Upon the news that Honduras had ousted its chief executive, President Obama — as is his wont — dithered and dawdled, then decided he would stand with the UN, Hugo Chavez, and the mullahs of Iran and back President Zelaya’s return.

I’m no expert on Honduran law and custom, but it could be useful to think of what happened in Honduras in the context of the American Constitution. Like the United States, Honduras has three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial. And all three were involved in recent events.

In the United States, the Constitution achieves a balance of powers. No one branch has absolute power — each can check the actions of another, and any two can override the third. Congress and the Supreme Court can remove the president, the president and Congress can remove and replace Justices, and the president can refuse to enforce laws until the court strikes them down.

In Honduras, the president was taking action toward amending the country’s Constitution in a way that many believed was illegal. Among those who considered it such were the nation’s Supreme Court and legislature, who acted to prevent the constitutional changes. And even the nation’s attorney general and military leaders — nominally elements of the Chief Executive branch — also sided against their titular leader.

President Obama, by backing President Zelaya, is siding with a leader who has lost the faith of most of his own government and a great deal of the people by attempting to illegally rewrite the nation’s Constitution to suit his own ends. I don’t think this is the kind of “Change” in American foreign policy many Americans were Hoping for.

This morning, a story out of England showing the weaknesses of their health system is drawing attention: a three-year-old girl, born with a critical heart defect, desperately needs corrective surgery. She underwent open heart surgery when she was nine days old, but her heart is in trouble again — she’s already had one stroke, and is in failing health. Therefore doctors scheduled her for another operation.

Then canceled it because of a lack of bed space. Then they rescheduled it, and canceled it a second time for the same reason. And a third time. Her parents are hoping that the fourth time will be the charm.

The story is reminiscent of a recent development out of Canada. An infant was born prematurely in Hamilton, Ontario (population: 500,000) and needed to be treated in a neonatal intensive-care-unit. Unfortunately, such bed space (or incubator space, more accurately) was lacking in Hamilton. The call went out: was there anywhere in the province (population: 13 million — the largest in Canada) where the infant could be cared for? Did any hospital in the land of guaranteed free health-care have enough space for a tiny baby?

Nope. Instead, the only hospital that could save the infant was in Buffalo, New York (population: 300,000). This example shows what England lacks for making its health-care system work: a bigger neighboring nation without socialized medicine to pick up the slack. So, if the United States adopted the Canadian model, who’s going to be to us what we are now to Canada? Who’s going to be our emergency go-to nation for health care?

Well, Vice President Joe Biden—recently put “in charge” of Iraq policy—has just completed his first survey of his new domain. And he was warmly welcomed.

It’s almost as if those who received the Vice President were unaware of his previous stances on events in that nation.

Biden, while in the Senate, voted against the first Gulf War, back in 1991. He balanced that out by voting for the second one, in 2002. And at one point, managed to unite nearly all Iraqis—in opposing his plan to partition the nation into three states. He also publicly and vocally opposed the “surge” strategy of last year.

Perhaps Obama chose to put Biden in charge under the theory that he simply can’t be wrong any more—he’s used up all the possible errors. Or he thinks that things are going so well, even Biden can’t mess them up. Or he knows that things are about to go south, and wants someone he can shift the blame to.

Last week, John Conyers (D-MI), the powerful 23-term Congressman from Michigan, announced he would not be leading a probe into the organization formerly known as ACORN (Association Of Community Organizations for Reform Now) for their sundry thoroughly-documented illegalities and improprieties. Mr. Conyers explained that “the powers that be decided against it.”

As noted, Mr. Conyers is a remarkably powerful individual. His statement implies that the decision to lay off of ACORN — or COI (Community Organizations International), as they want to be called these days — wasn’t his.

So, whose was it? Who are these “powers that be?”

Only two plausible alternatives spring to mind: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and the Obama administration. As Speaker, Pelosi has the authority to strip Conyers of his position as chairman, which he holds at her sole discretion. But in practice, it would be uncomfortable for her to take such a drastic measure because Pelosi’s own post depends on the good will of her fellow Democrats in the House. If she takes on despotic tendencies, they can turn on her and get her replaced as Speaker.

And then there’s the Obama administration, whose head has worked closely both with and for ACORN throughout his career and even owes a bit to ACORN for their efforts in helping him win the presidential election. Obama’s Justice Department would have been tasked with assisting Conyers in his probe of ACORN’s illegal practices. But the Justice Department just wrung a guilty plea from Conyers’ wife, Monica Conyers, on federal corruption charges, and will also make a sentencing recommendation in her case, which could net her up to five years in prison.

Of course, this is all just speculation. Representative Conyers could clear up all suspicions by elaborating on his remarks and explaining why ACORN should not be exempted from scrutiny. But he seems to have learned a lesson from Speaker Pelosi when she accused the CIA of routinely lying to Congress: when you’re in a hole, stop digging.

