Barack Obama trying to assassinate Americans overseas

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says:

No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Apparently Barack Obama, the constitutional scholar, never read that part.

President Obama has less respect for civil liberties than George W. Bush. While President Bush happily imprisoned and tortured American citizens in violation of their constitutional rights, he never tried to kill them. President Obama is trying to kill them.

Glenn Greenwald writes:

One policy where Obama has gone further than Bush/Cheney in terms of unfettered executive authority and radical war powers is the attempt to target American citizens for assassination without a whiff of due process. ...

That Obama was compiling a hit list of American citizens was first revealed in January of last year when The Washington Post's Dana Priest mentioned in passing at the end of a long article that at least four American citizens had been approved for assassinations; several months later, the Obama administration anonymously confirmed to both the NYT and the Post that American-born, U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki was one of the Americans on the hit list.

Yesterday, riding a wave of adulation and military-reverence, the Obama administration tried to end the life of this American citizen — never charged with, let alone convicted of, any crime — with a drone strike in Yemen, but missed and killed two other people instead. ...

If someone is willing to vest in the President the power to assassinate American citizens without a trial far from any battlefield — if someone believes that the President has that power: the power of unilaterally imposing the death penalty and literally acting as judge, jury and executioner — what possible limits would they ever impose on the President's power?

It's amazing how much more raw power presidents wield than the U.S. Constitution grants them. Only Congress has the power to declare war, yet President Obama has apparently made Yemen a war zone without congressional authority. Only the courts have the power to judge someone guilty of a crime, yet President Obama has decided to unilaterally impose the death penalty on four American citizens. Our anti-war, Nobel Peace Prize-winning president is Bush in sheep's clothing.

The really troubling thing is that presidential power grows unabated from one president to the next and no one tries to stop it.

Presidential Job Creation

I ran across this old blog post about presidential job creation by Paul Krugman and I thought it was time for an update. We all know that politicians are the ones who create jobs in America, right? Right?!

Well, here is a graph of job creation under four presidential administrations (with Reagan/Bush counted as one to make the graph easier to read).

Click on the graph to see a full-sized version.

Obama - solid blue
Bush, Jr. - solid red
Clinton - speckled blue
Reagan/Bush - speckled red

It's a good thing Barack Obama is saving jobs, because he sure isn't creating them!

In all seriousness, Americans drastically overestimate the influence presidents have on the economy. However, people who are inclined to view everything through a political lens will mistakenly think this graph has actual meaning.

Kneale: Obama the bully

Dennis Kneale says President Obama is a bully. I'll admit that I have long thought Barack Obama seems a bit arrogant.

George W. Bush wins third Nobel Peace Prize for Americans!

Anti-Bush sentiment has won America its third Nobel Peace Prize in a single decade. President Obama follows previous winners Al Gore and Jimmy Carter. We've never had a hot streak like this!

President Obama to cut deficit in half by 2013? I say B.S.

President Obama is now repeating one of President Bush's false promises.

From the Financial Times:

Barack Obama will this week set the goal of halving the budget deficit he inherited by the end of his first term, while pushing ahead aggressively on healthcare reform, climate change and education.

His first budget, released on Thursday, will show the deficit falling to $533bn (€415bn, £369bn) by fiscal year 2013, compared with an inherited deficit aides estimate at $1,300bn.

From President Bush's 2004 State of the Union speech:

And we should limit the burden of government on this economy by acting as good stewards of taxpayer dollars. In two weeks, I will send you a budget that funds the war, protects the homeland, and meets important domestic needs, while limiting the growth in discretionary spending to less than 4 percent. This will require that Congress focus on priorities, cut wasteful spending, and be wise with the people's money. By doing so, we can cut the deficit in half over the next five years.

Keep in mind that cutting the deficit in half is far different than cutting the national debt in half. Cutting the deficit in half means that government spending will still be contributing to the national debt. In order to reduce the national debt, we need to have a budget surplus, not a deficit.

The $533 billion deficit that Obama hopes for would rank among one of the worst deficits experienced under George W. Bush. In other words, it would be no great accomplishment. Even so, I think Obama is unlikely to achieve it.

Obama has retaken the oath of office

Both Barack Obama and John Roberts screwed up the oath of office on Tuesday. After Obama caught the Chief Justice's mistake and Roberts corrected himself, Obama did not exactly repeat Roberts' correction. The end result was that Obama said the oath of office incorrectly.

