the federal government, we remain the most orderly free society on the planet, where merit still to a large degree determines success--not class, race, or tribal affiliation. While our universities in the humanities are increasingly corrupt, their science, engineering, and computer science departments, as well as professional schools in business and medicine, are the best in the world. It is not that Cal Tech, MIT, Harvard or Yale or Stanford are better than counterparts in Germany or Russia or China, but that an entire array such as UCLA, USC, Texas, Ohio State, Duke, and dozens of others is as well.

We have huge reserves of both coal and natural gas, and can quite easily quadruple our nuclear power generation. The U.S. military is not just the most technologically advanced and supplied, but the most experienced in all phases of modern challenges, from air campaigns to counter-insurgency.

I have lost confidence in American arts, in the sense of fiction and poetry, which are now in large part warped by the cult of race/class/gender orthodoxy that brings intertribal awards and recognition, but American scholarship in science, medicine, and the professions remains preeminent. . .

If we are headed back to the Clinton income tax rates, why will we not then head back to the two years of Clinton surpluses? All that would require is a similar across-the-board freeze on government spending, as we saw in the early 1990s, that in the ensuing two decades has grown exponentially. It is not just that a great deal of the money is often wasted, but is counterproductive in creating a culture of dependence on the lower end, and crony capitalism on the upper. The entire farm bill should be scrapped; Social Security must be radically refashioned; and everything from corporate bailouts to unemployment payouts and food stamps must be drastically reformulated. The solutions do not require a great deal of material sacrifice. No, the problem hinges on how much abuse one can endure to see through the needed reform.

As Instapundit says, "Obamanomics has been a failure, as it was clearly destined to be from the beginning." Partly from ignoring the first rule of holes--"when you're in one, stop digging." Will November 2nd settle whether America chooses door number 1 or door number two?

The facts: Earlier this month in Norfolk Virginia, Federal District Judge Raymond Jackson dismissed criminal charges of piracy against six Somali nationals who attacked a Navy ship off the coast of Africa on April 10. United States v. Said, No. 2:10cr57 (E.D. Va. Aug. 17, 2010). The 21 page opinion concludes that the defendents weren't pirates because they never boarded the USS Ashland, only fired upon it--in other words, attempted piracy isn't illegal. What to think?

The law: Article I, Section 8, clause 10 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to "define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations." Congress did so in 1819, in 18 U.S. § 1651:

Whoever, on the high seas, commits the crime of piracy as defined by the law of nations, and is afterwards brought into or found in the United States, shall be imprisoned for life.

In interpreting that statute, the Supreme Court said in United States v. Smith, 18 U.S. 153, 160-61 (1820):

What the law of nations on this subject is, may be ascertained by consulting the works of jurists, writing professedly on public law; or by the general usage and practice of nations; or by judicial decisions recognising and enforcing that law. There is scarcely a writer on the law of nations, who does not allude to piracy as a crime of a settled and determinate nature; and whatever may be the diversity of definitions, in other respects, all writers concur, in holding, that robbery, or forcible depredations' upon the sea, animo furandi, is piracy. The same doctrine is held by all the great writers on maritime law, in terms that admit of no reasonable doubt. The common law, too, recognises and punishes piracy as an offence, not against its own municipal code, but as an offence against the law of nations, (which is part of the common law), as an offence against the universal law of society, a pirate being deemed an enemy of the human race.

So long as they don't conflict with the Constitution, another source of international law is treaty obligations, such as the most recent law of the sea convention signed by the United States, the 1958 Convention on the High Seas, Article 15 of which reads:

Piracy consists of any of the following acts:

(1) Any illegal acts of violence, detention or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:

(a) On the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;
(b) Against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;

(2) Any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;
(3) Any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in sub-paragraph 1 or sub-paragraph 2 of this article.

Analysis: There are three problems with Judge Jackson's opinion. First, he says that because the language of statutes must be afforded their meaning at the time of enactment -- which is true -- the near-contemporaneous Smith case is the best source. Jackson then notes that the facts in Smith involved robbery on the high seas by force, and thus the crime of piracy must similarly be limited. Slip Op. at 6-10. But, as Prof. Eugene Kontorovich observes on the Volokh Conspiracy:

The judge concludes from this that attempted piracy is not robbery -- because nothing is taken. I disagree: the issue in Smith was not what the definition was, but whether there existed a reasonable concrete one such that Congress executed its power to "Define" by simply naming the offense. Smith did not rule out attempts. . .

If one is on notice that piracy is illegal under international law, isn’t one also on notice that trying to commit it will also get you in trouble?

