Please note that you can leave a comment on any of our posts at our Facebook page.  Subscribers can also comment at length at our Angel's Corner Forum.

OUR DAILY SNIPPETS ARE HERE.

SATURDAY,  MARCH 27,  2010

IDIOT'S DELIGHT – AT 8:04 P.M. ET:  Anyone with even minimal experience in foreign affairs knows that Obama's soft line toward Iran and hard line toward Israel would have predictable results.  Those results have started to appear:

Arab states should prepare for the possibility that the Palestinian-Israeli peace process may be a total failure and prepare alternatives, Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa said on Saturday.

Translated:  We can get out of this peace business and blame Israel.  Obama will support us.

"We have to study the possibility that the peace process will be a complete failure," Moussa told a summit of Arab leaders in the Libyan town of Sirte.

"It's time to face Israel. We have to have alternative plans because the situation has reached a turning-point," he said.

Translated:  Obama is more Palestinian than the Palestinians.  Can we be less?

Mousa did not specify the alternatives - but one option could be for the Palestinians to bypass the peace process and declare a state unilaterally.

Right.  Who needs a peace process when we can get what we want without it?  And now for the even more ominous part:

He also said the Arab League should open a dialogue with Tehran to address concerns, especially among Iran's neighbors across the Gulf, about its nuclear program.

Translated:  Obama is weak.  He's getting nowhere with Iran.  We're not protected.  Maybe we'd better cozy up to the mullahs.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas at the summit said indirect negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians cannot continue unless Israel stops building in the settlements.

"We cannot resume indirect negotiations as long as Israel maintains its settlement policy and the status quo," Abbas said at the opening session of the two-day summit.

This had never been Palestinian policy before Barack Hussein Obama Jr. came to office.  He's messed up the entire thing and weakened, not strengthened, our position in the Mideast.  And the Arabs, natural enemies of the Iranians, whom they fear, may knife us on Iran if Obama can't get the Iranians to end their nuclear program. 

When you learn your international diplomacy as a community organizer in Chicago, this is what happens.

March 27, 2010   Permalink

SARAH SHINES – AT 7:44 P.M. ET:  I've had some doubts about Sarah Palin, but I must say that she's really begun to shine.  Her appearances on Fox News have gotten better and better, and her public speeches have been sharpened.  She's taking on the press, and we can only cheer:

SEARCHLIGHT, NEV. – Firing back at critics who say that she and other conservatives had encouraged harassment of House Democrats who supported the healthcare overhaul, Sarah Palin Saturday ripped the media for casting her and tea party activists as violent.

“When we talk about fighting for our country, let’s clear the air right now about what we’re talking about,” she told an estimated 20,000 tea partiers gathered for a rally in a windswept desert lot about four miles north of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s tiny hometown. “We’re not inciting violence. Don’t get sucked into the lame-stream media lies.”

Palin said “violence isn’t the answer.” She said “our vote is our arms” and encouraged activists not to be discouraged by the passage of the Democratic healthcare overhaul bill last week, but rather to channel their energies into defeating congressional Democrats who supported the legislation.

We should note that buses filled with tea partiers were pelted with eggs in Nevada today.  Now, if liberals had been pelted with eggs by conservatives, the media would call the eggs "symbolic hand grenades."  Military historians would be called in to tell us, in somber, academic tones, that "egg" was military slang for "bomb."  Get the connection?

Liberal media hacks, meanwhile, continue their attempt to connect protests against health "reform" to segregationists and racists of the 1960s.  It's part of the liberal nostalgia for that era.  If only they could catch a tea partier burning a stethoscope on a congressman's lawn, this crowd would be in Heaven.

Well, wait, they don't believe in Heaven.  Okay, maybe they'd be in Beverly Hills.

March 27, 2010   Permalink

NO TASTE, NO CLASS – AT 7:21 P.M. ET:  Newspaper unions are correctly outraged at the behavior of The New York Times, whose top executives book bonuses equal to the amount of "givebacks" that union members at the Boston Globe, owned by The Times, were forced to endure.  Here we side with the working stiffs.  From the New York Post:

Those paydays that New York Times Co. Chairman Arthur Sulzberger and President Janet Robinson received last year are once again coming back to haunt them.

