Desert Mirage

George Will offers readers his characteristically sobering, yet refreshingly realistic analysis of the Mideast peace talks. From The Washington Post:

The biggest threat to peace might be the peace process -- or, more precisely, the illusion that there is one. The mirage becomes the reason for maintaining its imaginary "momentum" by extorting concessions from Israel, the only party susceptible to U.S. pressure. Israel is, however, decreasingly susceptible. In one month, history will recycle when the partial 10-month moratorium on Israeli construction on the West Bank expires. Resumption of construction -- even here, in the capital, which was not included in the moratorium -- will be denounced by a fiction, "the international community," as a threat to another fiction, "the peace process."

Another Catholic University to Host Obama

Serious Catholics are once again voicing outrage that the president will be given a venue at Xavier University to address the nation in New Orleans on the fifth anniversary of Katrina. Really, this whole "Obama (or some other high-profile, pro-abortion politico) to speak at Catholic university" routine is getting old. I understand the disappointment, but is anyone really surprised that yet another "Catholic" institution of higher learning is selling its soul for the sake of garnering national attention?

At least the local bishop will not attend the speech in New Orleans. Still, why is this spectacle being tolerated by the bishop? It goes without saying that he should not attend, but what about further ramifications for Xavier's betrayal of its Catholic identity? It could be that, as a Jesuit university, Xavier reserves a particular degree of autonomy from the direct jurisdiction of the local bishop. Who knows. But all too often, bishops in this nation feel that if they just avoid the awkward moments, the flames of anger will die off and we can all return to the status quo ante. But the status quo regarding so many of our so-called Catholic schools is a terrible mess.

Stem-Cell Summary

Here's a helpful piece featured on National Review Online which provides key background information to yesterday's court ruling that put a freeze on embryonic stem-cell research.

Monday’s decision from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia halting all federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research is a surprising milestone in the decade-long debate over this morally fraught field — and another opportunity to make the case that medical research must proceed hand-in-hand with respect for life and human dignity.

All Talk

From the the pen of John Bolton, appearing in the New York Daily News:

Secretary of State Clinton's announcement last week that direct Israeli-Palestinian talks will recommence next month poses considerable risk for the United States. The odds are high these negotiations will fail. If so, and combined with U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq, President Obama's commitment to begin withdrawing NATO forces from Afghanistan next summer and Iran's continuing progress toward nuclear weapons, failure means that Washington's Middle East influence will decline.

The conventional wisdom is that it never hurts to talk, and that the United States loses nothing by pursuing an active "peace process," even without concrete results. This is badly wrong, because negotiations are never cost-free. In fact, diplomacy, like all human activity, has both costs and benefits, and the issue in any specific case is whether the benefits of negotiating outweigh the risks. And for Obama, acting as a facilitator or mediator, the key risk is that failure brings the perception of weakness and incompetence.

Whether it's the economy or international affairs we're talking about, "weakness and incompetence" are the defining characteristics of this administration.

Injunction

How we all began

Welcome news, from Reuters:

(Reuters) - A U.S. district court issued a preliminary injunction on Monday stopping federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research, in a slap to the Obama administration's new guidelines on the sensitive issue.

The court ruled in favor of a suit filed in June by researchers who said human embryonic stem cell research involved the destruction of human embryos.

Judge Royce Lamberth granted the injunction after finding the lawsuit would likely succeed because the guidelines violated law banning the use of federal funds to destroy human embryos.

"(Embryonic stem cell) research is clearly research in which an embryo is destroyed," Lamberth wrote in a 15-page ruling. The Obama administration could appeal his decision or try to rewrite the guidelines to comply with U.S. law.

What About Re-Election?

Does President Obama actually want to serve out two terms in office? It's a provocative question, to be sure. Here's a thought-provoking piece from the Telegraph that plays around with an idea that is counterintuitive:

There are few Americans who see themselves as bigger than the presidency but Obama could well be one of them. In 2008, Obama showed little appetite for the down-and-dirty aspects of political campaigning.

When things got tough against Hillary Clinton, he all but conceded the final Democratic primaries and let the clock run out. Against John McCain, he developed a campaign plan and refused to deviate from it. McCain was level in the polls when the US economy imploded, handing Obama a relatively comfortable victory.

Obama is the first black American president, an established author, multi-millionaire and acclaimed figure beyond American shores.

It seems highly unlikely that Obama will decide not to run in 2012. But he might well be calculating that a embarking post-presidential role as the leading global thinker in the post-American world as a Republican successor enters office is more attractive than being sullied by the political compromises and manoeuvrings necessary to win.

Obama is post-American in every respect, and he definitely sees himself as bigger than the presidency, not to mention America itself, so in that regard, the commentary has a point. But to suggest that Obama would prefer be a one-term president is a bit of a stretch if you ask me, since that would necessitate him losing to someone else, which is something his pride is incapable of accepting.

Bad Review for NR

I'm not at all thrilled with the new design for National Review Online. It's way too busy: several layers of menu bars running horizontally across the top of the screen with varying font sizes, then a vertical list of stories cutting down the middle of the page with more options, wedged in-between the main article on one side and advertisements on the other. The eyes cannot easily navigate this dizzying website.

Editors, PLEASE change this!

Taking the Easy Route

Charles Krauthammer, writing for National Review Online:

It takes no courage whatsoever to bask in the applause of a Muslim audience as you promise to stand stoutly for their right to build a mosque, giving the unmistakable impression that you endorse the idea. What does take courage is to then respectfully ask that audience to reflect upon the wisdom of the project and consider whether the imam’s alleged goal of interfaith understanding might not be better achieved by accepting the New York governor’s offer to help find another site.

A Different Kind of American President

Thomas Sowell presents some good questions and makes some good points in his latest piece appearing in National Review Online:

...the most dangerous and most lasting damage that this administration has done to this nation has been in the international jungle, where it is alienating our longtime allies, dismantling our credibility by reneging on our commitments to putting up a missile shield in Eastern Europe, and — above all — doing nothing meaningful to stop the leading terror-sponsoring nation in the world, Iran, from getting nuclear weapons...

How much does our own administration in Washington care about the American people and their national security? This is not a question you would usually have to ask about an administration of either party. But this is not like any other administration, and Barack Obama is unlike any other president of the United States in having come from a background of decades of associations and alliances with people who resent this country and its people.

The Long List of Obama's "Teachable Moments"

From Victor Davis Hanson, writing for National Review Online:

We have learned that President Obama has a bad habit of impugning the motives of those with whom he disagrees. In the Gates case, he rushed to condemn Crowley and the police. Arizonans were not to be seen as desperate citizens trying to enforce federal law, but instead derided as bigots who harass minorities when they go out to get ice cream. And in the mosque case, the president disingenuously implied that opponents of a Ground Zero mosque wanted to deny the legal right of Muslims to build religious centers.

Note that all three issues poll badly for the president, and belie his former image as a conciliator and healer.