Second, Judge Jackson refuses to apply the treaty definition of piracy, calling it "questionable" because "there is no single court that can bring order to various interpretations" of the term. Slip Op. at 17. Uh, you in the robe, that's your job -- you took an oath to "faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent" of a Judge, and have an ethical obligation to act "fairly, impartially and diligently." But Judge Jackson instead, says David Glazier:

treats these two widely ratified treaties, including one that is the law of the land, as mere secondary sources entitled to no more weight than scholarly commentary. I think that is a fundamental error.

It's the flip side of result-oriented judicial activists who rationalize liberal outcomes via inapplicable international law. Either approach is un-judicial and unconstitutional.

Third, in a way, Jackson's reasoning confirms the conservative view on the rights of Gitmo detainees. Because he views the definition of piracy as ambiguous -- wrongly in my view, but accepting his logic for the moment -- it would be unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment to convict under a vague statute. He's right about laws being void for vagueness, see Connally v. General Const. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 392-93 (1926). Yet that means Jackson recognizes the primacy of the Constitution over treaties such as, say, conventions on treatment of POWs or those prohibiting torture. Kevin Jon Heller at Opinio Juris finds it "satisfying" that those objecting to Jackson's opinion here defend the lawfulness of military tribunals elsewhere. But he's just as inconsistent in admitting Judge Jackson's "is almost certainly incorrect from the standpoint of the law of nations" while (Heller I mean) insisting terrorism isn't a war crime. And conservatives don't claim the Constitution is an excuse to ignore a valid treaty so as to make the remaining law vague. So, when the Fourth Circuit reverses Judge Jackson -- as they probably will -- conservatives will be happy not hypocrites.

Conclusion: Federal Judges shouldn't be in charge of national security.

(via The Corner)

Last month, when the White House released it's mid-session budget data, I posted some preliminary analysis but promised more when the underlying spreadsheets became available. Ten days ago, I posted some numbers based on Treasury Department data. In each case, I sought to establish that entitlements, not defense outlays, are what's busting the budget.

The White House numbers have been published, and I'm pleased -- though unsurprised -- to confirm my previous conclusions. I looked at Table 3.1, "Outlays by Superfunction and Function" for the Fiscal years 2000-2009 (actual) and 2010-2015 (estimated). I added Veterans benefits to defense (which includes atomic energy and other defense-related activities, see Table 3.2) to derive a more conservative tally of defense spending. Caution--because I ignored some offsetting receipts (which amount to no more than 2.5 percent of outlays), my shares do not total to 100 percent (but are off by a consistent factor). But these numbers include spending both "on-budget" and "off-budget."

Here's the resulting historical series:


source: NOfP chart based on OMB data

As is obvious, the biggest spending component isn't defense, but entitlements, specifically (see Table 3.1) "Education, training, employment, and social services," "Health," "Medicare," "Income security" and "Social security." Outlays for SS alone were $683 billion in 2009, but projected to rise to $900 billion in 2015, which is unsustainable.

By the way, based on Table 3.2, in 2009, spending on procurement was only 17 percent of the total defense plus VA outlays. So, even within defense, hardware spending isn't the dominant component--meaning that merely zero-budgeting new weapons won't cure the deficit. Nor, as Randall Hoven shows at American Thinker, was the deficit the product of the Iraq war -- Obama's 2009 stimulus package cost almost as must as eight years of funding for Iraq.

On the other hand, note the predicted rise in the share of interest payments, which is a dead-weight loss.

(via Heritage Foundation, reader Warren)

P.J. O'Rourke in the Wall Street Journal:

The free market is not an ideology or a creed or something we're supposed to take on faith, it's a measurement. It's a bathroom scale. I may hate what I see when I step on the bathroom scale, but I can't pass a law saying I weigh 160 pounds. Authoritarian governments think they can pass that law--a law to change the measurement of things.

The Soviet Union didn't collapse because of Reagan or Thatcher or missile bases or Star Wars: It collapsed because of Bulgarian blue jeans. The free market was trying to tell the Communists that Bulgarian blue jeans were ugly and didn't fit, that people wouldn't wear Bulgarian blue jeans -- not, literally, to save their lives. But the Kremlin wasn't listening, and the Berlin Wall came down.

Don't miss Mary Katherine Ham and Guy Benson's guest post on HotAir listing the 10 key false promises of Obamacare. It's loaded with supporting links and videos. Here's an excerpt:

Promise #7: Health care reform won’t add "a single dime" to the deficit--and will actually cut it.