The Boston Newspaper Guild, which absorbed more than $10 million in pay and benefit cuts to members last year in order to save The Boston Globe, has lashed out at the Sulzberger and Robinson 2009 bonuses and are demanding their lost wages and benefits be restored.

"We were astonished to learn that the two of you received more than $10 million in stock awards and options in 2009," the Guild wrote in an open letter urging its members to send to Sulzberger and Robinson. "During the year for which you were so richly rewarded, the 600 members of the Boston Newspaper Guild gave back almost the same amount in pay and benefit reductions -- $10 million to be exact -- after you threatened to close our newspaper, lay off hundreds of people, and strip Massachusetts of its largest newspaper."

"Now that the Times has shown it can afford to lavish so much on a few top executives, we expect our pay and benefit cuts will be restored in the coming months."

The Times Co. declined to comment.

COMMENT:  I'm always amused when a newspaper declines to comment on a news story about itself. 

Once again the Times management shows its usual lack of class.  Sulzberger, who would not have his job, or any job at the Times, if he didn't come from the ruling junta, claims to be a man of the people.  In a commencement address at an obscure college a few years back, he apologized to the graduating class because his generation hadn't created a perfect world. 

He is not a man of the people.  He's a hypocritical leftist.  He's liberal, as long as it doesn't cost him anything.

March 27, 2010   Permalink

WHAT?  WHAT?  YOU MEAN THERE ARE COSTS INVOLVED?  – AT 11:04 ET:  And, you know, all along I thought the health-care plan would be free.  Isn't it free when the government does it?  Get out the calculator, the one with the fresh Duracells.  From The New York Times:

Because of the new health care law, Arizona lawmakers must now find a way to maintain insurance coverage for 350,000 children and adults that they slashed just last week to help close a $2.6 billion budget deficit.

Louisiana officials say a reduction in federal money to hospitals that treat the uninsured under the bill could be a death knell for their state-run charity hospital system.

In California, policymakers estimate they will have to come up with an additional $500 million a year to make necessary increases in payments to Medicaid providers.

Across the country, state officials are wading through the minutiae of the health care overhaul to understand just how their governments will be affected. Even with much still to be digested, it is clear the law may be as much of a burden to some state budgets as it is a boon to uninsured consumers.

Please note how carefully the press dissected the bill before it was passed.  I'm kidding.

“The federal government has to account for states’ inability to sustain our current programs, much less expand,” said Kim Belshé, secretary of California’s Health and Human Services Agency.

Yeah, Kim, Congress really agonized over that.

In contrast, states like Massachusetts and Wisconsin, which already have extensive health care safety nets, do not expect to spend much more money, while still taking in billions in federal grants.

Hmm.  What does that last sentence tell you?  It tells you that this could have all been done on the state level, with states performing their traditional roles as great laboratories.  It was not necessary to have a massive federal overhaul of the entire health-care system.  The federal government should have restricted itself to needed reforms that could only be enacted by federal law. 

Yesterday we reported on the costs that big corporations, major employers, will now face.  Great way to get us out of the worst economic downturn since the thirties. 

March 27, 2010   Permalink

IS HE STILL AROUND? – AT 10:33 A.M. ET:  The Rev. Jesse Jackson, apparently trying for the kind of comeback usually reserved for old lounge singers, now pronounces on the political atmosphere of the country:

(CNN) – Rev. Jesse Jackson, president of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, condemned the charged political atmosphere of the moment in harsh terms Friday, comparing some conservative and Republican opponents of heath care reform to enemies of the civil rights movement.

Please note that the left always winds up describing its opponents as racist, stupid, or violent.  Substantive issues need not apply.

"These days will live in infamy, as the scenes of our elected representatives shouting, 'you lie' and 'baby killer' echo inside the halls of Congress," Jackson said in a statement released by his office. "We've stooped too low when protestors begin hurling the 'n' word at African American congressman, and start making direct and indirect threats at representatives who supported the historic health care legislation."