For once, the Obama administration is taking the right tack regarding to North Korea.

Recently, the belligerent communist dictatorship announced plans for testing its latest long-range nuclear-capable missile through a launch in Hawaii’s direction this Saturday — a lovely little 4th of July tribute. Apparently, our deployment of anti-missile systems to our 50th state is tantamount to an act of war.

This is the same North Korea that keeps testing nuclear weapons and shouts its belligerence and defiance to the world ad nauseam.

So, how did the Obama administration choose to answer the latest escalating confrontation? By “testing” one of our own ICBMs. That’s right. On virtually zero notice, we dusted off one of our Minuteman III missiles (a weapon celebrating its 40th birthday this year) and shot it off in the general direction of North Korea.

This response should drive home more effectively than any diplomatic wording could, the message that whatever military ambitions North Korea may be fevering with, we have realized them and surpassed them decades ago. Our warheads, unlike theirs, actually work. So Kim, are you sure you want in on this game?

This is perhaps the only language North Korea can understand. The question remains whether it will smarten up in the wake of this display of force, or attempt to call Obama’s bluff.

The current “cap and trade” bill wending its way through Congress represents the triumph of “hope” — as in “Hope And Change” — over everything else, including reality. Its proponents tout it as a major step toward American energy independence, as well as toward the use of cleaner energy. In reality, it’s a leap toward chaos.

One of the fundamental building blocks of post-Industrial Age civilization is access to energy. As we find new forms, new sources, we rarely discard the old ones — they dwindle in popularity, but rarely vanish. Wood led to coal led to oil led to hydroelectric led to nuclear fission, just to name a few, but all are still in use to various degrees. And those sources will, in time, diminish in popularity as new ones come into use. It’s the natural progression.

But not under Cap and Trade.

Cap and Trade’s stated goal is to force Americans to jump to the next cycle of energy production, where these old, dirty, inefficient technologies are shoved aside and replaced with newer, cleaner, sources. It’s a fine, noble, sentiment, with one fatal flaw: it’s built on fantasy.

At present, there is no “new” source of energy that Cap and Trade is pushing us toward. Instead, it’s just pushing us off our base and dashing our hopes of ever finding a new one.

Imagine you’re building a bridge. The person in charge wants it done by a certain date, and insists that you will lead a parade over that bridge on that date, come hell or high water. In the meantime, he’s given you the budget to build half the bridge. But not to worry; he’s certain that before you reach that halfway point, the price of supplies will have fallen or the interest rates at the bank holding your funds will have risen or some miracle in bridge supplies technology will have come about and you’ll find that your money will be enough to finish the bridge. But on that date, you’re marching.

Were I that bridge builder, I’d quit or buy a parachute. .

So, what is the real purpose of the whole Cap and Trade bill? The key might be in the enforcement provisions. And the means are economic — fines, permits, taxes, fees, assessments, and the like — all of which translate into more and more money being siphoned out of the private sector and into the hands of the government. All in the name of “energy independence” and “a cleaner environment.”

Carried out as planned, the bill will actually achieve its aims. We will be independent of energy, and the environment will be considerably cleaner as we return to a pre-industrial state.

Put THAT in your iPhone and text it, America.

Is there a bigger oxymoron in American politics today than “the Democratic party?” Judging by some of last week’s events, probably not.

First, in the rush to get the president’s “Cap And Trade” bill through the House, Representative Henry Waxman raised an objection to a completely unreasonable and specious demand from House Republicans — that they be permitted to read through a 300-page amendment he had tacked on to the 1,000-page under consideration.

Next, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid — apparently eager to show that anything House Democrats can do, he can do too — stated that he would not commit to giving Senators enough time to study — let alone read — the health care financing reform bill put together by House Democrats (with Republicans excluded entirely from the crafting).

Finally, the White House  quietly acknowledged that another Obama campaign promise had reached its unpublished expiration date — his pledge to post any and all bills passed by Congress on the White House’s web site for five days before he’d sign them. That one had been tossed aside practically from the outset, but now it’s official.

The message is clear, from both Houses of Congress and the White House: “we’re the federal government, and you can trust us. ”

Not that we have a choice…

Tonight, ABC is giving President Obama two full hours to sell the American people on his health plan. Naturally, in the interests of fairness and balance and presenting a complete picture, ABC will also allow those who disagree with the president to present their opinions.

Whoops, my mistake. ABC won’t be interviewing or featuring any opponents. Nor will it be accepting paid commercials to present the alternative.

ABC says it will be featuring a wide assortment of ordinary Americans who will be allowed to ask the president and his people unscripted, unsolicited questions on the subject. We all know how well that works out. During the presidential primary season, CNN teamed up with YouTube to host a pair of debates — one for each party. And when it came time for the Republican debate — surprise, surprise! — they stacked the deck.