I was hoping that they would redo it, to eliminate the prospect of historians debating whether Barack Obama was really the first black president. It turns out that they have:

President Obama retook his oath of office Wednesday after Chief Justice John Roberts flubbed while delivering it at Tuesday's inauguration.

The second oath — also administered by Roberts — took place at 7:35 p.m. Wednesday in the White House's Map Room. ...

The do-over was aimed at dispelling any confusion that might arise from Tuesday's take — in which "faithfully" was said out of sequence — and erase any question that Obama is legally the president. ...

The Constitution sets out the language that should be used in the oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Now historians and legal scholars can debate which day Barack Obama became president.

I feel sorry for Roberts. Everyone makes mistakes, but historians will remember this mistake for as long as America exists.

Barack Obama weak on (Internet) security

From The Register:

A cursory look at Change.gov and MyBarackObama reveal enough amateur mistakes to make even the most ardent supporters wonder just who in the heck is in charge of security. For one, the content management system for both of the sites is easily accessible to anyone. And as far as we can tell, neither page is protected by secure sockets layer — the "s" following a web address's "http" that assures you the connection is encrypted.

Security 101 would dictate that pages this sensitive should be restricted to select internet protocol addresses, or at the very least, encrypted to prevent so-called man-in-the-middle attacks. There are no such protections on Change.gov or MyBarackObama, the latter suggesting that this lack of attention to security has been allowed to persist for some time now.

Even more troubling is the discovery that administrative pages for both sites are linked to Google Analytics. This is a hard configuration to make sense of. It means that Google, a private company with important business before the US government, has complete administrative access to one of the government's most important websites. It would also appear to run contrary to this privacy policy pledging "not to make Personal Information available to anyone other than our employees, staff, and agents."

The failure of Obama's webmasters to follow anything remotely like best practices is more than a little troubling because it suggests they don't fully grasp the security realities of living in a Web 2.0 world.

Barack Obama: School choice hypocrite

Like the Clintons before them, the Obamas prove to be school choice hypocrites, favoring school choice for wealthy people like themselves but favoring underperforming public school monopolies for the poor and middle class:

The Associated Press is reporting that the Obamas have chosen the Sidwell Friends School in Washington for daughters Sasha, seven years old, and Malia, 10. The private Quaker school’s alumni include former presidential offspring Chelsea Clinton and Tricia Nixon Cox, as well as a former princess of Japan.

Sidwell Friends beat out another elite school, Georgetown Day School. Michelle Obama and her daughters reportedly visited both schools on Tuesday. Sidwell, with campuses in Northwest Washington and Bethesda, Md., is home to nearly 1,100 students from pre-Kindergarten to 12th grade. Tuition at the lower school is $28,442 and $29,442 at the middle and upper schools.

A spokeswoman for Michelle Obama was quoted by AP as saying the Obamas feel Sidwell provides “the best fit for what their daughters need now,” including being able to accommodate security and privacy concerns. The Obama girls have also become good friends with Vice President-elect Joe Biden’s grandchildren, who attend the school.

The Obama family also discussed public school options for the girls, according to Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty. The girls currently attend the private University of Chicago Laboratory Schools located in Chicago’s South Side.

Cato @ Liberty points out the hypocrisy:

A few months ago, Barack Obama told a gathering of the American Federation of Teachers that he opposes private school choice programs, adding: “We need to focus on fixing and improving our public schools; not throwing our hands up and walking away from them.”

It’s not clear whether or not the president-elect will be able to fix our public schools, and I don’t know if he’s thrown up his hands, but he and his two daughters have just walked away from the public schools. Again. When they move from Chicago to D.C., Malia and Sasha Obama will be moving from the prestigious private Lab School to the prestigious private Sidwell Friends school — Chelsea Clinton’s old stomping ground.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that. In fact, it’s wonderful that the Obamas had such a broad range of public and private school choices available to them. What’s puzzling is that the president-elect opposes programs that would bring that same easy choice of schools within reach of families who lack his personal wealth.

The reason one should favor school choice is that our public school system is a monopoly and monopolies tend to be inefficient. Competition forces institutions to improve or die. Monopoly allows them to stagnate.

America's colleges have to compete with each other, so it is not surprising that our college system is widely considered the best in the world. Our local public school monopolies face almost no competition, so it should not be surprising that America's public school students generally rank quite low on international tests.