There is no evidence to support the charge that the "n" word was hurled at black congressmen.  Direct and indirect threats have been made against both conservatives and liberals for years.  Cries of "BushHitler" did not bring any reprimand from Rev. Jackson.  When Chris Matthews described former Vice President Cheney as the "bathtub ring" of the Bush administration, did Rev. Jackson call in? 

"These and other radical statements from members of Congress, conservative talk show hosts and "protestors" are drawing ideological lines – states' rights versus federalism, harkening back to the cultural lines drawn over the civil war and modern civil rights movement," he said. "They revive our worse fears and divisions."

I fully agree that we need a higher level of decorum.  But the one-sided accusations contribute nothing to a charged atmosphere.  And talk-show hosts?  Sure, some conservative hosts go over the top.  But where was Jackson when talk-show host Al Franken, Now Senator Al Franken of Minnesota, was embarrassing himself on Air America? 

It's all part of the imagery that leftists have of themselves:  We're better people, more refined and intellectual, and we're fighting uncouth monsters.

Right.

March 27, 2010   Permalink

THE REALITY OF CRIME – AT 10:11 A.M. ET:  For decades this country was sold the phony line that the "root cause" of crime was "socio-economic factors."  It was garbage.  Yes, there are some socio-economic factors involved, but, shock, the ones that actually are involved are the very ones the "root cause" crowd refused to discuss – like fatherlessness.

Crime occurs when people in a deteriorating cultural environment believe they can get away with it.  No city has had more success in fighting crime than New York, and it did it by radical improvements in law enforcement, and by having the right numbers of cops to do the job.

Now, the crime picture is darkening, and Mayor Mike Bloomberg is blunt about the cause.  His comments have national implications, especially at a time when so many states and cities are in fiscal trouble:

A disturbing spike in murders and other serious crimes is leading city officials to believe the NYPD’s famed “blue line” is growing way too thin.

“It is worrisome,”Mayor Bloomberg said on his radio show yesterday, noting that Police "Commissioner [Ray] Kelly and I talked at length about it."

"We have fewer police officers than we did before," the mayor said. "More cops always helps."

So far this calendar year, the number of New York City murders has jumped a scary 22 percent over the same period last year -- from 86 slayings up to 103 this year.

And...

Bloomberg noted that the total number of such crimes is "still very low" compared to the sky-high rates seen in years such as 1990, when murders hit an annual record of 2,245.

But he and others admit that the NYPD's shrinking manpower level -- from 41,000 cops in 2001 down to about 35,000 today -- could be playing a factor in the increased crime rates. The city expects to shed around 1,300 officers in the upcoming fiscal year through attrition, and also is threatening to lay off a whopping 3,150 cops if the state slashes related funding.

One top police official said, "There are just a lot less people out there . . . the type of presence we have had that deters shootings."

COMMENT:  The state of New York is approaching bankruptcy.  Funding will be cut.  In many municipalities, the first thing to go when funding is cut is police officers.  This can and will have a devastating effect.  And then the "root cause" crowd will come out of the woodwork again, probably supported by Barack Obama, and will demand new "social programs" that they can run.

Back to the sixties.

March 27, 2010   Permalink

THIS IS THE WAY HOLLYWOOD WORKS – AT 9:47 A.M. ET:  So I failed?  So what?  I got good experience.  Give me a raise.  The UN's climate chief seems to have learned his personnel policies from the film industry.  From Fox:

The outspoken chairman of the U.N.’s climate change body is to adopt a neutral advisory role and has agreed to stop making statements demanding new taxes and other radical policies on cutting emissions.

In an interview with the Times of London, Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, apologized for his organization’s handling of complaints about errors in its report.

He also apologized for describing as “voodoo science” an Indian Government report which challenged the IPCC’s claims about the rapid melting of Himalayan glaciers.

But Dr Pachauri, 70, rejected calls for his resignation and insisted he would remain as chairman until after publication of the IPCC’s next report in 2014.

He claimed he had the support of all the world’s governments and denied that, by remaining in post, he was undermining the IPCC’s chances of regaining credibility with the public.

