moment.  :)

First we have the following:

Gates draws the line on North Korea's nuclear program: No proliferation

"For there to be a peaceful solution requires multilateral efforts and a willingness to impose real sanctions that bring real pain," he said.

...

The George W. Bush administration often was criticized for eschewing multilateral approaches to security problems. Gates made it clear that the new administration has no such reservation.

Well it is true that Bush was criticized for eschewing multilateral approaches to security problems ... it just isn't true that he ever did anything unilaterally.  Afghanistan?  Iraq?  These were both actions by coalitions, not unilateral actions.

However this comment is especially funny given what Bush actually did with respect to North Korea.  Unless my memory is failing me, Bush had always argued that we should have six party talks with North Korea which is why he refused to hold bilateral negations with them in the first place.

The Wall Street Journal lays out the North Korean timeline:

North Korea and Diplomacy
A time-line of Bush futility holds lessons for Obama.

Right after North Korea's first nuclear test, in October 2006, Senator Bob Menendez explained that the event "illustrates just how much the Bush Administration's incompetence has endangered our nation." The New Jersey Democrat hasn't said what he thinks North Korea's second test says about the current Administration, so allow us to connect the diplomatic dots.

At the time of the first test, the common liberal lament was that Kim Jong Il was belligerent only because President Bush had eschewed diplomacy in favor of tough rhetoric, like naming Pyongyang to the "axis of evil." Never mind that the U.S. had continued to fulfill its commitments under the 1994 Agreed Framework, including fuel shipments and the building of "civilian" nuclear reactors, until the North admitted it was violating that framework in late 2002. Never mind, too, that by 2006 the Bush Administration had participated in multiple rounds of six-party nuclear talks, or that it had promised to normalize relations with the North.

Nevertheless, President Bush adopted the views of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who had internalized the views of Bush Administration critics. Led by Christopher Hill (now President Obama's ambassador in Baghdad), the U.S. announced the resumption of the six-party talks -- only three weeks after the first North Korean test. Mr. Hill also held direct bilateral talks with the North Koreans, something Pyongyang had long sought and Mr. Bush had long resisted.

...

As the article quite correctly points out Bush was basically doing everything the Democrats said should be done, beginning with Bill Clinton who gave the North Koreans the nuclear material that they are now using to threaten the world.  So, after having followed their advice we now know that the North Koreans have never had any intention of honoring any agreements and that the diplomacy ... even multilateral diplomacy ... has failed miserably at the task of restraining the North Korean nuclear ambition.

So what's Obama's new and more enlightened plan for change here?  Well, no real change.  He plans to adopt, again, the policies of the Bush administration and the advice of the Democrats that only diplomacy can fix this problem.  In other words, he promises us more of the failed policies of the past.  Gee, how original.

Meta: This post is a serious comment.

I suppose things aren't so tough all over...
A spokesman read a statement from Obama: "I am taking my wife to New York City because I promised her during the campaign that I would take her to a Broadway show after it was all finished.

The president traveled in a smaller, Gulfstream-type plane rather than the larger planes typically used as Air Force One. 
The Republican National Committee slammed the outing in an "RNC Research Piece": "As President Obama prepares to wing into Manhattan’s theater district on Air Force One to take in a Broadway show, GM is preparing to file bankruptcy and families across America continue to struggle to pay their bills. ...
Have a great Saturday evening – even if you’re not jetting off somewhere at taxpayer expense. ... PUTTING ON A SHOW: Obamas Wing Into The City For An Evening Out  While Another Iconic American Company Prepares For Bankruptcy."

I guess all the cool things they get to do as the first family just aren't enough for the Obama's. For what it cost for Obama to see the show, all of us regulr SC'ers could have paid off our mortgages.
Oh well maybe Obama just felt bad about that big celebrity filled shing ding he attended out in Las Vegas to benefit Harry Reid, I mean what happens in Vegas..., so he wanted to treat her...I wish he had remembered another of his promises to us;

You can’t get corporate jets. You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayers’ dime. There’s got to be some accountability and some responsibility, and that’s something that I intend to impose as president of the United States.