Again, why does Obama go off message to sermonize about these seemingly minor things that so energize his opposition and make life difficult for his fellow Democrats?

... as an Ivy League–trained lawyer and former Chicago community organizer, Obama embraces an overarching race/class/gender critique of the United States; the story of America is not so much about an exceptionally independent and prosperous people, a unique Constitution or a vibrant national past in promoting global freedom, but about how the majority oppressed various groups. Clearly, these local instances of purported grievances have excited the president — and almost automatically prompt his customary but unproven declarations that the majority or establishment in each case is biased or unfair.

And that is a big part of what distinguishes conservatives like Reagan from liberals like Obama.

Crazy

Sharing a Church?

Muslims in Spain are (again) calling for the "sharing" of the former mosque, now Cathedral, in Cordoba. The local bishop is to be applauded for immediately slapping down that ludicrous suggestion. How would the Muslim world react if we asked to share Hagia Sophia in Istanbul? They are quick to employ all the familiar, Western rhetoric about tolerance and respect when they are in the minority. What happens when the tables have turned?

Where will CNN feature in-depth stories on the long, violent history of Muslim conquests of Christian lands, spreading from Spain and North Africa, and all the way to Eastern Europe?

Obama: Apologist for Islam

David Pryce-Jones offers a sharp analysis of Obama, Islam and the ground-zero mosque. From National Review Online:

President Obama’s speech on the occasion of the Ramadan dinner in the White House presents difficulties that are becoming his trademark. Why does he find it necessary to be an apologist for Islam? He started it in his speech in Cairo a couple of years back, which also had elements that were downright creepy. Now he justifies the building of a mosque at Ground Zero because Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else. This is obviously true, but a mosque in this site of mass murder committed by Muslims is not about freedom of worship, it is a statement of supremacy and conquest. Non-Muslims are not allowed any place of worship in Saudi Arabia, and they cannot even approach within miles of the cities of Medina and Mecca. Imagine the outcry if Muslims were prevented entering, say, St Peter’s or Westminster Abbey. Yet Obama makes no mention of reciprocity, he passes over the insult and the abuse. Besides, there are plenty of instances when people do have a legal right for something but not the moral right to proceed, so that it is wise to abstain. If this mosque goes ahead, it will prove a constant source of division.

Deliberate Provocation

Two Muslims speak honestly about the planned construction of a mosque near ground-zero. From the Ottawa Citizen:

New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques so it's not as if there is pressing need to find space for worshippers. The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as "Fitna," meaning "mischief-making" that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.

The Koran commands Muslims to, "Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book" -- i.e., Jews and Christians. Building an exclusive place of worship for Muslims at the place where Muslims killed thousands of New Yorkers is not being considerate or sensitive, it is undoubtedly an act of "fitna"

So what gives Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf of the "Cordoba Initiative" and his cohorts the misplaced idea that they will increase tolerance for Muslims by brazenly displaying their own intolerance in this case?

Do they not understand that building a mosque at Ground Zero is equivalent to permitting a Serbian Orthodox church near the killing fields of Srebrenica where 8,000 Muslim men and boys were slaughtered?

The Ground-Zero Mosque

Charles Krauthammer, writing for National Review Online, discusses the implications of erecting a mosque near the site of the 9-11 massacre.

Location matters. Especially this location. Ground Zero is the site of the greatest mass murder in American history — perpetrated by Muslims of a particular Islamist orthodoxy in whose cause they died and in whose name they killed.

Of course that strain represents only a minority of Muslims. Islam is no more intrinsically Islamist than present-day Germany is Nazi — yet despite contemporary Germany’s innocence, no German of good will would even think of proposing a German cultural center at, say, Treblinka.

Which makes you wonder about the good will behind Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s proposal. This is a man who has called U.S. policy “an accessory to the crime” of 9/11 and, when recently asked whether Hamas is a terrorist organization, replied, “I’m not a politician. . . . The issue of terrorism is a very complex question.”

America is a free country where you can build whatever you want — but not anywhere. That’s why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school, no strip malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house doesn’t meet community architectural codes, you cannot build at all.

10 Reasons Why Obama Is a Failure

Don't take my word for it (I could come up with 10X as many reasons), writing for the Telegraph, Nile Gardiner ticks off a litany of valid grievances against this bumbling regime.

Numbers 8 and 10 stand out as my top picks:

8. US foreign policy is an embarrassing mess under the Obama administration

It is hard to think of a single foreign policy success for the Obama administration, but there have been plenty of missteps which have weakened American global power as well as the standing of the United States. The surrender to Moscow on Third Site missile defence, the failure to aggressively stand up to Iran’s nuclear programme, the decision to side with ousted Marxists in Honduras, the slap in the face for Great Britain over the Falklands, have all contributed to the image of a US administration completely out of its depth in international affairs. The Obama administration’s high risk strategy of appeasing America’s enemies while kicking traditional US allies has only succeeded in weakening the United States while strengthening her adversaries.

10. Obama doesn’t believe in American greatness

Barack Obama has made it clear that he doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism, and has made apologising for his country into an art form. In a speech to the United Nations last September he stated that “no one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold.” It is difficult to see how a US president who holds these views and does not even accept America’s greatness in history can actually lead the world’s only superpower with force and conviction.

There is a distinctly Titanic-like feel to the Obama presidency and it’s not hard to see why. The most left-wing president in modern American history has tried to force a highly interventionist, government-driven agenda that runs counter to the principles of free enterprise, individual freedom, and limited government that have made the United States the greatest power in the world, and the freest nation on earth.

This, combined with weak leadership both at home and abroad against the backdrop of tremendous economic uncertainty in an increasingly dangerous world, has contributed to a spectacular political collapse for a president once thought to be invincible. America at its core remains a deeply conservative nation, which cherishes its traditions and founding principles. President Obama is increasingly out of step with the American people, by advancing policies that undermine the United States as a global power, while undercutting America’s deep-seated love for freedom.

Obama's Fading Star

Here's an excellent piece by Fouad Ajami, appearing in The Wall Street Journal, entitled The Obsolescence of Barack Obama:

It was canonical to this administration and its functionaries that they were handed a broken nation, that it was theirs to repair, that it was theirs to tax and reshape to their preferences. Yet there was, in 1980, after another landmark election, a leader who had stepped forth in a time of "malaise" at home and weakness abroad: Ronald Reagan. His program was different from Mr. Obama's. His faith in the country was boundless. What he sought was to restore the nation's faith in itself, in its political and economic vitality.

Big as Reagan's mandate was, in two elections, the man was never bigger than his country. There was never narcissism or a bloated sense of personal destiny in him. He gloried in the country, and drew sustenance from its heroic deeds and its capacity for recovery. No political class rode with him to power anxious to lay its hands on the nation's treasure, eager to supplant the forces of the market with its own economic preferences...