Among the 34 supposed “undecided Republican voters” chosen to ask questions, 8 were found to have serious ties to Democrats. Declared supporters, former Democratic interns, and — in one famous case — a retired gay Air Force general who worked for both John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. General Kerr got extra-special attention, as befitted his long-standing relationship with CNN — he, alone, was flown in to the debate to critique the answers given by the candidates.

CNN got away with it. And tonight, so might ABC News.

Why, Ford?

Of the Big Three (well, Big 2.5) automakers, only Ford refused government bailout money. Only Ford has evaded bankruptcy and only Ford has not had to restructure its entire dealer network — provisions pushed by the federal government, which used its “investments” in the automakers to reshape them according to its political whims.

Well, Ford can no longer resist the bait, and has accepted almost $6 billion in a federal “loan” to develop more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Apparently, Ford thinks it is exempt from the governing rule about accepting federal money: once you go into business with them, you end up the very junior partner in the deal. You will find yourself pushed to cater to the demands of several hundred new CEOs in the White House, in Congress, and in countless other bureaucratic sinecures.

That’s what is happening to banks that accepted TARP money. That’s what is happening to the auto industry. That is what is very likely to happen to the health care and health insurance industries.

Ford’s acceptance of this money is an expression of Hope and Change over reality. Ford is apparently Hoping that the Obama administration will, for some reason, Change how it treats its debtors. That the government, for once, will not use the leverage of its “investments” to exert influence over the entire corporation.

I Hope they’re right.

Quite often, when a person or group is accused of something improper or illegal, they’ll pretend to admit some guilt, while insisting on their innocence. For example, a corporation accused of dumping pollutants will pay a hefty settlement, but insist that the money is not an admission of their crime. It’s often accepted with a wink and a nod — “Sure, you’re innocent, you’re just doing this out of the goodness of your hearts and to make the whole mess go away.”

Well, there have been two such examples involving those closest and dearest to President Obama’s heart — and, as usual, it’s quite entertaining.

First up, Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor had been a member of the for-women-only elite group the Belizean Grove. Judge Sotomayor, a sitting federal judge, joined last year. Unfortunately, the American Bar Association’s judicial code states that it is inappropriate for a judge to belong to any group that discriminates on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin — and “No Boys Allowed” doesn’t exactly conform.

Sotomayor resigned from the club, but insisted that there was nothing inappropriate about the membership. No men had ever been admitted, but Sotomayor said that was because none had ever asked.

Meanwhile, ACORN — the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now! — has announced that it has changed its name to “Community Organizations International.” The leaders of the Group Formerly Known as ACORN say that they had to jettison the name because it had drawn so much fire over the years. Apparently most of the criticism of ACORN has been provoked by the name itself. The conduct of the group, its leadership, and its members — which will likely continue unchanged under the new letterhead and banner — were not much of a factor at all.

From a branding perspective, it’s a bit of a shame. ACORN’s name was a call to action that lent itself to an easy-to-remember name and a snazzy logo. True, it also let people refer to them as “nuts,” but that’s a small price to pay for such an identifiable name.

Unless, of course, the conduct of those responsible for guarding ACORN’s reputation turn out to be completely inept, corrupt, or both. Incidents such as concealing a near-seven-figure embezzlement by the founder’s brother, keeping it away from public scrutiny and law enforcement until it can be quietly repaid. Incidents such as investigations of voter registration fraud in 14 states — with numerous convictions. Incidents as illegally seizing and occupying foreclosed homes.

So, how good is the new name? According to the Free Dictionary list of acronyms, the first meaning of “COI” is “Conflict Of Interest” — hardly a term this group would want to play around with.

Of course, it must be stated (and re-stated and re-stated) that in both cases, the changes are in no way an admission of wrongdoing. Nope. Not at all. Just done out of the same sense of the new apology — “I’m sorry that my remarks were misconstrued, and I apologize to anyone who might have been offended.”

Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) has often been called “the smartest guy in Congress.” That he is very intelligent is clear — but his actions show that simple brainpower is rarely an indicator of wisdom.

Congressman Frank, it should be recalled, was one of Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s staunchest defenders, shielding them from scrutiny and oversight right up until they collapsed. And at that point he had the audacity to blame their failure not on those who had enabled the misconduct, but on those who had tried — and failed, thanks to Frank and his allies — to rein those bodies in.

Well, Frank is back to his old games. He’s leaning on Fannie and Freddie to ease restrictions on new condominium mortgages. The two had recently announced changes to their rules on when they would guarantee mortgages on condominium complexes showing signs of financial trouble. Frank wants them to assume greater risk and shift the exposure from developers and buyers onto the federal government.

Stop me if you’ve heard that line of argument before.

And recently, as part of its bankruptcy reorganization, GM announced that it was closing facilities around the nation. This was somewhat buried amid a flurry of larger developments, such as the demise of entire brand lines and the shuttering of dealerships, but still held some significance to a lot of people — including 80 people in a to-be-closed GM parts distribution center in Norton, Massachusetts. More specifically, 80 constituents of Congressman Barney Frank.

Frank immediately leaned on GM (at that point firmly in the hands of the federal government) to spare the Norton plant and its 80 jobs (which, apparently, hasn’t hired anyone new since the mid-1980’s). The GM execs, with this new calculus  (”one of our new CEOs likes this plant”), reconsidered and realized that it does make sense to keep this warehouse open for at least another year.

As noted, you’d be hard-pressed to find a more intelligent member of Congress. It takes a tremendous intellect to be so colossally, consistently wrong — and cause such harm.

Our recent relations with China on the high seas have not been pleasant. Two unarmed United States navy ships have been harassed by Chinese boats and ships, leading to protests and the assignment of armed warships to escort the surveillance vessels. And recently a guided missile destroyer had its towed sonar array become entangled with a Chinese submarine.

Meanwhile, North Korea’s nuclear ambitions have led us to ratchet up the pressure on that country, up to and including having one of our warships shadow and prepare to board and search a North Korean freighter suspected of carrying prohibited weapons and weapons technology.

The one ship that has featured prominently in these showdowns? The USS John S. McCain.

It was the McCain that tangled — literally — with a Chinese sub. And it is the McCain that is ready to stop and investigate the North Korean warship.

No, the ship is not named for the Senator, most recent Republican presidential nominee, and the man who lost to President Obama last November. She is named for the Senator’s grandfather and father, John S. McCain Senior and Junior, both of whom rose to the rank of Admiral and served with great distinction through several wars.

Is the destroyer’s prominence in events a gesture of respect from President Obama to his defeated rival? Is it a back-handed slap? Or is it just a rather odd coincidence?

My money’s on the last. But it is certainly an unusual one. The United States has over 50 destroyers of the McCain’s class, assigned all around the world. For this one ship to be so prominent in two separate areas of tension is remarkable.

In the story about President Obama’s firing of Gerald Walpin, the Inspector General overseeing potential misuses of Americorps funds, there is a sidelight that isn’t drawing much attention. And that’s the issue brought up by the subject of Walpin’s last investigation, the one into Kevin Johnson.

Johnson, a former NBA superstar, headed up St. HOPE Academy, an educational nonprofit that received nearly a million dollars in federal grants. Walpin’s investigation showed that Johnson had diverted a great deal of that money for his personal use. In an agreement with the federal government, St. HOPE repaid over $400,000 in funds.

That agreement wasn’t enough for Walpin, who sought a ban on St. HOPE — and its principals who had abused the Americorps funding — from receiving future federal grants. That would have proven quite troublesome in the case of Johnson, who was in the middle of an ultimately successful campaign for mayor of Sacramento. Had Walpin succeeded, it would have prevented Sacramento from getting any federal funding whatsoever.

This hardship was cited as a reason for not imposing what is often a standard penalty for those who admit to misusing federal grants.

The argument here is not a new one, and it is flawed. A person’s winning an election, does not confer upon them some kind of forgiveness for past offenses.

Kevin Johnson grossly misused federal funds. The standard penalty is a common sense one — he shouldn’t be entrusted with federal funds for at least some time. That he is now mayor of the capital of California doesn’t change that.

Winning an election does not have some sort of sanctifying effect. A man who misuses funds and is then elected mayor is now a mayor who has misused funds. And those who voted him into office should expect to have to live with the consequences of their decision.

If anyone was wondering if the Pentagon would quickly adapt to the new administration and its bent, wonder no longer. In a written exam for employee training, test takers are asked to categorize an example of “low-level terrorism” — and the correct answer is “protests.” This fits seamlessly with Obama’s evident distaste for dissent here and elsewhere. (Shareholders who didn’t care for Obama’s plan for restructuring Chrysler are apparently low-level terrorists now.)  It is also another strange entry in Obama’s  post-Bush national security lexicon.

The Global War On Terror is now an “Overseas Contingency Operation.”

And acts of terrorism are now “man-caused disasters.”

For Obama, to call those we used to call terrorists by that term is unhelpful, unproductive, and too reminiscent of the Bush administration. But calling protesters terrorists seems to have a certain utility.

It’s still very early in the Obama administration, but a pattern is beginning to emerge in how the president deals with foreign nations. And it isn’t a very pretty one.

Thus far, it seems that the guiding principle of this administration is summed up in a single, concise phrase: “Treat your enemies like friends, and your friends like enemies.” It’s doubtful the plan was envisioned as such, but that is the impression they’re giving so far.

Others here have already discussed at length how the Obama administration is dealing with Israel, so no recap is necessary — but  the statements made thus far on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict do fit quite nicely into the theme.

