Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Wednesday, February 26, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 697)

Obama-Guantanamo-Bay

President Barack Obama, center, is renewing his push to close Guantanamo Bay detention center, which remains a radical left position. (Photos: AP/Getty/PPD)

President Obama has directed the Pentagon to release a plan next week to begin to end his unpopular years-long push to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center. The administration intends to move Guantanamo detainees serving life to a Colorado prison known as “the Alcatraz of the Rockies,” a once-shot down plan that is sure to anger opponents.

The move will make good on a campaign promise the president mad ein his 2008 White House bid to close Gitmo and the administration will argue keeping the detention center open would not be in the United States’ best financial, national security and foreign policy interests. Of course, the backdrop will be in the name of justice, an indictment on the fact that some of the detainees have been held for nearly nine years without trial or sentencing.

Pentagon sources tell PPD that the prison in Florence, Colorado, isn’t the only facility being considered for the plan. In fact, it is just one of seven U.S. facilities located in Colorado, Kansas and South Carolina on the table for discussion. The news follows a statement made by White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest this week, claiming the Obama administration is trying “very hard” to transfer at least 53 more detainees out of the 112 remaining before the end of 2015.

According to a recent poll, voters continue to oppose President Obama closing Guantanamo Bay and don’t believe his administration over the U.S. intel community regarding the rate of return. Just 28% of American registered voters in January supported Obama closing Gitmo, and 59% said the administration isn’t being truthful when they claim only 6% of detainees have returned to the War on Terror battlefield. The intel community has estimated the recidivism rate is at least 3o%, if not higher.

According to a recent report, U.S. intel officials believe upwards of 20 to 30 Guantanamo Bay detainees released by the Obama administration in the past few years alone have joined the Islamic State (ISIS), while upwards of 30 percent are suspected or confirmed of returning to Islamic terrorist activity.

Similarly, a Rasmussen Reports poll found that just 29% of likely U.S. voters believe the Guantanamo prison camp should be closed, which was up slightly from the 23% measured in April 2013. Rasmussen, historically, found more support for the prison’s closure than other pollsters. But even the current level is down from a high of 44% in January 2009, when Obama first announced his plans to do so. Now, a significant 19% are undecided.

June 13 Gallup poll found just 29% of Americans support closing the terrorist detention camp and moving its prisoners to U.S. prisons, while 66% opposed doing so. As PPD research has repeatedly observed, ideology is the most predictive factor when determining a respondent’s answer, not party preference or ID.

Lawmakers on both sides of aisle have been critics of the move in the wake of several disturbing developments, even successfully blocking several releases. For instance, as PPD previously reported, former Gitmo detainee—Mullah Abdul Rauf, a former Taliban commander and prisoner at Guantanamo Bay released by the Obama administration—established the first Islamic State base in Afghanistan. The area is now under Islamist control and the president has been forced to leave behind thousands of U.S. forces beyond his own self-imposed deadline.

Legally, a final decision to on a U.S. facility and closure requires congressional approval, which lawmakers say is not at all likely. However, Earnest flatly said that President Obama has not ruled out signing an executive order or presidential memorandum, the latter he has done more than any other president, to close the facility. It wouldn’t be the first time the president ignored federal law when trying to close Guantanamo.

A recent Government Accountability Office investigation concluded that the Obama administration violated the law when it ordered the Pentagon to swap the Taliban Five detainees for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, a known deserter who was held prisoner in Afghanistan for five years after abandoning his post. The government watchdog agency said the administration’s failure to notify the relevant congressional committees at least 30 days in advance of the exchange was a clear violation of the law.

Worth noting, PPD confirmed in Oct. that an Army officer is expected to recommend Bergdahl face a lower-level court martial that would not only spare him the possibility of jail time for leaving his post in Afghanistan, but also remain in the Army with a reduced rank. Nevertheless, under current law, which was passed in a broad bipartisan fashion, the executive branch is prohibited from releasing Guantanamo detainees without first receiving the aforementioned notice and approval.