It is in the nature of charisma that it rises out of thin air, out of need and distress, and then dissipates when the magic fails. The country has had its fill with a scapegoating that knows no end from a president who had vowed to break with recriminations and partisanship. The magic of 2008 can't be recreated, and good riddance to it. Slowly, the nation has recovered its poise. There is a widespread sense of unstated embarrassment that a political majority, if only for a moment, fell for the promise of an untested redeemer—a belief alien to the temperament of this so practical and sober a nation.

Another Perspective

An Asian take on Michelle's Spanish getaway:

The Failed State

From the Washington Examiner:

It's no coincidence that Christina Romer, chairwoman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, announced her retirement the day before Friday's brutal unemployment report. With 131,000 more jobs lost in July, and downward revisions of 97,000 for the previous two months, it's easy to see why she would start looking for the exits.

Romer is best known for drafting the February 2009 report "The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan," which the White House used as an ammunition belt in the fight to gain passage of its $862 billion economic stimulus bill (the actual cost of which exceeds $1 trillion when interest is included). Romer predicted that following passage of the stimulus bill, unemployment would plateau below 8 percent last fall and by this month register at 7 percent. That's not close enough for government work, as unemployment stands at 9.5 percent today. It would be higher except that hundreds of thousands of frustrated job seekers have given up looking for new jobs and dropped out of the labor force.

Predictably, the stimulus bill has proven to be an extraordinary waste of borrowed money that has failed to create jobs, generate economic growth or do much of anything other than line the pockets of White House political allies. That and give $308 million in subsidies to BP before the Gulf oil spill disaster, and subsidize a study on what happens when monkeys snort coke.

Coming Soon

Senate Up for Grabs?

It's a long shot apparently, but if tensions continue to boil across America...

An interesting analysis from Politico:

It’s a hope so audacious that few Republicans will even acknowledge it out loud: the possibility that the balance of power in the Senate might be up for grabs in November. The GOP would have to take 10 seats, knocking off virtually every targeted Democratic incumbent and sweeping the open seats held by both parties.

A new poll conducted for American Crossroads, the independent conservative group founded by Karl Rove and former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie, suggests the 2010 landscape might be just volatile enough to give Republicans at least a chance at that prize.

The survey, which gauged voter sentiment in 13 of the states with the country’s most competitive Senate races, showed Republican Senate candidates averaging a high single-digit lead over their Democratic opponents, offering the same snapshot of an angry, uneasy electorate shown in poll after poll this year.

The Price of Lavishness

Worth a read, from the Telegraph:

What the great French historian Alexis de Tocqueville would make of today’s Obama administration were he alive today is anyone’s guess. But I would wager that the author of L’Ancien Régime and Democracy in America would be less than impressed with the extravagance and arrogance on display among the White House elites that rule America as though they had been handed some divine right to govern with impunity.

It is the kind of impunity that has been highlighted on the world stage this week by Michelle Obama’s hugely costly trip to Spain, which has prompted a New York Post columnist Andrea Tantaros to dub the First Lady a contemporary Marie Antoinette. As The Telegraph reports, while the Obamas are covering their own vacation expenses such as accommodation, the trip may cost US taxpayers as much as $375,000 in terms of secret service security and flight costs on Air Force Two.

The timing of this lavish European vacation could not have come at a worse moment, when unemployment in America stands at 10 percent, and large numbers of Americans are fighting to survive financially in the wake of the global economic downturn. It sends a message of indifference, even contempt, for the millions of Americans who are struggling just to feed their families on a daily basis and pay the mortgage, while the size of the national debt balloons to Greek-style proportions.

The First Lady’s ill-conceived trip to Marbella and the complete disregard for public opinion and concerns over excessive government spending is symbolic of a far wider problem with the Obama presidency – the overarching disdain for the principles of limited government, individual liberty and free enterprise that have built the United States over the course of nearly two and a half centuries into the most powerful and free nation on earth.

Are people starting to catch on to this president and his ilk yet?


November, oh November.

The "Moderate" Mosque in NY

In an attempt to pacify the scads of protesters who, for some inexplicable reason, take issue with plans to erect a huge mosque near the precipice of the hallowed 9-11 crater, the aptly named Cordoba Initiative is being billed as a center for moderate Muslim voices in the heart of New York. However, as Andrew McCarthy outlines in his piece appearing in National Review, this line has been used before to describe other mosques (namely, the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Virginia) which turned out to be, well, not so moderate after all.

Dar al-Hijrah (which means “Land of Migration”) was presented as the moderate face of Islam in America — exactly what Bloomberg and other government officials assure us the Ground Zero mosque will become. Prominently featured was Johari Abdul-Malik, Dar’s soft-spoken “director of outreach,” who positively glowed as he spoke about his community’s growth.

There were, however, a few lines that Foggy Bottom evidently decided were best left on the cutting room floor. Like imam Abdul-Malik’s call for “sabotage” terrorist attacks against Israel. As he put it in 2001:

I am gonna teach you now. You can blow up bridges, but you cannot kill people who are innocent on their way to work. You can blow up power supplies . . . the water supply, you can do all forms of sabotage and let the world know that we are doing it like this because they have a respect for the lives of innocent people.

Yes, what better way to show respect! Of course, omitting this speech spared State the embarrassment of explaining that it was given at a conference hosted by the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP). IAP was the Muslim Brotherhood–created headquarters of U.S. support for Hamas. Incidentally, a top IAP official, Nihad Awad, has become one of the Ground Zero mosque’s most visible supporters. Awad also happens to be a founder of the Council on American Islamic Relations, another Muslim Brotherhood creation. CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator by the Justice Department in the Holy Land Foundation case, in which several defendants were convicted for providing Hamas with millions of dollars in funding.

Roughing It

From the New York Daily News, Andrea Tantaros comments on Michelle Obama's quaint Spanish getaway.

Sacrifice is something that many Americans are becoming all too familiar with during this economic downturn. It was a key theme in President Obama's inaugural address to the nation, and he's referenced it numerous times when lecturing the country on how to get back on its feet.

But while most of the country is pinching pennies and downsizing summer sojourns - or forgoing them altogether - the Obamas don't seem to be heeding their own advice. While many of us are struggling, the First Lady is spending the next few days in a five-star hotel on the chic Costa del Sol in southern Spain with 40 of her "closest friends." According to CNN, the group is expected to occupy 60 to 70 rooms, more than a third of the lodgings at the 160-room resort. Not exactly what one would call cutting back in troubled times.

Reports are calling the lodgings of Obama's Spanish fiesta, the Hotel Villa Padierna in Marbella, "luxurious," "posh" and "a millionaires' playground." Estimated room rate per night? Up to a staggering $2,500. Method of transportation? Air Force Two.

To be clear, what the Obamas do with their money is one thing; what they do with ours is another. Transporting and housing the estimated 70 Secret Service agents who will flank the material girl will cost the taxpayers a pretty penny.

