Freedom Line Blog

One of my favorite scenes in the movie Broadcast News has a news executive sarcastically telling Holly Hunter’s character that it must be great being the smartest person in the room. On the brink of tears, Hunter confesses the truth: “No; it’s terrible!”

Such is the fate of Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States and occasional scold of congressional Republicans. In case you missed it, President Obama hosted handpicked members of representatives and senators at Blair House today to discuss health care “reform.” After watching the morning session of the seven-hour long affair, Yuval Levin offered this observation about the president’s most recent foray into legislative deliberation.

But he doesn’t seem like the President of the United States—more like a slightly cranky committee chairman or a patronizing professor who thinks that saying something is “a legitimate argument” is a way to avoid having an argument. He is diminished by the circumstances, he’s cranky and prickly when challenged, and he’s got no one to help him. The other Democrats around the table have been worse than unimpressive.

Among other things that could be said, the president doesn’t come across as the kind of guy anyone would want to have a beer with. Coupled with his condescending use of other people’s first names when they would not dare break protocol to call him Barry, the president increasingly looks like what he may very well be: a smarter-than-everyone-else-in-the-room jerk.

According to an article in the New York Times, only James K. Polk is a consensus top-tier (great or near great) one-term president.  All the others (e.g. Lincoln, Washington, FDR) won multiple terms.  Polk ranks so high because he actually accomplished his stated goals before voluntarily retiring: reduce tariffs; create an independent treasury; and establish American control of California and most of the Oregon Territory.  Though each was very difficult to achieve, Polk did.

Now consider President Obama’s pledge to be a one-term president, even if it means pursuing the “right” policies for America, despite a majority of Americans opposing him.  Such a statement misreads Polk’s lesson.

All this suggests a false dichotomy underlying Mr. Obama’s expressed resolve to render his presidential decisions without regard to his re-election chances — as if the choice were between political popularity and governmental success. A better approach for any chief executive is to assume that, in presidential politics, as in retailing, the customer is always right, and that the electorate’s verdict will be consonant with history’s consensus. Thus, the aim of every historically minded president, Mr. Obama included, should be to pursue a second term by bundling up voter sentiment into a collection of policies and programs that succeed in the crucial areas most on the minds of the American people.

Mr. Obama can certainly anticipate a one-term fate if he gets crosswise with his citizens. And if that happens, it isn’t likely that on future President’s Days he will ever be remembered as a great chief executive.

John Ellis (no relation) has a terrific op-ed today at Real Clear Politics. Taking a step (or rather, several steps) back from tactical issues like how Democrats can better communicate their policies, or which Republican newcomer is best suited to run for president, Ellis points his rhetorical finger at the real issue driving Tea Party-type angst. He labels it a two step issue: the Reckoning and the Restructuring. The first is confronting the mountain of national debt and spending; the second is deciding how to get it under control. On the latter point, Ellis has some thought provoking comments.

The Reckoning requires restructuring. Restructuring is not avoidable, it is inevitable. The sooner we do it, the less painful it will be for all concerned. Specifically, we must decide how to make our pension system (Social Security) and our current national health care system (Medicare and Medicaid) sustainable. We must restructure our debt. We must get 15% more performance out of our military on 15% less budget. We must get 25% more performance out of all other government services on 25% less expenditure.

In addition, we need to think about what taxes to raise, whether we sell land, whether we acquire nation-states or territories (Africa states? Siberian land?), whether we merge with Canada to form a more robust (and energy independent) mega-nation. These are the big issues of US restructuring. And they are all on the table.

Except they are not. The Obama Administration keeps talking at us like its 1998 and we can have a “green” jobs program and national health insurance and “cap and trade” legislation and $250 million criminal proceedings for homicidal Islamic psychopaths in downtown Manhattan. We don’t have $250 million for the KSM trial in Manhattan. Everybody knows that except, apparently, the Obama Administration.

Putting aside merging with Canada or national annexation, the absence of this kind of serious discussion is unworthy of a president who sees himself as an historic figure willing to be a one-term executive if it means accomplishing something great (and hard). Taking on the Reckoning and the Restructuring would certainly qualify.

