Radicalization in the U.S. Muslim Community

House Committee Homeland Security

Representatives John Dingell, Keith Ellison, and Frank Wolf testified at a Homeland Security hearing on the threat of radicalization among U.S. Muslims.

50 minutes | 2,560 Views   Congressman Ellison testimony

House Committee Homeland Security

The Los Angeles County sheriff and Islamic community representatives testified at a House Homeland Security hearing on the threat of radicalization among U.S. Muslims.

3 hours, 21 minutes | 1,344 Views

Obama Administration Spins U.S. Oil Production Numbers,

Takes Credit for Predecessors’ Pro-Energy Polices
Obama Administration Actions Decrease U.S. Oil Production
This week, under mounting public pressure as gasoline prices near the $4 mark, the White
House published a blog post touting increased domestic oil production.  The
Administration was in full SPIN mode, taking credit for actions that were put in place
before they took office and ducking forecasts of declining U.S. oil production caused by
their own actions that have blocked American energy production.

SPIN: “Oil production last year rose to its highest level since 2003.”

RINSE:
• The Obama Administration’s actions have caused domestic energy production to
decrease.
• In 2007, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projected total 2010 U.S.
oil production to be 850 million barrels.  Today’s actual production is 714 million
barrels, a 16 percent decline from what was projected.  If it wasn’t for the Obama
Administration, the U.S. would be producing more energy. 
• This is why FUTURE projections show a decline in U.S. production and an increase
in imports.  On March 8, 2010 the EIA published new projections that show a decline
in total U.S. crude oil production of 110,000 barrels per day in 2011 and 130,000
barrels per day in 2012.
• Finally, the White House does not explain that the vast majority of increased
production is occurring on private lands, not public. For example, North Dakota
alone produced almost 120 million barrels of oil in 2010, compared to just over 20
million in 2003. The majority of North Dakota’s production is on private land.  This
begs the question, why are we not using our federal lands to create American jobs
and produce American energy resources to lower prices?

SPIN: “Onshore oil production from public lands has also increased over the last year, from
109 million barrels in 2009 to 114 million barrels in 2010.”

RINSE:• The slight increase in onshore production from federal lands is due to lease sales
approved by previous Administrations—not the Obama Administration.
• Since taking office, the Obama Administration has slowed onshore energy
development on public lands and issued fewer leases.
• In 2008 there were 2,416 new oil and natural gas leases issued on Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) land spanning 2.6 million acres.  In 2010, under the Obama
Administration, the number of new leases issued dropped to 1,308 and acres leased
dropped to 1.3 million.
• The total onshore acreage leased under the Obama Administration in 2009 and
2010 are the lowest in over two decades, stretching back to at least 1984.
 
SPIN: “From 2008 to 2010, oil production from the Outer Continental Shelf increased more
than a third – from 446 million barrels in 2008 to an [sic] more than 600 million barrels of
estimated production in 2010.”

RINSE:
• Once again, the Obama Administration is attempting to take credit for actions they
had nothing to do with.  The strong production in the Gulf was due to leases issued
in 1996-2000 under the Deepwater Royalty Relief Act – long before President
Obama took office.
• The Obama Administration’s actions, such as imposing a de facto moratorium, are
causing energy production to decline in the Gulf of Mexico.   EIA shows a 300,000
barrel per day decline in current Gulf production and a projected Gulf decline of
over 150 million barrels of oil in 2012. 
###
House Natural Resources Committee Republican Press Office
Contact: Jill Strait, Spencer Pederson, Crystal Feldman
202-226-9019
http://naturalresources.house.gov

Rising Gas Prices Spur Calls For U.S. Oil Production

by SCOTT HORSLEY

Heard on Morning Edition

March 10, 2011 - RENEE MONTAGNE, host:

And now we're going to hear about another ongoing political battle. The average price of gasoline across the country has been rising rapidly, and has now topped $3.50 a gallon. As pump prices increase, so does the chorus of criticism from Republicans. They accuse the Obama administration of deliberately curtailing domestic oil production.