With regards to different standards for the rich and powerful, Barack Obama is not change we can believe in. Instead, he's just more of the same.

Barack Obama and counter-terrorism

The Foreign Policy Association's terrorism blog critiques Barack Obama's anti-terrorism stances:

Here is what I know of Obama’s view of the ‘War on Terror’ and International Conflict.

1. He has opposed the War in Iraq from the on-set, yet now hails the surge as a success and will defer further judgments on troop deployment to ‘commanders on the ground’.
2. While opposing the War in Iraq, he has frequently advocated intervention of some sort in troubled Darfur.
3. He opposes the torture or mistreatment of military detainees.
4. Obama would like to see an increased American presence in Afghanistan.
5. He is willing to launch military strikes within other nations should they be unable or unwilling to respond to terror-specific intelligence.
6. He views an unstable Pakistan and a nuclear-armed Iran as grave dangers to the international community and the United States.
7. In broad terms he views terror as an issue of law enforcement, not military engagement, although some military intervention is necessary.

All of this is sensible, rational, and pragmatic. However, like the Clinton years, it lacks a cohesiveness and clarity that is beneficial when launching a renewed terror strategy. Clinton’s biggest flaw was his lack of an over-arching principle. Bush the elder had his ‘new world order’, yet Clinton took every issue on a case-by-case basis. Engage in Africa for one conflict, yet ignore the other. Attack bin Laden for one bombing, yet ignore other atrocities. For better or worse, the Bush administration understood their position and was able to execute their policy with effectiveness. The American people too, understood the actions taken by their leaders.

Obama runs the very real risk of having to explain every single action he takes, defend each and every decision, and waste time explaining to a weary world why America has gone down her specific path.

Advice for the president-elect

Harvard economist Greg Mankiw has advice for President-Elect Obama:

Listen to your economists. During the campaign you assembled an impressive team of economic advisers from the nation’s top universities, including Austan Goolsbee from University of Chicago and David Cutler and Jeff Liebman from Harvard. ... Pay close attention to what they have to say. They will often give you advice quite different from what you will hear from congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. ...

Embrace some Republican ideas. No party has a monopoly on truth. Be ready to take the best Republican policy proposals and make them your own, as Bill Clinton did with welfare reform in 1996. ...

Pay attention to the government’s budget constraint. The nation faces a long-term imbalance between government spending and tax revenue. The fundamental problem is that the federal government has promised the elderly more benefits than the tax system can support. This fiscal imbalance will become acute as more baby boomers retire and start collecting Social Security and Medicare. ...

Recognize your past mistakes. As a new senator, you voted along predictable left-wing lines. As president, you will need a more eclectic, nuanced approach.

Election of Obama reduces flag burning abroad

Johann Hari paints a picture of how the election of Barack Obama has changed the world's view of the United States:

I spent yesterday trawling the shops in here in London for Stars and Stripes to decorate my apartment for my Presidential election party — and across the city they were all sold out. One shopkeeper in the East End told me: "For the past eight years we've done a big trade in American flags because people buy them to burn them. This is the first time I can remember people buying them because they actually want to wave them."

Mankiw: Obama Distorting History

Harvard economist (and Republican) Greg Mankiw is very critical of one of Obama's answers during the debate:

In the debate last night, Barack Obama asked a good question about the present financial crisis but then gave an answer that is, at best, incomplete:

The question, I think, that we have to ask ourselves is, how did we get into this situation in the first place? Two years ago, I warned that, because of the subprime lending mess, because of the lax regulation, that we were potentially going to have a problem and tried to stop some of the abuses in mortgages that were taking place at the time....we're also going to have to look at, how is it that we shredded so many regulations? We did not set up a 21st-century regulatory framework to deal with these problems. And that in part has to do with an economic philosophy that says that regulation is always bad.

The main problem, we are led to believe, was a Republican ideology of unfettered capitalism that led to insufficient government involvement in the financial system.

Senator Obama might want to read this NY Times article from 1999:

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders....Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people.

I am not suggesting that the entire crisis should be put in the lap of the Clinton team. There is plenty of blame to go around. Indeed, the problem goes back at least as far as the Johnson administration, which helped set up a housing finance system that was always fundamentally flawed.

If Senator Obama really wants to transcend partisan politics, as he would sometimes have us believe, he might want to give a slightly more balanced view of the history of how this all started. He also might want to take note that the Bush administration warned about some of these problems five years ago and had its reform efforts stymied by prominent members of Senator Obama's own party.