“It is not correct to say there are people who don’t trust me,” he said.

Of course not, Raj.  Why would anyone not trust you?  Of course you can stay on.

“I will try to clarify that I’m not prescribing anything as a solution. Maybe I should be more careful [in media interviews] in laying down certain riders. One learns from that and I’m learning.”

And that movie you made that cost $125-million and brought in six thousand bucks?  Could happen to anyone.  We value the experience.  Here's your new Mercedes.

COMMENT:  Does the term "hustler" come to mind?

March 27,  2010   Permalink

FRIDAY,  MARCH 26,  2010

GEE, OBAMA DIDN'T TELL US ABOUT THIS – AT 7:23 P.M. ET:  The unintended consequences of health-care "reform" are starting to appear.  They're not pleasant, and will further depress the economy.  Consider:

March 26 (Bloomberg) -- AT&T Inc. will book $1 billion in first-quarter costs related to the health-care law signed this week by President Barack Obama, the most of any U.S. company so far.

Yeah, somebody pays.  Not much emphasis on that when this monstrosity was shoved through.

A change in the tax treatment of Medicare subsidies triggered the non-cash expense, and the company will consider changes to the benefits it offers current and retired workers, Dallas-based AT&T said today in a regulatory filing.

We're sure those workers are thrilled.  You know what "changes" means.

AT&T, the biggest U.S. phone company, joins Caterpillar Inc., AK Steel Holding Corp. and 3M Co. in recording non-cash expenses against earnings as a result of the law. Health-care costs may shave as much as $14 billion from U.S. corporate profits, according to an estimate by benefits consulting firm Towers Watson. AT&T employed about 281,000 people as of the end of January.

And they'll be employing fewer to pay for the national order.

“Companies like AT&T, that have large employee bases, are going to have higher health-care costs and, therefore, lower earnings unless they can negotiate something or offer less to their employees,” said Chris Larsen, an analyst at Piper Jaffray & Co. in New York, who rates AT&T shares “overweight” and doesn’t own any himself.

COMMENT:  Welcome to Obamacare.  I hope it covers ulcers.

March 26, 2010   Permalink

OUR ECONOMY MARCHES ON – AT 7:15 P.M. ET:  No matter how much the Obamans try to distract us from reality, it keeps creeping back in.  Some blunt facts:

Personal income in 42 states fell in 2009, the Commerce Department said Thursday.

Nevada's 4.8% plunge was the steepest, as construction and tourism industries took a beating. Also hit hard: Wyoming, where incomes fell 3.9%.

Incomes stayed flat in two states and rose in six and the District of Columbia. West Virginia had the best showing with a 2.1% increase. In Maine, Kentucky and Hawaii, increased government benefits, such as unemployment insurance and Social Security, offset drops in earnings and property values.

Please note that one of the few areas to show increased income was the District of Columbia.  Of course.  You hire all those new government workers, income in that area goes up.  Doesn't do a thing for the real economy.

The key factor is unemployment.  Florida, obviously a major political state, is especially hard hit:

Florida's unemployment hit 12.2 percent in February, the highest rate on record, soaring past even the rates recorded in the 1973-1975 recession, the state work force agency said Friday.

February's rate rose a 0.2 percentage point from the January revised rate of 12 percent. More than 1.26 million people are out of work in the state.

And with the federal government digging deeper in debt, our national picture is hardly encouraging.  This is the time for Republicans to come up with a comprehensive economic plan and present it to the American people. 

March 26, 2010   Permalink

ANOTHER MOVE TOWARD DARKNESS – AT 6:28 P.M. ET:  The United Nations Human Rights Council has nothing to do with human rights.  Under President Bush, we boycotted the council, refusing to dignify it.  Obama put us back, giving the corrupt institution, run by dictators and Muslim nations, credibility.

Naturally, that foreign-policy step by The One backfired, just like most of his other brilliant moves.  He sold us the line that we could moderate the council, but it's just gotten worse:

Geneva - The United Nations Human Rights Council voted in favour of a resolution condemning so-called "defamation of religion" in a tight vote on Thursday.