Regarding North Korea and China, Obama seems almost eager to offer a hand in friendship to those who have wasted no time in offering insults, offenses, and threats against the U.S.

On the other hand, Obama seems almost eager to alienate Great Britain. And at one point, Obama’s rush to boost the American economy led him to push for some very protectionist, almost jingoistic measures — which royally irritated Canada, who pointedly reminded him that such measures violate long-standing trade agreements with our neighbor to the north.

There is a plausible — if simplistic — explanation for this. Our relations with hostile nations need a great deal of attention and effort in order to improve. On the other hand, our friends already like us; they don’t need much hand-holding and reassuring.

This gives the impression that we take our friends for granted and don’t care about slighting them in favor of those who have been — to put it mildly — far less obliging and amicable.

Do we really want to lose some of the affection and respect we enjoy from some nations in exchange for the dim prospect of others not hating us quite so much? That’s a very, very poor trade-off.

During the campaign, President Obama made his foreign policy goals clear. Among them was to put our relationships with traditional allies on new footings.

It now appears that he is doing just that — but in ways no one envisioned.

The “special relationship” between the United States and the United Kingdom has existed for well over a hundred years. We have been allies to various degrees in wars, diplomatic colleagues, trading partners, technological and military collaborators, and in general pretty much “the bestest of buds.”

But Obama seems to have his heart set on “restoring” the relationship we enjoyed with the British up through the American Civil War, when they were supportive of the Confederacy.

First up, Obama packed up and shipped back a bronze bust of Winston Churchill that had graced the Oval Office for nearly a decade.

Then, during a state visit from Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama set aside the tradition of meaningful, thoughtful, symbolic gifts and gave Brown a set of great American movies on DVD — in a format incompatible with British DVD players. Along with those coasters, Obama tossed in some stuff for Brown’s kids — a couple of models from the White House gift shop.

Then later, when Obama visited England, he presented Queen Elizabeth with her very own iPod. Fortunately, it was preloaded with show tunes, making it an appropriate accompaniment for the more substantial gift, a coffee table book of songs by Rodgers and Hart and autographed by Rodgers.

Earlier this month, during the observation of the anniversary of D-Day, all the Allied nations gathered to pay their respects to that momentous effort. Oddly enough, the one current head of state who actually served in uniform during World War II — the selfsame Elizabeth II, who was a truck driver and mechanic in the Women’s Auxiliary Territorial Service, entering as the equivalent of a 2nd Lieutenant and ending her career as the equivalent of a Captain — was left off the guest list. Obama and the French each blamed one another, with Obama insisting on her being invited. In the end, she stayed home and sent Prince Charles.

Then this past week, the Obama administration finally figured out what to do with the Chinese Uighurs held at Guantanamo Bay: pay Bermuda to take a bunch of them off our hands.

Of course, it might have been nice if someone had remembered — or cared — that Bermuda is a British colony, and its foreign relations are handled out of London. London is not amused. Playing ball with Obama might cost the Bermudan governor his job.

The United States was born out of bloody rebellion from England, and we had to reassert our independence at the dawn of the 19th century, in a conflict that saw England seize and burn the White House. It took about a century after the American Revolution for relations between us and England to grow cordial, and well over another century for the relationship to become one of the greatest friendships in history.

And it seems that Obama is set on restoring our prior relations with England.

Well, that is pretty much what he promised us…

Recently, the Jerusalem Post has published two articles about the Gaza Strip that paint remarkably compelling and enlightening pictures of the region.

The first was a reminiscence from Eliezer Whartman, who entered the strip after Israel captured it from Egypt in the Six Day War. He saw, first hand, what it had been like for the Arabs living there for almost two decades under Egyptian rule. After almost four decades the Israelis turned power over to the Palestinian Authority in 1994 and withdrew fully in 2005, a process that culminated in Hamas winning elections and taking power in 2007.

With the strip firmly in the hands of a terrorist organization whose declared purpose is the destruction of Israel and in the wake of an endless barrage of terrorist attacks and bombardment by rockets and mortars, Israel has had to flex its muscles and keep the assaults down to a dull roar. Naturally, this is denounced by much of the world as a form of “genocide” and even “a Holocaust.” Oddly enough, many of those making those comparisons also deny the original Holocaust — “the Jews are acting just like Nazis, who really weren’t so bad!”

Every now and then, stories like this second one from the Jerusalem Post sneak out and they should cause the world to do a rethink. While Israel complains about Palestinians digging tunnels under their borders to smuggle weapons (from Egypt into Gaza as well as from Gaza into Israel proper), it’s cooperating with Palestinians to dig a tunnel that will supply fuel and cooking oil from Israel into the Gaza Strip. And while Israel is stringing up wire to keep out Palestinians, it is also stringing up wire to carry electricity to them.