Nevertheless, the administration argues that transfers aren’t subject to the same legal standard, and have commissioned an assessment team to review several prisons in recent months to identify their advantages and disadvantages, including costs for renovations and construction, the capacity to house troops and hold military commission hearings, as well as health care facilities. The Colorado facility, which  already houses convicted terrorists such as Unabomber Ted Kaczynski and Zacarias Moussaoui, a conspirator of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

President Obama has directed the Pentagon to

NYSE-Markets-Reuters

Traders on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) with Barclays, etc. (Photo: Reuters)

The communist economic system was a total disaster, but it wasn’t because of excessive taxation. Communist countries generally didn’t even have tax systems. The real problem was that communism was based on central planning, which is the notion that supposedly wise bureaucrats and politicians could scientifically determine the allocation of resources.

But it turns out that even well-meaning commissars did a terrible job. There was massive inefficiency and widespread shortages. Simply stated, notwithstanding the delusions of some left-wing economists (see postscript of this column), the system was an economic catastrophe.

Why? Because there were no market-based prices.

And, as explained in this video from Learn Liberty, market-based prices are like an economy’s central nervous system, sending signals that enable the efficient and productive allocation of resources in ways that benefit consumers and maximize prosperity.

[brid video=”19496″ player=”1929″ title=”What If There Were No Prices Railroad Thought Experiment Learn Liberty”]

And just in case it’s not obvious from the video, a price system can’t be centrally planned. Or, to be more precise, you won’t get good results if central planners are in charge.

Now let’s look at a bunch of economic policy questions that seem unrelated.

What’s the underlying reason why minimum wages are bad? We know they lead to bad effects such as higher unemployment, particularly for vulnerable populations, but how do these bad effects occur?

Why is it bad to have export subsidies such as the Export-Import Bank? It’s easy to understand the negative effects, such as corrupt cronyism, but what’s the underlying economic concern?

Or what’s the real reason why third-party payer is misguided? And why should people be concerned about high marginal tax rates or double taxation? Or Obamacare subsidies? Or unemployment insurance?

These questions involve lots of different issues, so at first glance there’s no common theme.

But that’s not true. In every single case, bad effects occur because politicians are distorting the workings of the price system with preferences and penalties.

And that’s today’s message. We generally don’t have politicians urging the kind of comprehensive central planning found is genuinely socialist regimes. Not even Bernie Sanders. But we do have politicians who advocate policies that undermine the price system on an ad-hoc basis.

Every tax, every regulation, every subsidy, and every handout is going to distort incentives for some people. And the cumulative effect of all these interventions is like a cancer that eats away at prosperity.

The good news is that we don’t have nearly as many of these bad policies as places such as France and Mexico. But the bad news is that we have more of these policies than Hong Kong and Singapore. The bottom line is that America could be much richer with less intervention. But that would require less ad-hoc interventionism.

Statism-Spectrum-Ideological-Spectrum

P.S. There’s a bit of economic wisdom in these jokes that use two cows to explain economic systems.

P.P.S. Here are two other videos on the price system, both of which help explain why only a decentralized market system can allocate resources in ways that benefit consumers.

P.P.P.S. A real-world example of the price system helped bring about the collapse of communism.

The communist and socialist economic systems were

Capitol-Hill-dollar-background

Three years ago, I shared a chart about the fiscal burden of the welfare state, calling it the picture that says a thousand word.

It’s astounding, after all, that taxpayers spend so much money on means-tested programs and get such miserable results. Indeed, if we took all the money spent on various welfare programs and added it up, it would amount to $60,000 for every poor household.

welfare-spending-per-poor-household

Yet the handouts for poor people generally (but not always) are way below that level, so where does all the money go?

