MONDAY,  OCTOBER 12,  2009

ANOTHER EDUCATOR SPEAKS - AT 10:30 P.M. ET:  Remember those kids in New Jersey who were forced to sing a song praising Barack Obama?  We learned about it only because a video was posted on YouTube.

Well, the school district conducted an investigation - very deep, very deep, very Sherlockian - and came to brilliant conclusions, as the Philadelphia Inquirer reports:

The superintendent of a South Jersey school district stands behind the student performance of songs about President Obama that created a national stir last month.

The video that captured the children is another matter.

In other words, what the school did was correct.  Their only crime was getting caught at it.

Burlington Township Superintendent Christopher Manno today discussed the results of an internal investigation concerning the controversial songs.

Yeah, I can just see them, on their knees, dusting for Obamaprints.

He and Denise King, principal of B. Bernice Young Elementary School, were "deeply disturbed" by the YouTube.com posting of a video that featured second-graders at the school, he said. He added that he had apologized to the students' parents at a recent meeting.

The video was taken on March 23 during an "impromptu" performance of two tunes the youngsters learned in honor of Black History Month for a school assembly in February, Manno said. The lyrics, which describe Obama's accomplishments and his views on equality, are punctuated with the recitation of the president's name, Barack Hussein Obama.

Just a patriotic song.  Kind of like "Yankee Doodle Dandy."

The school had sent the songs' lyrics to parents in advance and received no complaints before or after the assembly, which family members attended, Manno said.

Yeah, I can just imagine how a complaint would have been received. 

The principal did, to his credit, caution teachers about appearing to take political stands, but it was a vague statement.  The offenders didn't even get the traditional slap on the wrist.

We know that our colleges have been politicized.  What many Americans don't realize is that "educators" are working on the high schools and elementary schools as well. 

Parents have a right, and an obligation, to examine what the schools are doing.  They are, after all, called "public schools."  And parents have the same right to complain as to cheer at a school soccer match.

October 12, 2009   Permalink

ESCALATION IN PAKISTAN - AT 7:03 P.M. ET:  While the president of the United States arranges for wall space in the Oval Office to place his many awards and tributes, the real world boils.  There's been a clear escalation of violence in Pakistan in recent days while Washington tries to figure out a South Asia strategy that will make Obama look good and still not offend his legions of leftist groupies.

Pakistan, with its nuclear arsenal, may well become destabilized.  What will we be told by the administration then?  From the Washington Post:

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Oct. 12 -- A suicide bomber apparently targeting Pakistani soldiers killed 41 people Monday in the most recent in a string of bloody attacks on high-profile targets.

The blast, which occurred near an army convoy at a security checkpoint, took place at a market in the northwestern district of Shangla and killed mostly civilians. The area is near the Swat Valley, an area where a brutal Taliban presence was flushed out by Pakistani troops earlier this year.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for Monday's bombing, whose force was multiplied when it also detonated explosives being carried in army vehicles, said Shangla Police Chief Jehanzeb Khan. It came a day after Pakistani commandos ended a 22-hour standoff with armed Islamist fighters who had taken 42 hostages at Pakistan's army headquarters.

COMMENT:  Secretary Clinton assured us yesterday that the Pakistani nuclear arsenal is secure.  Tomorrow she's scheduled to announce that her husband is a virgin.

October 12, 2009   Permalink

WELCOME TO MOSCOW, HILLARY.  HAVE A VODKA - AT 6:33 P.M. ET:  Hillary Clinton, as we noted earlier, zips to Moscow today for another feel-good session with a group of guys who probably talk to Stalin in their dreams. 

And the Russkies are ready with their usual charm, good will, and desire to cooperate with America.  AP reports the love fest:

MOSCOW -- A top Russian general aimed tough remarks at the United States on Monday before Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's visit, reconfirming plans for multiple-warhead missiles and warning Washington that refitting rockets with conventional warheads would raise the risk of nuclear war.