Remember that unambiguous, crystal-clear presidential promise from item number six? Here’s another one, delivered to a joint session of Congress and a nationally televised audience: "I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits -- either now or in the future. (Applause.) I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period."

Right-wing paranoiacs really didn’t believe this one, but the Democrats had an ace in the hole. Leading up the vote--voila!--Pelosi & Co engineered a final CBO score that magically validated the president’s famous words. Go crazy, America! Your massive new entitlement program will reduce the deficit by $130 Billion over ten years!

A number of Debbie Downers made valiant attempts to expose the folly. Former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin crunched the un-manipulated numbers for the New York Times and found that the "real arithmetic" was nowhere near deficit-reducing or -neutral. The truth: Obamacare would bloat the deficit by $563 Billion. The advertised ten-year price tag of $900+ Billion was risible. In reality it sat much closer to $2.5 Trillion, as the Democratic Chairman of the Senate Financial Services Committee inadvertently admitted.

So how did Democrats manage to gerry-rig the CBO’s scoring system to produce superficially solvent math? Rep. Paul Ryan meticulously decimated their "smoke and mirrors" gimmickry at the Blair House summit, thoroughly explaining to the president’s face precisely how his administration and party were misleading the country. . .

In fairness, here’s Obamacare proponent Ezra Klein’s rebuttal to Ryan, which is worth a read for a pretty frank but ultimately unconvincing defense of tricky government accounting. But even in rebutting Ryan, Klein concedes, "The 10-year cost of the bill is really only counting six years of operation. This was a deceptive effort to keep the bill’s price tag under $1 trillion, even as the bill’s price tag was really quite a bit more."

In short, the Democrats’ bogus score relied on:

(a) Double-counting unrealistic, never-gonna-happen Medicare cuts to the tune of $500 Billion.

(b) Pretending the $200B+ "Doc Fix" was a separate, unrelated issue--it has since passed the Senate. For those who think treating "doc fix" as an unrelated issue was fair, they may want to ponder why the expensive measure was included in an early version of the House bill until Democrats needed a better CBO score, at which point it was removed.

(c) Shoehorning 10 years’ of tax revenues into just six years of "benefits."

(d) Double-counting social security tax revenue.

(e) Totally ignoring billions in requisite "discretionary" spending for Obamacare’s implementation.

On the eve of the health care vote, a CBO letter to Rep. Paul Ryan confirmed that, without such gimmickry, the health care bill would add $260 billion over 10 years to instead of reducing it by $138. Both the CMS and the CBO have objected to the double-counting of Medicare savings as paying for Obamacare and shoring up Medicare, but the administration continues to use the misleading metric, even this week.

Passage of the "Doc Fix" alone, coupled with this little wrinkle, has already driven Obamacare into the red. Finally, the current director of CBO has decisively torpedoed the entire "cost savings" charade. Revisiting a previous devastating critique that nearly derailed the process in 2009, Elmendorf has concluded that Obamacare will not "bend the cost curve" of health care spending down.

Putting the federal budget on a sustainable path would almost certainly require a significant reduction in the growth of federal health spending relative to current law (including this year’s health legislation).

Too little, too late. It’s now the law of the land.

Bottom Line: The president’s bill won’t add a single dime to the deficit. It will pile trillions upon trillions of dimes atop an already mountainous debt.

See also AllahPundit and Politico.

(via Legal Insurrection, reader Warren)

From a Sunday New York Times editorial about the dropping of the investigation of former Representative Tom DeLay:

Mr. DeLay, the Texas Republican who had been the House majority leader, crowed that he had been "found innocent." But many of Mr. DeLay’s actions remain legal only because lawmakers have chosen not to criminalize them.

I hate to disappoint readers, but every day I, too, act in ways that are lawful only because they haven't yet been criminalized.

(via Best of the Web)

UPDATE: below

In the August 15th Sunday Observer (U.K.), James Fergusson writes "Should British soldiers be dying for the rights of Afghan women? No.":

[W]e are wasting our time trying to change their society. . .

This does not mean the west should stand by in silence. On the contrary, it is our duty to go on arguing the case for gender equality and to keep Afghans engaged in that old debate. But we have no right to be shrill and it will do no good to dictate. If social change is to come, it must come from within, which, eventually, it will.

It might help if we understood the Taliban better. The harshness of the punishments they sometimes mete out only seems incomprehensible to the west. The strict sexual propriety the Taliban insist upon is rooted in ancient Pashtun tribal custom, the over-riding purpose of which is to protect the integrity of the tribe, and nothing threatens the gene pool like extramarital relations.

Earlier this month, Cambridge post-colonial studies prof Priyamvada Gopal made a similar point in the same paper, claiming that "the US and allied regimes do not have anything substantial to offer Afghanistan beyond feeding the gargantuan war machine they have unleashed." Just last week, Senator Kerry (D-Ma) said we were quietly negotiating with the Taliban.

As a reminder, the Taliban recently flogged a pregnant woman to death and sliced-off an 18 year old woman's nose and ears. They have a history of discouraging female education via drive-by acid spraying and burning food aid bound for pregnant women. So what to think?

First, I think I understand the Taliban well enough to know that they routinely murder and maim (including minors), commit war crimes (including using and against minors), not to mention snuffing-out human rights, including closing schools that dare to teach girls. Contrary to Fergusson, this is perfectly comprehensible--and morally and legally wrong (see Afghan Constitution, Articles 5, 8, 17, 22-31). And contrary to Fergusson's implication, the Afghan people oppose the Taliban and its terroristic view of justice (see pages 10-13, 17-20). Such behavior toward unarmed innocents is inhumane--and should be stopped.

Second, it "is altogether fitting and proper" that we should help. Mere opposition and protest isn't enough--it's effectively equal to silence. The Afghan people risk life and liberty in defying the Taliban and the West and even the U.N. assist against the terrorists. Change can't always come solely from within--the slave trade was stopped in the 19th century by Britain's Royal Navy acting unilaterally.

Besides, the "we" in Afghanistan is NATO's International Security Assistance Force. The ISAF is in country at the request of and by agreement with the sovereign government of Afghanistan. So it's not even unilateral--just that Fergusson's forces "within" want our help.

Third, such pacifism is a push toward bizzaro-world. As Norm Geras says, the progressive opposition to NATO's role in Afghanistan is "double-talk":

'The west', Fergusson says, 'views gender equality as an absolute human right and so we should'; at the same time, 'is it not presumptuous to insist that a proud, patriarchal society that has survived for 3,000 years should now instantly mirror us?' So much for the absoluteness of the right. Indeed, so much for the right, period.

My friends, do you not remember those articles in the liberal press of 30 years ago, saying it might help if we understood the supporters and beneficiaries of apartheid better, and asking if it wasn't presumptuous to insist that a proud racist society should now instantly mirror us? Hang on... I'm suddenly confused.

Professor Gopal insists that:

In the affluent west itself, modernity is now about dismantling welfare systems, increasing inequality (disproportionately disenfranchising women in the process), and subsidising corporate profits. . . A radical people's modernity is called for -- and not only for the embattled denizens of Afghanistan.

But as David Thompson accurately responds:

Yes, of course. That’s all modernity is about. We are insufficiently socialist, so who are we to judge barbarism? . . . Ms Gopal doesn’t pause to define "social justice" or "economic fairness," even in contrast with the values of the Taliban, for whom "peace" means submission. Nor does she hint at how one might encourage such things without the influence of those "allied regimes" that "do not have anything substantial to offer."

Gopal literally would tolerate cutting off a woman's nose to spite the face of corporate profits. And liberals claim conservatives are indifferent to human suffering. . .

Fourth, lefties are ignorant of history. Just 50 years ago, President Kennedy vowed to

"pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty." Kennedy's hapless successors wouldn't cross the street for freedom.

Today's anti-war left is quick to imagine systemic human rights abuses in Western democracies while "seeing no evil" abroad. This is navel gazing raised to political philosophy.

In setting forth reasons for invading Afghanistan, President Bush sided with what liberals once cherished:

The leadership of al Qaeda has great influence in Afghanistan and supports the Taliban regime in controlling most of that country. In Afghanistan we see al Qaeda's vision for the world. Afghanistan's people have been brutalized, many are starving and many have fled.

Women are not allowed to attend school. You can be jailed for owning a television. Religion can be practiced only as their leaders dictate. A man can be jailed in Afghanistan if his beard is not long enough. The United States respects the people of Afghanistan -- after all, we are currently its largest source of humanitarian aid -- but we condemn the Taliban regime.

Blogger Chris Dillow forgets that part of Bush's syllogism, but correctly condemns the "leave-Afghanistan-now" crowd's faulty logic:

Unless you’re a pacifist, such a judgment [on desirability of the war] is a cost-benefit calculation, and the improvement in the condition of Afghan women surely counts as a benefit of defeating the Taliban. Afghan women may be collateral, unintended, beneficiaries of the invasion -- but collateral benefits must be included in the cost-benefit analysis, just as collateral damage must be.