Over at the Weekly Standard, the Pacific Research Institute‘s Jeffrey Anderson has a very sharp piece on how President Obama’s self-designated role as philosopher king is (a) antithetical to the American system and (b) impeding his legislative agenda. A sample:

In a moment of candor, [Obama] essentially said [he embraced the philosopher-king role] to [CBS News’ Katie] Couric:

“Look, I would have loved nothing better than to simply come up with some very elegant, you know, academically approved approach to health care [that] didn’t have any kinds of legislative fingerprints on it, and just go ahead and have that passed. But that’s not how it works in our democracy. Unfortunately what we end up having to do is to do a lot of negotiations with a lot of different people.”

With the possible exception of Woodrow Wilson, can you imagine any of our prior presidents having said that?

Our democratic process, our separation of powers, and our federalist design frustrate Obama. But, far from being unfortunate, the negotiations and multiple levels of approval that they require, from a myriad of different citizens, is largely what secures our liberty—protecting it from those who would otherwise impose their own comprehensive goals from their lofty theoretical perches. The Founders were surely not Obama’s intellectual inferiors, but they were practical men. The Constitutional Convention was nothing if not high-level give-and-take, tinkering and refining. One imagines Obama showing up at Independence Hall with his own plan in hand (probably adapted from Rousseau’s in The Social Contract, with Obama cast in the role of the Legislator) and being surprised when the other delegates resisted his eloquence and, correspondingly, his proposal.

A great piece. Read the whole thing here.

So, maybe the progressive elites currently running the federal government aren’t insane so much as handicapped.  A new study finds that people with a certain type of brain lesion are less inhibited to take extreme risks with money than those with brains functioning normally.

They studied two women with a rare genetic condition called Urbach-Wiethe disease, which damages the amygdala, the almond-shaped center in the brain that controls fear and certain other acute emotions.

The researchers compared the women’s responses to 12 people with undamaged brains. They noted this kind of study usually involves only a few people as it is not possible or ethical to deliberately damage a person’s brain to see what happens.

The volunteers were asked to make gambles in which there was an equal probability they would win $20 or lose $5 (a risk most people will take) — or would win or lose $20 (one most people will reject).

The two patients with damaged amygdalas fearlessly risked a $50 pot.

The researchers concluded that “this shows that the amygdale is critical for triggering a sense of caution toward making gambles in which you might lose.”  But how about those occasions when you know a certain decision will lose money?  Like, for example, intentionally proposing a $1.3 trillion budget deficit?  Or pushing a health care “reform” bill taxing citizens for years before it starts delivering care?  Or how about imposing an energy tax on carbon emissions with the primary effect being less economic output?

Thanks to this study, there is finally a rational explanation for such behavior: Democratic leaders may have brain lesions.  Whew!  Here I thought they were insane; turns out they’re just suffering from a diseased brain.

The chief knock on President Obama’s congressional management style is that he doesn’t have one. From the stimulus bill to health care “reform,” The One and advisors like David Axelrod are amazingly “aloof,” “disengaged,” or as Senator Al Franken (D-MN) put it in a closed door session this week, unwilling to provide leadership on how to close a deal. Franken was responding to Obama’s call to “finish the job” after which the latter gave no indication how to do it. According to reports, Franken’s frustration was shared by other senators.

The president’s hands-off approach seems odd for two reasons. First, it’s unusual for any politician to deflect an opportunity to take center stage, especially when the praise of passage would accrue to him. The other reason is that Obama is a Saul Alinsky disciple well versed in the master community organizer’s chief work, “Rules for Radicals.” One of the tenets of the book is “never go outside the experience of your people.” For a Democratic Senate without the presence of the late Ted Kennedy, that means don’t bank on any of the remaining 59 senators being able to negotiate and pass landmark legislation. None of them have a track record for doing it.

Then again, neither does Obama. The cold reality for activists like Franken is that those put in charge by the Left don’t have the experience, and frankly the ability, to get major legislation passed. That Ted Kennedy did so for decades without inspiring any of his fellow Democrats to take notes speaks to the single-minded emphasis of progressive strategists on getting power instead of figuring out how to use it. Republicans should take heed: it’s not enough to win because thereafter, you have to govern.

If the rumors are true and Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsberg wind up stepping down from the bench in tandem, President Obama could throw a bone to Republicans and nominate one of their choices.  That would almost assure both nominees of confirmation.  But since that isn’t likely to happen, it will be interesting to see which Democratic identity group is first in line to claim the seat(s).

