The Santos Republic

In recent weeks, many media conservatives have launched attacks on President Obama, claiming, for instance, that he “lied” and accusing him of having, in the words of The Washington Times, “broken so many promises during the first month-and-a-half of his presidency that it is hard to keep track.” Following his February 24 address to a joint session of Congress, some in the media singled out Obama’s comment that he doesn’t “believe in bigger government” to accuse him of dishonesty, lying, and even in one case of committing “a huge, brazen, audacious, demonstrably outrageous lie.” In fact, in the speech Obama said that, while he does not believe in “big government,” a strategy on the scale he is proposing is necessary in the current economic situation. Moreover, many in the media have falsely claimed that Obama “promised no earmarks” in spending bills during his administration and that he has since broken that pledge. In fact, Obama consistently said during the campaign that he intends to “clean up” the process in an effort to curb spending on earmarks, not eliminate the process entirely.

During his February 24 address to a joint session of Congress, President Obama spoke to the necessity of passing the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act to improve the economy and commented that he wanted the stimulus bill passed “not because I believe in bigger government — I don’t — not because I’m not mindful of the massive debt we’ve inherited — I am.”

In the days following the speech, media figures have contrasted that comment — that “I don’t” believe in bigger government — in isolation with the cost of Obama’s proposals to say that Obama “lied,” that he committed a “the biggest whopper of all” and that his “rhetoric does not match with his policies.” But, as is clear from the speech, Obama was taking the position that that failure to act on the scale he is proposing “would have cost more jobs and caused more hardships” and “would have worsened our long-term deficit by assuring weak economic growth for years.”

From Obama’s February 24 speech:

As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by Presidents Day that would put people back to work and put money in their pockets, not because I believe in bigger government — I don’t — not because I’m not mindful of the massive debt we’ve inherited — I am.

I called for action because the failure to do so would have cost more jobs and caused more hardships. In fact, a failure to act would have worsened our long-term deficit by assuring weak economic growth for years. And that’s why I pushed for quick action.

And tonight I am grateful that this Congress delivered and pleased to say that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is now law.

Over — over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs. More than 90 percent of these jobs will be in the private sector, jobs rebuilding our roads and bridges, constructing wind turbines and solar panels, laying broadband and expanding mass transit.

Because of this plan, there are teachers who can now keep their jobs and educate our kids. Health care professionals can continue caring for our sick. There are 57 police officers who are still on the streets of Minneapolis, [Minnesota] tonight because this plan prevented the layoffs their department was about to make.

Because of this plan, 95 percent of working households in America will receive a tax cut, a tax cut that you will see in your paychecks beginning on April 1.

Because of this plan, families who are struggling to pay tuition costs will receive a $2,500 tax credit for all four years of college.

And Americans — and Americans who have lost their jobs in this recession will be able to receive extended unemployment benefits and continued health care coverage to help them weather this storm. Now I know there are some in this chamber and watching at home who are skeptical of whether this plan will work, and I understand that skepticism.

According to a February 19 New York Times article, Obama’s proposed budget outline is “$2.7 trillion deeper in the red over the next decade than it would otherwise appear, according to administration officials” due to new accounting rules that include in the Office of Management and Budget’s calculations “spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Medicare reimbursements to physicians and the cost of disaster responses.”

Examples of media figures citing Obama’s statement that he doesn’t “believe in bigger government” as an example of dishonesty include:

• In his March 3 Washington Times column, headlined “Obama Lied; The Economy Died,” Tony Blankley asserted: “President Obama told a whopper last week when he claimed he was not for bigger government.” He went on to say: ‘This he asserted though the budget he proposed the next day asks for federal spending as 28 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), higher by at least 6 percent than any time since World War II.”

• In a February 26 Cleveland Plain Dealer column, Kevin O’Brien wrote: “President Barack Obama doesn’t believe in big government. He said so Tuesday night. The statement was one of two things. Best case: It was a huge, brazen, audacious, demonstrably outrageous lie. Worst case: It was testimony to a sincere belief that even the all-pervasive, all-powerful federal government he envisions doesn’t qualify as ‘big.’