Well said, but Dillow gives the left too much credit. Fergusson and Gopal and similar multi-cultis make doctrinal consistency passe, replaced by a bottomless deconstruction that's indistinguishable from nihilism. They're uninterested in weighing costs and benefits -- only in inveighing against economics and elections that serve Western citizens so well.

Finally, even an honest "not my problem" policy could be a jump-off for debate--but such progressives won't admit it, instead evoking high principles. Don't buy it; they're actually intellectually and spiritually lazy. Inaction is easier, but not always appropriate.

And if inaction permits the killing, maiming and suppression of women in Afghanistan, that's simply wrong. No retreat to "respect for other cultures" can render this sort of horror justified. Civilization evolved, and endures, precisely to suppress such barbarism.

Conclusion: I'm not certain we can eliminate Taliban terrorism. But I'm not convinced we can't. Nor am I convinced that it's not in our interest to do so. Besides, we're already there--the issue is not whether to intervene but whether to quit.

Like Joe Biden eight years ago, I say let's "stay the course in Afghanistan--the whole world is watching." And Afghan women are waiting for the cultural relativists to recognize their plight.

MORE:

From the August 22nd New York Times:

"There is no way to say how many stonings took place, but it was widespread" when the Taliban ruled, said Nader Nadery, a senior commissioner on the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. "Often the man escaped, and the woman only was punished, especially if he had connections or was a member of the Taliban." Other sexual crimes were accorded similarly grotesque penalties: homosexuals, for instance, had a brick wall collapsed onto them.

The Obama Administration has blocked the effectiveness of Arizona's new immigration enforcement law, claiming that the state is interfering with Federal immigration law enforcement. In "selling" its law suit blocking the law, the Administration also pledged increased Federal oversight:

The National Guard troops assigned to the Arizona border will begin to arrive Aug. 1, and the federal government is sending other reinforcements to stem the flow of illegal immigrants and narcotics entering the state, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said.

That was then. This is now:

In an exclusive interview with Fox 11 News on the south lawn of the White House, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says it will still be weeks before National Guard troops are on the U.S.-Mexico border--troops the White House said would be there ten days ago.

Now I get it--the same Cabinet official who insisted "the system worked" after the failed Christmas bombing thinks it's unconstitutional for states to act in the face of bureaucratic delays in Federal assistance.

(via Doug Powers at Michelle Malkin)

On the one hand, there's District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008), confirming that gun ownership under the Second Amendment is an individual right, and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. ___ (2010), applying that right to the states.

On the other hand, there's . . . Maryland:

On a snowy Christmas Eve a few years ago, Raymond E. Woollard was watching television with his family when he heard someone tapping at the windows of his Baltimore County farmhouse.

It was not Santa.

At the sound of breaking glass, Woollard dashed to his bedroom for a shotgun, and the holiday evening quickly became one of the most frightening nights of his life.

There was a hand-to-hand struggle for the weapon, but Woollard, with help from his adult son, eventually subdued the 6-foot-2, 155-pound intruder at gunpoint. Then they waited for more than an hour for police to find their way, on icy back roads, to the home, about 25 miles south of the Pennsylvania border.

That night made Woollard a crime victim for the first time in his life and also one of a select few Maryland residents to receive a license to carry a concealed handgun. But to Woollard's surprise, Maryland State Police denied his request last year to renew the permit, saying they thought the danger to his life had passed.

The agency said it was "because I hadn't been attacked" again, Woollard said in an interview. "They said, 'If you have any problems, you let us know.'"

Let 'um know--and wait more than an hour.

(via Instapundit)

President Obama spoke about the economy on Thursday:

[W]hile a lot of big businesses and big banks have started recovering from this recession, small businesses and community banks that loan to small businesses have been lagging behind. They need help. And if we want this economy to create more jobs more quickly, we need to help them. . .

The jobs bill that is stalled in Congress would completely eliminate taxes on key investments in small businesses. It would allow small business owners to write off more expenses. And it would make it easier for community banks to do more lending to small businesses, while allowing small firms to take out larger SBA loans with fewer fees, which countless entrepreneurs have told me would make a big difference in their companies. I’d also like to point out this legislation is fully paid for and will not add one single dime to our deficit.

So this is a bill that makes sense, and normally we would expect Democrats and Republicans to join together. Unfortunately, a partisan minority in the Senate so far has refused to allow this jobs bill to come up for a vote.

Now, I recognize that there are times when Democrats and Republicans have legitimate differences rooted in different views about what’s best for this country. There are times when good people disagree in good faith. But this is not one of those times. This small business jobs bill is based on ideas both Democrat and Republican. In fact, many provisions in the bill were actually authored by Republican senators. It has been praised as being good for small business by groups like the Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Businesses.