Barack Obama's hypocrisy on school choice

Cato-at-Liberty points out Barack Obama's hypocrisy on school choice.

After telling a gathering of the American Federation of Teachers that he opposes school voucher programs ... Senator Obama added that: “We need to focus on fixing and improving our public schools; not throwing our hands up and walking away from them.”

Senator Obama sends his own two daughters to the private “Lab School” founded by John Dewey in 1896, which charged $20,000 in tuition at the middle school level last year. Though he says “we” should not be “throwing up our hands and walking away” from public schools, he has done precisely that.

That is his right, and, as a wealthy man, it is his prerogative under the current system of American education, which allows only the wealthy to easily choose between private and government schools. But instead of offering to extend that same choice to all families, Senator Obama wants the poor to wait for the public school system to be “fixed.”

The reason one should favor school choice is that our public school system is a monopoly and monopolies tend to be inefficient. Competition forces institutions to improve or die. Monopoly allows them to stagnate.

America's colleges have to compete with each other, so it is not surprising that our college system is widely considered the best in the world. Our local public school monopolies face almost no competition, so it should not be surprising that America's public school students generally rank quite low on international tests.

Iraqis have mixed feelings about Obama's planned troop withdrawal

The International Herald Tribune writes about the Iraqi people's mixed feelings about Barack Obama's plan to withdraw U.S. troops.

A tough Iraqi general, a former special operations officer with a baritone voice and a barrel chest, melted into smiles when asked about Senator Barack Obama.

"Everyone in Iraq likes him," said the general, Nassir al-Hiti. "I like him. He's young. Very active. We would be very happy if he was elected president."

But mention Obama's plan for withdrawing American soldiers, and the general stiffens.

"Very difficult," he said, shaking his head. "Any army would love to work without any help, but let me be honest: for now, we don't have that ability." ...

"In no way do I favor the occupation of my country," said Abu Ibrahim, a Western-educated businessman in Baghdad, "but there is a moral obligation on the Americans at this point." ...

Even as some Iraqis disagreed about Obama's stance on withdrawal, they expressed broad approval for him personally as an improvement over Bush, who remains unpopular among broad portions of Iraqi society five years after the war began. No one interviewed expressed a strong dislike for Obama. ...

For Hiti, who commands a swath of western Baghdad, the American military is a necessary, if vexing, presence. He ticks off the ways it helps: evacuating wounded Iraqi soldiers, bringing in helicopters when things go wrong, defusing bombs, getting detailed pictures of areas from drone planes. ...

But for some Iraqis the American presence remains the backbone of security in the neighborhood. Saidiya, a southern Baghdad district, was so brutalized by violence a year ago that a young Iraqi television reporter who fled thought he would never come back. But a telephone call from his father in December persuaded him to return. An American unit had planted itself in the district, helping chase away radicals. The family could go out shopping. They could drive their car to the gas station. ...

Falah al-Alousy is the director of an organization that runs a school in an area south of Baghdad that was controlled by religious extremists two years ago. Former insurgents turned against the militant group, but local authorities still rely heavily on Americans to keep the peace; the Iraqi Army, largely Shiite, is not allowed to patrol in the area, Alousy said. "Al Qaeda would rearrange itself and come back, if the Americans withdraw," he said.

Fully removing U.S. troops from Iraq is important for the Iraqi people to regain their dignity after years of war. However, withdrawing U.S. troops before Iraqi troops are capable of providing a safe environment for innocent Iraqi civilians is likely to cause more harm than good.

Economists for Obama not so happy with Barack Obama

Don Pedro, the blogger at Economists for Obama, justifiably expresses his displeasure with Barack Obama regarding the proposed FISA legislation currently before Congress.

Obama's failure to oppose the warrantless wiretapping bill, critiqued in great detail by Glenn Greenwald (see his most recent post here) has given me some pause and made me think perhaps I should send my political contributions elsewhere. The immunity for lawbreaking telecoms is one of the events of the Bush years that has most angered me. The current FISA is perfectly capable of dealing with surveillance, and empowering the president to monitor my phone calls and e-mails is plainly a violation of the 4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Why, after voting against the Protect American Act and saying he would support any filibuster of immunity for lawbreaking telecoms, is Obama now saying he will vote for the new law? I don't understand.

Don Pedro is right. When companies willfully aid the government in violating the American people's Fourth Amendment rights, those companies should be held liable.