The argument is a replay of the presidential campaign two years ago, the last time gas prices were this high.

NPR's Scott Horsley reports.

SCOTT HORSLEY: As fighting continues in Libya, the White House is keeping a close eye on gasoline prices, and talking with big oil-producing countries about how to offset any disruption in global supplies.

Republican Senator David Vitter of Louisiana complains, instead of begging Saudi Arabia to open its oil taps, the administration should be looking here at home.

Senator DAVID VITTER (Republican, Louisiana): What about domestic supply? What about the Gulf of Mexico? What about all of our other vast energy resources that we are taking off the table and shutting down? What about that supply?

HORSLEY: That's been a popular theme with Republicans. Washington Congressman Doc Hastings, who chairs the Natural Resources Committee, has cataloged ways he says the administration has frustrated oil production, from suspended drilling leases to increased red tape.

Congressman DOC HASTINGS (Republican, Washington): Since this administration has taken over, they have done everything to block energy development in this country.

HORSLEY: And Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, who may challenge the president next year, suggested at a Wall Street Journal conference Mr. Obama is quietly cheering for even higher prices at the pump.

Governor HALEY BARBOUR (Republican, Mississippi): The Obama energy policy, to me, seems very clear. It's to increase the cost of energy so Americans will use less of it. When you shut in the Gulf of Mexico, and American domestic oil production goes down, to me that is bad policy for our country.

HORSLEY: But White House spokesman Jay Carney says there's one problem with this line of argument.

Mr. JAY CARNEY (White House Spokesman): Domestic oil production, last year, rose to its highest level since 2003.

HORSLEY: In fact, according to the Energy Department, U.S. oil production jumped nearly three percent last year, while oil imports fell. True, the administration did suspend some western drilling leases near national parks, early on. But Deputy Interior Secretary David Hayes says oil producers still have 41 million acres in which to drill.

Secretary DAVID HAYES (Deputy Interior Department Secretary): Where it makes sense to lease, we are leasing with abandon as we work closely with the oil and gas industry. And the production numbers are demonstrating that.

HORSLEY: Even in the Gulf of Mexico, Hayes says, oil production has barely suffered, although drilling of new wells was halted for months, after last year's Deepwater Horizon spill. To be sure, the effects of that Gulf drilling moratorium may show up in future years, as older wells dry up and fewer new ones take their place. And credit for the increase in on-shore production probably belongs less to any administration policy than to advanced drilling techniques, and the higher oil prices that make them worthwhile.

The last big spike in oil prices came during the 2008 presidential campaign. Back then, gas prices topped four dollars a gallon, and increased drilling became a popular rallying cry for Republican John McCain and his running mate, Sarah Palin.

(Soundbite of chanting)

Ms. SARAH PALIN (Former Vice President Candidate): Drill baby drill, and mine baby mine. It is for the sake of our nation's security and of course our economic prosperity.

HORSLEY: Candidate Obama argued that with just three percent of the world's oil reserves, there's no way the U.S. could drill its way to energy independence. Nevertheless, White House spokesman Carney says the administration has actively pursued all forms of energy production, including both fossil fuels and alternatives. The president has also pushed for greater fuel efficiency, which could come in handy this summer, when gas prices are forecast to go even higher.

Scott Horsley, NPR News, Washington.

Paul Sakuma/AP

A $5 per gallon price is posted at a gas station in Belmont, Calif., on Wednesday.

text size A A A

March 10, 2011

The average price of gasoline across the country has topped $3.50, up 14 cents from a week ago and 77 cents higher than this time last year.

As pump prices rise, so does the chorus of criticism from Republicans, who accuse the Obama administration of deliberately curtailing U.S. oil production.

"What about domestic supply?" asked Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) this week. "What about the Gulf of Mexico? What about all of our other vast energy resources that we are taking off the table and shutting down?"

Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA), who is chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, has cataloged ways he says the administration has frustrated oil production, from suspended drilling leases to increased red tape. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) posted highlights of the list on his website.

"Since this administration has taken over, they have done everything to block energy development in this country," Hastings said.

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, who may challenge the president next year, suggested that Obama is quietly cheering for even higher prices at the pump.

"The Obama energy policy to me seems very clear. It's to increase the cost of energy so Americans will use less of it," Barbour said at a conference organized by the Wall Street Journal. "When you shut in the Gulf of Mexico, and American domestic oil production goes down, to me that is bad policy for our country."

But White House spokesman Jay Carney said there's one problem with this line of argument: Domestic oil production last year rose to its highest level since 2003.

According to the federal government's Energy Information Administration, U.S. oil production jumped nearly 3 percent last year, while oil imports fell. While the administration did suspend some Western drilling leases near national parks early on, the administration argues that oil producers still have 41 million acres in which to drill.

"Where it makes sense to lease, we're leasing with abandon as we work closely with the oil and gas industry," said Deputy Interior Secretary David Hayes. "And the production numbers are demonstrating that."

Even in the Gulf of Mexico, Hayes said, oil production has barely suffered, though drilling of new wells was halted for months after last year's Deepwater Horizon spill.

To be sure, the effects of that Gulf drilling moratorium may show up in future years, as older wells dry up and fewer new ones take their place. Credit for the increase in onshore production probably belongs less to any administration policy than to advanced drilling techniques, and the higher oil prices that make them worthwhile.

The last big spike in oil prices came during the 2008 presidential campaign. Back then, gas prices topped $4 a gallon, and "Drill, Baby, Drill" became a popular rallying cry for Republican John McCain and his running mate, Sarah Palin.

Candidate Obama argued that with just 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, there's no way the U.S. could drill its way to energy independence. Nevertheless, the administration says it has actively pursued all forms of energy production, including fossil fuels and alternatives. The president has also pushed for greater fuel efficiency, which could come in handy this summer, when gas prices are forecast to go even higher.

Eagle Ford is helping fuel area's economy

Shale may become South Texas' leading financial generator.

By Vicki Vaughan
vvaughan@express-news.net

Updated 12:53 a.m., Thursday, March 10, 2011

• 
  A drilling site owned by Petrohawk Energy Corp. at the Eagle Ford Shale.

   Photo: HOUSTON CHRONICLE, Jake Lacey / Jake Lacey

No one's calling it another Spindletop yet, but just wait.

Development of the Eagle Ford shale, a vast oil and gas region, shows promise of being the most important economic generator South Texas ever has seen, a recently released study indicates.

Since the first well was drilled in the Eagle Ford in 2008 until 2010, oil and gas drilling has directly supported about 6,800 full-time jobs in the region, paid $311 million in salaries and benefits to workers and generated almost $2.1 billion in total economic output.

When other spin-off jobs were included in the tally — everything from oil field support to the waiters serving drillers' food — the numbers jumped to 12,600 jobs, $512 million in salaries and $2.9 billion in economic output.

Drilling jobs account for about half of the jobs so far in the Eagle Ford, and the jobs pay well, starting from about $12 to $17 an hour for roustabouts (an entry-level drilling job) and $13 to $18 an hour for truck drivers.

The Eagle Ford now accounts for 6 percent of the Gross Regional Product for the 24-county area included in the study.

The numbers come from a study by the Center for Community and Business Research at the University of Texas at San Antonio. It was funded by America's National Gas Alliance, which paid $33,000. Members of the gas alliance met with the Express-News Editorial Board on Wednesday.

The Eagle Ford “is a very early play; so these are very conservative estimates,” said Dominique Halaby, the center's director who headed the study.

A key reason for the study, Halaby said, is to learn ways that San Antonio and South Texas “can capitalize on this opportunity.”

The Eagle Ford shale underlies 24 Texas counties that stretch from a region northeast of San Antonio to Laredo and Webb County. The center's study notes a rapid increase in number of permits issued by the Railroad Commission of Texas. In 2008, the Railroad Commission issued 33 drilling permits, with 94 permits in 2009 and zooming to 1,229 permits in 2010.

The center's study also looked at the broader effect of Eagle Ford development.

By 2020, the Eagle Ford is expected to account — directly and indirectly — for almost $21.5 billion in economic output and support 68,000 full-time jobs in South Texas.

The estimated economic impact was based on price information from the Energy Information Agency, a part of the Energy Department, along with drilling costs and estimates of royalty and lease payments.

“There hasn't been this type of capital infusion (in South Texas) since the 1880s,” said Raymond Welder III, CEO of Welder Exploration & Production Inc. of San Antonio, saying it costs $5 million to $10 million to drill a well in the Eagle Ford.

Welder serves on the board of ANGA.

Not long ago, “Kenedy and Karnes City were near the end,” Welder said. “People who were used to no job and no chance for success now have a range of options,” Welder said. “For an able-bodied person, there's really no reason why you can't find a job in South Texas.”

San Antonio, too “will greatly benefit,” Welder said, by benefit of geography. Several energy companies, including Chesapeake Energy Corp. and EOG Resources, recently opened field offices in San Antonio to supervise drilling in the Eagle Ford shale.

For some parts of South Texas, “It didn't take long to see that we've never seen anything like it,” said Leodoro Martinez Jr., executive director of the Middle Rio Grande Development Council, which is responsible for workforce development in nine counties.

“It's obvious that the economist impact is tremendous and we want to have people to fill them,” Martinez said.

Martinez said his group is heading a consortium of various South Texas entities whose goal is to develop a common curriculum to educate workers for the Eagle Ford and to keep the area better informed about the shale's development. It's all in an effort to head off problems experienced by other shale plays.

The consortium consists of government agencies, colleges, school districts, training schools and elected officials.

Martinez and other industry leaders from Wednesday's meeting said such an effort is the first they know of, and they hope it will serve as a model for other parts of the country.

The counties examined in the study include Atascosa, Bee, Brazos, Burleson, Camp Wood, Dewitt, Dimmitt, Edwards, Frio, Gonzales, Grimes, Houston, Karnes, La Salle, Lavaca, Lee, Leon, Live Oak, Maverick, McMullen, Milam, Webb, Wilson and Zavala.

Thousands gather at Indiana Statehouse for labor rally

 

Union workers flood the west side of the Indiana Statehouse on Thursday, March 10, 2011to show their support as the AFL-CIO held a giant rally with thousands of people showing up to protest bills in the legislature attacking collective bargaining. (Matt Detrich / The Star)

 

Over five thousand AFL-CIO workers rallied outside the Statehouse, protesting bills in the legislature attacking collective bargaining..From WTHR Chopper 13. Thursday March 10, 2011. Alan Petersime/The Star

 

Over five thousand AFL-CIO workers rallied outside the Statehouse, protesting bills in the legislature attacking collective bargaining..From WTHR Chopper 13. Thursday March 10, 2011. Alan Petersime/The Star

 

Thousands of union members stage a mass protest in Orr Plaza on the west side of the Indiana Statehouse for the AFL-CIO's "We Are Indiana" union rally on Thursday, March 10, 2011. The rally, from 11:30 a.m. to 2 p.m., is expected to draw more than 20,000 union members, which would top the number that showed up at a union rally in 1995. Union workers were bused to Indianapolis from all around the state. Charlie Nye / The Star.

Thousands of union members stage a mass protest in Orr Plaza on the west side of the Indiana Statehouse for the AFL-CIO's "We Are Indiana" union rally on Thursday, March 10, 2011. The rally ran from 11:30 a.m. to 2 p.m. and drew between 8,000 to 11,000 people from all around the state, plus Illinois and Kentucky. The crowd included flag-waving Army National Guardsman Chris Houchins, right, standing near an inflated "Fat Cat" grasping a worker in a yellow construction hat. Charlie Nye / The Star.