But wouldn’t it be nice if interpretive method were the controlling factor?  No matter who is on the current shortlist, it isn’t complete unless it includes Yale law professor Akhil Amar, the prolific author of Originalist constitutional works from a progressive viewpoint.  Though I don’t share all of Amar’s interpretations, I welcome the chance to have a brilliant jurist of the Left that agrees with Justices Scalia and Thomas that constitutional interpretation should begin with the text and its meaning at the time it was ratified.  Already, Amar is the most cited constitutional law scholar of his generation.  It would be nice to see such achievement rewarded with a position where he could put his theories into practice – and do battle with Scalia and Thomas.

It must have been Groundhog Day yesterday, because another major Democratic politician was accused of severely damaging the profitability of an American industry. This time it was President Barack Obama, who said at a New Hampshire town hall meeting:

“When times are tough, you tighten your belts,” the president said. “You don’t go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You don’t blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you’re trying to save for college.”

Not much to quibble with there – unless you happen to live and work in Las Vegas. The president’s sensible remarks (which would be totally un-remarkable if not said by a major politician) didn’t sit well with the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, which claimed that a previous critical statement about corporations using bailout money for Vegas junkets cost the city millions in cancelled trips.

Even if that’s true, though, is the president wrong? Trips to Vegas – or Disney World, a Red Sox game, or an evening at the movies – are luxuries that (should) depend on disposable income. If you can’t pay your mortgage, or in the case of bailed out companies, your debts, you shouldn’t be jetting off to expensive locales at taxpayer expense. The same holds true for a family on a budget.  Isn’t this the paradigmatic “kitchen table conversation”?

Nonetheless, Nevada’s senators responded with bipartisan denunciation, and extracted a written apology from the president. One hopes it was delivered in the form of an IOU.

Ironically, the president’s truth telling about where Sin City fits on the priority list did a lot less verifiable damage than Senator Harry Reid’s cryptic comments about a “major American insurer” “whose name is familiar to everyone” last October. After pairing those talismanic phrases with a statement that the mystery company was about to go bankrupt, MetLife, The Hartford, and Prudential all lost between 11 and 32% of their stock value within a day. Other than backtracking a bit, Senator Reid apparently didn’t feel the need to write a public apology to these companies. Maybe they’d prefer he save the stationary and pass some regulatory relief instead.

The president is wrong about a lot of issues, but using Vegas as an example of how not to spend your nest egg isn’t one of them. America isn’t going to get its savings rate and overall economy back on track by spending more money at casinos. Then again, his insightful criticism not to spend gobs of credit card money on fleeting emotional experiences probably won’t migrate into the president’s thinking on how best to structure his deficit-exploding progressive agenda.

Unfortunately, we all know a couple where at least one of the partners lashes out at others instead of manfully (or womanly) dealing with the relationship’s problems. For people like this, holidays like Valentine’s Day or anniversaries are no respite from the tension. If anything, they heighten it.

So it can be with nations. This morning brings news of a scheduled widening of the rift between Iran’s government and its people. Opposition leaders plan to stage massive protests on February 11th – the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Revolution that installed the current regime. The executions of two men accused of stoking earlier street protests were the straws that broke the camel’s back. In response, the ruling elite’s mouthpiece, er, president, said that on the same day the government would deliver a harsh blow to “global arrogance.”

Who are these “global arrogant”? Certainly not Barack Obama’s America, which has taken a decidedly hands-off approach to the internal affairs of its equal-in-worth-if-not-in-Security-Council-member-prestige UN partner. Also off the offender list must be China and Russia, two of the Iranian government’s biggest patrons.

No, it sounds like the mullahs who run the country are looking for a distraction from dealing with the widespread disgust of the people it claims to repress – I mean, represent. If anything, the harsh blow hurtling its way towards Israel, America, the West, etc. is the best confirmation that the people who run Iran are desperately trying to avoid losing power. But as bad relationships attest, failure to change in time almost always leads to being left behind.

If it isn’t careful, Iran’s government could bring a harsh rebuke not only from the globally arrogant, but also from its own people. This is one way to start a civil war.

… is that nothing’s ever that satisfying. In the D.C. Examiner, the always lucid Byron York asks the compelling question: “Has Obama Become Bored Being President?”

From the piece:

He’s in his second year as president, and he’s discovered that even with all the powers of office, he can’t do everything he wants to do, like remake America. Doing stuff is hard. In the past, prosaic work has held little appeal for Obama, and it’s prompted him to think about moving on.