Well, this eye-popping flowchart (click to enlarge) from the House Ways & Means Committee is one way of answering that question. As you can see, there are dozens of programs spread across several agencies and departments.

welfare chart

In other words, a huge chunk of anti-poverty spending gets absorbed by a bloated, jumbled, and overlapping bureaucracy (and this doesn’t even count the various bureaucracies in each state that also administer all these welfare programs).

This is akin to a spider web of dependency. No wonder people get trapped in poverty.

Fortunately, we have a very simple solution to this mess. Just get the federal government out of the business of redistributing income. We already got very good results by reforming one welfare program in the 1990s. So let’s build on that success.

P.S. Leftists generally will oppose good reforms, both because of their ideological belief in redistribution and also because overpaid bureaucrats (who would have to find honest work if we had real change) are a major part of their coalition. But there are some honest statists who admit the current system hurts poor people.

An enormous amount of the anti-poverty welfare

Bill O’Reilly told George Will to his face Friday night on “The O’Reilly Factor” that he was “a hack” in a heated exchange over a memo described as a centerpiece in his new book.

In his weekly column in The Washington Post, Will said Killing Reagan: The Violent Assault that Changed a Presidency was “nonsensical history and execrable citizenship, and should come with a warning: ‘Caution — you are about to enter a no-facts zone.'”

The heart of the argument involves the validity of a memo written by an aide to then-Chief of Staff Howard Baker. Will, who is also a Fox News contributor, said O’Reilly used the contested memo to smear the legacy of President Reagan by suggesting he was “addled to the point of incompetence causing senior advisers to contemplate using the Constitution’s 25th Amendment to remove him from office.”

O’Reilly insisted the book was a “laudatory” piece of work and Will was “a hack” who didn’t want the truth of Reagan’s struggles and subsequent conquests to be told.

Bill O'Reilly told George Will to his

obama-keystone-xl-pipeline

Pipeline stretch in Cushing, Oklahoma, left, and President Obama, right, who has threatened to veto the popular and approved Keystone XL pipeline.

President Obama rejected the long-delayed Keystone XL pipeline project on Friday, despite multiple State Department reviews and widespread public approval, PPD confirmed. The White House has scheduled an announcement for Friday with Obama and Secretary of State John F. Kerry, whose department had previously given the thumbs up on the proposal from TransCanada.

After seven years of waiting for the U.S. government to make a decision, TransCanada, sensing a political play and hoping for a Republican in 2016, this week asked the Obama Administration to suspend their decision. But, under President Obama’s direction, the State Department said it would proceed with its review.

The project has exposed a deep division in the Democratic Party between exceedingly left-moving environmentalists and pro-union wings. Senate Democrats urged President Obama to sign the bill approving the pipeline after the bill passed 62-36 in the Senate in January, but they were ignored. In February, Obama vetoed the bipartisan Keystone Jobs Bill.

READ ALSO: Obama Was For Pipelines Before Tom Steyer Was Against Them

Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, who was previously in favor of the project and head of the State Department during previous reviews, told a relatively small crowd of supporters in Iowa during the historic visit by Pope Francis that she now opposes the Keystone pipeline.

According to multiple State Department reviews and findings, both from reports conducted during her tenure and now-Secretary John Kerry, the Keystone pipeline would actually benefit the environment as it would reduce emissions from transporting oil via rail and other methods already in place. The decision will no doubt enrage already unexcited labor unions, who support the project and have grown increasing frustrated with the Obama administration.

While lawmakers and Obama grappled with lobbyists in their decision-making processes, the American people said it was a no-brainer, including a majority of Democrats (53 percent), over two-thirds of independents (68 percent) and nearly 9 in 10 Republicans (88 percent). According to a recent poll, 69 percent support the pipeline outright, up from 65 percent measured last year. However, 72 percent support its construction when respondents are told of the administration’s own findings.

Obama’s decision comes ahead of a gathering of world leaders to finalize a major global climate pact next month in Paris, which the president hopes will be a crowning jewel for his legacy. Alberta-based TransCanada first applied for Keystone permits in September 2008, just before Obama was elected. Keystone would’ve brought in oil from Canada’s tar sands through Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska, then connect with existing pipelines to carry more than 800,000 barrels a day to refineries along the Texas Gulf Coast.

Now, according to multiple reports, the energy is likely to go to China.

President Obama rejected the Keystone XL pipeline

Dr. Ben Carson, a leading 2016 Republican frontrunner, confronted CNN anchor Alisyn Camerota over the “secular progressive direction” the mainstream media skews the news. Camerota had pressed Carson to clarify his comments suggesting the U.S. would be “Cuba” if Fox News didn’t exist.

“I really don’t know what you’re talking about,” Camerota said. “Fox News came to dominance in 2001. You think before 2001 the U.S. was a communist country?”

Carson has come under fire from CNN and other left-leaning news outlets that have followed suit, which are suggesting he was lying about stories he has oft-repeated regarding his actions as a youth. The interview was a continuation of that recent assault.

“If we didn’t have that counterbalance — I wish we didn’t need that counterbalance,” he added. “The media is supposed to be neutral and they’re supposed to be on the side of the people…but because they have become very partisan and very ideological, you need to have a counterbalance.”

Carson’s honest and trustworthy numbers are through the roof, while the media numbers are in the dumps. It is unclear whether this line of questioning will server their purpose or not. Time will tell.

Dr. Ben Carson, a leading 2016 Republican

jobs-employment-line-reuters

Unemployed Americans wait in line for to fill out applications for jobless benefits. (Photo: Reuters)

The Labor Department October jobs report released on Friday showed the U.S. economy added 271,000 and the headline unemployment fell to 5%, far exceeding views. Economists had forecast 180,000 new jobs last month and that the unemployment rate would hold steady at 5.1%.

Wages also grew far more than expected, gaining 2.5% from a year ago, while average hourly earnings of all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by 9 cents in October to $25.20.

However, the labor force participation rate clocked in at 62.4 percent, which was unchanged from September. The less often cited but arguably more important employment-population ratio was also unchanged in October, at 59.3 percent, and has shown little movement over the past year.

Admittedly, while welcome news, the October jobs report has left a number of analysts scratching their heads in disbelief. Data released leading up to the report showed little reason for optimism in the numbers. The Commerce Department reported that gross domestic product (GDP) slowed considerably in the third quarter, though the trade deficit was trimmed to its lowest level in 7 months.

“What’s also troubling is that in the third quarter companies have been announcing job cuts, including a range of industries from banks to telecoms, as well as continued cuts in energy,” said Tara Sinclair, chief economist at job site Indeed.

Analysts looking at the numbers can point only to the service sector for consider growth, which has far outpaced its manufacturing and energy counterparts. The Institute for Supply Management’s non-manufacturing index (NMI) rose to 59.1 in October from 56.9 in September. The NMI is a barometer for the nation’s restaurants, builders, bankers and other service providers, but many of these positions tend to be lopsided toward lower wage jobs.

The Labor Department said retail trade employment grew by 44,000 in October, compared with an average monthly gain of 25,000 over the prior 12 months. Gains came from clothing and accessories stores (+20,000), general merchandise stores (+11,000), and automobile dealers (+6,000). All save for the latter are low-paying positions. However, employment in professional and business services rose by 78,000 in October, compared with an average monthly gain of 52,000 over the prior 12 months.

This mirrors the NMI results, and is undoubtedly good news for wages. In October, job gains occurred in administrative and support services (+46,000), computer systems design and related services (+10,000), and architectural and engineering services (+8,000).

Other higher paying sectors, on the other hand, offer little in terms of explanation on wage growth. For instance, national manufacturing activity fell to 50.1 in October from 50.2 in September, marking a 4th straight month of decline. Yet, according to the October jobs report, employment in manufacturing was unchanged over the month and has  shown little net change thus far this year.