Ron of Carmelshouts "Taxpayers for freedom. Get rid of the unions" as he is harassed by surrounding union workers and their signs at the Indiana Statehouse on Thursday, March 10, 2011as the AFL-CIO held a giant rally with thousands of people showing up to protest bills in the legislature attacking collective bargaining. (Matt Detrich / The Star)

Thousands of union supporters ignored icy winds today for a rally outside the Indiana Statehouse calling for lawmakers to drop measures that would cut back on labor rights.

"The working men and women of Indiana have come back to take back the people's house for the people of Indiana," Nancy Guyott, leader of the Indiana AFL-CIO, told the rally.

Rep. Bill Crawford, D-Ind, one of the Indiana Democrats that forced the Indiana House into a three-week deadlock by holding out in an Illinois hotel, addressed the crowd that filled the massive plaza on the west side of the Statehouse.

The Democrats want Republicans to take a repeal of the prevailing-wage law and private school vouchers off the table to end the impasse, Crawford said.

Leo Gerard, international president of the United Steelworkers. said that corporate America started a war on unions. "We're going to kick their ass," Gerard said.

The rally began with a minister praying for justice, and wisdom for lawmakers.

A Marine veteran of Iraq and son of a steelworker led the crowd in reciting Pledge of Allegiance

The rally crowd peaked at more than 8,000 people at noon and slipped to about 7,000 by 1 pm., Indiana State Police spokesman Sgt. Dave Bursten said.

Earlier -- Thousands gather at Indiana Statehouse for labor rally

Thousands of labor union activists were already filling the west side of the Statehouse grounds this morning for a rally to protest legislation that affects collective bargaining and public education.

The rally officially begins at 11:30 a.m.

As workers wait, they are filling their time by chanting such things as “One day longer, one day stronger,” and “We are union!”

Union leaders have estimated that as many as 25,000 will attend the rally, coming from all parts of the state. That would rival the 20,000 union members who protested at the Statehouse in 1995 in what, possibly until now, has been the largest rally in state history.

Indianapolis and state police report the crowd has been orderly and gathered without incident. Traffic maintained a rush-hour pace through the morning on interstates feeding Downtown.

Recall Scott Walker

---

To: Mr. Scott Walker
CC: Mrs. Rebecca Kleefisch

I am a concerned resident of Wisconsin and I oppose passage of your "Budget Repair Bill". 
I believe this piece of legislation does not move Wisconsin forward.

Several items in this bill concern me such as the removal of Medicaid Provisions and removal of our collective bargaining union rights. I also feel it is very irresponsible to put our 37 heating and cooling plants across the state up for sale as no bid contracts. This bill seems to be more of a "power grab bill” than a "budget repair bill". 

You have said this is your moment and you are right. This is your moment to show how much you care about ALL of the people in Wisconsin, not just your side of the political aisle. You are not Putting People First. In a democracy, a leader should negotiate. The fact you will not negotiate shows you are not representing ALL of Wisconsin, therefore I pledge to recall you and Rebecca Kleefisch from office, starting at the earliest date, which is early in 2012. In addition, any member of the state legislature voting in favor of this bill with these provisions intact will also be held accountable.

Your job as a public servant is to represent the will of the people. Passage of this bill is doing the opposite. Look outside your window Mr. Walker and read the news; the majority of Wisconsin residents oppose your bill. We the people of Wisconsin want to move our state forward, not backward.
  

It's time to put people first sir, over your political agenda, because people should matter more. It is clear this is not about the budget or the money as much as it is about destroying Wisconsin labor unions, taking away rights to those who can not afford healthcare and selling our power plants with no bid contracts. Let me tell you sir, we have a voice, and we are putting it simply: if you remove our rights with this bill, you will be recalled in 2012. 
That is a promise.
  