Lt. Gen. Andrei Shvaichenko's comments, quoted by Russian news agencies, come as Moscow and Washington seek to negotiate a replacement for a 1991 arms control treaty that expires at the end of the year. It is a major element in their efforts to mend relations that were badly strained during the Bush administration.

I just love it - "...badly strained during the Bush administration."  You see, it's BUSH (!!).  He's the one!  If it weren't for BUSH (!!) the whole world would do everything we want it to do.

Mrs. Clinton meets Tuesday with President Dmitry Medvedev and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Her visit will test Russia's willingness to cooperate on issues, including arms control and Iran's nuclear program, in the wake of President Obama's recent decision to scrap a missile-defense plan that Moscow vehemently opposed.

Gen. Shvaichenko's words appeared designed to remind the United States of Russia's nuclear might and press it to heed Moscow's concerns.

COMMENT:  Can't you just wait for the outcome?  Can't you just wait for the explanations as to why there's really been no progress?

What must be going through Hillary's mind, as she's reduced to the level of a messenger girl for Obama's academic exercises in futility?

But, hey, she's got to provide fodder for the Nobel speech, so maybe there'll be a little something to sign, or a pledge of "further exploration of mutual concerns."

October 12, 2009   Permalink

WELCOME TO THE RECOVERY - AT 6:22 P.M. ET:    See all those vacant stores?  Hear of friends who suddenly close businesses?  All the administration's yapping about the "recovery," and all the artificial profits on Wall Street can't counteract the reality of the economy, as The New York Times reports:

Many small and midsize American businesses are still struggling to secure bank loans, impeding their expansion plans and constraining overall economic growth, even as the country tentatively rises from its recessionary depths.

Most banks expect their lending standards to remain tighter than the levels of the last decade until at least the middle of 2010, according to a survey of senior loan officers conducted by the Federal Reserve Board.

The enduring credit squeeze appears to reflect an aversion to risk among lenders confronting great uncertainty about the economy rather than any lingering effects of the panic that gripped financial markets last fall, after the collapse of the investment banking giant Lehman Brothers.

You can be sure that the powers that be will be pressuring banks to loosen up just before next year's midterm elections.  If that happens, we may see some magical, if temporary, improvement in the economy, just as last year we saw some magical collapse right before the election.  Hmm.

“It’s quite significant, because small businesses generate significant job growth,” said Andrew Tilton, a senior economist at Goldman Sachs. “And small businesses rely more on bank financing, whereas large businesses have the alternative of raising money in the capital markets.”

COMMENT:  We are far from out of the woods, and new, crazed ideas, coming from liberal Democrats in Washington would have the federal government spend trillions more.

The issue is not simply a recovery in the next few years, but what will happen to America in the next 30 years, with this overwhelming debt that the Obama administration and its congressional allies are building up.

October 12, 2009   Permalink

POLL EFFECTS OF THE NOBEL - AT 9:38 A.M. ET:  The Rasmussen tracker published this morning is the first wherein all the polling was taken after the announcement of Obama's Nobel Prize.  And what effect did it have?  Well, read on:

Daily updates are based upon nightly telephone surveys and reported on a three day rolling average basis. As a result, today is the first update based entirely upon interviews conducted after the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to President Obama. The award seems to have had little impact on public opinion among likely voters. His total approval was at 49% just before the award was announced and it is at 49% today.

There does seem to be a slight increase in intensity. Since the prize was awarded, the number who Strongly Approve of the President’s performance has increased by three percentage points and the number who Strongly Disapprove has increased by five. The number with strong opinions on both sides is at the highest level in a month.

COMMENT:  I love the report that the number for those who "strongly disapprove" went up by five after the award, whereas "strongly approve" increased by only three. 

Ah, these Americans are so discerning.  Don't sell them short. 

October 12, 2009   Permalink

ANOTHER JOKE CONTINUES - AT 9:23 A.M. ET:  North Korea, not to be outdone by its Iranian counterpart in crime, greets the awarding of the Nobel Prize to President Obama in its usual, warm way:

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- North Korea fired five short-range missiles off its east coast on Monday, a news report said, even as South Korea proposed working-level talks with its communist neighbor.

Yonhap news agency, citing an unidentified South Korean government official, said the North test-fired the missiles on Monday afternoon from its eastern coastal launch pad.

Yonhap said the North has issued a no-sail zone in an area off the east coast Oct. 10-20 -- an apparent indication it was planning missile tests.

COMMENT:  We've made about as much progress with North Korea as we have with Iran, but nothing much is being done about it. 

What we see, with Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, the continuing conflict in Iraq, Venezuela, increased tensions with Russia, and a recalcitrant China, is a steady buildup of crises for President Obama.  So far, he's batting zero in all of them. 

October 12, 2009   Permalink

THE JOKE CONTINUES - AT 8:38 A.M. ET:  The joke is our "negotiations" with Iran over its nuclear program.  The Iranians again are setting us straight on exactly what those "negotiations" mean to them:

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran dismissed on Monday a U.S. warning that major powers would not wait forever for Tehran to prove it was not developing nuclear bombs, saying any threats or deadlines would have no impact on the Islamic Republic.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Hassan Qashqavi, speaking a week before talks on a proposal to send Iranian uranium abroad for further processing, also reiterated Iran's refusal to discuss its "nuclear rights" with the six world powers.

"We have announced several times that we have nothing to discuss regarding that," he told a Tehran news conference in comments translated by Iran's state Press TV...

...Such comments were likely to fan Western suspicions that Iran is seeking to win time by stringing out inconclusive talks while mastering nuclear technology and stockpiling enriched uranium of potential use for atomic energy or weaponry.

COMMENT:  Yeah, I'd say those remarks would fan suspicions - except, maybe, in the mind of our Nobel peace laureate.

And what will our Nobel guy do when it becomes obvious that the Iranians are just stalling?  Well, Hillary Clinton is on a magical mystery tour right now to get support for a tough line on Iran.  But her next stop is Moscow, as AP reports:

US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton travels to Russia on Monday hoping to win Moscow's backing for a strong stance on Iran's nuclear program and looking for progress on a new arms control pact.

American officials say Iran will be at or near the top of Clinton's agenda when she meets Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Tuesday. She plans to push for Russian support for new sanctions on Iran if it doesn't comply with demands to prove its nuclear program is peaceful.

COMMENT:  Lotsa luck, Hil.  The Russians now know they're dealing with a president, a supreme egotist, who wouldn't want to upset the glow around his Nobel Prize with any action that could upset the Norwegian left.

And Hillary must be seething.

I love the AP phraseology:  "American officials say Iran will be at or near the top of Clinton's agenda..."

Near the top?  Is anything more important than stopping the Iranian nuclear program?  Well, to some Obamans a tiny arms-control agreement might be more important, because then The One can wave a piece of paper before the American people and announce what he's done for "peace."  I put nothing past him.

October 12, 2009    Permalink

NOTED NUCLEAR PHYSICIST IS AL QAEDA GUY - SLEEP WELL TONIGHT - AT 8:07 A.M. ET:  Reader Joseph J. Gallick alerted us to an earlier version of this story:

An internationally renowned nuclear physicist has admitted to French investigators that he led a second life as an al-Qa'ida "mole", according to French judicial sources.

A picture began to emerge over the weekend of Adlène Hicheur, 32, who works at the "Big Bang" hadron collider on the Swiss-French border, and who is likely to be formally accused today of having "links with a terrorist organisation". However, his brother, Zitouni Hicheur, 25, who was arrested with him last Thursday at their parents' home just south of Lyon, has been released. Investigators believe the elder brother – who has worked on high-level, nuclear research projects in Britain and the United States – acted alone when he sent emails to Algerian members of al- Qa'ida and listed potential terrorist targets in France.

COMMENT:  The French are great at counter-terror, and, sad to say, seem to treat the subject more seriously than we do. 

I hope that we'll now have fewer charges of "fear mongering" directed at those who want to keep the threat of terror actively before the American people.

October 12, 2009   Permalink

TWO AMERICANS WIN NOBEL IN ECONOMICS, FOR ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING - AT 7:42 A.M. ET:  From The New York Times: 

The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science was awarded on Monday to two Americans for their work in economic governance.

The prize committee cited Elinor Ostrom of Indiana University “for her analysis of economic governance, especially the commons” and Oliver E. Williamson of the University of California, Berkeley “for his analysis of economic governance, especially the boundaries of the firm.”

Overwhelmingly, the Nobel Prizes for actual accomplishment went this year to Americans.  Some ten Nobels, other than the unmentionable "peace" prize, were won by Americans, some native-born, some immigrants who chose America.  It is simply overwhelming.

That Nobel accomplishment, actually written before the economics prize was awarded this morning, led editorialist Mark Watson of the North Star Journal to write:

Perhaps the apologist-in-chief Peace Prize winner, who has only been able to find fault with America and Americans during his travels abroad, might now recognize that his country and its citizens engage in actions that benefit the entire world. He might also reflect upon the fact that more than half of American Nobel Prize recipients aspired to become citizens of the country he so willingly finds fault with when traveling.

Maybe, Mr. President, it’s time to just stop apologizing for this exceptionally gifted, generous, open and non-imperialist country and concentrate on all the benefits it has given to the world. If your history education has failed to educate you on the many great things this country has achieved, why not stop campaigning for re-election and read Dr. Bill Bennett’s two-volume history exposition, America: The Last Best Hope.

Or better yet, stop trying to reinvent this country with your attempts to take over its institutions and concentrate on building upon its foundation of personal liberty, limited government and opportunity. Even though your wife has only recently become proud of her country, most Americans have been proud of the U.S. their entire lives.

Isn’t it time for America to again have a president who is proud of the country he leads?

Very well said. 

October 12, 2009   Permalink

BULLETIN - AT 7:29 A.M. ET:  From AP:

2012 ISN'T THE END OF THE WORLD, MAYANS INSIST

Just thought you'd like to know, especially if you have 30-year Treasury bills.

October 12,  2009   Permalink

SUNDAY,  OCTOBER 11,  2009

THE BRITS VIEW VIRGINIA - AT 7:55 P.M. ET:  We've observed here that British journalists have written some of the most perceptive copy on American politics, especially since the coming of The One.

Now, Alex Spillius of London's Telegraph, examines the Virginia gubernatorial race, in which the Democrat is sinking fast, and Obama is getting a chunk of the chilling blame:

President Barack Obama is facing defeat in his first electoral test since he won the White House, with the Republicans leading the polls for the governor's race in the swing state of Virginia.

I wonder if they showed this to Obama, along with the Nobel e-mail.

Just nine months into his presidency, Mr Obama has proved more of a hindrance than a help to the Democratic candidate, Creigh Deeds. Unlike Democrats across the country in 2008, the state senator is keeping a very loose grip on the president's coat-tails.

"Frankly, a lot of what's going on in Washington has made it very tough," he said at a recent forum, adding that voters were "just uncomfortable with the spending, they were uncomfortable with a lot of what was going on".

Mr Obama has made only one appearance with Mr Deeds, and will probably make just one more before polling day. The Democrat is trailing his Republican rival, Bob McDonnell, by nine points in a poll published in the Washington Post last week.

Mr Deeds, 51, may have earned the displeasure of the White House with his honesty, but no one has contradicted his assessment that Mr Obama's massive stimulus bill, and the cost of proposed health care and energy reforms, have raised concern among Virginians.

At the Deeds campaign office in Manassas, there was no sign of Mr Obama in the dozens of posters and banners lining the walls.

That's crushing.  No picture?  Not even a drawing?  A framed autograph?

Now that will get the attention of the White House.  Among the leftist crowd, you know you're in trouble when they don't have your picture up with the other commissars.

The picture is gone.  The new order is coming.

October 11, 2009   Permalink

IT'S HARRY REID, NOT HARRY TRUMAN - AT 7:15 P.M. ET:  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is in trouble in his own state.  He doesn't exactly have the fight in him that Harry Truman did, so we might not be seeing Reid around town beyond next year.  From the Las Vegas Review-Journal:

Nevadans say they're ready to replace longtime Democratic incumbent Sen. Harry Reid with an untested Republican.

Which Republican? Undecided.

But of their top two picks -- former GOP party official Sue Lowden and real estate developer Danny Tarkanian -- either one would unseat Reid if the election were held today, according to a poll commissioned by the Review-Journal.

Lowden and Tarkanian are in a statistical tie atop a list of nine primary candidates, according to the survey of Nevada registered voters.

COMMENT:  Let's hope the Republicans don't mess this up.  Maybe we're hoping against hope.

October 11, 2009   Permalink

I'M SO RELIEVED, NOT - AT 5:01 P.M. ET:  We are once again assured that Pakistan's nuclear weapons are safe:

LONDON - U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday the Taliban siege of Pakistan's army headquarters showed extremists are a growing threat in the nuclear-armed American ally, but she contended they don't pose a risk to the country's atomic arsenal.

Clinton, in London on the second leg of a five-day tour of Europe and Russia, also joined British Foreign Secretary David Miliband in warning Iran that they would not wait long for the Islamic republic to convince the world that its nuclear intentions are peaceful.

COMMENT:  All these assurances about the safety of Pakistani nukes remind me of those comments you see on TV after people find out that a neighbor has been charged with murder:  "Gee, he's such a nice guy." 

A killer isn't a killer until he kills.  And nukes aren't in terrorist hands until they are. 

And I am far from reassured.  Pakistan is in turmoil.  The nukes are reportedly stored in one of the most unstable areas.  What are these reassurances based on?

October 11, 2009   Permalink

FORGET THE NOBEL, MR. PRESIDENT, THERE'S WORK TO BE DONE - AT 4:42 P.M. ET:  From Fox News:

Top Republican senators escalated their call Sunday for President Obama to grant Gen. Stanley McChrystal's request for more troops in Afghanistan, and one prominent Democrat warned that a failure to do so could jeopardize U.S. forces.

The Obama administration is deep in deliberations over whether to build on its counterinsurgency strategy with thousands more troops in Afghanistan or focus more on taking out top Al Qaeda targets, particularly in Pakistan. The bloody clash this weekend at the Pakistan army headquarters, where commandos freed dozens of hostages early Sunday after militants attacked the facility, underscored the instability in the region.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said the attack emphasized the "danger of the Taliban not only in Afghanistan but in Pakistan as well."

But he said any attempt by the administration to scale back the fight against the Taliban in favor of a tactical battle against Al Qaeda would damage security...

...Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, also said the counterinsurgency strategy pursued by McChrystal is "really critical." She said the American people don't have the stomach to stay in Afghanistan for another 10 years, but that the mission there is in "serious jeopardy" and Obama has an obligation to follow his commander's advice.

COMMENT:  The Nobel Peace laureate may have to defy the Euro-pacifist crowd in Oslo and send those troops.  I wonder what the "committee" for the prize would say then. 

And Hillary Clinton, probably seething over the fact that  she didn't get the prize, said today that we can't wait forever for Iran to act on its nuclear program - implied pressure on her boss to contemplate some tough action against the mullahs. 

October 11, 2009   Permalink

WATCH THIS CAREFULLY - AT 10:59 A.M. ET:  Is there anyone lower in the Republican Party than Chuck Hagel?  This Republican-in-name-only served as senator from Nebraska, but went so far left that he declined to run again last year, realizing he would probably lose his party's nomination.  He then all but endorsed Barack Obama.  His wife endorsed Obama outright.  He was a militant opponent of President Bush.

There's been recent speculation that Obama will name Hagel to replace Robert Gates, when Gates steps down as secretary of defense, possibly at the end of this year.  That would be a disgraceful appointment, an obvious payoff, and another sign of the Bush-hatred that is still rampant in this administration.  Hagel's basic qualification is that he was a sergeant or something in Vietnam.

Now Hagel suddenly surfaces again.  Why?  Well, he's endorsing health-care reform.   From The Politico:

Former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), who was an ally of the president's in the campaign, released a statement Saturday through the White House calling on Congress "to put aside their narrow partisan differences" on health care reform.

"We will fail our country if we do not succeed," Hagel said.

Hagel doesn't mention anything about the tough unresolved issues of negotiations. But he highlighted how health care legislation could mark the beginning of entitlement reform -- a concern raised often by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

His positive words are not surprising. Hagel spoke favorably of Obama's foreign policy views during the campaign, and appeared with him in Jordan during an overseas trip in July 2008. Hagel's wife endorsed Obama, but the former senator never did.

COMMENT:  You don't think that Hagel is angling for the defense job by making a statement like this, do you?  Nah.  An honorable man would never do a thing like that.

I wrote "an honorable man."

Enough said.

Yuch.

October 11, 2009    Permalink

MUCH TOO THIN-SKINNED - AT 10:48 A.M. ET:  I have no problem at all with the White House, or anyone else, criticizing journalists.  But the Obaman campaign against Fox News is starting to look like something out of a junior high school gripe session.  From The Politico:

White House communications director Anita Dunn said Sunday that the administration views Fox News as an "arm" of the Republican Party.

"It’s fair to say about Fox, and certainly the way we view it, is that it is a wing of the Republican Party," Dunn said on CNN's "Reliable Sources."

"They are widely viewed as part of the Republican Party. Take their talking points, put them on the air. Take their research, put it on the air," Dunn said of the network. "Fox News often operates as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party."

Dunn scoffed at the network's defense that viewers can distinguish between Fox's news content and the conservative commentary of the network's primetime hosts.

"There is a very different story selection," Dunn said. "This isn’t us making it up."

COMMENT:  Of course there's a different story selection.  Fox does try to provide some balance in its news reports.  Independent studies confirm that.  Contrast please with CNN or NBC, which are decidedly liberal. 

This is whining by a White House known as the most thin-skinned in memory.  We must not criticize The One.  The Obamans should try to figure out why Fox is so popular, not just slam it.  Obviously, viewers are getting something from Fox that they're not getting elsewhere.

October 11, 2009   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY - AT 10:25 A.M. ET:  From Fred Barnes, writing in the Weekly Standard: 

George Will suggested last week that President Obama's self-referential speech on behalf of Chicago's bid for the 2016 Olympics may lead to his being known as the "vain" president. Maybe, but worse things have been said about a president and probably will be if Obama declines to send substantially more troops to Afghanistan and rejuvenate his counterinsurgency strategy. He'll be called a "weak" president. And the label will stick.

A weak president is vulnerable, politically and otherwise. In Jimmy Carter's case, being seen as weak in dealing with Iran and the Soviets was a major factor in his defeat by Ronald Reagan in 1980. Americans don't like pushovers, especially pushover presidents. Obama is at risk of becoming a pushover.

COMMENT:  Barnes is correct.  And we wonder what impact the Nobel Prize will have on Obama's decision.  If things get worse in Afghanistan/Pakistan in the absence of effective action by this president, he becomes a weakling.

Problem is, you can't beat somebody with nobody.   We don't have a Ronald Reagan for 2012.  The GOP isn't very good at developing top candidates, and it had better develop that skill.

October 11, 2009   Permalink

SMART AMERICANS - AT 10:15 A.M. ET: Who said Americans aren't savvy?  Rasmussen reports that they've caught on to the racket known as the Nobel Peace Prize:

Americans are much more skeptical of the motivation behind the awarding of the prestigious international Nobel Prizes following President Obama's win Friday of the Nobel Peace Prize.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 58% of American adults now believe that politics plays a role in the awarding of the Nobel Prize. That's an 18-point jump from 40% a year ago.

Just 21% of Americans say politics does not play a role in the awarding of the Nobel Prize. Twenty-one percent (21%) are not sure.

COMMENT:  The 21% who say politics plays no role corresponds to the number of Americans who describe themselves as liberals.  Figures.

October 11,  2009   Permalink