Mining continued to trend down, losing anther 5,000 positions amid overbearing government regulation. Since December 2014, employment in this industry has declined by 109,000 good-paying jobs.

While representing a small decline, the number of persons employed part time for economic reasons fell modestly to 5.8 million. These American workers, who are also referred to as involuntary part-time workers, prefer full-time employment but were working part time because their hours had been cut back or they were simply unable to find full-time work. The number of discouraged workers, who the Labor Department consider a subset of marginally attached workers who believed that no jobs were available for them, was posted at 665,000 in October. This number was no different a year ago.

Meanwhile, policy-makers on the Federal Reserve Open Markets Committee have repeatedly tied the timing and trajectory of the first rate hike since the Great Recession to inflation and wages. In theory, wages increase when supply and demand for labor increases. When more people are working and looking for work it should be more difficult for employers to fill opening, forcing them to raise wages to compete.

Unfortunately, that hasn’t been the case and the central bank has hyped expectations for a rate increase by the end of the year. The October jobs report, suspiciously or not, will give pro-rate hike proponents on the committee the “data dependent” bullet points they need.

The Labor Department October jobs report released

JJ-Abrams-Comicon

J. J. Abrams speaking at San Diego Comic-Con International.

J.J. Abrams, director of “Star Wars: The Force Awakens,” set up a private screening for a terminally ill Texas man Thursday after his wish went viral. Daniel Fleetwood, 32, who suffers from spindle cell sarcoma, didn’t think he would be able to survive until the seventh film in the “Star Wars” epic premieres in theaters on Dec. 18.

Spindle cell sarcoma is a rare form of connective tissue cancer and, in July, Fleetwood’s oncologist estimated he had two months to live.

“Judging by how progressive the disease has gotten in the past two months, I really don’t think that I’ll be able to make it,” Fleetwood told Houston’s KPRC-TV last week.

On Thursday, Fleetwood’s wife, Ashley, posted on Facebook confirmed her husband’s dying wish had been granted. She said that Abrams had personally called the couple Wednesday to set up the screening.

“Today the wonderful Disney and Lucasfilms made his final dream come true, in the amazing typical Disney way, they really do make dreams come true!” she wrote. “Daniel just finished watching an unedited version of Star Wars: The Force Awakens!!” Lucasfilm, which produces the Star Wars series, is owned by the Walt Disney Company.

Mark Hamill, who played Luke Skywalker in “Star Wars”, “The Empire Strikes Back” and “The Return of the Jedi,” expressed support for Abrams’ decision to allow Fleetwood to see the movie.

Apparently, according to Variety, this isn’t the first time Abrams has allowed ill fans see early cuts of his films. In 2013, he screened a first cut of “Star Trek: Into Darkness” for a fan who died only a few short days later.

J.J. Abrams, director of "Star Wars: The

Dorothy-Bland-Walking-While-Black-video

Police dash cam video footage shows the encounter between Dorothy Bland, the dean of the school of journalism at the University of North Texas, and police officers she claimed stopped her for “walking while black.”

Dorothy Bland, the dean of the school of journalism at UNT, recently wrote an article in the Dallas Morning News alleging she was harassed by police officers for “walking while black.” Unfortunately, for her, recently released police dash cam footage shows Bland fabricated her supposed harassment.

“Knowing that the police officers are typically armed with guns and are a lot bigger than my 5 feet, 4 inches, I had no interest in my life’s story playing out like Trayvon Martin’s death,” Bland wrote of the allegedly racially-motivated encounter. “I stopped and asked the two officers if there was a problem; I don’t remember getting a decent answer before one of the officers asked me where I lived and for identification.”

But the video footage clearly shows another version of the story–the truth. In fact, either Bland is living in an alternative reality or she knowingly started and perpetuated a lie. Either way, Ms. Bland was confronted for obstruction of traffic, not because she was “walking while black,” and was lucky she didn’t get run over by a car or get a ticket.