Thank You,
The people of Wisconsin via UnitedWisconsin.com

All information entered is private.
Privacy Policy

Print a pledge to mail in.

** All fields required
Except phone

---

First Name

Last Name

Address

City

Zip

Phone

Your Email

Enter this code below: 

 

This is a pledge for recall and not an Official Petition for recall. You will be contacted in the Fall once the petitions can be physically signed.

---

Privacy Policy

 

An open letter from the Students of Wisconsin:

 

Hey Scott Walker,

As students, the cuts to state education funding in Governor Scott Walker’s Biennial Budget—as well as the loss of collective bargaining for teachers—will have an immediate and devastating effect on our educational experience, and as such we have a unique perspective on these issues. Students across the state have been involved in the movement in protest of Governor Walker’s agenda since momentum began to build, and we as an affected demographic will not sit quietly or disengage ourselves from these issues. We hold the following:

1. That a strong public education system is not only our right as young people, but is vital to the success of the democratic process.

2. That the reforms proposed by Governor Walker and Republicans in the state government are an outright attack on the solvency and quality of the education system. Not only is competitive compensation required to promote a strong teacher pool in this state, but the working conditions that teachers will not be able to negotiate are the conditions that shape our learning environment. Furthermore, the cuts in categorical aid to school programs, and prohibitions against tax increases at the local level that would help ease the damage of these cuts, are unacceptable.

3. That the importance of balancing the state budget should not outweigh the importance of the programs that the state provides. We understand the need of a financially solvent government, but object that the budget debate has been framed in such a way as to eliminate carefully implemented, graduated income tax increases from the discussion completely.

In an effort to balance the importance of education with that of having our voices heard, we will walk out of class this Friday, March 11th before our last period of the day. We call for students all across the country to do the same and to take this opportunity to discuss not only the events in Wisconsin but the future of public education as a whole.

Respectfully,

Jesse Banks
Senior at Madison East High School
Coordinator, Wisconsin Youth in Solidarity

Asher Heimermann
Junior at George D. Warriner High School
Coordinator, HeyScottWalker.com

Alan Grayson: Rick Scott Wants A Tax Cut For Rick Scott

Uploaded by congressmangrayson on Mar 9, 2011

Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) explains the real reason why Florida Governor Rick Scott is pushing to eliminate corporate taxes and cut education funding in Florida. Grayson tells MSNBC's Cenk Uygur that Scott is "taking money out of children's pockets dollar for dollar so he can stuff it in his own." The interview took place on March 8, 2011.

UPDATE: #Wisconsin GOP passes union-stripping bill

 

Walker applauds move

Gov. Scott Walker this evening applauded the Senate's actions.

His statement:

"The Senate Democrats have had three weeks to debate this bill and were offered repeated opportunities to come home, which they refused. In order to move the state forward, I applaud the Legislature's action today to stand up to the status quo and take a step in the right direction to balance the budget and reform government. The action today will help ensure Wisconsin has a business climate that allows the private sector to create 250,000 new jobs."

-- By JR Ross

 Senate approves amended budget repair bill

The state Senate quickly approved the amended budget repair bill this evening 18-1 moments after it was passed out of conference committee.

The Senate offered no debate on the bill as Sen. Dale Schultz, R-Richland Center, was the only member to vote against it.

Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca raised concerns about whether the conference committee was properly noticed, said he'd like to offer amendments and asked for details on the revised bill.

Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, told Barca the bill was the same one the Assembly voted for almost 60 hours with some changes, but he did not detail what they were other than reading a statement at the beginning of the meeting that the revised bill would not trigger the constitutional requirement of 20 members being present for a vote on a fiscal bill.