1 Judge vs. 7 Million Voters

I'm not an enthusiast when it comes to citing Thomas Jefferson, especially when he opines on matters of religion. But within the narrow confines of the judiciary, he made some incredibly prescient observations. His thoughts are all the more relevant in light of yesterday's utterly insane ruling coming out of California that swept Proposition 8 aside (at least for now).

But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch. — Letter to Mrs. John Adams, Nov. 1804

If [as the Federalists say] “the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government,” … , then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de so. … The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law … — Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Nov. 1819

You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges … and their power [are] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and are not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves … . When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves. …. — Letter to Mr. Jarvis, Sept, 1820

The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working underground to undermine our Constitution from a co-ordinate of a general and special government to a general supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet. … I will say, that “against this every man should raise his voice,” and, more, should uplift his arm … — Letter to Thomas Ritchie, Sept. 1820

I fear, dear Sir, we are now in such another crisis [as when the Alien and Sedition Laws were enacted], with this difference only, that the judiciary branch is alone and single-handed in the present assaults on the Constitution. But its assaults are more sure and deadly, as from an agent seemingly passive and unassuming. — Letter to Mr. Nicholas, Dec. 1821

A Question of Limits

Writing for the Wall Street Journal, Betsy McCaughey discusses the recent court ruling in Virginia questioning the constitutionality of ObamaCare's mandate to purchase health insurance.

If mandatory insurance is declared unconstitutional, the entire health law could collapse like a house of cards. Most complex legislation states that if one part of the law is struck down, other parts remain enforceable. But authors of ObamaCare chose to omit that clause, suggesting that the health overhaul won't work without mandatory insurance.

The law's defenders say the requirement that everyone purchase health insurance will solve a national problem by reducing the number of uninsured and spreading the cost of care over a larger insurance pool.

Critics say that the requirement tramples the Constitution. Twenty-one states and several individuals are already suing to overturn it. Virginia went one step further, enacting a law that makes it illegal to require any resident to purchase health insurance. The Virginia measure won solid support from both Republican and Democratic state legislators. Despite what Mrs. Pelosi tried to suggest, questioning the constitutionality of ObamaCare is not partisan posturing. A fundamental principle is at stake.

On July 1, before a packed courtroom, attorneys for the state of Virginia argued that if the federal government can require you to buy insurance, it could also force you to buy any product to solve any national problem: a new GM car to bolster Detroit, or stocks to prop up Wall Street.

The Broken Window Fallacy

A lesson in basic economics that is badly needed today:

Exporting Terror

Daniel Pipes comments on the troubling trend of radical Islamic cells operating from within Great Britain and explains why this should deeply worry Americans. From National Review Online:

...London’s Centre for Social Cohesion, run by the formidable Douglas Murray, has just published a 535-page opus, Islamist Terrorism: The British Connections, written by Robin Simcox, Hannah Stuart, and Houriya Ahmed. It consists mainly of detailed biographical information on two sorts of perpetrators of what it calls “Islamism related offences,” or IROs — that is to say, incidents where evidence points to Islamist beliefs as the primary motivator.

One listing contains information on the 127 individuals convicted of IROs or suicides in IROs within Britain; the other provides biographies on 88 individuals with connections to Britain who engaged in IROs elsewhere in the world. The study covers eleven years, 1999 through 2009.

Domestic British terrorists display a dismaying pattern of normality. They are predominantly young (mean age 26) and male (96 percent). Nearly half come from a South Asian background. Of those whose educational backgrounds are known, most attended university. Of those whose occupations are known, most have jobs or study full time. Two-thirds of them are British nationals, two-thirds have no links to proscribed terrorist organizations, and two-thirds never went abroad to attend terrorist training camps.

And so it begins

From Politico:

In the first substantive legal ruling on President Barack Obama’s health care reform law, a federal judge has rejected the Justice Department’s request to dismiss a lawsuit from Virginia’s state government challenging the reform’s requirement that individuals purchase health insurance.

U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson ruled that enough factual issues were in dispute in the case to allow the suit, brought by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, to go forward. At issue is whether the insurance mandate included in the reform exceeds the federal government’s authority under the Constitution — in particular, whether Congress’s ability to regulate commerce allows the federal government to penalize those who decline to buy health insurance...

“Unquestionably, this regulation radically changes the landscape of health insurance coverage in America,” Hudson wrote in a 32-page decision filed Monday morning. “Never before has the Commerce Clause … been extended this far.”

Hudson said there was no clear legal precedent allowing the federal government to impose such a rule, even under Congress’s power to require individuals to pay taxes. However, he also conceded there was no clear precedent to the contrary.

It's going to get very interesting.

On the Reception of Communion

A friend from North Carolina forwarded this commentary to me. It is well worth a read.

Communion in the Hand? What Says Catholic Tradition?
By Matthew Schultz

In an interview with Mother Teresa of Calcutta on Good Friday of 1989, Father George Rutler asked, "Mother, what do you think is the worst problem today?" Without any hesitation, Mother Teresa said, "Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand." For most of us, Mother Teresa's comment is startling-why does she not name one of the more obvious candidates: famine, disease, abortion? And, if Mother Teresa is right to identify communion in the hand as "the worst problem today," why does holy mother Church permit it? Perhaps our surprise at Mother Teresa's intense dislike for communion in the hand is because of our own ignorance on this issue.

Communion in the hand was never a universal custom or practice in the history of the Church. Popes St. Sixtus (115-165 A.D.) and St. Euchtyian (275-283 A.D.) both forbade the faithful from receiving communion in the hand; St. Basil (330-379 A.D.) permitted this practice only in times of persecution; St Leo the Great teaches, "one receives in the mouth what one believes by faith." Eventually, communion in the hand was forbidden universally because, as Paul VI states, "with the passage of time as the truth of the Eucharistic mystery, its power, and Christ's presence in it were more deeply understood the usage adopted was that the minister himself placed the particle of the consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant" [Memoriale Domini, 8].

If Catholics did not believe in the Real Presence, then to argue over which mode was more reverent would be superfluous and ridiculous. The Protestant Reformers were keenly aware of the great significance attached to receiving the Eucharist on the tongue --witness how Martin Bucer ordered Cranmer to change the rubric in his 1552 Common Book of Prayer by enjoining the faithful to receive Communion in the hand because to receive on the tongue would be to fall prey to Romish superstition (i.e. belief in the Real Presence). Throughout the centuries, the prevailing opinion of the Church has been that greater reverence is shown to the Blessed Sacrament when one receives on the tongue. Has the Church changed her opinion on this matter of discipline?

In 1965, Cardinal Suenens, Archbishop of Belgium, introduced the practice of receiving Communion in the hand to his diocese. Pope Paul VI addressed this flagrant act of disobedience in 1969 with the release of his encyclical Memoriale Domini. Pope Paul VI explains in his encyclical why Communion on the tongue is the norm of the Church and enumerates the many dangers attached to receiving Communion in the hand. Communion on the tongue is the preferred norm of the Church because it "more effectively ensures that Communion is distributed with the required reverence, decorum, and dignity; that there is less danger of disrespect for the Eucharistic elements...[and so] caution is exercised which the Church has always counseled regarding the particles of the consecrated bread"[11].

In addition to Pope Paul VI's concern for the safety of the Eucharistic elements, by receiving Communion directly on the tongue one also recognizes and gives reverence to the consecrated hands of the priests ("because out of reverence towards this sacrament, nothing touches it but what is consecrated" [Aquinas, S.T.,VIII,Q.82, Art.13]).

Pope Paul VI's abundant praise for Communion on the tongue is withheld when he turns to speak of Communion on the hand; his tone changes to one of caution and worry: "A change in so important a matter that has its basis in an ancient and honored tradition does not simply affect discipline, but can also bring with it dangers that, it is feared, may arise from the new way of administering Communion.

In particular, these dangers are both the possibility of a lessening of reverence toward the august Sacrament of the Altar, its profanation, and the watering down of the true doctrine of the Eucharist" [12, emphasis mine]. Paul VI is concerned that the changing of this discipline will cause a weakening of faith. So great was his concern over the question that he polled his entire episcopate. The results were overwhelming: 1,233 bishops opposed such a measure compared to 567 in favor. Having examined the issue at length and having consulted the counsel of the bishops, the pontiff decided "not to change the long-accepted manner of administering Communion to the faithful"[18]. He then urges the faithful "to obey conscientiously the prevailing law, now reconfirmed" [19]. Paul VI closes his encyclical by permitting Communion in the hand not as a preferred practice but only in "special circumstances"[20]. The widespread extension of this practice, then, attests to the failure of the clergy and laity to heed the counsels and intentions of the Church on this matter.

To understand why Mother Teresa of Calcutta, one of the most remarkable woman of the 20th century, could declare that Communion in the hand gave her the greatest sadness, Father John Hardon, S.J., writes, "Behind Communion in the hand --I wish to repeat and make as plain as I can-- is a weakening, a conscious, a deliberate weakening of faith in the Real Presence." Communion in the hand, even though it is currently permitted, departs radically from Catholic Tradition as expressed in the teachings of the popes, the writings of the saints, and the councils of the Church.

Big Victory for Freedom of Speech

Some rare good news coming out of Washington, from Politico:

Senate Democrats failed to attract a single Republican vote on the DISCLOSE Act Tuesday, effectively defeating the bill and casting doubts over whether any campaign finance measure can pass the upper chamber before the November elections.

Aides in both the Senate and the House insist the legislation will come up for consideration again. But with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) painting the bill - which failed 57-41 - as detrimental to his conference, a packed legislative docket and contentious elections on the horizon, sending the DISCLOSE Act to the president's desk now appears to be a long shot at best.

Here's a review of the Supreme Court ruling which the Dems just failed to sabotage this afternoon.

14 Weeks

14 Weeks from Republican Governors Association on Vimeo.

Missing

The search is on for two missing Navy service members in Afghanistan, who are believed to be in enemy hands. From the Associated Press:

KABUL, Afghanistan – Two U.S. Navy service members disappeared in a dangerous area of eastern Afghanistan, prompting a massive air and ground search and appeals on local radio stations for their safe return, NATO and Afghan officials said Saturday.

The two left their compound in the Afghan capital, Kabul, in a vehicle Friday afternoon, but never returned, NATO said in a statement. Vehicles and helicopters were dispatched to search for the two, who may have been killed or captured by the Taliban in Charkh district of southern Logar province — about a two-hour drive south of Kabul, said district chief Samer Gul.

While extremely rare, it still surprises me that these things happen to our military. Given the edge we have regarding communication technology, and the military's rapid response to any battle and flare-up, how does this happen?

Mosque or No Mosque Near Ground Zero?

From CNN:

(CNN) – Days after Sarah Palin's criticism of a planned mosque near Ground Zero riled New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is calling the proposed project "a test of the timidity, passivity and historic ignorance of American elites."

"There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia. The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over," Gingrich, a potential 2012 presidential candidate writes in a post on his web site Thursday.

"Those Islamists and their apologists who argue for 'religious toleration' are arrogantly dishonest. They ignore the fact that more than 100 mosques already exist in New York City," he adds.

Plans to build the $100 million, 13-story 'Cordoba House' three blocks from the site of the attacks on September 11, 2001 have sparked an emotional debate throughout the city...

"'Cordoba House is a deliberately insulting term," writes Gingrich. "It refers to Cordoba, Spain – the capital of Muslim conquerors who symbolized their victory over the Christian Spaniards by transforming a church there into the world's third-largest mosque complex."

"Not a Dime"

From The Hill:

If a Republican majority can’t repeal health reform, they can at least assure “not a dime” to fund its implementation, House GOP leader John Boehner (Ohio) pledged.

Boehner said that while he could guarantee a bill would hit the floor under a GOP-controlled Congress to repeal the healthcare reforms President Obama signed into law earlier this year, if that fails, they would at least provide no more money.

“They’re not going to get one dime from us to hire these new federal employees to run this,” Boehner said in a town hall with constituents, as reported by the Fairfield Echo.

Republicans have made repealing healthcare a central part of their election year strategy, upon which Democrats have also seized in their election year messaging.

“I guarantee there will be a bill on the floor that will repeal the healthcare bill and replace it with common sense reforms,” Boehner said in the call.

Nice to finally see Republicans getting tough. Let's hold them to it though if given the majority.

Insult to Injury

Remember him come November

Today, our smug President, surrounded by his dutiful minions from Congress, signed into law a leviathan, disastrous bill that will further regulate the markets and financial industries to the hilt. (The sickening, twilight zone-ish part of the bill is that it was shrewdly crafted by the same two culprits who are more responsible for the financial crisis than anyone else: Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. These two men did more to prop up and shield Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac than anyone, and now they are lauded as selfless, pure legislative sages. They should be driven out of office. It is totally insane and nauseating.)

Obama signed this toxic piece of legislative flotsam in the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington. Don't think for a moment that the selection of this location for the elaborate signing ceremony wasn't an intentional move, a firm slap in the face to Republicans.

Obama's ONE overarching goal as president, beyond anything relating to foreign policy, to wars, to nuclear threats, to rouge nations, oil spills, endless White House galas, etc., is to UNDO Ronald Reagan's domestic legacy forever. And what is that legacy? Free markets and deregulation, a belief in hard work, rewards and incentives, independence, freedom from Big Brother. In other words, THE CONSTITUTION.

"Remember November"

Executive interference

From FoxNews:

A Republican lawmaker is accusing the White House of “unconscionable” and “illegal” acts for its role in Kenya's referendum on a new constitution, which would legalize abortion in the country for the first time.

Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey cited a report by the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, which estimated that more than $23 million in U.S. taxpayer funds have been spent on the referendum, and Smith and other conservatives have complained that at least some of that money has been spent in sport of the proposed constitution, possibly violating U.S. law.

