I will be traveling for most of the afternoon and will return to blogging later in the evening.

S. Korean navy ship sinks in waters near N. Korea

By KWANG-TAE KIM

The Associated Press
Friday, March 26, 2010; 12:52 PM

SEOUL, South Korea -- Military officials say a South Korean navy ship has sunk off an island not far from North Korea.

An official with the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Seoul said early Saturday that the ship sank some four hours after it began taking on water. The official spoke on condition of anonymity, in line with department policy.

The official said at least 58 of the 104 crew members have been rescued. There was no immediate confirmation of casualties. A rescue operation was still under way.

The cause of the sinking was not immediately clear.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/26/AR2010032602026.html?hpid=topnews

Via Big Government:

2010: A Race Odyssey — Disproving a Negative for Cash Prizes or, How the Civil Rights Movement Jumped the Shark

by Andrew Breitbart

As I have said over and over and over, the left has one trick that it will use again and again when its back is in the corner: shout ‘racist’ in a crowded country.

On Saturday, during the peaceful and patriotic tea party protest at the Capitol, the Democrats staged a series of symbolic acts meant to manipulate the media to do its bidding. The Congressional Black Caucus pulled the Selma card and chose to walk through the crowd in the hopes of creating a YouTube incident. This is what it looked like:

...

There is no reason in 21st century America on an issue that is not a black or white or a civil rights issue to have a bloc of black people walk slowly through a mostly white crowd to make a racial point. The walk in and of itself — with two of the participants holding their handheld cameras above their heads hoping to document “proof” — was an act of racism meant to create a contrast between the tea party crowd and themselves.

...

Let’s remember that Nancy Pelosi followed this procession with a “perp walk” of her own, as she carried the giant gavel that hammered down the passage of Medicare in 1965 to its rendezvous with destiny. Does any rational person seriously believe that the Capitol Police or her security people would have let the Speaker of the House — second in line of succession to the presidency, right after the Vice President — walk into danger as alleged by the Congressional Black Caucus? Please.

That’s how much the Democrats need a racist Tea Party moment. To stop it in its tracks. That’s why on Saturday they used the Congressional Black Caucus to try to manufacture the false appearance of one. And when they didn’t get it, they did what they always do: they lied.

Alinsky taught them well: the ends justify the means. And that’s how the Democrats play. They love using black people as symbols of oppression. They love to use them for staged rallies, staged walks and staged protests. It’s why they fought so hard to keep the heavily minority ACORN alive. They were the portable army that would cry racism in front of your place of business until the company paid them off to go away.

http://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/2010/03/25/2010-a-race-odyssey-disproving-a-negative-for-cash-prizes-or-how-the-civil-rights-movement-jumped-the-shark/

Via HotAirPundit:

JACKSON, MS (WLBT) - Reverend Jeremiah Wright commented Thursday on the controversy surrounding his fiery sermons brought up during President Barack Obama's campaign for the White House and the angry opposition to the historic new healthcare law.

...

Asked if he regretted any of his controversial sermons Wright said, "I haven't been apart of any controversy, number one. Fox News bought 4-thousand dollars worth of tapes 20-years to go back to see what Obama had been listening to. Those sermons that they aired and news clips that the nation saw were 5-years old and 7-years-old, so that was not part of the presidential campaign. The media made the controversy; not Jeremiah Wright."

And on the name calling and anger over the health care law, Wright said, "..it's all part of that kind of hatred that runs in the country for people of color and for the poor. In fact, the whole compromise; it took the public option off the table in terms of the health care bill shows you the power of the rich and the wealthy in this country to continue to ignore the poor."

http://www.wlbt.com/Global/story.asp?S=12207892

Unemployment benefits set to expire April 5

By Ben Pershing

Friday, March 26, 2010

Unemployment benefits are set to expire for at least a week on April 5, as Congress plans to break for two weeks without agreeing on an extension of the program.

Last week, the House approved a $9 billion measure containing one-month extensions of unemployment insurance, COBRA health benefits and federal flood insurance. Senate Democrats hoped to have their chamber approve the same bill Thursday. But Republicans refused, complaining that the bill is not offset with spending cuts elsewhere.

They said the same thing in early March, when Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) brought the chamber to a halt for five days over another extension that wasn't offset. 

...

The Senate GOP's refusal to agree to the House's version of the bill was led by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who objected to bringing up the bill. Coburn said that by adding to the federal deficit, we are "stealing future opportunity from our children."

But Democrats -- emboldened by the public relations victory they believe they won during Bunning's stand -- laid blame for the impasse at the feet of Coburn and his fellow Republicans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/25/AR2010032504424.html

CBO report: Debt will rise to 90% of GDP

By David M. Dickson

President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget will generate nearly $10 trillion in cumulative budget deficits over the next 10 years, $1.2 trillion more than the administration projected, and raise the federal debt to 90 percent of the nation's economic output by 2020, the Congressional Budget Office reported Thursday.