-- By JR Ross and Andy Szal

By Laura Conaway

  -  

Wed Mar 9, 2011 6:39 PM EST

UPDATE @7:32 EASTERN: NBC News reports that the Wisconsin Senate has passed a bill stripping unionized state workers of collective bargaining rights without any Democrats present.It went 18-1, with the Assembly looking likely to vote tomorrow morning. Democrats say the rushed proceedings violate the state's open meetings law and that they'll be asking the State Attorney General to intervene.

Previously: Potentially big news in Wisconsin just now. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reports that Republican Senators have moved Governor Walker's budget-repair bill to a joint committee. That committee can then rework the bill and send it back to the House and Senate for a vote. From the Journal-Sentinel:

What changes would be made remains unclear, but Democrats said they had not been consulted on them. They raised concerns that Republicans would take out all the spending in the bill and leave only the changes to collective bargaining.

To pass spending measures, 20 senators must be present, but Republicans hold just 19 seats. But Republicans would not need any Democrats to be present to pass the collective bargaining changes as a standalone bill.

That squares with what we're hearing, too -- that Republicans are splitting Governor Walker's bill into two parts. They can vote by themselves, without a budget quorum, on anything that's not fiscally related. Since the union-busting is not about the budget (as we've been saying throughout the standoff), they could vote on that without the Democrats present.

A Republican source in Madison tells NBC's Mike Taibbi that Senate Republicans could vote on the provisions to strip collective bargaining rights as soon as tonight. Mr. Taibbi reports that the source is furious because a compromise with Democrats had nearly been in place. Another report, on WisPolitics, makes it sound like today's development happened in a hurry.

We'll have much more on the show at 9 PM Eastern.

Obama Ratifies Bush

MARCH 8, 2011

The Administration embraces military tribunals at Gitmo.

No one has done more to revive the reputation of Bush-era antiterror policies than the Obama Administration. In its latest policy reversal, yesterday Mr. Obama said the U.S. would resume the military tribunals for Guantanamo terrorists that he unilaterally suspended two years ago, and he may even begin referring new charges to military commissions within days or weeks.
The political left is enraged by what it claims is a betrayal, but we're glad to see Mr. Obama bowing to security reality and erring on the side of keeping the country safe—with one exception, about which more below.
On a conference call yesterday, senior Administration officials tried to sell their military commissions process as more "credible" than Mr. Bush's, but their policy changes are de minimis. In 2009, Congress made technical reforms for handling testimony and classified information. By executive order, a new panel will now also conduct a "periodic review" of detentions. But the bipartisan Military Commissions Act of 2006, or MCA, had already included "administrative review boards" dedicated to the same goal.
The White House yesterday also stressed its commitment to civilian terror prosecutions going forward, but that also doesn't mean much. Last year the Democratic Congress barred funding for transferring enemy combatants from Gitmo to the U.S., and that won't change with a Republican House.

View Full Image

Getty Images

U.S. military guards move a detainee in Guantanamo Bay.

The real news here is the final repudiation of Attorney General Eric Holder's attempt to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other 9/11 plotters as criminal defendants on U.S. soil. The killers at Guantanamo will now be brought to justice via a process that the President once depicted as akin to the Ministry of Love in "1984." On the campaign trail in 2008, Mr. Obama claimed that Mr. Bush "runs prisons which lock people away without ever telling them why they're there or what they're charged with."