• During the March 1 edition of CNN’s State of the Union, The Weekly Standard’sStephen Hayes suggested that Obama’s comment that he didn’t like bigger government should have been “corrected,” adding: “I mean, we have seen nothing but big government for five weeks, and this is the kind of line that, had President George W. Bush uttered it a year ago or two years ago, we would have seen front-page, above-the-fold analyses, saying, you know, ‘President’s rhetoric does not match with his policies.’ And I’ve been a little surprised about that.”

• In a column published in the March 9 Weekly Standard, editor Fred Barnes cited the purported disparity between Obama’s comment and his proposals in accusing him of “liv[ing] in a world of political make-believe in which everything from reconciling conflicting interests to paying for costly programs is easy”:

But there’s a problem. Candidates don’t have to deal with reality. They talk about the wonderful things they can accomplish as if advocating them is the same as achieving them. They live in a world of political make-believe in which everything from reconciling conflicting interests to paying for costly programs is easy.

That’s the world Obama continues to inhabit. Like a candidate, he’s a quick-change artist, constantly switching roles. Twice last week, he insisted he doesn’t favor “big government.” Then he proposed a budget that would vastly expand the size and reach of the federal government, add $600 billion to the deficit, and produce a one-year shortfall of $1.2 trillion (or more). This prompted House Republican leader John Boehner to proclaim, quite accurately, that the “era of big government is back.”

• In his February 28 Newsweek column, George Will mocked Obama’s campaign slogan and wrote: “Addressing Congress last week, the president said he is strengthening government ‘not because I believe in bigger government — I don’t.’ Chant it, everybody: Yes you do.”

• A March 3 FoxNews.com Fox Forum blog post by Phil Kerpen, director of policy for Americans for Prosperity, listed this comment as “Promise #1″ to be broken and asserted “it’s the biggest whopper of all.”

Media figures have also broadly accused President Obama of having lied or of breaking a promise by stating that he would sign an omnibus appropriations bill that contains earmarks when he had previously “promised no earmarks.” However, as Media Matters noted, Obama consistently said while campaigning that he intends to “clean up” the process in an effort to curb spending on earmarks, not eliminate them entirely.

While Sen. John McCain repeatedly said during the presidential debates that he would “veto every earmark pork-barrel bill” if elected, Obama said in the first debate that “the earmarks process has been abused” and said he had “suspended any requests for my home state … until we cleaned it up.” During the second presidential debate, Obama said McCain’s criticism of earmarks was “important,” but that he wanted “to go line by line through every item in the federal budget and eliminate programs that don’t work and make sure that those that do work, work better and cheaper.” And in the third presidential debate, Obama said: “There’s no doubt that the system needs reform and there are a lot of screwy things that we end up spending money on, and they need to be eliminated. But it’s not going to solve the problem.”

Similarly, in May 2008, Obama issued a statement that “the entire earmarks process needs to be re-examined and reformed.” The statement said:

I also have championed greater disclosure requirements for earmarks to ensure that the public knows which member of Congress is sponsoring an earmark.

However, even with all of these reforms, I have come to believe that the system is broken. We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress’ seniority, rather than the merit of the project. We can no longer accept an earmarks process that has become so complicated to navigate that a municipality or non-profit group has to hire high-priced D.C. lobbyists to do it. And we can no longer accept an earmarks process in which many of the projects being funded fail to address the real needs of our country.

The entire earmarks process needs to be re-examined and reformed. For that reason, I will be supporting Senator DeMint’s amendment and will not be requesting earmarks this year for Illinois. Over the next year, I hope to work with my colleagues, both Democratic and Republican, to improve the earmarks process.”

But in spite of Obama’s campaign statements, media outlets and figures have suggested he has broken “a campaign promise” about earmarks by stating that he would sign the omnibus appropriations bill:

• A March 4 Washington Times editorial claimed “President Obama has broken so many promises during the first month-and-a-half of his presidency that it is hard to keep track. … Last October Mr. Obama promised a net cut in government. He promised no earmarks.”

• On the March 3 edition of CNN’s Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull, anchor Campbell Brown said, when referring to the omnibus bill “President Obama made a campaign promise to put Washington on a pork-free diet. No more spending on earmark projects he vowed. But they just can’t help themselves. We’re going to tell you who’s spending how much of your money on their pet projects.” Later, she continued: “President Obama keeps saying he is an anti-earmark crusader. But watch out, a monster spending bill working its way through Congress contains some 8,500 earmarks worth more than $7 billion.”