[brid video=”19428″ player=”1929″ title=”Police question UNT journalism dean Dorothy Bland”]

“My officers, a field training officer and his recruit, observed Ms. Bland walking in the roadway wearing earbuds and unaware that there was a pickup truck directly behind her that had to almost come to a complete stop to avoid hitting her,” Corinth Police Chief Debra Walthall explained in response to the accusatory article. “The driver of the truck looked at the officers as they passed and held his hands in the air, which implied ‘aren’t you going to do something about this?’ The officers turned around and drove behind Ms. Bland.”

That’s where the dash cam footage comes in to the story. It shows her walking in the roadway impeding traffic with zero knowledge of the patrol car behind her. Further, her morning was not interrupted by “flashing sirens” as she contended.

“They activated their emergency lights — no siren was ever sounded — they exited their patrol vehicle and contacted Ms. Bland,” Chief Walthall added. “They immediately advised Ms. Bland about the pickup truck and the fact that it was safer for her to walk against traffic so she could see the cars and jump out of the way if necessary. The interaction between Ms. Bland and the officers was very cordial and brief.”

Bland was wearing a hooded sweatshirt that easily obstructed her view and ear plugs, paying zero attention to her surroundings as she walked down a street with sidewalks on both sides. Yet, she was walking in the street. In fact, as the police cruiser drives slowly behind her, Bland moves from walking on the side of the street to the middle of the street, completely obstructing traffic.

As the police stated, she had been seen earlier by these same officers, but she was not in the street and impeding traffic, thus she was not stopped by police.

“Impeding traffic is a Class C misdemeanor, and it is our policy to ask for identification from people we encounter for this type violation,” Chief Walthall noted. “I am surprised by her comments as this was not a confrontational encounter but a display of professionalism and genuine concern for her safety.”

While the two officers displayed “professionalism and genuine concern for her safety,” Ms. Bland displayed a complete lack of regard for others, a complete lack of responsibility for her actions and downright arrogance. She pulled out her cellphone to snap pictures of the officers and their patrol car, as if she was gently reminding them there is a Ferguson Effect around the country for a reason. More concerning, there’s a representation of the state of journalism in America.

According to her profile at UNT, before landing the dean of the school of journalism, Bland also worked at Florida A&M University as a journalism professor and even at USA Today. What biases, which were forced upon the countless number of students she came into contact with, are now permeating the news coverage Americans now hear on a daily basis.

“Please review the video and I’m sure you will agree the officers’ intent was simply to keep her safe. Ms. Bland never contacted the police department to voice her concerns regarding this encounter and has not returned my phone message left at the number provided by the mayor,” Chief Walthall added. “The citizens of Corinth as a whole are a highly educated population, and it is disappointing that one of our residents would attempt to make this a racial issue when clearly it is not.”

Indeed.

[caption id="attachment_32100" align="aligncenter" width="740"] Police dash cam

[brid video=”19425″ player=”1929″ title=”Kimmel to Clinton Yet Ben Carson Would Beat You by 10 Points”]

Jimmy Kimmel caught Hillary Clinton off guard Thursday night over a recent poll that showed Dr. Ben Carson destroying her in a head-to-head matchup. The question came after the two had a love fest and a few laughs at the expense of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Dr. Carson.

“And yet this poll, this Quinnipiac University poll, that they released today, said that if you ran against him today he would beat you by 10 percent,” Kimmel said in shock.

“Well, you know, we’ll just have to wait and see how that turns out,” Clinton carefully responded.

“Well maybe you should start saying some crazy stuff,” Kimmel joked.

Note to Jimmy: Saying crazy stuff, particularly crazy stuff that isn’t true, is how she ended up now even breaking 40%. Also worth noting, the Q-Poll released this week is not the only poll to show Carson creaming Hillary in a head-to-head, it is one however where she isn’t stuck at 38 or 39 against the good doctor.

Jimmy Kimmel caught Hillary Clinton off guard

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial