MONDAY,  AUGUST 10,  2009

CHICAGO TRUTH - AT 11:34 P.M. ET:  We don't usually quote Britain's premier leftist paper, The Guardian, but the paper has done a fine job of describing the horror of Chicago, President Obama's home city, in 2009:

Fourteen children have died violently in the last year within walking distance of the Obamas' home. In all of Chicago, 42 children of school age have been killed, most at the end of a gun and all a short drive from the president's house. The youngest was three, the oldest 18.

The centre of the blood-letting is the city's poor and overwhelmingly black South Side, precisely the spot where Michelle grew up and Barack set out on his self-proclaimed "improbable journey" as a community organiser in his 20s. The geographical compactness of the carnage is spelled out inside the offices of the Black Star Project, an education programme for young black people. On the wall is a big map of the city. In the middle of the map, close to Lake Michigan, is a letter "A" pinpointing where the Obamas live. Yellow stickers cluster around the "A" like darts around the bullseye. Each one stands for a child under 18 who has died violently. The stickers all lie within black neighbourhoods of the city, while the white neighbourhoods are sticker-free.

And...

"The number of children who are dying here in the city of Chicago is astronomical," says Black Star's director Phillip Jackson, quoting the figure of 605 children shot – wounded or killed – in the city over the last year and a half. "Stop and think about it: these are children! This is a catastrophe. And it's happening right in front of our eyes."

By his reckoning, some 13 soldiers from the city have died in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The number of children lost to violence in the city during the same period is 290.

COMMENT:  What a tragedy.  And the president of the United States was focused, two weeks ago, on a black professor in Cambridge who was offended by the lawful actions of a police officer.

Why is that horror happening in Chicago?  In part, it is happening because the nightmare isn't being correctly addressed.  Murder has been dramatically reduced in New York and in some other cities.  But not in Chicago. 

One reason may be that Chicago is the home of some of the worst frauds and hustlers in the African-American community, who show an interest in the lives of black children only when they're taken by a white.  Overwhelming, they're taken by black shooters, and so they don't have the proper political value.

This problem will continue until the people of Chicago come to their senses, as New Yorkers did, and throw out the old political establishment, replacing it with the Chicago equivalent of Rudy Guiliani and Mike Bloomberg.  I'm not holding my breath.

August 10, 2009    Permalink

ARE WE NEXT? - AT 6:29 P.M. ET:  This, from Britain, is absolutely pathetic:

LABOUR slammed the brakes on its war against violent extremism yesterday - amid fears it had upset Muslim voters.

Millions spent preventing Asian kids becoming terrorists will now be used to tackle right-wing racists in WHITE areas.

Community cohesion minister Shahid Malik admitted he was softening his stance because Muslims felt stigmatised.

But a former Labour aide called the move a "dangerous dilution" of the Government's counter-terrorism strategy.

And...

Tories branded it a shameless bid to win back Muslim voters who deserted Labour over Iraq and Afghanistan.

More than £45million a year has been spent on measures to prevent Al-Qaeda recruiting young Muslims in the UK.

COMMENT:  The Tories are right.  This is about votes and power, and shows why demographic change is so critical.  With predictions that Europe and Britain will be 25% Muslim by 2050, we have a right to be concerned - it isn't racism - about the political impact of that change.

Multiculturalism, like the American Constitution, is not a suicide pact.

August 10, 2009   Permalink 

TEMPER, TEMPER - AT 6:03 P.M. ET:  There will be a discussion at home about this:

US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's temper flared on Monday when a Congolese university student asked for her husband's thinking on an international matter.

"My husband is not secretary of state. I am," an obviously annoyed Clinton replied sharply.

A week after former US president Bill Clinton traveled to North Korea to secure the release of two detained American journalists and stole the limelight from the start of his wife's first trip to Africa, Clinton was clearly nettled by the question at a town hall forum in Kinshasa.

"You want me to tell you what my husband thinks?" she replied incredulously when the male student asked her what "Mr. Clinton" thought of World Bank concerns about a multibillion-dollar Chinese loan offer to the Democratic Republic of Congo. "If you want my opinion, I will tell you my opinion. I am not going to be channeling my husband."

The question was left unanswered as the moderator of the event quickly moved on.

COMMENT:  I hope she's just as tough with the Iranians and North Koreans as she was with that student. 

I assume Barack Obama got the message as well.

August 10, 2009   Permalink

RASMUSSEN - AT 9:40 A.M. ET:  After a few days last week of upward motion, the president's poll numbers are sinking again in the Rasmussen survey.  This morning Rasmussen has overall approval of the present's performance at 49% and disapproval at 51%.

Even worse, the presidential approval index, measuring the gap between those who strongly approve and strongly disapprove, now stands at minus nine, 30% to 39%.  Rasmussen polls among likely voters.  Minus nine is the president's worst showing since July 31st. 

August 10, 2009   Permalink

A LITTLE TRUTH TELLING - AT 9:18 A.M. ET:  Ah the spin, ah the noise, ah the anguish.  The liberal Dems are beside themselves trying to condemn those who have come out to town meetings on health care.  And the main argument is that these are sinister people who don't represent the country.

Problem is, they probably do, as the Washington Times notes:

The White House's claim that large and boisterous protests against health care reform over the past week have been scripted performances, underwritten by industry lobbyists and the Republican Party, continues to run into a stubborn reality check: public polling on the matter.

For more than two weeks, polls have consistently shown growing resistance to President Obama's reform proposals, largely because of concerns about the nation's deficit and debt.

"There are a number of statistically valid public opinion polls that show that there has been a dramatic increase in public concern about escalating deficits and debt levels and our nation's increased reliance on foreign lenders," said David Walker, the nation's former comptroller general.

COMMENT:  What is so hypocritical about the liberals' performance is their refusal to deal with some of the greatest abuses that drive health costs up - like out-of-control malpractice suits, the kind of suits that made John Edwards a multimillionaire.  There is absolutely no malpractice reform in the health-care bill now before the House, largely because of the power of trial lawyers in the Democratic Party. 

Again, though, we must urge caution:  Defeating Obamacare is not good enough.  There are serious problems in the health-care system that cry out for solution, and our side must present an intelligent, workable plan of its own, not simply say "no."  The decline in the polling fortunes of the Democrats has not been matched by any increased love for Republicans.  That love will have to be earned.  So far I don't see the effort being made.

The great conservative columnist, Charles Krauthammer, who is a medical doctor, wrote recently of the vast inefficiencies in our current system.  If the GOP focuses on eliminating those inefficiencies, it will have made an enormous contribution, without wrecking American medicine in the process.  There's work to be done.

August 10, 2009   Permalink

OUTRAGE - AT 9:15 A.M. ET:  This story is coming in under the radar, but it will grow, and can easily turn into a major campaign issue.

This is a nation of immigrants.  The great majority of immigrants are here legally, and that includes the overwhelming majority of Hispanic-Americans.

But there is a problem with illegal immigration, as we all know.  That problem is about to be compounded by rules for next year's census that, if carried to their logical conclusion, can create real fury in the United States, as The Wall Street Journal reports:

Next year’s census will determine the apportionment of House members and Electoral College votes for each state. To accomplish these vital constitutional purposes, the enumeration should count only citizens and persons who are legal, permanent residents. But it won’t.

Instead, the U.S. Census Bureau is set to count all persons physically present in the country—including large numbers who are here illegally. The result will unconstitutionally increase the number of representatives in some states and deprive some other states of their rightful political representation. Citizens of “loser” states should be outraged. Yet few are even aware of what’s going on.

In 1790, the first Census Act provided that the enumeration of that year would count “inhabitants” and “distinguish” various subgroups by age, sex, status as free persons, etc. Inhabitant was a term with a well-defined meaning that encompassed, as the Oxford English Dictionary expressed it, one who “is a bona fide member of a State, subject to all the requisitions of its laws, and entitled to all the privileges which they confer.”

COMMENT:  As the writers note, few are aware of what's going on.  But they will be, and we'll probably have talk radio to thank. 

While we have a right to be angry at any rigged census - and there will be attempts by the left to rig it - we must also approach the issue of illegal immigration in a thoughtful, sane manner.  That hasn't always been the case.  It's easy to demagogue the issue.  But this is an opportunity for our side to come up with a creative solution and show that we can solve problems, not just oppose what others do.

August 10, 2009   Permalink

THE OBSCENITY - AT 8:15 A.M. ET:  Anger is building at the decision by the Obama administration to award the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian award, to Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland and former chief "human rights" official at the UN.

Ed Lasky of American Thinker alerts us to a great piece at Pajamas Media, pointing out Robinson's vulgar record.  A lot of attention has been focused on her animus toward Israel, but it's her contempt for the United States that demands more attention:

Discussing the Iraq war in a November 2005 interview with Reuters, she remarked cheerfully that “what I find living now in the United States is an encouraging, wide sense of some of the checks and balances kicking in. … In Congress you have, at last, a sense, of ‘we were misled, we should have been more attentive.’” “It was not a legitimate war,” Robinson told Reuters flatly, “and I am glad that more and more people … are coming out to say so.” “The poor, beleaguered people of Iraq are not better off,” she added. Apart from respect for the office of the presidency, why, after all, should Obama not want to honor someone who provided a touch of gravitas to “Bush lied, people died”?

And...

Indeed, Robinson denied outright that the 9/11 attacks constituted an act of war. Thus, for instance, in a June 15, 2002, editorial in the French daily Le Monde, she suggested that talk of a “war” on terrorism was merely an unfortunate choice of words. The fact she herself had called for captured al-Qaeda members to be treated precisely as prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions appeared not to trouble her in this connection.

And...

Among other things, the Presidential Medal of Freedom is awarded for “especially meritorious contributions to the security or national interests of the United States.” Whether Mary Robinson’s agitation against the “war on terror” represents such a contribution is very open to doubt. The most obvious proof to the contrary is provided by the 9/11 attacks themselves.

COMMENT:  You wonder how an award to an airhead like this could be made.  Didn't anyone know of Robinson's record?  The woman presided over the despicable Durban I hatefest in 2001.  Didn't anyone recall?

Maybe the Obamans did remember, and thought of her as wonderful.  There is substantial suspicion - but no direct proof - that Samantha Power was behind this ridiculous award.  It wouldn't surprise me.  She and Robinson think alike.

Robinson's award devalues the Presidential Medal of Freedom.  She's done nothing to advance freedom, much to advance its enemies.  But, alas, she fits in well with a certain element in this decidedly leftist administration.

August 10, 2009   Permalink

THE TIDES OF AUGUST - AT 7:31 A.M. ET:  August is supposed to be a slow news month. (Actually, it's not.  World War I began, more or less, in August of 1914.  World War II ended in August of 1945.)  However, the 24-hour cable news cycle has made every month a headline month.  This one, despite all the Washington vacations and recesses, seems especially busy and significant:

- The president's popularity is plunging, and his main initiatives are in serious trouble.

- Town meetings around the country reflect the growing anger in a country that voted for "change" without actually knowing what it was voting for.

- The nation grows increasingly apprehensive about the amount of money being spent, and how it is being spent.  Stories of Wall Street's return to huge, unearned bonuses and banks being completely uncooperative in opening credit markets are not helping public confidence.

- The foreign policy of the Obama administration is producing nothing, with even the secretary of state admitting that there are virtually no prospects that Iran will engage in serious talks on its nuclear program.

- The president is about to go on a vacation to lavish digs in Martha's Vineyard, playground of the nation's elites, demonstrating - as if further proof were needed - that the Obama administration has become politically tone deaf.

Welcome to governing.

The president is in trouble and the country is in trouble.  A man who was worshipped as a demi-god only 60 days ago has returned to human status, despite the protests of Chris Matthews, whose leg continues to tingle every time The One announces the baseball scores. 

At the same time, the Republican opposition, obviously enjoying the reversal of fortune, continues to coast without a program of its own.  If it gets one, it might have a real shot next year at taking back the House.

August will be interesting.  Autumn looks to be spectacular.

August 10, 2009   Permalink

SUNDAY,  AUGUST 9,  2009

QUICK, THE ZOLOFT - AT 5:43 P.M. ET:  Reader Gregory Koster alerts us to a posting at Huffington Post that shows the wild-eyed rhetoric of the left regarding the health-care town meetings:

It's truly a sad state of affairs when civil, civic discussions of most significant social legislation in years, town halls about national health care, are reduced to a series of staged media events for 24-hour cable news channels.

Well, there's respect for the citizenry, right off.  It's also truly a sad state of affairs when legitimate concerns of citizens, especially seniors, have been treated with contempt for months.

So far, among TV news operations, only MSNBC has investigated these people in depth, starting last Friday when Newsweek's Richard Wolfe (filling in for Keith Olbermann) first headlined the corporate-funded roots of these loudmouthed disrupters, aka Astroturfers (artificial grass-roots support.)

Same old leftist story.  All opposition is either 1) funded by sinister corporations, or 2) part of a vast right-wing conspiracy, or 3) organized by stupid people.

And what to do about these evil people?

Get Up In Their Grills: Don't just sit quietly and let these congenital know-nothings take over meetings and try to rattle our Congressional reps. Fortunately, as the Huffington Post's Sam Stein reports, many unions are gearing up to do just that -- to directly engage these wingnut Tea Party alums at town-hall meetings. Good on them.

Notice the subtlety, the restraint, the drive for intellectual excellence.

Sign Language Print up big signs for each meeting reading "I'M WITH STUPID." Also draw a big arrow on each, and every time one of these loudmouths (they're often wearing ball caps or carrying Bibles) stands up and starts ranting, just stand next to him/her and hold up the sign. Makes a good photo and great "B-roll" for TV!

Brilliant.  Really brilliant.  These are deep thinkers.  I'm overwhelmed.

August 9, 2009   Permalink

NOW SHE TELLS US - AT 5:23 P.M. ET:  Hillary Clinton sends the latest in a series of confusing signals coming from Washington about talks with Iran.  From AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says the United States has no illusions that Iran will accept overtures to return to negotiations about its nuclear program and will not wait much longer for Tehran to respond.

Both Clinton and national security adviser James Jones said in interviews aired Sunday that Washington has little choice but to deal with the government of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, regardless of U.S. feelings about charges he was re-elected in a fraudulent election and sympathy for the thousands who have protested the outcome.

And...

Clinton said the United States would re-evaluate its efforts to entice Iran back to the negotiating table in September.

''We are under no illusions. We were under no illusions before their elections that we can get the kind of engagement we are seeking,'' she said in an interview with CNN's ''GPS.''

''The president has also said, look, we need to take stock of this in September. If there is a response, it needs to be on a fast track. We're not going to keep the window open forever,'' she said.

COMMENT:  This comes a few days after a leaked assessment by American intelligence that Iran won't have the bomb until 2013, a judgment that seems at odds with judgments by other intelligence agencies, which suggest a much closer date.

The issue again, though, is our policy after Iran defaults.  Do we have one?  Clinton says that we're not going to keep "the window open forever."  What window?  The window that simply leads to talks?  If the window closes, do we try for tougher sanctions?  The story says that we're working with the Security Council, plus Germany, on a set of new sanctions.  But what if the Russians and Chinese won't go along?

There is no clearly defined strategy, at least not one that's been made public.  A strategy would have to include the ultimate decision - a military strike.

August 9, 2009   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY - AT 10:56 A.M. ET:  From the great Mark Steyn, on the current health-care "debate":

DISSENT IS THE HIGHEST FORM OF PATRIOTI- . . . No, wait, that bumper sticker expired January 20. Under the stimulus bill, there’s a new $1.3 trillion bills-for-bumpers program whereby, if you peel off old slogans now recognized as environmentally harmful (“QUESTION AUTHORITY”), you can trade them in for a new “CELEBRATE CONFORMITY” sticker, complete with a holographic image of President Obama that never takes his eyes off you.

COMMENT:  Do you realize that virtually every concern expressed about Obama by responsible people during the last campaign is proving accurate?  There were concerns about his radicalism, about his lack of executive experience, about his "Chicago" style of politics, about his background, about his associations, about his inability to present a detailed program.

The people who expressed those concerns were often ridiculed by the media.

Now look what we have.

August 9, 2009   Permalink

BACK TO THE SEVENTIES - AT 10:24 A.M.  From the Los Angeles Times:

U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. is poised to appoint a criminal prosecutor to investigate alleged CIA abuses committed during the interrogation of terrorism suspects, current and former U.S. government officials said.

A senior Justice Department official said that Holder envisioned an inquiry that would be narrow in scope, focusing on "whether people went beyond the techniques that were authorized" in Bush administration memos that liberally interpreted anti-torture laws.

Current and former CIA and Justice Department officials who have firsthand knowledge of the interrogation files contend that criminal convictions will be difficult to obtain because the quality of evidence is poor and the legal underpinnings have never been tested.

The left will be jubilant.  No one else.  Then, there is this:

Some cases have not previously been disclosed, including an instance in which a CIA operative brought a gun into an interrogation booth to force a detainee to talk, officials said.

I'm shocked, shocked, that this was done.  Why, that's no different than crashing planes into buildings.  Why, that's the same as the atom bomb.  Bringing a gun?  Are we barbarians?  This is all because of BUSH (!!).

This reminds us of the probes into the CIA in the 1970s, probes that essentially destroyed the agency for years.  That, of course, is the ultimate objective of the political left.  You can be sure that some of the same people, now somewhat older, will be involved. 

August 9, 2009   Permalink

THE DEPTH OF DISAPPROVAL - AT 9:54 A.M. ET:  President Obama's numbers in Rasmussen's presidential approval index are declining again.  This index measures the gap between those who strongly approve and those who strongly disapprove of presidential performance.  This morning it stands at minus 8.  The president has been in minus territory since June 30th.

Overall presidential approval is at 50%, disapproval at 50%.  Mr. Obama has not been above 51% since July 17th.

Obviously, the president can bounce back.  But nothing he's doing seems directed at doing that. 

The key is whether the Republicans can capitalize on the president's growing unpopularity.  The GOP needs a program that is effective and appealing.  So far, we don't see one.

August 9, 2009   Permalink

POLITICAL TIME BOMB - AT 9:42 A.M. ET:  This is a political story, not an ethnic story.  It is not "racist" to report it.  From London's Telegraph:

Last year, five per cent of the total population of the 27 EU countries was Muslim. But rising levels of immigration from Muslim countries and low birth rates among Europe's indigenous population mean that, by 2050, the figure will be 20 per cent, according to forecasts.

Data gathered from various sources indicate that Britain, Spain and Holland will have an even higher proportion of Muslims in a shorter amount of time.

We'll do the math.  The year 2050 is 41 years away.  That means that an American child born today will face an entirely different Europe before reaching middle age.  Muslims will hold the political balance of power, and will easily swing elections.  We can only imagine how the foreign policy of Europe will change in the interim. 

There are many on the European (and American) left, of course, who rejoice in this, as another step toward the marginalization of the United States and the destruction of capitalism.  Of course, they haven't contemplated the kind of societies that will replace the current ones, their hatred of America and capitalism so great that no disturbing thoughts are permitted.  But we, as a nation, may be very much alone in the coming decades.  Wouldn't it be ironic if our major allies will be in the East, rather than the West.

August 9, 2009   Permalink