A majority of senators are in favor of the bill and yet the obstruction continues. It’s obstruction that stands in the way of small business owners getting the loans and the tax cuts that they need to prosper. It’s obstruction that defies common sense.

First, I wish Obama would make up his mind. Only a day earlier, the President said:

After 18 months, I have never been more confident that our nation is headed in the right direction. We are doing what is needed to move the country forward. We’re rebuilding this economy not just in the short term but for the long term -- for our children, for our grandchildren, for our great-grandchildren.

So, which is it?--an economy desperate for "more help" spending tax dollars or one that is "confident" and "rebuilding"?

Second, Obama's Democrats control both houses of Congress. This was supposed to guarantee White House political success. He doesn't need, and often doesn't get, Republican support.

So the President is blaming the bad economy on his own party? Didn't he once praise them? Rut-ro.

(via Instapundit, Mark Tapscott)

As reported in the August 13th New York Post:

In a move of stunning hypocrisy, the United Federation of Teachers axed one of its longtime employees -- for trying to unionize the powerful labor organization's own workers, it was charged yesterday.

Jim Callaghan, a veteran writer for the teachers union, told The Post he was booted from his $100,000-a-year job just two months after he informed UFT President Michael Mulgrew that he was trying to unionize some of his co-workers.

"I was fired for trying to start a union at the UFT," said a dumbfounded Callaghan, who worked for the union's newsletter and as a speechwriter for union leaders for the past 13 years.

Callaghan said he personally told Mulgrew on June 9 about his intention to try to organize nonunionized workers at UFT headquarters.

"I told him I want to have the same rights that teachers have," said Callaghan, 63, of Staten Island. "He told me he didn't want that, that he wanted to be able to fire whoever he wanted to."

The UFT has long strenuously resisted city efforts to make it easier for school administrators to fire teachers.

"This is the exact antithesis of what they preach, and Michael Mulgrew is the biggest hypocrite out there," Callaghan fumed.

Callaghan said he's planning to file a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board against the UFT for illegally blocking his unionizing effort.

The best thing for our public schools, especially the students, would be the disappearance of the teachers' unions. And it may be that the best thing for workers in all industries would be the end of unions.

(via Instapundit via Deceiver)

1) President Barack Obama, weekly radio address, August 14th:

One thing we can’t afford to do though is privatize Social Security -- an ill-conceived idea that would add trillions of dollars to our budget deficit while tying your benefits to the whims of Wall Street traders and the ups and downs of the stock market.

A few years ago, we had a debate about privatizing Social Security. And I’d have thought that debate would’ve been put to rest once and for all by the financial crisis we’ve just experienced. I’d have thought, after being reminded how quickly the stock market can tumble, after seeing the wealth people worked a lifetime to earn wiped out in a matter of days, that no one would want to place bets with Social Security on Wall Street; that everyone would understand why we need to be prudent about investing the retirement money of tens of millions of Americans.

2) Democratic Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland interviewed by Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of the Union," August 15th:

VAN HOLLEN: And the fact of the matter is, [Republicans] would like to send more of the Social Security money to Wall Street. That has been a position the Republicans have held for a long time. And their -- their leader, the guy who wants to become speaker...

CROWLEY: But the implication is the Republicans want to get rid of Social Security. Is that not the implication, and do you think that's true?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, yes, effectively. Because if you take -- if you partially -- if you privatize Social Security, if you privatize it, the end result will be that that money is not there. There is not a stable source of retirement money because we will be literally gambling it on Wall Street.

3) Social Security Trustee Report, pages 56-57, August 5th:

Under the intermediate assumptions, OASDI cost is projected to exceed non interest income in 2010 and 2011 due to increased benefits and reduced tax revenue as a result of the economic recession, and to an expected $25 billion downward adjustment to 2010 income that corrects for excess payroll tax revenue credited to the Trust Funds in earlier years. For 2012-14, however, non-interest income will exceed cost as the economy recovers. OASDI cash flow, excluding interest, will then become negative in 2015 due to demographic trends. Throughout the period 2010 through 2024, trust fund income, including interest income, is more than is needed to cover costs, so combined trust fund assets will continue to grow. Beginning in 2025, combined trust fund assets will diminish until assets are exhausted in 2037.

