The tea party movement is not a top down operation.  It’s a ground up call to action that is forcing BOTH the parties to change the way that they’re doing  business, and that's beautiful...this is about the people and it's bigger than any king or queen of a tea party… and it’s a lot bigger than a charismatic guy with a teleprompter.

As soon as she went to an unscripted Q&A session, however, we saw this:

Crib notes?  Written on her hand?  What could they be?  Well, on closer examination, her crib notes were:

• "Energy"
• "Tax Cuts" (was "Budget Cuts", but she changed it)
• "Lift American Spirits"

So, she'll criticize someone for using a Teleprompter for a lengthy speech, but she can't remember what should be her core values without peeking at crib notes?  She can't answer an unscripted question without referring to that list?  Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.  That sound you hear is either a meme deflating or a punchline losing all value.

Conservatism should be a lot bigger than a charismatic woman with crib notes...

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Tuscaloosa, is blocking Senate action on executive branch nominations, a spokeswoman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said this afternoon in an e-mail.

In response to a question from the Press-Register, Reid spokeswoman Regan Lachapelle confirmed that Shelby has placed a "blanket hold" on most pending nominations.

Talking Points Memo fleshes out the details:

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) has put an extraordinary "blanket hold" on at least 70 nominations President Obama has sent to the Senate, according to multiple reports this evening. The hold means no nominations can move forward unless Senate Democrats can secure a 60-member cloture vote to break it, or until Shelby lifts the hold.

Later, the Senator's office confirmed the fact of the matter, if not the exact count:

Sen. Richard Shelby's (R-AL) office has confirmed to TPMDC the reports that Shelby has placed a hold on President Obama's nominees over a pair of government programs set to be based in Alabama. He did not confirm that Shelby has taken the rare step of blocking all of Obama's nominees, as was reported yesterday.

"Sen. Shelby has placed holds on several pending nominees due to unaddressed national security concerns," Shelby spokesperson Jonathan Graffeo said in a statement. "Among his concerns" are the progress on multi-billion dollar defense contract that would see planes built in Mobile, AL and Obama's decision to scrap a $45 million FBI improvised explosive device lab Shelby secured an earmark for in 2008.

So, just to get this straight...a senior member of the party arguing for greater fiscal responsibility is shutting down numerous nominations--possibly all pending nominations--because he didn't get his earmark and a USAF contract might go to Boeing instead of Airbus/Northrup Grumman?

Let's just stop and think about that.  More to the point, let's be sure to ignore anything Shelby (or the Republican leadership, which now refuses to comment after initially questioning the story) has to say about the merits of nominees (since they'll block them for any reason), fiscal responsibility (since he's blocking them for an earmark), American business (favoring a subsidized Airbus/Grumman bid over a 100% American Boeing bid), national security (included among the holds are nominees for top intel posts at the State Department and DHS, as well as the #3 civilian spot in DoD)...need I go on?

Oh, and did I mention that no one can seem to find a historical example of such a "blanket hold?"  Yep, we may be breaking new ground in obstructionism.

Photo courtesy of Petr Kratochvil. Click on the image for more information on the photographer.

(Tosses a snowball at Xanadu)...Have a nice weekend, and post what you like...

The North Korean dictatorship is struggling to contain civil unrest and runaway inflation caused by a drastic revaluation of its currency, which is threatening new food shortages in an already hungry nation, according to reports in South Korea.

The country’s problems have even prompted a rare admission from its leader, Kim Jong Il, that North Korea is not the land of plenty that its rulers like to portray. “My heart bleeds for our people who are still eating corn,” he said recently, adding that the Utopian economy envisaged by his father had not materialised. [...]

If Kim is acknowledging these things publicly, it's a big deal; we've heard nothing but Juche (Kim Sung Il's theory of self-reliance) from the DPRK's leaders for the last 50 years.  As Foreign Policy put it:

Even Kim Jong Il acknowledged in a recent statement that there are  "still quite a number of things lacking in people’s lives." If Dear Leader is indeed responding to popular resentment, things must be getting pretty bad.

Indeed.  The Times article identifies one major provocative factor in the current unrest:

At the end of November the regime announced a drastic revaluation of the won currency in an apparent effort to curb the burgeoning free-market economy. All North Koreans were required to swap old won notes with new ones at an exchange rate of one to 100, knocking two zeroes off their value. Because of a cap of 100,000 won per family — about £500 at the official exchange rate — anyone with significant holdings of cash had their savings wiped out.