A little later:

What drove Obama was not just ambition, although he is certainly ambitious. As he became frustrated in each job, Obama concluded that the problem was not having the power to do the things he wanted to do. So he sought a more powerful position.

Today he is in the most powerful position in the world. Yet he has spent a year struggling, and failing, to enact far-reaching makeovers of the American economy. So now, even in the Oval Office, there are signs that the old dissatisfaction is creeping back in.

Thought for the day: what does it say about someone’s temperament if being President of the United States isn’t enough to satisfy him?

My answer: that he should probably be teaching existentialist philosophy at a community college somewhere.

After a week’s worth of forgettable speeches, President Obama finally made an appearance worth watching. Yesterday’s Q&A with House Republicans was a refreshing reminder that the much maligned political class in Washington, D.C., does, in fact, know something about policy. The ninety-minute exchange also took the focus off elections that are still ten months away. That in itself is enough to commend a repeat meeting because there is still way too much time left in the current congressional session to waste strategizing about outcomes that – at this point – cannot be projected. It is a much better use of everyone’s time to remember that the 111th Congress is barely halfway finished debating the people’s business.

And what a debate it was! I can’t remember the last time I agreed with anything David Corn wrote, but I agree with part his column yesterday about the future implications of the historic Q&A between President Obama and House GOP members. Corn thinks a regular meet-and-debate session would fundamentally change the type and skill set of a person running for president. If that means someone who has a deep command of issues, is quick on his feet, and can use a bit of humor – I’m all for it. Besides, it is obvious Republicans want to engage the president on his policies. (In two out of three speeches to joint sessions of Congress, the president has elicited responses from Rep. Joe Wilson and Justice Samuel Alito.) Why not at least give members of Congress – and the president himself – a crack at the opposition face-to-face. While I don’t agree with Corn that the president “cleaned the clock” of the House GOP, I do think he set a standard for depth and poise that should be emulated.

Now, for a criticism. The president needs to refer to his interlocutors with the same courtesy for their positions as they do for his. No one will ever call him anything other than “Mr. President”, but his repeated use of representatives’ first name became tiresome. It was also rude. If he’s striving for friendly informality, he should find another way than telling “John” (Boehner, Republican Leader), “Eric” (Cantor, Republican Whip), and “Mike” (Pence, Conference Chairman) why he doesn’t like their proposals. As usual, it comes across as the president speaking down to people. At best, it is a silly verbal tick that needs to be corrected.

A final suggestion. Republicans need to embrace this format because it gives them an unparalleled opportunity to debate the president’s policies directly and for the benefit of the American people. This kind of exchange reflects a confident republic at work, and it would go a long way towards softening the partisan tone while at the same time strengthening the quality of policy differences. Instead of criticizing the president for staging a photo-op, Republicans need to talk up his newfound willingness to be open and transparent. Invite him back to speak soon, and often. Keep up the pressure to have a weekly, televised Q&A between the parties and the branches. If nothing else, it will finally reward politicians who study policy and have a knack for making memorable, persuasive arguments.

If George Will and Charles Krauthammer are the brains of the conservative movement in print, then Peggy Noonan probably has a good claim to be the heart. While you rarely see her dissect policy minutiae, nobody does an ethereal meditation on exactly where America is at in any given moment quite as well.

Noonan’s reaction piece to the State of the Union in today’s Wall Street Journal is characteristically strong, but one passage jumped out at me:

They’ve chosen a phrase for the president’s program. They call it the “New Foundation.” They sneaked it in rather tentatively, probably not sure it would take off. It won’t. Such labels work when they clearly capture something that is already clear. “The New Deal” captured FDR’s historic shift to an increased governmental presence in individual American lives. It was a new deal. “The New Frontier”—we are a young and vibrant nation still, and adventures await us in space and elsewhere. It was a mood, not a program, but a mood well captured.

“The New Foundation” is solid and workmanlike, but it attempts to put form and order to a governing philosophy that is still too herky-jerky to be summed up.

Not only is the phrase a bit too pedestrian … it’s also a retread from the Carter Administration.  Readers of Robert Schlesinger’s excellent book “White House Ghosts: Presidents and their Speechwriters” may remember that “The New Foundation” was actually the title that President Carter chose for the agenda he presented in his 1979 State of the Union. Both the policies and the tag line failed spectacularly.

As the Obama Administration starts contemplating staff shakeups, someone in personel might want to start asking around about which White House staffers think that plagiarism is (a) necessary and (b) best accomplished by borrowing from the work that came out of dying days of the Carter Administration.

Well, this is interesting.  Apparently, Ford Motor Company shocked Wall Street by announcing it made a profit last quarter, and expects to carry that good news over the entire 2010 year.  But how can this be?  Ford was the only U.S. automaker that didn’t accept a government bailout.  In fact, the measures Ford took to regain its profitability look like a blueprint for government owned General Motors and Chrysler: cost cutting, a nearly $700 million profit in its credit line of business, and sales of popular models like the Ford Fusion and Escape.

Here’s a thought: since the president doesn’t want to run car companies, why not hire some of the talent (or at least adopt some of the strategies) that got Ford back on the road to sustainability?  That way, he could un-nationalize General Motors and Chrysler, putting more money back into the economy, spurring job creation and more tax receipts to fund all his pet projects?  You know; the stuff he really does want to do like health care “reform,” cap and tax, and more stimulus packages.

Of course, that kind of policy would only make sense if Progressives like the president actually cared about creating a sustainable create-tax-and-spend model to support their statist policies.  Anybody want to start a pool wagering how long it will be before the White House starts attacking the “fat cats” at Ford for their non-government-funded prosperity?

I may not win any points for originality for calling attention to the imbecility of Time Magazine’s Joe Klein, but his latest rhetorical moonshot has to be read to be believed.

Harnessing the liberal tendency to blame their failures on the stupidity of the country, Klein reacts to a new CNN/Opinion Research poll that shows nearly three quarters of the country considers the stimulus package wasteful by indicting the cognitive capacities of the nation (in a post titled “Too Dumb to Thrive”, no less). To wit:

Two thoughts:

1. The Obama Administration has done a terrible job explaining the stimulus package to the American people…especially since there have been very few documented cases of waste so far.

2. This is yet further evidence that Americans are flagrantly ill-informed…and, for those watching Fox News, misinformed.

It is very difficult to have a democracy without citizens. It is impossible to be a citizen if you don’t make an effort to understand the most basic activities of your government. It is very difficult to thrive in an increasingly competitive world if you’re a nation of dodos.

Strip away the ad hominem and here’s what you have:

1. We’re not communicating well enough (the oldest — and most impotent — political excuse in the book)

2. There’s been no waste (Klein seems to be missing that Americans aren’t reacting to abuse in the program … they think the above-the-board spending is pointless)

3. This is the American people’s fault for being thick-browed knuckle-draggers (someone might want to point out to the intellectual vanguard over at Time that the health of the economy and the intelligence of the electorate are what are called independent variables. The economy isn’t still faltering because Americans think the stimulus is pointless. Americans think the stimulus is pointless because the economy is still faltering).

It’s gallows humor, but there is something darkly funny about witnessing a Democratic president and his advisors get thoroughly mugged by reality and respond with denial. Domestically, President Barack Obama and his courtiers can’t bring themselves to acknowledge that good ole’ reliable Massachusetts just slapped them across the face in front of the whole country, knowing full well the sting would last until November.

Now, it looks like the engine powering the axis of evil is taking shots and looking for weaknesses. Apparently, after years of encouraging its citizens to hack into American mainframes, China is alleging cyber warfare from Uncle Sam. Of course, it just so happens that Google is leaving the country over concerns its system is under constant attack from inside China with government approval. For good measure, Chinese officials damned the United States for actively encouraging Iran’s pro-democracy movement. (In case you forgot, Obama’s official policy towards the protesters is to offer rhetorical support while they are shot and imprisoned.)

And all this comes after almost a month after Iran missed Obama’s “deadline” for halting its nuclear enrichment operation. When looking at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, is there anyone with Oval Office privileges that realizes foes think the president is weak and friends think him tone deaf? More importantly, does anybody in the room care?

In a sparkling column today, Jonah Goldberg does a rigorous job of deconstructing the Obama machine’s narrative that every single act in American political life — even the election of a Republican senator in Massachusetts — is proof of the president’s virtues.

My favorite section:

In an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, the president offered his nuanced analysis of the Bay State Götterdämmerung and his first year in office.

In short: “I did nothing wrong.”