Naturally, this story ruins the popular narrative, so it won’t get the coverage it deserves.

There have been three acts of domestic terrorism this month alone. And all have a single, unifying element.

In  Kansas, Dr. George Tiller, a doctor who specialized in late-term abortions, was shot and killed in his church on June 1.

The very next day, in Arkansas, two young soldiers working with Army recruiters were shot. Private William Long was killed, while Private Quinton Ezeagwula was wounded.

And this week, a security guard at the National Holocaust Museum was shot. Stephen Tyrone Johns was fatally wounded by the attacker, who in turn was wounded by John’s fellow guards.

The shooters’ motives all differ. In Kansas, it was apparently done by a radical anti-abortion nutcase. In Arkansas, the accused shooter is proclaiming jihad. And in Washington, D.C. the suspect is an octogenarian with a decades-long background of violence and hatred — of Jews, blacks, “neo-cons,” liberals, those not sufficiently right-wing, and so on.

Two of the suspects were apparently already on the radar of law enforcement. The Arkansas shooter had recently returned from Yemen, where he is suspected of having sought training from Islamic terrorists. And the D.C. shooter had served six years for attempting to kidnap members of the Federal Reserve in 1981.

But the single unifying element of the three is that they all apparently acted alone.

The “lone nuts” are notoriously the hardest to catch. Most conspiracies are broken when one of the conspirators — for whatever reason — lets crucial information slip. It can be an accident, an attack of conscience, or simple self-interest, but it almost always takes an informant to break such cases.

In these three shootings, though, that was never a possibility. Each was a “conspiracy of one,” confiding his plans in no one.

This should come as no great surprise. Often the most successful acts of violence are carried out by a single individual, acting alone. The men who shot Presidents Reagan and Kennedy, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Robert Kennedy, and George Wallace, were acting alone. The Unabomber had no assistant. The Oklahoma City bombing and the D.C. Sniper attacks were carried out by two people each.

There’s a reason government targets groups prone to acts of violence. Intervention among those groups may prevent predictable outbursts of crime.

The Unabomber was caught after a tip from his family. The D.C. Snipers were caught due to the actions of concerned private citizens. And the Oklahoma City bombers were caught by a small-town cop during a traffic stop.

The unlimited access afforded by interconnectivity means that the power of a single individual to affect the course of history has never been greater than it is today. And in these past few weeks, we have been starkly reminded of the fact that the effect can be at least as negative as it can be positive .

The House of Representatives has passed a bill they call the “Cash For Clunkers” bill, which will give people who trade in older vehicles that get poor gas mileage up to $4,500 toward a new car purchase. The idea is to get vehicles that use a lot of gas off the road — as part of the bill, the dealer who accepts the old vehicle has to destroy it.

It seems like a good idea, and like most federal laws inspired by “good ideas” and “good intentions,” it’s likely going to come with strings attached.

The major problem is that it is going to pretty much destroy the cheap car market in America.

There are a lot of people who simply can’t afford to spend a lot on a vehicle. Take me, for one. I drive an SUV made in the last century that I picked up for around $2,000. It gets mediocre mileage, but that works out OK for me — I don’t drive a lot, but I prefer the security of the all-wheel drive for New Hampshire winters. I wince whenever I visit the gas pump, but I find the trade-off worthwhile.

If you want to know just how the bill will affect the used-car market, head on over to Craig’s List, click on your city or state, choose “cars+trucks,” then search for vehicles for $4,500 or less. In New Hampshire alone, the list of such vehicles posted just today was around 200.

There is definitely a market for such vehicles. And it is a market made up of people who often don’t have a viable alternative, such as public transportation.

And it isn’t just the “clunkers” that will be taken off the road. The indirect effect of this bill will be to artificially inflate the value of all used cars — owners will find themselves asking “do I want to try to sell this perfectly-good car for at least $5,000 to someone who needs it, or should I let it get destroyed for a $4,500 credit?” Many will find the time and hassle in selling it simply not worth the additional money.

In essence, the bill will boost the minimum value of many used cars to $4,500 — out of the reach of many people in need of transportation.

But that won’t matter. We’ll have gotten a bunch of “gas guzzlers” off the road, preventing them from consuming valuable resources and polluting our air.

As for the poor… “get a horse!”

Well, there goes Joe Biden again. Yesterday, he appeared in New Jersey to announce federal backing for a new tunnel. He said that it would be a great boost for automobile commuters — a statement that left the people actually working on the tunnel wondering how the cars would maneuver along those big, parallel steel rails running down the middle of the structure.

This is but the latest (if one of the milder) episodes of our vice president “just being Joe.” The man’s ability to shove both feet in his mouth and still keep spouting nonsense is beyond legend. Fortunately, most of Joe’s blunders are harmless — inviting a handicapped man to stand up and wave to the audience, describing then-Senator Obama as “clean and articulate,” etc. They’re good for a laugh or two at his expense, but they’re readily dismissible.