The report (at 48) states that the "annual balance is important in the analysis of the financial condition of the program." The chart on page 49 of the Trustees Report shows a negative Social Security annual balance (under the "intermediate" economic assumptions) starting in 2015 and for all years thereafter:


source: Trustees Report at 49

Finally, page 14 summarizes the Social Security "gap": "Over the infinite horizon, the shortfall (unfunded obligation) amounts to $16.1 trillion in present value."

Conclusion: I'm not saying there's no risk associated with stocks and bonds. But at least you own them--you have no right to Social Security benefits, which can be changed or eliminated by future legislation. And would you invest in a corporation that admits it will lose money within five years and run out of capital just over 20 years later? Even a mediocre stock market may be better.

Simply put, Social Security is unsustainable. So, which is more prudent? Or the Ponzi Scheme? Which is the greater gamble?

Instapundit quotes Yale law prof John Langbein saying that "if Social Security were in the private sector, everyone involved would be locked up." Some sort of privatization is essential. Some lefties are starting to see the light. What will it take for the majority to lose its belief in busted socialism?

(via Exchequer, Heritage Foundation, Power Line, John Stossel, Wolf Howling, MaxedOutMama)

Last week, John Hawkins of Right Wing News polled bloggers for 20 nominations as the "worst" American. I thought the resulting list was absurd and un-serious--FDR was ranked third worst! My list, I modestly believe, was far more reflective of mainstream conservative principles.

This week, Hawkins solicited a different list of the 20 "greatest figures in American history." His results are here; George Washington came in first, Thomas Jefferson second and Martin Luther King third.

I was among the bloggers polled. My list (approximately ranked) was:

Abraham Lincoln
George Washington
Alexander Hamilton
James Madison
John Marshall
Ronald Reagan
Teddy Roosevelt
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Martin Luther King Jr.
James K. Polk
Thomas Edison
Norman Borlaug
John Adams
J.P. Morgan
Ben Franklin
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Thomas Jefferson
Orville & Wilbur Wright
Milton Friedman

My "also-rans" included Nikola Tesla, Alexander Graham Bell, George W. Bush, Ulysses Grant, Kenneth J. Arrow, Richard Feynman, Robert E. Lee, Harry Truman, Louis Brandeis, Bill Gates, and Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. I decided that too many of the achievements of Einstein and Hayek occurred when they were not "Americans."

Even though my list departs from the consolidated outcome -- Jefferson before Lincoln?? no T.R. or F.D.R.?? -- these results are much more reasonable than Hawkins' earlier "worst" poll. BTW, Hawkins ran the same "greatest Americans" poll four years ago--compare the results here.

As always, thoughts, critiques and suggested substitutions welcome in comments. I recommend readers interested in disputing my inclusion of President Polk first research the amount of U.S. territory acquired during his one term (or according to his wishes when he was President-elect). See generally Walter A. McDougall, Let the Sea Make a Noise: Four Hundred Years of Cataclysm, Conquest, War and Folly in the North Pacific (1993) (discussed here).

As reported by Reuters on July 23rd:

Japan seeks consumer burden to push renewable energy

The article begins:

Japanese consumers will have to pay higher electricity bills under a government plan to help triple the generating capacity of renewable energy in the next decade and cut CO2 emissions.

Utility firms will be required to buy at a fixed rate electricity generated from renewable sources of energy -- mega solar, wind, geothermal, biomass and small hydro power -- from as early as 2012, the trade ministry said on Friday.

The cost will be passed on to consumers in a scheme called a "feed-in" tariff, which is already used in countries including Germany and Spain.

And we know how well that worked in Spain and Germany.

(via Planet Gore)

Ex-Congressman Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.) died last week. The New York Times obit quickly was web-published under this headline:

Dan Rostenkowski, Congressman Touched by Scandal, Is Dead at 82

Here's a screen shot:



This is nonsense. Rosty wasn't "touched" by "scandal," he plead guilty to two counts of mail fraud and spent 15 months in prison (plus paid a $15,000 fine). I don't think it a coincidence that the Times tried to soft-pedal Democrat corruption--I doubt it would tread so lightly upon the death of a convicted Republican politician. And, as I have said, "Treating similarly situated persons differently is the very definition of bias."

Newspaper obits of notable persons often are written ahead of time. So the Times likely had this whitewash ready for years. Yet, within a few hours after publication, the newspaper changed its headline to the more accurate (if less informative):

Dan Rostenkowski, Lawmaker, Is Dead at 82

source: August 11th New York Times

You still can see a version of the former headline as "meta content" in the RSS feed.

Good thing I saved a screen shot. Shame on the Times for its lack of objectivity. And shame on the "Old Gray Lady" for compounding its bias by not admitting to the correction.