• On the February 26 edition of Fox News’ Hannity, Fox News anchor Kimberly Guilfoyle suggested Obama was engaging in “two-faced politics” and “trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people” because “[h]e said that he wasn’t going to do this. We elected him because he said he was going to change things.”

• On the March 3 edition of Sean Hannity’s radio show, Hannity asserted that “we have a president that has lied to us. … A president that promised to eliminate earmarks. And you know what? This is a president that is far more radical than anybody ever dreamed. You bet — I’m angry.”

Further, Washington Times chief political correspondent Donald Lambro misrepresented Obama’s February 24 address to Congress to suggest he lied in that address regarding earmarks. In his March 2 column, Lambro wrote, “Nine thousand pork barrel earmarks were buried in the $410 billion omnibus budget that passed the House last week,” and added that “President Obama told Congress the day before it passed that he was happy it didn’t contain any earmarks, eliciting gales of laughter from the Republican side of the chamber who knew better.” But as Media Matters for America noted, Lambro’s claim that Obama made a false statement about earmarks is itself false. Obama was not referring to the omnibus spending bill, as Lambro claimed, but to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act when he said the bill did not contain any earmarks.

Winning an election by 52% of the population does not necessarily mean you have the mandate. It is how you keep your promises to the people. Clearly, we can foresee that within the 100 days, the Americans will sober up from what they did: Putting a Pork barrel President with a socialistic agenda.

Source: Media Matters

Popularity: 100% [?]

Rod Beckström, the Department of Homeland Security’s controversial cyber-security chief, has suddenly resigned amid allegations of power grabs and bureaucratic infighting.

Beckström — a management theorist, entrepreneur and author — was named last year to head up the

Rod Beckström

 new National Cybersecurity Center, or NCSC. To some, it seemed an odd choice since Beckström isn’t an expert in security. But the hope was that he could use his management skills to help coordinate the nation’s often-dysfunctional network defenses.

Part of the Department of Homeland Security — for now, the government’s lead agency for cyber protection — the Center was supposed to be the one place where the defense of civilian, military and intelligence networks could all be marshaled together.

At least, that was the idea. But the Center never had a chance to even start doing its job, Beckström complained in a resignation letter to DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano that has been obtained by Danger Room. The Center “did not receive appropriate support” from the Department of Homeland Security to help coordinate network defenses, he said.

“During the past year the NCSC received only five weeks of funding, due to various roadblocks engineered within the department and by the Office of Management and Budget.”

What’s more, Beckström said, it is a fiction that DHS is in charge of the country’s cyber security. That power, he asserts, is held by the National Security Agency — the supersecret signals intelligence service — that “currently dominates most national cyber efforts.” And that, he says, is not a good idea.

While acknowledging the critical importance of NSA to our intelligence efforts, I believe this is a bad strategy on multiple grounds. The intelligence culture is very different than a network operations of security culture. In addition, the threat to our democratic processes are significant if all top government network security and monitoring are handled by any one organization (either directly of indirectly). During my term as Director we have been unwilling to subjugate the NSCS underneath the NSA.

Last Thursday, the new Director of National Intelligence told Congress that the NSA, not Homeland Security, should be put in charge of network defense.  A week and a day later, Beckström told his bosses that he was through.

“Rod [was] trying to get over NSA’s power grab,” a cyber-security source with deep government ties tells Danger Room. But in the end, Beckström couldn’t. “He jumped nanoseconds before being pushed.”

Popularity: 69% [?]

Depth of the downturn signals a return to thrift that will keep a lid on future growth.

Popularity: 70% [?]

Popularity: 70% [?]

For the better part of four centuries, explorers prowled the seas of North America, hunting the long rumoured Northwest Passage, a navigable waterway that would connect Europe and Asia by way of the icy waters of the Arctic. 

It wasn’t until 1905 that Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen made the first trip from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific by way of Arctic waterways, a feat that took him three years. Since then, fewer than 200 ships have repeated the journey because of the constant threats of ice.