“Under no circumstances should the U.S. government take sides,” Smith said at a news conference Wednesday. “Yet that is precisely what the Obama administration has done.”

I hope this isn't true, but chances are...

Send Him Packing

It's far too early to for giddiness, but this is encouraging. From CNN:

Washington (CNN) - Nearly half of all Americans think President Barack Obama does not deserve re-election in 2012, according to a new national poll.

A Quinnipiac University survey released Wednesday indicates that 48 percent of the public thinks Obama doesn't deserve a second term in office, with four in ten saying he does deserve to be re-elected. By a 52 to 34 percent margin, Independent voters say the president doesn't deserve re-election.

Thirty-six percent of people questioned in the poll say they'd vote for Obama if the next presidential election were held today, with 39 percent saying they'd cast their ballot for the Republican candidate.

The Exodus

A new poll shows that any of the top tier Republicans in the cards for 2012 could beat Obama. How the mighty have fallen. From The Wall Street Journal:

On Election Day 2008, much was made of the increased turnout that Mr. Obama inspired among young voters and African-Americans, and to be sure that fattened his margin. But he won the White House because, the exit polling showed, he got 49% of men, 43% of whites and 52% of independents. Each of these three groups individually makes up a larger share of the electorate than blacks and young people combined.

In July 2009, President Obama had actually grown that support so that he was getting a thumbs-up job approval from 54% of men, 51% of whites and 52% of independents.

But today, the numbers for those three groups show just how far he has fallen. He gets a positive job approval from just 37% of whites, 38% of independents and 39% of men – a roughly 30% drop in all three groups in his support.

And the bleeding has spread to his fellow Democrats on Capitol Hill. In July 2009, voters said by 42%-34% that they would back a Democrat for Congress; today, they said they prefer a Republican, 43%-38%. The drop-off among the various demographic groups is similar to that for the president.

Facing the Facts

From LifeSiteNews:

MADRID, July 19, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Spanish region of Valencia will be requiring women to learn about fetal development and abortion before they proceed with the latter, according to the Spanish newspaper El Pais.

Mothers who want to end their unborn children's lives through an abortion will be required to receive written information about abortion, and will also receive ethical counseling that will include videos, photos of abortions, and even 3-D sonogram images regarding the development of the fetus, according to a spokesman for the Valencian government.

The socialist administration of Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, which currently controls Spain's executive branch, has expressed its opposition to the Valencian program. Valencia is led by the People's Party, the primary opposition party in Spain.

Republicans who get it...

and then there are those who don't and probably never will, which brings us to Senator Lindsey Graham, who today was the only Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee to vote in favor of Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court. If ever there was a better example of what is wrong with the Republican Party look no further than Senator Graham. Have the lessons of the past election, which saw the epitome of the "reach across the aisle" let's hold hands candidate go down in flames to a leftist ideologue, left no imprint on Graham's psyche?

He thinks Kagan is "funny," which "goes a long way in his book." Well, that's great. He says that he wouldn't have nominated her, that she is a "liberal," and that there are 100 other reasons why he would have nominated someone else. That said, he insists that President Obama "chose wisely." Does this make sense to any Republican fortunate to live outside the DC bubble.

In a way, Graham reminds me of Mr. Rogers. (No offense to Mr. Rogers.) The difference is this: Mr. Rogers usually talked to children. Graham uses the same lecturing, maddeningly patronizing tone, when addressing grown-ups.

Gingrich: "Obama a teenager with a credit card"

I am hoping more and more that Newt runs in '12.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The GOP, Dems, the "Ruling Class" and the Rest of Us

Here's a brilliant piece from Angelo M. Codevilla appearing in The American Spectator entitled "America's Ruling Class--And the Perils of Revolution". It is long, but worth the investment of time. To excerpt it would be a grave injustice. Just read it.

Observations on Mass, Then and Now

From Catholic Online, here is an excerpt from an interview with Father Jeffrey Fasching. He gives us his take on Vatican II, Liturgy, and aberrations that have emerged in the last few decades.

Some common misunderstandings with respect to Vatican II include the following:

The priest facing the people was not introduced by Vatican II. It became the unwritten practice in the Novus Ordo mass without any directives from Vatican II or by the Missal of 1969. Cardinal Ratzinger said in The Spirit of the Liturgy that the priest in facing the congregation is tempted "to be an actor." The Mass is not a performance, therefore applause is inappropriate. The Mass is a sacrifice and must transcend the personality of the priest.

The official language of the Novus Ordo is Latin and the Mass may be celebrated either in Latin or in English. The practice of receiving Communion in the hand was not called for by Vatican II. This sprang up as an abuse and was subsequently accepted by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in 1977 by a slim majority. This indult can be withdrawn at any time.

The Motu Proprio of Pope Benedict making the Traditional Mass more available should be viewed as "reform of the reform," a renewal of the Church began by liturgical renewal. The vast majority of the thousands of bishops at the Council neither wished for, nor mandated, a radical reform of the liturgy. It was never the intention to abandon the use of Latin or to require the celebrant to face the people. Nothing had been said about standing to receive Communion in the hand, or the use of altar girls. No mention had been made about the use of multiple Canons. In the Roman rite there had always been one Eucharistic prayer. The many changes in the liturgy were for the most part made after Vatican II. Interpretation of the Council's intent was motivated by what became known as "the Spirit of Vatican II."

My question has to do with the Novus Ordo. In terms of how it is offered, Liturgy has become so disparate in the United States. From one parish to another, impromptus and abuses seem to dominate to such an extent that it's difficult to even speak of a common "Novus Ordo Liturgy." Where can one find a "pure" Novus Ordo, carried out precisely as the Second Vatican Council envisioned it? I dare say, it's hard to find, even at the more tame parishes. The innovations mentioned above by Father, inserted after the Council, have long since become the unquestioned norm. Now, I'm not questioning the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass, but merely observing how muddled the issue has become as a result of so many priests who feel totally empowered to do their own "thing" and to heck with the norms, documents or consequences.

Say what you want about the Traditional Mass (I happen to prefer it), or the people it attracts, but the uniformity it offers is probably one of its greatest assets. It is almost structured to resist excessive tinkering and silliness. To be sure, anything can be open to possible abuse, but the so-called rigidity of the Old Mass, usually listed as one of its defects, serves as a bulwark against a priest (and there are many these days) inclined to take center stage and just wing it.

I lament the loss of an authentic liturgical culture and identity; one that is consistent with tradition and compatible with beauty.

Proud Party of "No"

The Republican lightweights from the last post could learn a good deal from their Senate leader, Mitch McConnell. There's a little bit of redemption for the Party in this clip.

GOP Disgrace

Truly depressing. That is the only way to describe this video clip. My blood pressure skyrocketed while watching this series of Meet the Press round table discussions. The two Congressional Democrats run circles around these limp, ineffectual Republicans, who simply rehash lame talking points. They are utterly incapable of admitting that,

a. under President Bush the GOP lost its way, as out of control spending went unchecked, and for which they were rightly punished in '06 and '08

b. the GOP has since learned its lesson and wants to return to authentic conservative solutions

c. far from anything new, Obama is simply relying on more reckless spending to solve the economic crisis. He is making a bad situation far worse. At least the GOP recognizes its fault and aims to make a course correction. The Democrats are simply building on the mistakes of the past via failed policies and legislation.

What is so hard about stating this?

David Gregory was right to express frustration with these listless and sleepy representatives. The GOP had better get its act together or there will be nothing to celebrate come November. I was embarrassed by this sorry display. Who recommended these two for the camera?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

"Freedom of Worship" vs. "Freedom of Religion"

Writing for Catholic Online, Randy Sly comments on a disturbing linguistic trend in the current administration.

WASHINGTON, DC (Catholic Online) - The change in language was barely noticeable to the average citizen but political observers are raising red flags at the use of a new term "freedom of worship" by President Obama and Secretary Clinton as a replacement for the term freedom of religion. This shift happened between the President's speech in Cairo where he showcased America's freedom of religion and his appearance in November at a memorial for the victims of Fort Hood, where he specifically used the term "freedom of worship." From that point on, it has become the term of choice for the president and Clinton.

In her article for "First Things" magazine, Ashley Samelson, International Programs Director for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, stated, "To anyone who closely follows prominent discussion of religious freedom in the diplomatic and political arena, this linguistic shift is troubling: "The reason is simple. Any person of faith knows that religious exercise is about a lot more than freedom of worship. It's about the right to dress according to one's religious dictates, to preach openly, to evangelize, to engage in the public square. Everyone knows that religious Jews keep kosher, religious Quakers don't go to war, and religious Muslim women wear headscarves-yet "freedom of worship" would protect none of these acts of faith."

Cicero Speaks

Nature is the source of law: and it is contrary to nature for one man to prey upon another's ignorance. So trickery disguised as intelligence is life's greatest scourge, being the cause of innumerable illusions of conflict between advantage and right.

For even an outward blemish such as physical deformity is not very agreeable, a degeneracy of the soul itself faces us with something that is truly hideous and repellent. -Taken from On Duties

Then, while extolling the benefits of age, Cicero takes a dig at the ambitious youth of the day. Naturally, I couldn't help but think of Obama here:

The Spartans, too, call the holders of their offices the 'elders', which is just what they are. And if you choose to read, or have read to you, the histories of foreign countries, you will find that the greatest states were overturned by young people and restored by the old. 'Tell me, how did you lose your great nation so speedily?' they asked in Naevius's play The Game. And the most significant answer is this: 'Because new public speakers came forward--silly young men.' Early adulthood is naturally rash; sound sense only comes with advancing years. -Taken from On Old Age

Don't Underestimate Him

That is the warning from Charles Krauthammer in a sobering piece appearing in National Review. Republicans should feel confident, but certainly not giddy. Obama may actually be hoping for a GOP takeover of Congress in order to set up a villain opponent that he can label and manipulate for the sake of his own reelection, in the way Bill Clinton did in '96. If the Republicans win back the House, and perhaps even the Senate, they cannot afford to rest on their laurels, but need to stay on the offensive, and relentlessly so.

The Holder Case

Attorney General Eric Holder is one big embarrassment for the United States and must be shown the door, argues Victor Davis Hanson. His piece, appearing on National Review Online, is well worth a read.

Holder got himself into trouble last year when he played politics by announcing that the administration would try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the architect of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, in a civilian courtroom. The boast was supposed to contrast an enlightened Obama team with the demonized Bush administration’s supposed lawlessness in confining KSM at Guantanamo.

But after New Yorkers protested against holding the trial practically next door to the scene of the 9/11 attack, Holder backed off. Meanwhile, the president rushed to assure the nation that KSM would be “convicted” and have “the death penalty . . . applied to him.” At that point, Bush’s planned military tribunals seemed a lot less prejudicial than Holder’s planned civilian show trial.

Holder’s continual refusal to link radical Islam with the epidemic of global terrorism is likewise entirely political. When asked at a congressional hearing whether radical Islamic terrorists were behind the Fort Hood killings, the attempted Christmas Day bombing, and the foiled Times Square attack, Holder refused to identify that obvious common catalyst. He cited instead a “variety of reasons.” The nation’s chief prosecutor was not looking at the evidence, but adhering to a politically correct, predetermined dogma.

The Stimulus Lie

What happens when billions of dollars are injected into the economy via a safe code word like "stimulus" but individuals and companies are, at the same time, spending less and less (in other words, the velocity of currency circulation plummets)? Thomas Sowell offers the answer here. Hint: It's not good.

A Nun's Story

Diverging Views at the Top

From The Washington Times:

Obama at odds with Petraeus doctrine on 'Islam'

The White House's official policy of banning the word "Islam" in describing America's terrorist enemies is in direct conflict with the U.S. military's war-fighting doctrine now guiding commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan.

John O. Brennan, President Obama's chief national security adviser for counterterrorism, delivered a major policy address on defining the enemy. He laid out the White House policy of detaching any reference to Islam when referring to terrorists, be it al Qaeda, the Taliban or any other group.

But Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the man tapped by Mr. Obama as the new top commander in Afghanistan, led the production of an extensive counterinsurgency manual in December 2006 that does, in fact, tell commanders of a link between Islam and extremists.

The Petraeus doctrine refers to "Islamic insurgents," "Islamic extremists" and "Islamic subversives." It details ties between Muslim support groups and terrorists. His co-author was Gen. James F. Amos, whom Mr. Obama has picked as the next Marine Corps commandant and Joint Chiefs of Staff member.

On the Perils of "State Capitalism"

A fascinating piece on the concerns of economist Ian Bremmer, appearing in the Telegraph:

His latest thesis – one that has taken America, particularly on the right, by surprise and has fuelled great interest on the left in part as a result of appearances on John Stewart's political satire The Daily Show – is that the biggest threat to the world economy and global growth is not the financial crisis, but the rise of "state capitalism" as an increasingly viable alternative to the free market.

State capitalism, as Bremmer defines it, is "a set of governing principles" used by governments around the world to manage the performance of markets and companies for long-term political survival. Think the oil-rich Gulf states, or Venezuela, or China itself.

"State capitalism is corporations captured by states," he says, explaining a phenomenon he argues has yet to be fully embraced by the political or financial spheres.

Bremmer argues that increasingly influential countries are using financial markets to create wealth based on the perceptions of national interest.

As a result, it is not sub-prime mortgages or risky derivative trades that pose the biggest threat to the future of the global economy, but rather these very countries with which the US, the UK and the rest of Europe trade.

"The biggest challenge for the world economy…[is] the shift from free markets and multi-national corporations being key economic players to something very, very different where we're now competing with a different and quite valuable model."