In its 2011 budget, which the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released Feb. 1, the administration projected a 10-year deficit total of $8.53 trillion. After looking it over, CBO said in its final analysis, released Thursday, that the president's budget would generate a combined $9.75 trillion in deficits over the next decade.

"An additional $1.2 trillion in debt dumped on [GDP] to our children makes a huge difference," said Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "That represents an additional debt of $10,000 per household above and beyond the federal debt they are already carrying."

The federal public debt, which was $6.3 trillion ($56,000 per household) when Mr. Obama entered office amid an economic crisis, totals $8.2 trillion ($72,000 per household) today, and it's headed toward $20.3 trillion (more than $170,000 per household) in 2020, according to CBO's deficit estimates.

That figure would equal 90 percent of the estimated gross domestic product in 2020, up from 40 percent at the end of fiscal 2008. By comparison, America's debt-to-GDP ratio peaked at 109 percent at the end of World War II, while the ratio for economically troubled Greece hit 115 percent last year.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/26/cbos-2020-vision-debt-will-rise-to-90-of-gdp/

Reid casts wrong vote on health care for second time

Washington (CNN) -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid mistakenly called out "no" Thursday when asked for his vote on the health care reconciliation bill, setting the chamber howling with laughter.

Reid voted the wrong way when the clerk called for his vote, realized his error and quickly changed his vote to "yes."

"He did it again," someone said amid laughter.

Reid, who spent months persuading fellow senators to vote "yes" on President Obama's top domestic priority, made the same mistake December 24 when voting on the original health care bill.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/26/reid.vote.gaffe/index.html

Via Cato @ Liberty:

Chavez Arrests the President of Globovision Television

Posted by Ian Vasquez

Today, the Venezuelan government arrested Guillermo Zuloaga, president of Globovision Television, the only remaining television on public airwaves critical of Hugo Chavez. According to the government, Zuloaga made offensive comments about Chavez (which is against the law in Venezuela) while speaking at a conference of the Inter-American Press Association (IAPA) in Aruba, where media representatives criticized the Venezuelan regime’s crackdown on freedom of speech.

Globovision and Zuloaga have been under constant harassment from the government, and Chavez has promised to close the station. Last July, Cato held a forum in Washington on “Venezuela’s Assault on Freedom of the Press and Other Liberties,” which was to feature Zuloaga. After the event was announced, however, a politically directed court prohibited him from leaving the country. So Zuloaga taped this 3 minute video address to the Cato audience and sent his son and vice president of Globovision, Carlos, to take his place. Robert Rivard of the IAPA also spoke at the forum. You may also see various short videos prepared by Globovision for the forum starting here.

“It is becoming a crime to have an opinion.” That’s how Carlos Zuloaga summed it up this afternoon when he referred to this incident and the recent arrest of former Venezuelan state governor Oswaldo Alvarez Paz for having said during a Globovision interview that Venezuela has become a drug-trafficking haven.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/03/25/chavez-arrests-the-president-of-globovision-television/

Via Instapundit:

Protesters have been demonstrating at Driehaus' Ohio home, said Tim Mulvey, a spokesman for the anti-abortion Democrat who joined Stupak in voting for the health bill. A rock was thrown through the window of Driehaus' Cincinnati office Sunday, and a death threat was phoned in to his Washington office a day later, Mulvey said.

"It's getting out of hand," Mulvey said.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2011432285_healthreat25.html

The only problem with that is that Rep. Driehaus' office is on the 30th floor of a skyscraper:

Justin Binik-Thomas emails from Cincinnati that Rep. Driehaus’ office “is on the 30th floor of a skyscraper downtown.” He also says that he spoke to Driehaus’ office today and they said this never happened. Which is too bad, in a way, as the Reds could use a guy with an arm like that . . . .

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/96429/

Via Gateway Pundit:

From Politico's story on Rep. Russ Carnahan and in the infamous coffin:

A coffin was placed on a Missouri Democrat’s lawn, another in a string of incidents against lawmakers after their vote Sunday on a health care overhaul.

Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-Mo.) had a coffin placed “near his home,” a spokesman said Wednesday evening.

“Carnahan appreciates thoughtful feedback received both in favor and opposition of health insurance reform,” Carnahan spokesman Jim Hubbard told POLITICO Wednesday evening “We can disagree on important issues facing our country without resorting to this kind of thing. Russ Carnahan isn’t going to shy away from the importance of reform when 45,000

fellow Americans died last year due to a lack of health insurance.”

But, the real story is this:

This was not true. The coffin was used in a prayer service for the elderly who will suffer under Obamacare and for the unborn who will be slaughtered under this plan. The protesters prayed for their loss of freedom thanks to this nationalized democratic plan. The St. Louis tea party patriots also prayed for Russ Carnahan and democrats who were voting at that time to nationalize the health care industry.