(via reader Bob in LA)

On Sunday, I met the blogger behind Assistant Village Idiot. I've read his blog for years, and corresponded occasionally. But this was the first face-to-face. And he brought his occasional co-blogger, and eldest son, Jonathan.

Good guys, both. Lively conversation.

Here's to keeping the dialog going.

On August 10th, President Obama signed HR 1586 into law. On Whitehouse.gov, the Administration lists the new law as the "FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act." Yet, Section 1 of what the Senate and House passed and the President signed reads as follows:

This Act may be cited as the "_______Act of______".

This is no accident. Although the 20 page bill once appropriated monies for the Federal Aviation Administration, including for air traffic control improvements, the bill morphed several times and, as passed as Public Law 111-226, HR 1586 became "a batch of spending policies. (Cost: about $125 per family)."

Remember when President Obama promised to "restore fiscal discipline"? Remember when Candidate Obama declared:

Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.

The Senate passed the bill on August 5th but final House action on the Senate amendments occurred August 10th--the same day Obama signed HR 1586. The White House posted the not-yet-final legislation on its website August 6th, but even the "sunlight" promised by the President didn't illuminate this mess.

Doubtlessly, a technical correction will be passed. But with the Senate informally recessed until September, both Houses of Congress will have to take up, and the President sign, an amendment to "the ________ Act of ________".

Bet those events will be delayed 'till after November 2nd.

(via Berman Post)

Yes, I've previously demonstrated that the Federal budget deficit is caused mostly by transfer payments, not the war on terror. Most recently, based on OMB's Mid-Session Review, I showed that:

Entitlements, and growth in entitlement spending, remain the biggest budget busters, not the Iraq war. Indeed, the CBO confirms (at pages 7, 10) that spending on Iraq and Afghanistan amounts to about 1.1 percent of GDP, as compared with 10.4 percent of GDP spent for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other health spending in total (adding income security spending would up the latter number). For the math challenged, that means entitlement spending's impact on the deficit is an order of magnitude greater than the cost of the war.

Here's two more charts based on Table 5 of the most recent monthly Treasury Statement of Receipts and Outlays. I split total outlays into "Defense-related" (DoD (including retirement/tuition), plus the weapons part of DoE, plus the VA, plus the TSA, Coast Guard and domestic nuke detection programs from Homeland Security), large entitlement-related (Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, all Housing & Urban Development and unemployment payments from DoL) as opposed to all other spending. I did the math for years FY09 and FY10, each limited to the period October to July to make the figures comparable. The results:


source: NOfP chart via July 2010 Treasury Data


source: NOfP chart via July 2010 Treasury Data

So, again, it ain't Defense spending. Reducing the deficit requires lowering net interest costs, which already are nearly $20 billion each month. Then, we need to cut transfer payments -- as The Heritage Foundation said early this year:

Much of this spending growth will be driven by entitlements such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Over the next decade, the CBO projects that Medicare will expand by 7 percent annually, Medicaid by 5 percent annually (above levels already bloated from the recession), and Social Security by 5 percent annually.

Otherwise, America could answer the Meltzer/Richard hypothesis: what happens when the average voter gets more government benefits than he pays in taxes? Can you say: sovereign default?

(via Don Surber, Federal Budget)

UPDATE: below

Prince Charles is on a mission, as reported in the Daily Mail (U.K.):

The Prince of Wales says he believes he has been placed on Earth as future King 'for a purpose' -- to save the world.

Giving a fascinating insight into his view of his inherited wealth and influence, he said: 'I can only somehow imagine that I find myself being born into this position for a purpose.

'I don’t want my grandchildren or yours to come along and say to me, "Why the hell didn’t you come and do something about this? You knew what the problem was". That is what motivates me.

'I wanted to express something in the outer world that I feel inside. . . We seem to have lost that understanding of the whole of nature and the universe as a living entity.'

His impassioned comments come during a film about his belief that unbridled commerce has led to the destruction of farmland and countryside.. . .

In a trailer to the film, the prince spoke passionately about his decades-long quest for what he described in a statement as 'a sacred duty of stewardship of the natural order of things'.

He said: 'I started 22 years ago on something that nobody really wanted to know about except a few people who thought it was pretty crazy'.

Wait a minute--I thought Obama was anointed to save the world! Since when has Charles displaced the Obamessiah?

Another example of, as set forth in the Declaration of Independence, British royalty's "history of repeated injuries and usurpations." Either that or the Prince remains "pretty crazy."

MORE:

Sue K. says in comments:

God save the Queen!!

(for as long as possible...)

(via Planet Gore)