A Socialist?

From Jim Geraghty, writing for National Review Online:

The latest poll by Democracy Corps, the firm of James Carville and Stan Greenberg, has Republicans leading on the generic ballot among likely voters, 48 percent to 42 percent.

Deep in the poll, they ask, “Now, I am going to read you a list of words and phrases which people use to describe political figures. For each word or phrase, please tell me whether it describes Barack Obama very well, well, not too well, or not well at all.”

When asked about “a socialist,” 33 percent of likely voters say it describes Obama “very well,” 22 percent say “well,” 15 percent say “not too well,” and 25 percent say “not well at all.”

In other words, 55 percent of likely voters think “socialist” is a reasonably accurate way of describing Obama.

Should we be surprised?

Serious About Coffee

Worth a watch:

Who?

Before two days ago, I had no clue about LeBron James. I cannot believe the amount of attention this "Will he go to Miami or not?" spectacle has received. It's the stuff of frenzy and personality cults. Even National Review features a link to his "big" decision. Give me a break! Who cares? It's one thing to be one the pulse of culture and current events, but quite another to take part in endless, pointless media hysteria.

Tracking Obama's Narcissism

From Charles Krauthammer, writing for National Review Online:

It began with the almost comical self-inflation of his presidential campaign, from the still inexplicable mass rally in Berlin in front of a Prussian victory column to the Greek columns framing him at the Democratic convention. And it carried into his presidency, from his posture of philosopher-king adjudicating between America’s sins and the world’s to his speeches marked by a spectacularly promiscuous use of the first-person pronoun “I.”

Notice, too, how Obama habitually refers to cabinet members and other high-level government officials as “my” — “my secretary of homeland security,” “my national security team,” “my ambassador.” The more normal — and respectful — usage is to say “the,” as in “the secretary of state.” These are, after all, public officials sworn to serve the nation and protect the Constitution — not just the man who appointed them.

It’s a stylistic detail, but quite revealing of Obama’s exalted view of himself. Not surprising, perhaps, in a man whose major achievement before acceding to the presidency was writing two biographies — both about himself.

Obama is not the first president with a large streak of narcissism. But the others had equally expansive feelings about their country. Obama’s modesty about America would be more understandable if he treated himself with the same reserve. But it is odd to have a president so convinced of his own magnificence — yet not of his own country’s.

On What a Stimulus is Not

A timely piece from Arthur B. Laffer, appearing in The Wall Street Journal:

The current debate over extending and increasing federal unemployment benefits encapsulates the disagreement between the Democrats in power in Washington and their Republican opponents. What the consequences will be of raising unemployment benefits in today's depressed economy is at issue.

The most obvious argument against extending or raising unemployment benefits is that it will make being unemployed either more attractive or less unattractive, and thereby lead to higher unemployment. Empirical research supports this view.

The Democratic retort is that the economy today is so different from the past that we have to suspend our traditional understanding of economics. With five job seekers for every job opening, the unemployed are desperate for work and increasing unemployment benefits will have very little if any disincentive effect. This view hinges on a total change in employee behavior from "normal" times to the current period of "the Great Recession."

When Kagan was Dean

Elena Kagan at Harvard law school: Sharia law and Don't Ask, Don't Tell...A disturbing piece by Andrew McCarthy, appearing in National Review Online:

While Kagan was at the law school, her patron, Harvard’s president Larry Summers, accepted a stunning $20 million donation for the creation of a program of studies to lionize Islam’s history and jurisprudence. The cash came from the Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal, the billionaire investor whose attempted $10 million contribution to the Twin Towers fund had been refused by New York mayor Rudy Giuliani when bin Talal blamed the 9/11 atrocities on American foreign policy. Summers, the anti-Giuliani, not only took the money but named the program and an endowed professorship in the prince’s honor. And why not? By then, as Ben Shapiro reported, Harvard’s law school already had three Saudi-funded institutions devoted to the study of sharia.

Roberts vs. Obama

President Obama and Chief Justice John Roberts are set on a "collision course." I have posted on this topic before, and things have only heated up since then. As it stands, the Supreme Court, led by the Roberts majority, is the one institution that stands squarely in the path of the unrelenting Obama juggernaut. The inevitable clashes over the competing views on the role of government will be something to behold. Here's an interesting story from the LA Times:

As chief justice, Roberts has steered the court on a conservative course, one that often has tilted toward business. For example, the justices have made it much harder for investors or pension funds to sue companies for stock fraud.

Two years ago, the court declared for the first time that the gun rights of individuals were protected by the Constitution. This year, the justices made clear this was a "fundamental" right that extended to cities and states as well as federal jurisdictions.

Since the arrival in 2006 of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., Roberts has had a five-member majority skeptical of campaign funding restrictions. At first, he moved cautiously. Roberts spoke for the majority in 2007 in saying that a preelection broadcast ad sponsored by a nonprofit corporation was protected as free speech even though it criticized a candidate for office.

Last year, the court had before it another seemingly minor challenge to election laws by a group that wanted permission to sell a DVD that slammed Hillary Rodham Clinton when she was running for president in 2008. This time, however, Roberts decided on a much bolder move.

The 5-4 ruling in the Citizens United case struck down all limits on direct election spending — for giant, profit-making corporations as well as small nonprofit groups. For more than 60 years, Congress and many states had barred corporate and union spending to sway elections. The court's opinion dismissed all such laws as unconstitutional censorship.

The decision came as a "real shock to the administration and to the Democrats in Congress," said Simon Lazarus, counsel for the National Senior Citizens Law Center. "It's also caused a sea change in their thinking about the court. Before, it was all about the 'culture wars' issues, like abortion, prayer and gay rights. Afterward, they saw this new activist thrust among the conservatives as a direct threat to their legislative agenda."

The Steele Mess

From Politico:

After enjoying some of the calmest weeks of his chairmanship, the Republican National Committee's Michael Steele is facing a new round of resignation calls for suggesting the war in Afghanistan isn't worth fighting.

A video of Steele speaking to a small fundraiser in Connecticut on Thursday went viral Friday morning, leading to harsh criticism from the right and the left and prompting calls for his resignation from several of the Republican Party's leading voices.

"The McChrystal incident, to me, was very comical," Steele said. "I think it's a reflection of the frustration that a lot of our military leaders has with this Administration and their prosecution of the war in Afghanistan. Keep in mind again, federal candidates, this was a war of Obama's choosing. This was not something that the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in.

Um, what is Steele talking about here? The war in Afghanistan was not one "that the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in..." What planet is Steele inhabiting?

I've reserved airing my thoughts on Steele long enough. At first he might have seemed like a good idea, but given his penchant for nonsensical anti-Republican rambling, he is clearly not the man for this position. He needs to go NOW. Note to the Republican leadership: Cut Steele from the Party before he does even more damage. We simply cannot afford these sorts of gaffes.

Pelosi: Unemployment Checks = New Jobs

Yes, she actually did say that.