Still, the hope for a Northwest Passage lingers and has become central to a key international debate heating up over the Arctic north. If climate change and global warming are real — and there’s currently little doubt over that-then it stands to reason that the ice covering Arctic waterways will decrease in coming decades, presenting fewer navigational problems for shipping. 
If the ice recedes — and few experts expect it will do so year-round-cargo shipping times and distances could, the thinking goes, be cut: A 12,400-mile voyage from Japan to England by way of the Panama Canal could be shortened to less than 8,700 miles using the Northwest Passage, saving 14 days and costs.

Canada’s claim 

But then whose water is it? Practically all of the navigable Northwest Passage routes, and there are only a few, pass between Canadian islands. Thus, Canada has argued that these portions of the route are domestic waterways, and that ships traversing the area should do so with Canadian permission. 

That has touched off a bit of a row between the US and Canada. Just days before leaving office, President George W. Bush released a sweeping security directive asserting that the Northwest Passage is an “international waterway,” meaning that American ships, or in theory those of any other nation, should be able to sail through the area in the same way they do other international waterways. The directive has been seen as a sharp rebuttal to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who has advocated boosting Canada’s military presence in the area.

Canada has maintained since the 1970s that it views the waters not as “international,” but rather “internal.” On all but three occasions of the 180-odd times that international ships have traversed the passage, Canadian permission and aid was sought, usually in the form of an icebreaking vessel, says Rob Huebert, a professor of political science at the University of Calgary, who specializes in Arctic affairs. That fact also helps buttress Canada’s argument, he says. 

“Canada is the one with the expertise and the familiarity with the conditions,” Huebert says. For years, the US and Canada have quietly agreed to disagree over the matter — until Jan. 9, when Bush issued his Arctic security directive.

It’s partially a military question. Submarines are required under international law to surface before traversing internal waterways but can remain submerged in international waters. And US and Russian submarines have long been active in the area. For Canada, there’s also an enormous environmental motivation. 

“If there’s ever an oil spill, it’s a disaster,” Huebert says. “There’s no technology that can remove heavy [oil] from under the ice. Canada tends to be hypersensitive about that.” But sovereignty over shipping lanes that may or may not open up in the coming decades is only part of the ever-widening strategic game taking place in the Great White North.

Awaiting new technology 

A 2008 report by the US Geological Survey, which took four years of study, estimated that as much as 20 % of the world’s undiscovered oil and natural gas may lie beneath the Arctic sea floor. The region may hold as much as 90 bn barrels of oil — believed to be about 13 % of the world’s undiscovered oil — and some 1.7 tcf of natural gas reserves, roughly equivalent to the gas reserves in Russia, the world’s leading supplier. 

These findings made the question over sovereignty far more strategic — and contentious. Canada, Denmark, Russia, and the US all assert territorial claims in the Arctic. And if oil prices ever rebound to the levels seen during the summer of 2008, topping $ 147 per barrel, less ice could help make fossil fuel recovery more cost-effective, if not exactly easy.

“To get to the exploitation phase, you have to wait for the technology to advance,” says Peter Zeihan, an analyst with Stratfor, a strategic consulting firm in Austin, Texas. But with the ice cap disappearing at a rate of more than 20,000 square miles per year, the technical challenges are expected to dwindle over time. 

And that’s where drawing the map of borders in the Arctic Ocean becomes paramount — and complicated. In August 2007, a Russian submersible descended through a hole in the ice to plant a Russian flag on the sea floor at the North Pole. It was a provocative stunt that caused some hand-wringing around the globe, especially in light of Russia’s increasingly aggressive military stance.

Countries are allowed to consider waters out to 12 miles from their coasts as their own territory. For countries that have signed the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which the US has not but may do so soon, waters that go out 200 miles over a country’s continental shelf are considered “exclusive economic zones.” 

But if signatory countries can prove that their continental shelf extends beyond that 200-mile line, they have rights to oil, gas, and minerals beneath the seabed. Thus the scramble over competing claims of sovereignty.

Russia claims its shelf runs some 1,200 miles from Siberia — almost to Ellesmere Island, Canada’s northernmost point — although Russia claims only the portion of the shelf on its side of the North Pole. 

Even so, if there is as much natural gas there as the US Geological Survey thinks, and much of it is concentrated in areas Russia claims for itself, then it could conceivably solidify Russia’s already dominant hold on the world’s natural gas market — and thus raise the stakes in a strategic scramble now heating up at the top of the world.

Source: http://www.kivitv.com

Popularity: 70% [?]