I can see why wiping out one's entire savings would generate unrest.  Apparently, it's gone to far more than just mumbling and grousing:

According to informants quoted on the Seoul-based DailyNK website, there has been “an explosion in the number of casualties resulting from popular resentment at harsh regulation of market activities by the security apparatus across North Korea”. Agents of the People’s Safety Agency (PSA), which is conducting a “Fifty Day Battle” against illegal enterprise, were reported to have been attacked and driven away as they sought out market activity in the city of Pyongsung, in North Pyongan province. In the once prosperous industrial city of Chongjin, on the country’s east coast, a steel worker named Jeung Hyun Deuk was reported to have killed an agent of the National Security Agency (NSA) named Cho.

It may be wishful thinking, but it's difficult not to consider that Kim's days may be numbered.

(Oh, and credit where credit's due; the picture is a still from Team America: World Police.)

Senior Obama administration officials revealed late Tuesday they've secretly gained the cooperation of family members of Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab to help get the Christmas Day airline bomb suspect talking.

The cooperation effort has led to actionable intelligence that could help prevent terror attempts on U.S. soil, the senior officials said. [...]

The U.S. officials later traveled to Nigeria's capital city, Abuja, and eventually gained the trust of two unidentified relatives of the suspect.  On January 17, the FBI agents secretly flew back to the U.S. with the two relatives in order to work with the suspect.

One senior Obama administration official said the family members privately conveyed to the suspect they "had complete trust in the U.S. system" and they believed he "would be treated fairly" by the Obama administration.

The senior administration officials said that since AbdulMutallab began talking to investigation again last week, he has been cooperating on a daily basis.

Wow...gaining trust...no torture...and the suspect is cooperating.

So, was it really worth all the "weak on terror" nonsense coming from the likes of Susan Collins?  If the guy is cooperating, and if the intelligence provided is accurate and "actionable," then where's the harm?  It isn't as if the guy is going to win an acquital; the evidence is as airtight as it gets.

I'm anxiously awaiting someone to tell me how tossing him in isolation and throwing away the key would have been a better approach.  At worst, I think this sort of thing is a case-by-case judgment call; they aren't all going to fit the same mold, and it's ridiculous to suggest that they will.

The senate introduced a bill today that would cut funding for civil trials of terrorists. A bi-partisan group of Senators believe terrorists should be tried in military tribunals. A similar bill was narrowly defeated last November, but the administration's handling of terrorism has come under criticism since the 'underwear bomber's' failed attempt to blow up a commercial airliner on Christmas Day.

"The law enforcement model being used by the Obama administration should be rejected," said GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham, who is also an Air Force Judge Advocate General. "We're not fighting a crime; we're fighting a war."

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy disagrees;

"Federal courts have proven time and again that they are capable of handling terrorism cases. They have successfully tried hundreds of terrorism cases. In stark contrast to that record, very few of the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay have been brought to justice through military commissions."

Graham's responded to that point, saying;

"The Military Commission Act of 2009 was improved with extensive discussions with the Obama administration and [Armed Services Committee] Chairman [Carl] Levin... The system was unavailable Richard Reid, the blind sheik, and other terrorists."

Supporters of the bill include independent Joe Lieberman, republicans Jeff Sessions, Orrin Hatch, Saxby Chambiss and James Barrasso and democrats Blanche Lincoln and Jim Webb.

In the mid-nineties, then President Clinton, in bi-partisan conjunction with Congressional republicans proclaimed, "the era of big government is over," then proceeded to reduce the size of the federal government. It now appears that it has returned...with a vengeance!

The Obama Administration says they want to grow the federal government to 2.15 million employees this year, the largest number of federal employees ever. All of whom add nothing to the GDP and represent a drain on an already over strained economy.

Individuals 55 and older will remain in the current system and will not be affected by this proposal in any way: they will receive the benefits they have been promised, and have planned for, during their working years. All other workers will have a choice to stay in the current system or begin contributing to personal accounts. Those who choose the personal account option will have the opportunity to begin investing a significant portion of their payroll taxes into a series of funds managed by the U.S. government. The system would closely resemble the investment options available to Members of Congress and Federal employees through the Thrift Savings Plan [TSP]. As these personal accounts continue to accumulate wealth, they will eventually replace the funding that comes through the government’s pay-as-you-go system. This will reduce the demand on government spending, lead to a larger overall benefit for retired workers, and restore solvency to the Social Security Program.

OK, so the government will manage the funds...there's a whole new layer of bureaucracy and costs.  Oh, but this will restore solvency to the Social Security program!  In addition, this will inject capital into the economy:

In addition, the creation of personal investment accounts for future retirees will provide additional capital stock for the U.S. economy, increasing the potential for growth. This will be especially important in coming decades in helping compensate for the projected slowdown in labor force growth, a key component to increases in GDP.

So, the government-managed funds will inject money into the private sector...kind of like a stimulus.  Oh, but hang on, there's more:

Guarantee of Contributions. Individuals who choose to invest in personal accounts will be ensured every dollar they place into an account will be guaranteed, even after inflation. With the recent market downturn, individuals must be assured their retirement is secure. By guaranteeing the dollars put into an account, individuals can be assured that a large-scale market downturn will not cost them their Social Security personal accounts.

Whoa.  Huh?  FULL STOP.  A full government guarantee, adjusted for inflation?  I'm no expert, but it seems pretty clear to me that every dip on Wall Street would be paid for (as far as these personal accounts are concerned) by taxpayers.  Isn't that a budget breaker in and of itself?   Consider, if you will, what the consequences of such a guarantee would have been after the market tanked last year.  What if 30 million Americans had invested in such funds last year - what would the government's guarantee have cost us?   What's the point of government pushing SS into the stock market if they're going to guarantee the principal no matter what?  Talk about an unfunded liability...

This is nothing but a sop to the base; unless you believe that the markets will never, ever have another major problem, this is nothing but empty words.  I'll be posting more on the GOP budget "plan" as I read through it...

Ross went hyperbolic with:

Pelosi must resign. Or she should be forcibly removed out of office. These activities, if not outright criminal, smell to high heaven.

There are only a few little problems with Ross' reasoning, and the hysterics of the right, on this particular issue.  Each of the travel documents reviewed by Judicial Watch cites DoD Directive 4515.12  or DoD Directive 4515.13R.  Note that I've provided links to those source documents, which none of the sources linked above felt the need to do.  Unlike Ross, or any of the rest of these frothers, I actually spent 10 minutes giving those directives a once-over...and, lo and behold, I discovered that the various service Secretaries, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Chiefs of Staff of the Army and Air Force, the CNO, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps are permitted to authorize military travel for:

"C10.5.2.2. Dependents of members of the Congress and employees of the Congress, to permit them to accompany their principal in the 50 United States when essential to the proper accomplishment of the mission, desirable because of diplomatic or public relations, or necessary for the health of the individuals concerned. When reimbursement is appropriate, it shall be at the same rate as applicable to the principal."

That seems pretty clear to me; if it's good PR/diplomacy to have the Congresscritter's family with them, they can fly military air.  Furthermore, Judicial Watch had to correct Ross' wild assertion that Pelosi's family was traveling on military flights unaccompanied by the Speaker:

Mr. Ross,

We saw your analysis of the recent Pelosi flight documents Judicial Watch obtained from the Air Force.

Double-checking, we found documents we obtained last year on this issue. The other documents seem to show that the Speaker was on most if not all of the flights in question.

In short, they're all frothing--up to and including "if not criminal, smell to high heaven"--about something that Congresscritters routinely use, and which is explicitly authorized by DoD regulation. 

Whether this regulation should exist is a completely valid discussion, but the wild assertions that exercise of a specifically legal and proper privilege "stinks to high heaven," or hints that it might be criminal, are nothing more than froth.  Do some fact-checking, guys.  10 minutes' research isn't that tough...

In its most recent report, it stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information.

However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.

The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master's degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.

I wonder what happened to that peer-reviewed, scientific process I've heard so much about?

After failing to successfully negotiate with Iran, the Obama administration has dispatched patriot missiles to the Gulf to protect our Arab allies against an attack from Iran. A departure from his earlier stance in his presidency.

The US is dispatching Patriot defensive missiles to four countries – Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Kuwait – and keeping two ships in the Gulf capable of shooting down Iranian missiles. Washington is also helping Saudi Arabia develop a force to protect its oil installations.

The U.S. is also attempting to curtail any strike on Iran by Israel. Israel has previously made statements to the effect that if Obama didn't reign in Iran, Israel would.

Obama sent a video to Iran last year, which contents smacked of the naive Rodney King philosophy of, "Can't we all get along."

Former President George W. Bush had already begun building up a U.S. presence in the region prior to Obama's election.

A man who resigned the Knott County judge-executive's office after being convicted in a vote-buying scheme has filed to run for the office again. Depending on what happens in the primaries, he could face the current judge-executive, who is awaiting results of an appeal in his own vote-buying case.

Each is from a different party, setting up the possibility that two felons will run against each other in the November election.

As of today, one of these fellows (the one awaiting appeal) is unopposed in his primary, so it looks like we'll see at least one convicted felon on the county ballot this November.  It's this kind of garbage that has given Kentucky a well-deserved reputation for corrupt politics from top to bottom. 

Can one even make a "hold your nose" vote if BOTH candidates are convicted felons?

There's a reason that Thomas Nast--the cartoonist credited with giving the Democrats the donkey and the Republicans the elephant--was doing cartoons on corrupt Kentucky politics over a century ago...