Since we have been discussing this in other threads I decided to look up a few things to make sure I wasn't over-reaching with my positions.  To that end, I dug up the following three items:

• What is an Executive Order?
• The Impact of Executive Orders on the Legislative Process: Executive Lawmaking?
• Executive Orders: A Blueprint for Dictatorship?

They are all worth reading if you have an interest in understanding some of the nuances here.  My conclusion based on reading through them is that the issue is not as clear cut as one might expect, but in general my position is correct at least on a technical level.  The Supreme Court agrees with me:

In the framework of our Constitution, the President's power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker. The Constitution limits his functions in the lawmaking process to the recommending of laws he thinks wise and the vetoing of laws he thinks bad. And the Constitution is neither silent nor equivocal about who shall make laws which the President is to execute. The first section of the first article says that "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States ...." After granting many powers to the Congress, Article I goes on to provide that Congress may "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." [Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer.]

That is the theory, at least.  The nuance seems to come in because even though an Executive Order is not technically a Law, since the Executive is responsible for enforcing the law they can, in effect at least, have the force of a law until such time as the Courts or Congress explicitly take action to check what is generally recognized as an abuse of the Executive Power by straying into the area of actually trying to make laws.

So, read into an Executive Order what you will, but technically it is NOT a Law ... even though it may feel like one!  :)

Meta: This post is a serious comment.

http://pewresearch.org/newsiq/quiz/

12 questions on current events, and stats on how well Americans perform.

 I watched just a few moments of his show, he O'Reily who has compared Dr. Tiller to Hitler the mass murder the fetus, is still spewing hate.

 His guests can barely hide their glee that Dr. Tiller is dead.

 Sickening.

 Question: If abortion is 'murder', and the doctor is a killer, what about the mother's responsibility here?

If abortion is murder, and as Bill O'Reilly continues to claim that Dr. Tiller particpated in the 'holacaust', of 'murdering' 60, ooo innocent fetuses, then why don't they put 60,000 mothers in jail for murder.

A self described not racist party in the UK, "doesn't allow nonwhites as members "

Lee Barnes, the BNP's senior legal officer, posted a video of King on his blog and described it as "brilliant". He added: "The beating of Rodney King still makes me laugh."

BNP claims that intolerance of intolerance is intolerant.

"Britain's fastest-growing political party hopes to exploit voter discontent"

The White House finally got around to releasing a statement on the jihadi attack against our troops at the Arkansas military recruitment center.

Here is the entire statement:

“I am deeply saddened by this senseless act of violence against two brave young soldiers who were doing their part to strengthen our armed forces and keep our country safe. I would like to wish Quinton Ezeagwula a speedy recovery, and to offer my condolences and prayers to William Long’s family as they mourn the loss of their son.”

“Senseless?” It made perfectly good sense to a vengeful Muslim convert jihadi bent on “killing as many people in the Army as he could.”

For contrast, here is Obama’s full statement on the Tiller murder, issued just hours after the shooting:

I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence.

Malkin has the story :

The Democratic Party's attitude to elections is admirable: Win. And recent history has shown it will do anything to do so.

When, if not now, will Republicans develop such a fighting spirit?

Democrats invest - with taxpayer money, mind you - in groups like ACORN that, among other sordid tactics, seek out Skid Row bodies and wheel them to polling places. All the Democratic National Committee needs are vans and smelling salts. Pop culture and the "education system" have done the rest, making "D" the default choice on Election Day.

Democrats brazenly take policy positions - think government services and even amnesty for illegal immigrants - not because they are the right thing to do, but because they are time-tested demographic bribes. Forget cigarettes and beer, Democrats would distribute needles, methadone, medical marijuana and biscotti in voter goodie bags if they could get away with it.

Democrats long ago jettisoned America's melting-pot ideal - E Pluribus Unum ("Out of Many, One") - because it imperils their campaign for permanent rule. Splitting the country into separate identity groups and playing them against each other works a lot better. And anyone who disagrees is a racist.

Win. Win. Win.

Breitbart has the rest