The Outsider President

Here's an excerpt from an excellent article by Robert Weissberg, appearing in The American Thinker entitled A Stranger in Our Midst:

After auditioning countless political terms, I finally realized that the Obama administration and its congressional collaborators almost resemble a foreign occupying force, a coterie of politically and culturally non-indigenous leaders whose rule contravenes local values rooted in our national tradition. It is as if the United States has been occupied by a foreign power, and this transcends policy objections. It is not about Obama's birthplace. It is not about race, either; millions of white Americans have had black mayors and black governors, and this unease about out-of-sync values never surfaced...

The suspicion that Obama is an outsider, a figure who really doesn't "get" America, grew clearer from his initial appointments. What "native" would appoint Kevin Jennings, a militant gay activist, to oversee school safety? Or permit a Marxist rabble-rouser to be a "green jobs czar"? How about an Attorney General who began by accusing Americans of cowardice when it comes to discussing race? And who can forget Obama's weird defense of his pal Louis Henry Gates from "racist" Cambridge, Massachusetts cops? ...

And then there's the "we are sorry, we'll never be arrogant again" rhetoric seemingly designed for a future President of the World election campaign. What made Obama's Cairo utterances so distressing was how they grated on American cultural sensibilities. And he just doesn't notice, perhaps akin to never hearing Rev. Wright anti-American diatribes. An American president does not pander to third-world audiences by lying about the Muslim contribution to America. Imagine Ronald Reagan, or any past American president, trying to win friends by apologizing. This appeal contravenes our national character and far exceeds a momentary embarrassment about garbled syntax or poor delivery. Then there's Obama's bizarre, totally unnecessary deep bowing to foreign potentates. Americans look foreign leaders squarely in the eye and firmly shake hands; we don't bow.

Great Expectations

From Politico:

How many seats are in play for the Republican Party to pick up in November?

John Boehner says at least 100. You read that right: 100 seats — or 23 percent of the entire House — could be gobbled up by Republicans on Boehner’s dream election day scenario.

The House minority leader, speaking on National Public Radio’s “Morning Edition” on Friday, said that the “playing field” for the 2010 elections is wider than “anything we’ve seen around here during my 20 years."

“At least 100 seats,” Boehner told NPR’s Steve Inskeep, when asked how many House districts are up for grabs. “You think there are 100 seats in the United States that could change hands?” Inskeep asked.

“I do,” Boehner responded.

“Well typically, you are correct there would be some limited number of seats in play,” Boehner said. “Let me remind you that Scott Brown won the Ted Kennedy Senate seat in Massachusetts. If Scott Brown can win in Massachusetts, there isn’t a seat in America that Republicans can’t win.”

Let's hope so.

The Court and the Cross

From the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court's conservative majority signaled a greater willingness to allow religious symbols on public land Wednesday, a stance that could have important implications for future church-state disputes.

By a 5-4 vote, the court refused to order the removal of a congressionally endorsed war memorial cross from its longtime home atop a remote rocky outcropping in California's Mohave Desert...

"The Constitution does not oblige government to avoid any public acknowledgment of religion's role in society," wrote Kennedy, who usually is in the court's center on church-state issues.

Speaking of the Christian cross in particular, Kennedy said it is wrong to view it merely as a religious symbol. "Here one Latin cross in the desert evokes far more than religion. It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles, battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten," he said.

I understand where Kennedy is going here and am grateful for the ruling, but I don't really agree with the assertion often made by defenders of public displays of crosses, who usually repeat something along the lines of what Kennedy is saying here. "The cross has a meaning that goes beyond religion, etc..." as though the religious aspect of the cross is secondary, even inconsequential to our secularized construct of that symbol. In fact, the cross is first and foremost, and at its core, a deeply religious symbol that should be respected by the state as such. We shouldn't have to dilute the significance of the cross so that it conforms to a secular, symbolic standard that we then impose on it.

Just How Strange?

From the folks at Media Research Center:

During the Monday 12PM ET hour of live coverage on MSNBC, anchor Contessa Brewer described the "firestorm" over a newly passed immigration law in Arizona and fretted: "does this lead to a situation where neighbors are turning in neighbors or families turning against families?" Later in the segment, a headline on screen read: "Law Makes it a Crime to be Illegal Immigrant."

Only on MSNBC...

Arizona and the Rule of Law

Here's a calmly reasoned and balanced piece appearing in National Review Online on the immigration law recently enacted in Arizona.

Rich Lowry makes a good point when he notes the hypocrisy of those who regularly lambaste the tea party movement for allegedly inciting violence with its supposedly heated, dangerous rhetoric (with practically no serious evidence), and are now themselves relying on incendiary, hysterical characterizations of the new law, describing it as "Nazi" and Communist" inspired.

The Arizona law makes it a state crime for aliens not to have immigration documents on their person. This sounds draconian, except it’s been a federal crime for more than half a century — U.S.C. 1304(e). Has the open-borders crowd forgotten that it calls illegal aliens “undocumented” for a reason?

Police officers asking for papers may be redolent of old World War II movies. But consider the offending provision: “For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state . . . where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.”

Hitler would be crestfallen. This hardly reeks of extremism. It means the vast majority of requests for documentation will occur in the course of other police business, like traffic stops.

The police already have the power to stop illegal aliens, a power the Arizona courts have upheld; they already can ask about someone’s legal status (the U.S. Supreme Court noted in 2005 that it has “held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure” under the Fourth Amendment); and they already can detain illegal aliens. The Arizona law strengthens these existing authorities.

"Remember November"

The battle cry for Republicans

This is a powerful (and surprisingly well made) call to arms from the GOP.

"Remember November" by the Republican Governors Association @ Yahoo! Video

The (unserious) British Foreign Office

This, from the BBC, regarding the Foreign Office memo snafu over the papal visit to Great Britain:

What does this episode tell us of the modern Foreign Office?

It tells us first that "brainstorming" has taken the place of judgment.

You can just imagine the meeting at which some bright spark proposed drawing up a list of provocative proposals. Everyone of course joined in enthusiastically, congratulating each contributor as they came forward with more and cleverer proposals.

("Open an abortion clinic? Excellent", "Fantastic condom idea. Brilliant.")

But did nobody call for a pause? Was there no wiser counsel? Not even a stray Roman Catholic at the table who might have questioned all this?

Was there no institutional memory in this supposedly international department about the persecution of Catholics in this country (Catholic emancipation did not come until 1829) and a suspicion that this list might not look good in that context?

Obviously not. Nobody stepped forward to say it was all ridiculous. And it got worse. The whole thing was circulated as an attachment to an invitation to a wider planning meeting.

The new Foreign Office

Then you realise another thing about the new Foreign Office. This "brainstorming" approach is part of a revolution which you can see there on any Friday. It is now a "dress-down" day.

Diplomats in jeans and shabby shirts (we Brits cannot do smart casual) come into the reception area to greet some of the best-dressed folk on the planet, often diplomats from small countries trying to look their best in what they, perhaps naively, regard as an august institution.

Who do you trust?

From the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON – Notch one more victim of the recession: With crucial midterm elections nearing, Democrats have lost the advantage they've held for years as the party the public trusts to steer the economy.

The timing could be fortunate for the Republicans. With jobs and the economy dominating voters' concerns, the GOP will wield the issue as a cudgel in the battle to grab control of at least one chamber of Congress this November and weaken President Barack Obama. ...

Each party now has the confidence of 44 percent of people for handling the economy, according to an Associated Press-GfK Poll conducted this month. The Democrats had a nine-point advantage just four months ago, and have held an edge since AP polls began asking about the issue in 2006. In longer-running polling by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, the last time the two parties were even on the economy was 2002.

The dems are exacerbating the recession with their hyper-Keynesian policies. They have only themselves to blame.

"Villains in the Vatican"?

An interesting piece from The Guardian that takes a look at the curious hostility toward Catholicism from the literary world:

So the last decade's literary demonisation of Catholicism is another example of the nostrils of novelists twitching at a smell in the air. Brown had the practical problem of beginning his career as a thriller writer just as the traditional villains of 20th-century beach reads – the Soviets – had imploded. In locating a replacement, he selected one of the few surviving structures that exercised global influence through rigid central control and had an institutional tendency to secrecy. Yet, though logical, this substitution is ironic because the Catholic church, through Pope John Paul II, had been instrumental in the opposition to Kremlin-led communism.

These books, though, draw on a general liberal hostility to Catholicism (because of its opposition to abortion rights and alleged misogyny) and, in the works of Brown and Pullman, the Vatican may also be a surrogate for other disgusts. At the time their best-known books were written, Catholicism was not the most populous or powerful religion in the world. But, as believers frequently point out on the Guardian letters page and elsewhere, contemporary fiction writers seem shy of depicting Islam. (HG Wells or George Orwell, writing now, would probably not have fixed on priests as a thing to be feared.)

Democracy, the Castro Way

One Cuban's reaction to today's "elections" in Cuba:

"The truth is that I didn't mark my ballot for any of the candidates so my vote is null. I don't believe in this. I don't think that they are going to make anything better," said Orlando, a 53-year-old man leaving a polling station in Havana. He refused to give his last name for fear of reprisals, saying: "I only voted because I didn't want to give myself away."

So, fearing reprisals from Castro's goons, Orlando is afraid to give his name to the press. But at the same time, he is afraid not to vote because he could then be singled out for refusing to complying with the demands of election day. Now there's democracy in action.

Building Momentum

From The Ledger:

ASHLAND, Wis. | Rep. David Obey has won 21 straight races, easily prevailing through wars and economic crises that have spanned presidencies from Nixon to Obama. Yet the discontent with Washington surging through politics is now threatening not only his seat but Democratic control of Congress.

Obey is one of nearly a dozen well-established House Democrats who are bracing for something they rarely face: serious competition. Their predicament is the latest sign of distress for their party and underlines why Republicans are confident of big gains in November, and perhaps even winning back the House.

The fight for the midterm elections is not confined to traditional battlegrounds, where Republicans and Democrats often swap seats every few cycles. In the Senate, Democrats are struggling to hold on to, among others, seats once held by President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden. Democrats are preparing to lose as many as 30 House seats - including a wave of first-term members - and Republicans have expanded their sights to places where political challenges seldom develop.

The Trouble with McCain

Why does Senator John McCain cause heartburn for so many conservatives? Michelle Malkin provides some answers:

I need a Dramamine to cover Sen. John McCain’s reelection bid. With his desperate lurch to the right, he’s inducing more motion sickness than a Disneyland teacup. McCain’s campaign represents the same self-serving political cynicism that American voters have grown tired of stomaching from the current White House. We need choices, not carbon copies.

After decades of embracing the liberal-media moniker “maverick,” for his frequent derision of the conservative wing of the Republican party, McCain has now abandoned the label. He told Newsweek magazine earlier this month: “I never considered myself a maverick.” But countless YouTube videos show McCain and vice-presidential running mate Sarah Palin invoking the “M” word...

In a fundraising e-mail sent out this week, McCain pledged that he’s “determined to return to the Senate to continue fighting against the massive expansion of government under President Obama.” Yet, to this day, McCain refuses to admit his own individual responsibility for supporting the presocialization of the economy started under George W. Bush and continued under Obama. McCain has never admitted he was wrong about his support of the $700 billion all-purpose, earmark-stuffed TARP bailout; the $25 billion auto bailout; the first $85 billion AIG bailout; and his proposed $300 billion mortgage-entitlement bailout (which dwarfed Obama’s plan).

McCain epitomizes the kind of shifty, oleaginous politician (and there are plenty in both parties) who will do and say anything to get elected. His flip-flops throughout this Republican primary are shocking, even by McCain standards. He would have been better than Obama as president, to be sure, but, since he lost, we really do need to excrete these shadowy politicos from our Party.

Trial and Error

Investor's Business Daily offers some salient observations regarding the charges brought against three Navy SEALs accused of mistreating a captured enemy combatant:

All three SEALs could have accepted only a military reprimand, but risked a court-martial to clear their names and save their careers. They refused to be human sacrifices to the same political correctness that seeks a civilian trial with all the trimmings for 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Muhammed in New York City not far from ground zero.

Administration defenders say that for President Obama to intervene as commander in chief would amount to exercising "undue command influence," a traditional no-no in military justice. Yet as commander in chief, he sent them on a dangerous mission to apprehend a terrorist murderer of American citizens. They risked their lives on his orders. Who has their back, Mr. President?

They performed their mission brilliantly and bravely, and for doing so found themselves facing charges based on the word of a terrorist taught to lie. It's doubtful that President Reagan would have let this travesty of justice continue.

This, however, is a politically correct administration that wants to close the detainee facility in Guantanamo Bay lest it tarnish our image among Islamofascists worldwide. We apologize to everybody and anybody. We won't tolerate another Abu Ghraib, so we tolerate this tragedy.

Earth Day

Climatologist Roy Spencer reflects on ecological happenings in this National Review Online piece:

When Earth Day was first celebrated 40 years ago, there were many good reasons to be concerned about the environment. Not only did trash litter the landscape, but rivers were catching fire and massive numbers of fish were dying due to unrestricted pollution from factories. Lake Erie was essentially a dead lake. Lead in paint and auto exhaust were real health hazards for many.

Today, these problems have been largely alleviated. But for those whose worldview requires a pristine and undisturbed natural world, the fight to reduce pollution will never be over. That’s because as long as there are humans using natural resources, the world will never be pristine or undisturbed.

...even if the threat of global warming from our carbon dioxide emissions fades away, waiting in the wings is the next threat: ocean acidification. Since CO2 dissolved in water makes carbonic acid, it is believed that the pH of the ocean will decrease as the CO2 content of the atmosphere slowly increases.

The more I look into this issue, though, the more it resembles the global-warming issue in terms of our ignorance regarding the ability of nature to adapt. Some recent research suggests that more CO2 might actually be beneficial for sea life, as we already know it is for most kinds of vegetation.

Ourselves to Blame (sort of)

Writing in National Review Online, Jonah Goldberg offers an astute analysis of the Republican Party's dilemma, resulting from the Bush era of "compassionate conservatism", and the lessons learned since then.

Recall that Bush came into office promising to be a “different kind of conservative,” and one of his first legislative victories was the No Child Left Behind Act, sponsored by Teddy Kennedy.

Throughout his presidency, Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” surrendered — either rhetorically or substantively — to the assumptions of welfare-state liberalism, i.e. that your decency was best measured by your commitment to large, inefficient government programs. “When somebody hurts,” Bush insisted, “government has got to move.”

Many conservatives disliked this whole mindset and the policies behind it, from comprehensive immigration reform to Medicare Part D.

Many conservatives muted their objections, in part because they actually liked the man personally or because they approved of his stances on tax cuts, judges, abortion, and, most important, the war on terror (we can see a similar dynamic with so many antiwar liberals who still support Obama).

Conservatives didn’t necessarily bite their tongues (remember the Harriet Miers and immigration fiascoes), but they did prioritize supporting Bush — often in the face of far nastier attacks than Obama has received — over ideological purity. Besides, where were conservatives supposed to go? Into the arms of John Kerry?

The 2008 GOP primaries compounded conservative frustration. Because there was no stand-in for Bush in the contest, there was no obvious outlet for anger at Bush’s years of pre-surge Iraq bungling or his decision to outsource domestic spending to Republican congressional ward-heelers. Then, as a lame duck, Bush laid down the predicates for much of Obama’s first 100 days, supporting both a stimulus and Wall Street bailouts. As one participant of the D.C. tea-party rally told the Washington Examiner’s Byron York, “George Bush opened the door for Barack Obama and the Democrats to walk in.”

Stubborn Facts

From Politico:

President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are promising a climactic clash with Wall Street, but there’s a complication in their battle plan: The Democratic Party is closer to corporate America — and to Wall Street in particular — than many Democrats would care to admit.

Former White House counsel Greg Craig has just signed on as an institutional Sherpa for Goldman Sachs, the iconic financial firm facing fraud charges from the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Former House Democratic leader Dick Gephardt lobbies for Goldman Sachs, Visa and the coal industry. Former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle — Obama’s first choice to head Health and Human Services — is an adviser for a lobbying firm that represents Charles Schwab, Comcast, Lockheed Martin, Verizon and a host of other corporate interests.

More of Me!

Me, myself and I

Reacting to the astonishing poll numbers regarding the distrust Americans feel toward government, President Obama said the following in an interview with George Stephanopoulos:

If there's one thing that I regret this year is that we were so busy just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises that were in front of us that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are and why we have to make sure those institutions are matching up with those values.

This is really unbelievable. How many interviews has this president given over the past year or so? I've lost count. He is ubiquitous. With the exception of Fox News, he cannot be avoided. It seems like every week he's kibitzing with Stephanopoulos about every aspect of life. I even caught him calling shots court-side during the Final Four. His omnipresence is the problem. Only a narcissus like this man would conclude that, after so many appearances on so many venues, Americans would need to hear and see more of him.

On top of that, there is a sickening condescension exuding from Obama, who is basically stating that the common corn pones are simply too blockheaded to take to his spotless agenda with élan.

Cardinal: Cuba in Crisis

From the AP:

HAVANA – Cuba's Roman Catholic cardinal says the country is in one of its worst crises in recent times, with its people demanding political and economic changes sooner rather than later.

Jaime Ortega, the top Catholic cleric on the island, also called on Cuba and the United States to restart a meaningful dialogue to normalize relations, in an interview that appeared Monday in the church's official monthly magazine.

Ortega said Cubans are openly talking about the deficiencies of their socialist system, what he called a Stalinist-style bureaucracy and a grinding lack of worker productivity.

"Our country finds itself in a very difficult situation," Ortega said in the interview with Palabra Nueva — New Word. "Certainly the most difficult times that we have lived in the 21st century."

Fort Hood and Subpoenas

From ABC News:

Sen. Joseph Lieberman and Sen. Susan Collins today issued subpoenas to Attorney General Eric Holder and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, demanding information on what the government knew about accused Fort Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Hasan prior to the Nov. 5 incident.

In a letter accompanying the subpoenas, Lieberman, I.-Conn., and Collins, R.-Me., the chairman and ranking minority member of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, said they had been forced to issue the subpoenas by a lack of cooperation from the Obama administration.

Tea Party America: Black and White

How do blacks attending the tea parties feel about all the race baiting on the part of the MSM? This is good.