The Politico made the accusation that the coffin was placed (and left) near Carnahan’s home. It wasn’t. The protesters were never on his lawn. They said some prayers at his house and then took the coffin with them when they left. It’s currently sitting in a garage.

Well, it took the Politico about 12 hours but they finally updated their hit piece.

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/03/stunner-politico-updates-bogus-coffin-threat-story-without-noting-corrections/

Via the New Ledger:

The Wyden language — found in the bill here (side note: I actually think some of this language originates from a Maria Cantwell amendment in the Finance Committee, and called Wyden’s office to confirm, but they haven’t gotten back to me yet) — provides, as he says, that “if a state can demonstrate that they can meet the criteria — particularly on cost containment, improving the delivery system,” they can get a waiver from the Department of Health and Human Services. It would be up to Secretary Sebelius if this was in force today to determine what criteria must be met.

I checked with my colleague at Heartland, senior legal fellow Maureen Martin, about this. She says that “Senators can say whatever they want about what statutes mean. Whatever they say is irrelevant. In the end, the courts will decide what statutes mean. Whatever Congress or the President say about the meaning of statutes is totally irrelevant. Courts look at the exact language of statutes and decide what they mean. So intent of Congress is irrelevant. It matters only what the statutes say and how that is interpreted. I’m not sure this point is well understood by the public.”

There are of course a number of questions to be raised here about standing, but also about whether the waiver is adequate protection if it is only possible for a five year gap, and subject to the discretion of the HHS Secretary. My colleague John Graham at the Pacific Research Institute points out that “applying for a waiver” is not the same as “opting out” — he presumes the HHS Secretary would grant a waiver if a state imposed single-payer, such as in California and some other states.

Yet even presuming states wanted to do something pro-market, they would only be able to apply for these waivers starting in 2017, and the waivers in question would have to meet standards for “cost containment” and “improving the delivery system” — standards which can be very fluid. As with any regulatory issue that shifts at the whim of the party in power, this will almost certainly lead to more litigation as to what all of these terms mean for the states in terms of tangible, measurable standards.

Nor can states be made exempt from the tax increases for individuals and employers, the cuts in Medicare, the newly expanded unfunded liabilities in Medicaid, and a host of other aspects of this bill. Of course states could set up their own programs to cover people, but that would be a waiver almost no state would want to accept, given that they can’t prohibit their taxpayer dollars from going to fund this reform elsewhere.

That’s hardly a full opt out. What’s more, an exemption from the individual and employer mandates really can’t take place at a state level without raising a host of other legal issues. The whole point of the health freedom act in Virginia is not that the state is acting in its own defense, but that it requires the state to act as a legal matter in the defense of an individual being compelled by the federal government to purchase a product or suffer a fine.

http://newledger.com/2010/03/the-individual-mandate-can-states-opt-out/

So it’s now been two weeks since President Obama chose to seize on a poorly-timed Israeli announcement about new Jewish housing in Jerusalem to launch another public confrontation with the government of Binyamin Netanyahu. The results, so far, are these:

Finally, Obama has added more poison to a U.S.-Israeli relationship that already was at its lowest point in two decades. Tuesday night the White House refused to allow non-official photographers record the president’s meeting with Netanyahu; no statement was issued afterward. Netanyahu is being treated as if he were an unsavory Third World dictator, needed for strategic reasons but conspicuously held at arms length. That is something the rest of the world will be quick to notice and respond to. Just like the Palestinians, European governments cannot be more friendly to an Israeli leader than the United States. Would Britain have expelled a senior Israeli diplomat Tuesday because of a flap over forged passports if there were no daylight between Obama and Netanyahu? Maybe not.

The White House’s explanations for Obama’s behavior keep shifting. At first spokesmen insisted that the president had to respond to the “insult” of the settlement announcement during a visit to Jerusalem by Vice President Biden -- even though the administration knew that, far from being a calculated snub, the decision by a local council had taken Netanyahu himself by surprise.

Next the administration argued that the scrap was a needed wake-up call for Netanyahu’s right-wing government, which, it was said, had been put on notice that its failure to move toward a settlement with Palestinians was endangering U.S. interests in the region. But -- assuming for the moment that the administration’s premise is correct -- Obama chose to challenge Netanyahu on a point that is not material to the creation of a Palestinian state. As the Israeli leader has pointed out, previous U.S. administrations and the Palestinians themselves have already accepted that Jewish neighborhoods in and around Jerusalem will be annexed to Israel in exchange for territory elsewhere.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/03/obama_and_netanyahu_pointless.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Via Ben Smith:

OfA fundraises off threats

The Democrats continue to take political advantage of reports of Republican vandalism and threats, with the head of the Obama campaign organization, Mitch Stewart, referring to the incident at Tom Perriello's brother's house in a fundraising appeal.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0310/OfA_fundraises_off_threats.html?showall

Via Gateway Pundit: