1- Why is the DOJ changing the rules for Federal Firearm Licenses?
…The Department of Justice is amending the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”) to delegate to the Director of ATF the authority to serve as the deciding official regarding the denial, suspension, or revocation of federal firearms licenses, or the imposition of a civil fine. The Director will have the flexibility to delegate to another ATF official the authority to decide a revocation or denial matter, or may exercise that authority himself. Such flexibility will allow ATF to more efficiently decide denial, suspension, and revocation hearings and also whether to impose a civil fine, because the Director can redelegate to Headquarters officials, field officials, or some combination thereof, authority to take action as the final agency decision maker. This will give the agency the ability to ensure consistency in decision making and to address any case backlogs that may occur.
Emphasis mine. The answer is it will make it easier to handle a flood of FFL revocations: ATF shutting down FFL on increase
2- Why is the White House taking direct control of the census? To make it easier to gerrymander Democrat districts as it’s done in Chicago.
3- Why is Fannie Mae to Loosen Rules for Home-Loan Refinancing? Because it worked so well the last time.
4- Why is such a big deal being made over stopping “torture” and “rendition?” Because it was a campaign promise. How is it being done? By redefining words in the style of Bill Clinton. It depends what the meaning of “rendition” is.
5- Why is 84% of the work force being excluded from stimulus spending? Because they don’t belong to a union.
6- How much of the “stimulus” bill is merely spending lacking any special urgency? 78% and rising.
7- Why are we doing this when we know FDR’s stimulus policies prolonged the Great Depression and that when Japan tried it over and over for 20 years, accumulating debt equal to 180% of their GDP, it FAILED? Because it gets the Democrat social policy enacted without debate.
8- Why are all charges against the guy responsible for bombing a US warshiop being dropped? Because that’s the way Obama wants it.
9- Why is Iran demanding an apology for US “crimes” against Iran? Because Obama already apologized twice for US actions. Once, in his inaugural address and again in his first TV interview on Al-Arabiya.
10- Obama’s NSC Will Get New Power. Maybe this is even a good idea, but the howls from the left if the WaPo had written; “increasing its authority to set strategy across a wide spectrum of international and domestic issues” about the Bush administration’s NSC, would have been deafening.
11- Why is Obama [putting] brake[s] on Afghan surge? Because it’s a campaign promise that had no plan, but unlike “rendition,” it’s hard to redefine “boots on the ground.”
And another possible answer for 2. So he can let ACORN conduct the census.
I have said I want Obama to fail on the rejection of his statist ideas. Instead, in a fortnight, he may be failing of his own hubris as reinforced by partisan fools like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Victor Davis Hanson points out grave danger, RTWT
…Again, anyone who cares about the U.S., at home and overseas, must be worried, very worried, about the disastrous last two weeks. Even the fawning media — that is responsible in some way for the crisis, given that they chose to be Pravda-like in encouraging the messianic style that got a haughty Obama in his present mess — will soon start bailing in efforts to restore their last fides. If a Dick Morris figure does not come to the rescue soon, Obama’s soaring rhetoric of hope and change will become the stuff of Leno/Letterman and general laughter. Bush was unfairly demonized, but no one abroad thought he was predictably soft and would be so-so about protecting U.S. interests, or that his words and his deeds would be so often in direct antithesis.
And no one thought, even after the Bush Medicaid entitlement, that Bush would bankrupt our great-grandchildren in order to fund, as one example, ACORN.
Update: 7:45 PM
Back in the spring and summer of 2007. Barack Obama was all for charging into Afghanistan on a white horse because Iraq was NOT (we repeat, NOT) the central front in the war on terror.
Contrary to the divisive and mean-spirited rhetoric of his know-nothing opponent, Democrats like Mr. Obama were not soft on national security. Au contraire, mes cheres! “They couldn’t wait to take the fight to al Qaeda! It was just a question of choosing their battles – fighting smarter, not harder:
“We cannot win a war against the terrorists if we’re on the wrong battlefield.” Pointing to al Qaeda’s resurgence along the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan, Obama called for troops to be redeployed from Iraq. He promised that when he becomes president, “Nobody will work harder to go after those terrorists who will do the American people harm. But that requires a commander in chief who understands our troops need to be on the right battlefield, not the wrong battlefield.”
During the campaign, Obama was full of contradictory rhetoric. The troop Surge, he opined in an entry later purged from his website, was a failed strategy:
Of course if you think more troops didn’t do a thing to improve the situation in Iraq, what could make more sense than to suggest the same failed strategy in Afghanistan? This is called “thinking outside of the box”.
After months of refusing to admit the Surge did make Iraq more secure, what better way to get badly needed troops for your newest “failed strategy” than to do an about face and claim the Surge (which you just spent months claiming had nothing to do with improved security) has paved the way for accelerated troop withdrawals?