Others fall into the category of the classic definition of a gaffe — when a politician inadvertently says the truth. These are the remarks that make those around him wince and cringe, and even occasionally rebuke him. Examples include his zinging Chief Justice Roberts over the fumbling of Obama’s oath of office, his stating that Hillary Clinton would probably be a better choice for veep than him, and his recent mocking of Obama’s use of teleprompters.

Every now and then, though, Joe outdoes himself and says something that could cause genuine harm. During the initial stages of the Swine Flu (I’m sorry — “H1N1 Flu”) outbreak, he stated that he was urging his family to avoid public transportation, especially air travel, to stay safe — advice that the perpetually struggling airlines did not need to hear. And he casually revealed the existence of a previously top-secret bunker under the Vice President’s residence on the grounds of the Naval Observatory.

Perhaps his latest slip of the tongue was no slip and the government-owned General Motors will come out with new car models that can run on tracks.

New Hampshire has discovered a good way to boost its economy during these troubled times. Unfortunately, it’s not a solution that lends itself for application elsewhere.

It involves having one’s state located next to another state that is being run by economic idiots.

Right now, Massachusetts is currently considering raising its sales tax from 5% to 6.25% — a 25% hike — to help cover a hefty budget deficit. And more and more Massachusetts residents are calculating the costs of that tax versus the price of gas.

Suppose a resident of Massachusetts is considering buying a $1,000 television. Should they buy it in Massachusetts, the final price will be $1050 — or $1062.50, under the proposed tax.

On the other hand, New Hampshire has no sales tax. (Or income tax, for that matter.) So some Bay Staters are whipping out their calculators and running the numbers. Suppose they live 40 miles from a New Hampshire store that sells the same TV at the same price. Presuming their car gets 20 miles per gallon and gas is $2.50 a gallon, they will spend $10.00 in gas to save that tax money — meaning a savings of $40.00 or $52.50. Toss in a few other purchases, and the savings start adding up quite nicely.

Of course, Massachusetts isn’t taking this lying down. Under their law, residents who buy taxable merchandise out of state are supposed to report it and pay the tax. This is, obviously, one of the most ignored laws on the state’s books. The Commonwealth is trying to get around this by “persuading” businesses with locations in both states to collect Massachusetts taxes on New Hampshire sales to Massachusetts residents, but the businesses in question — and the state of New Hampshire — are fighting back against being drafted by Bay State tax collectors. In fact, New Hampshire is working on a law that would essentially forbid businesses from sharing information on their customers from other states for the purposes of tax collection.

This is yet another sign of the increasing mobility of the American people, and their growing independence from geographic and political boundaries. Last year, Maryland decided to help fix its budget by raising the income tax on people who made over a million dollars — a pool of about 3,000 people. One year later, that pool had shrunk to around 2,000 people.

And need anyone mention Rush Limbaugh’s “defection” to Florida over New York’s taxes? Or Microsoft’s announced plans to “export” jobs should Obama pass his tax plans.

The lesson is simple: if you push people too far with taxes, they will simply take their money (and, occasionally, themselves) elsewhere. This is a lesson that, unfortunately, will go unlearned by many of those holding the reins of power.

One of the plans being considered by the Obama administration is to raise the ethanol content of blended gasoline from 10% to 15%. Apparently, this is being done to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, decrease pollution, and stimulate the domestic economy. What’s unclear is precisely how this is supposed to work.

Thus far, ethanol in gasoline has been less than a stellar success. The diversion of corn from food to fuel has driven up the price of corn to a degree that is actually effecting food prices. In other words, during a time of economic crisis, the government has decided to make a staple of the American diet more costly.

Moreover, it hasn’t worked out very well for those producing the ethanol. They’re struggling, if not failing.

Then there’s pollution: it turns out that adding ethanol to gasoline actually makes it burn less cleanly, giving off more pollutants.

And just to add injury to the insult, there is evidence (so far largely anecdotal, but growing) that the ethanol is causing serious damage to car engines that weren’t designed to burn alcohol — especially in cases where the blending is less than precise and cars end up trying to burn fuel that has a much higher percentage of ethanol than 10%.

Finally, there are a lot of gasoline-burning vehicles that are not cars (boats, lawn mowers, off-road 4×4s, and the like) whose warranties specifically exclude damage caused by burning fuel containing more than 10% ethanol. Should the law change, those warranties will suddenly become null and void — leaving the owners (literally, in some cases) up the creek.

On the other hand, increasing the ethanol content in gasoline will have some benefits. For one…um… Well, I’m sure there has to be some advantage.

A plan as profoundly counterproductive as this, with so many downsides, can not be the product of any individual or private business. No, something as fatally flawed as this could only be spawned by the federal government.

Last week’s developments in the New Black Panther Party voter-intimidation case from Philadelphia should have come as no surprise to observers.

A quick recap: on election day last year, several members of the New Black Panther Party, one of whom was a credentialed Democratic Party poll watcher, stationed themselves at a polling station in Philadelphia. They dressed in military-style fatigues, at least one of them brandished a club, and they engaged in “coercion, threats, and intimidation, …racial threats and insults, …menacing and intimidating gestures, …and movements directed at individuals who were present to vote.” The men used racial epithets and boasted about how a black man was going to be president.

Well, the government suspected voter intimidation, a violation of federal law, and took the three men to court. The defendants refused to cooperate, not even bothering to show up, let alone offer any defense, so they were found guilty by default.

Right up until the Justice Department pulled a “never mind” and dropped all charges against them. The only sanction? One of them can’t come within 100 feet of a polling place with a weapon again.

As I said, this should have come as no surprise — especially in Philadelphia. The “City of Brotherly Love” has become a place where such tactics are openly tolerated.

On election day 2006, Democratic poll watcher Carlos Mantos decided his district was 100% Democratic, and therefore the Republicans had no business even showing up. So he took it upon himself to ban Republican poll watchers from the polling stations. He thought so little of this action that he boasted about it to a TV crew:

Mr. Mantos’s actions drew no sanction whatsoever.

Given that precedent, it is no great surprise that last year, the Black Panthers thought they could stand in front of the polls, armed, and inform everyone just how the election would turn out, without fear of legal reprisals.

They were right.

Perhaps in 2010 we can expect Philadelphia voters to be chaperoned into the voting booths by helpful Democratic “volunteers” to make sure they vote the right way.

And in 2010, nothing will come of it. At least, not from the Obama Justice Department.

Over the last week or so, two colleges have made national news for acts of colossal stupidity. And, in a refreshing reminder of how some things are truly bipartisan, they came at it from opposite ends of the political spectrum.

First up, at Liberty University (founded by the late Jerry Falwell) the administration came to a conclusion: it is simply not possible to be a good Christian and a Democrat. So they withdrew official college recognition of their chapter of the College Democrats. Members are appealing the school’s ruling, but it appears that the national Democratic party’s pro-choice stance on abortion is the deal-breaker for the school.

Meanwhile, this week  a student at the Community College of Alleghany County attempted to form a new organization. Christine Brashier whipped up and handed out pamphlets in an attempt to recruit enough fellow students to form a chapter of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. This group attempts to persuade schools to rethink their “gun-free zone” policies and allow those students who possess a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm to do so on campus as well.

Well, that didn’t go over very well with CCAC officials, who banned her pamphlets, ordered her to destroy all copies, and threatened her with further academic discipline.

Fortunately for Ms. Brashier, CCAC is a public school that takes public funding, so the Constitution protects her rights. She has FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) on her side, and a pretty strong argument to back her up.
In both cases, universities have let their ideology blind them to reason and common sense. In both cases, students were seeking to present an alternative to school policy in a non-confrontational, civil way, hoping to inspire discussion and debate on matters they thought important.

Silly students. Don’t they know that’s the last thing that colleges are interested in nowadays?

This week General Motors faces its deadline for giving the government its restructuring plan — the alternative being bankruptcy. GM has been working with the Obama administration on various and sundry moves to get the Goliath back on the road to profitability (or at least, solvency), and so far we’ve seen the following moves :

• A plan to outsource a good deal of auto manufacturing to China.

• The firing of the CEO (who is staying on payroll until the Obama administration decides whether or not to honor his contract and pay him his severance — hardly an academic question these days, when a contract means almost nothing to the Obama administration.)

• The dismissal of hundreds of dealers from both GM and Chrysler. (The logic of which escapes me — if the dealers are making money for GM, where is the savings in closing them down? And if they weren’t making money, why didn’t they just go out of business?)

• A proposed increase in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard to 34 MPG, likely killing off many of GM’s most profitable vehicles.

Each of these moves, in and of themselves, should give private investors serious pause for concern before putting their money in GM. There is also how the Obama administration has been strong-arming other creditors (in Chrysler’s case), wielding government money as a threat to dictate the rules, and the possibility of being left holding the bag if GM goes into bankruptcy, and the administration’s penchant for ignoring the laws governing debt hierarchy.

But what about those who “invest” in GM by buying a new vehicle? Once you find a dealer who’s still in business, get over the notion that you may be buying a vehicle made in China and not by Americans, put your faith in the Obama promise that the government will back your warranty if GM can’t, and find a vehicle that meets what Obama thinks ought to be the standards for fuel emissions as well as your own needs (good luck if you have a family!) you deserve congratulations. You hit the lottery!

Ain’t Obamanomics grand?