Well, with one caveat: “One thing I regret this year is that we were so busy just getting stuff done . . . that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people. . . . I think the assumption was, if I just focus on policy, if I just focus on the, you know, this provision, or that law, or are we making a good, rational decision here, that people will get it.”

Is the President beginning to remind anyone else of the guy who, when asked about his worst quality during his job interview, says “I care too much”?

In the movie Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Butch keeps asking about their relentless pursuers, “Who are those guys?”  With President Barack Obama’s approval ratings plummeting, a supposedly “safe” Senate seat in danger, and health care “reform” on the ropes, the same question could be asked about the so-called White House strategists.  In the wake of a national and state-specific repudiation of President Obama and his policies, his advisors are promising defiance, not conciliation.

According to Politico, the real lesson to learn from Scott Brown’s surging popularity is voter frustration with the lack of progress Democrats have made on Obama’s agenda.  Huh?  Let them explain.

But the president’s advisers plan to spin it as a validation of the underdog arguments that fueled Obama’s insurgent candidacy.

“The painstaking campaign for change over two years in 2007 and 2008 has become a painstaking effort in the White House, too,” the official said. “The old habits of Washington aren’t going away easy.”

More likely is that the old hacks practicing The Chicago Way are doing the only thing they know how to do – fight like hell regardless of the reality.  Butch and Sundance made a similar decision at the end of their lives (and the movie).  How did that work out for them?

I try to resist the temptation to overstate my opposition to President Obama’s agenda. I don’t think the president’s a bad man, a crypto-communist, or a self-hating American. I think he’s an extraordinarily conventional (and mostly doctrinaire) liberal who got a lot further than most people who share his worldview could have because he has some rather pronounced political gifts. What he clearly lacks, however, is any real skill at governing in a sustainable way.

Thus, do we get the President, on the eve of what will either be a devastating defeat or a too-narrow win in the Massachusetts senate race waxing defiant. According to a story from tonight’s edition of Politico:

An upset by Republican Scott Brown would be covered in many quarters as a repudiation of Obama, especially after Obama’s last-ditch campaign appearance with Coakley 36 hours before the polls opened.

But the president’s advisers plan to spin it as a validation of the underdog arguments that fueled Obama’s insurgent candidacy.

“The painstaking campaign for change over two years in 2007 and 2008 has become a painstaking effort in the White House, too,” the official said. “The old habits of Washington aren’t going away easy.”

The White House rallying cry, according to one Obama confidant, will be, “Buckle up — let’s get some stuff done.”

There’s always been a hint of wishful thinking in the Obama as Jimmy Carter meme on the right … until now. If the White House’s response to the loss of what should be one of their safest seats in the entire nation is to go gung-ho, then Democrats will learn by November that the president’s forward march is a kamikaze mission. Read the whole piece on Politico for a disturbing look into how deeply the administration is embracing court sycophancy.

Who knew when then-candidate Obama told “Joe the Plumber” about the benefits of spreading the wealth around, the future president meant security dollars for domestic terror trials? With estimates for terror trials in New York City totaling hundreds of millions of dollars, President Obama is seriously considering duplicating the increased costs in manpower, housing, and screening for at least one such trial in Washington, D.C.

Maybe it’s about creating jobs. After all, the most direct way for government to create a job is to add an employee to its payroll. One thing is certain; exposing another U.S. civilian population to the presence and possible attack of terrorists won’t make anyone safer. Except, perhaps, the men awaiting trial.

Just when you think the Obama Administration couldn’t get more nefarious, the president goes and signs an executive order that fundamentally weakens the U.S. Constitution.  Right around the time Senators were passing their version of health care “reform” the president rescinded parts of a Reagan-era executive order applying American law to Interpol agents working in the United States.  The parts rescinded required Interpol agents to respond to Freedom of Information Act requests and submit to search and seizure procedures.  Now, those requirements are no more.  Coupled with their pre-existing diplomatic immunity this means that a foreign law enforcement agency is now permitted to operate above and beyond American law while in the United States.  Did I mention that these agents are mostly Americans working in offices provided in the Justice Department?

Why would President Obama do such a thing?  The consensus in the blogosphere is that this move opens the door for prosecutions before the International Criminal Court (ICC), a global war crimes tribunal created by a treaty that the United States is not a party to.  If this is true, members of the previous White House team – including President Bush himself – may need to double check their home security systems and attorney speed dials.