In an August 2007 speech that his advisers touted at the time, Mr. Obama promised to repeal this "legal framework that does not work." He even claimed that Bush policies undermined "our Constitution and our freedom" and that the Bush Administration had pressed a "false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand," a line he recycled in his Inaugural Address. He went out of his way to vote against the Military Commissions Act.
So much for all that. Yesterday the senior Administration officials even praised the "bipartisan effort" that produced that law. They're right. The MCA was a serious and painstaking compromise under the constitutional guidance of the Supreme Court's Hamdan decision, but the anti-antiterror lobby—including candidate Obama—maintained it was an affront to American values. The real test of Mr. Obama's new maturity will be if he puts the guts back into the tribunal process, restoring the funding and talent necessary to handle complex prosecutions that have been lost over the years amid the assault on Gitmo.
The other note of trouble is Mr. Obama's decision, also announced yesterday, to seek Senate ratification of a radical 1977 revision to the 1949 Geneva Conventions known as Additional Protocol 1. President Reagan repudiated Protocol 1 in 1987 because it vitiated the distinction between lawful and unlawful enemy combatants. Terrorists fight out of uniform and target civilians and thus do not deserve traditional prisoner-of-war protections. This was the two-decade political consensus until the Bush Presidency. Both the New York Times and the Washington Post editorialized in favor of Reagan's Protocol 1 decision.
Our guess is that Mr. Obama has adopted Protocol 1 to appease the domestic left and especially the "international community" that will be dismayed by his new embrace of Gitmo and George W. Bush's policies. Remember the moralizing Europeans? (See here.) Mr. Obama is nonetheless complicating the task of U.S. terror fighters, and encouraging further barbarism, by extending the laws of war to terrorists who hold combat restrictions in contempt.
Mr. Obama's antiterror policy migration may be startling but it does have a historic precedent. Republican isolationists opposed much of Harry Truman's policy framework at the dawn of the Cold War, only to have Dwight Eisenhower ratify nearly all of it when he became President. The responsibilities of power, and the realities of a dangerous world, tend to be educational. 

Republicans woo Iowa voters ahead of 2012

Brian Frank  /  REUTERS

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich speaks during the Iowa Faith & Freedom Coalition's Spring Event at Point of Grace Church in Waukee, Iowa, on March 7, 2011.

'It's going to take all of us to defeat the left,' says Gingrich         

                              By Kay Henderson

Reuters

updated 3/8/2011 3:11:24 PM ET

DES MOINES — Five possible Republican White House hopefuls including Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty courted conservative voters on Monday in Iowa, the state that holds a critical early contest on the road to the party's 2012 U.S. presidential nomination.

Former House of Representatives Speaker Gingrich, former Minnesota Governor Pawlenty, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, former Louisiana Governor Buddy Roemer and former Godfathers Pizza CEO Herman Cain took turns bashing Democratic President Barack Obama.
Republicans aim to deny Obama a second term as president.
The Iowa caucuses, an important early prize in the race for the Republican nomination, are scheduled for February 6, 2012. No leading Republican, including the five who appeared at the event in Iowa, has yet formally launched a candidacy.

Meanwhile, a top aide to real estate tycoon Donald Trump visited Iowa on Monday to gauge interest in the idea of a Trump bid for the Republican presidential nomination.
First Thoughts: The White House vs. Waukee Trump, a billionaire and the celebrity star of NBC's "The Apprentice," has been flirting with a presidential run, speaking to a conference of conservatives in Washington last month. Many Republicans doubt he is serious.
Iowa's Republican Governor, Terry Branstad welcomed the five prospective candidates at the event at a church in Waukee, west of Des Moines, to what he called "the first significant event of the caucus season."

Branstad said the crowd gathered at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition event were people who "show up at caucuses" and were valuable to a presidential campaign.

"I'm not yet a candidate," Gingrich said. "Every person that's going to speak tonight is a friend of mine. ... It's going to take all of us to defeat the left."
Pawlenty stressed his opposition to abortion and gay marriage. "We need leaders that cannot just talk the talk, but walk the walk," he said.
Santorum joked that he has been called an "ultra-conservative" Republican so often that "my kids used to think my first name was 'Ultra.'" The audience laughed and clapped.
Michael Cohen, executive vice president and special counsel to Trump's company, met with Iowa Republicans.
"We do understand that Iowa is the first stop if anyone is interested in the presidential election. Certainly ... we are very anxious to learn about Iowa and be able to report back to Mr. Trump when he hopefully decides to run in June," Cohen said.