A coalition of 17 mostly Western nations, including the United States and the Netherlands, opposed the resolution, but 20 states, including China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia, voted in favour. Eight states abstained.

The resolution adopted by the 47-member council was similar to one passed last year, but also included a section slamming the recent Swiss vote to ban the construction of minarets in the country.

The resolution has drawn criticism from liberal groups over concerns of infringements on freedom of speech and a bias in favour of Islamic states.

I love it, I love it.  Criticism from "liberal" groups?  Seems to me that most of the criticism I hear is coming from conservative groups.  Many libs don't want to "offend" the dictators behind the resolution.

No mention of discrimination, other than anti-Muslim practices, was addressed in the resolution.

Opponents noted tight restrictions on Christians, Jews and others in states such as Saudi Arabia and Libya, which did not make it into the adopted text.

COMMENT:  The trouble is, resolutions like this are taken seriously in some less enlightened parts of the world, like Cambridge, Massachusetts.

March 26, 2010   Permalink

WATCH THIS CAREFULLY – AT 11:23 A.M. ET:  President Obama announced that the U.S. and Russia have reached agreement on an arms-control treaty.  Actually, this is may turn out to be more about fat than meat, but we still have to look at it with two eyes.

The treaty takes a two-thirds vote of the Senate to ratify.  You can be sure Republicans will read every line.  There are concerns about the treaty's impact on missile defense.  The Washington Post reports:

President Obama and Russia President Dmitry Medvedev sealed a new nuclear arms reduction treaty during a phone call this morning, committing the two nations to a significant new reduction of the strategic missiles each side has deployed, U.S. officials announced Friday.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, flanked by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Michael Mullen, announced the agreement to reporters at the White House, calling it an historic step toward a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama called nuclear weapons "the darkest days of the Cold War, and the most troubling threats of our time." He hailed the new treaty as the start of a new effort to rid the world of that threat.

"With this agreement, the United States and Russia -- the two largest nuclear powers in the world -- also send a clear signal that we intend to lead," he said.

COMMENT:  This is going to be heralded as the Second Coming, or even the First.  It's Obama's first "triumph" in foreign policy and his second victory this week, the first being the health-care vote.  He's shown a bump in the polls since that vote, although it comes entirely from Democrats. 

This treaty really won't change much, but it will be sold as "peace in our time," Chamberlain II.  And some people will buy the line.

Look for informed reaction in the next day or two.

March 26, 2010   Permalink

WHEN WILL OBAMA REBUKE HIM? – AT 10:02 A.M. ET:  We get the sense, in examining the world's press, that many Europeans, especially conservatives, are growing wary of Obama and are articulating their own defense policies.  Consider:

In a speech prepared for delivery at a conference in Brussels Saturday, alliance Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said a NATO-wide missile defense system would show collective will to defend against a growing threat.

He immediately goes on Obama's "dangerous Danish imperialist" list. 

"We need a decision by NATO's next summit in November that missile defense for our populations and territories is an alliance mission. And that we will explore every opportunity to cooperate with Russia," Rasmussen said in an advance text of the speech made available by NATO.

In reiterating his wish to see collaboration with Russia, Rasmussen said this required a decision by Moscow "to see missile defense as an opportunity, rather than a threat."

Why should Russia cooperate, when non-cooperation has gotten them pretty much what they wanted from Obama – the cancellation of missile defense for Eastern Europe.

He said current trends showed a "real and growing" threat from weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, with more than 30 countries possessing or developing missiles with greater and greater ranges.

And...

Iran, which the West suspects of working to produce nuclear weapons, has said it possesses missiles with a range that would put NATO members Turkey, Greece, Romania and Bulgaria within reach, Rasmussen said.

If Tehran were to complete development of intermediate and intercontinental missiles after taking a key step in introducing its SAFIR 2 space-launch vehicle last year, "then the whole of the European continent, as well as all of Russia would be in range," he said.

Doesn't Rasmussen know that The One will place his hands upon the Iranian shoulders and turn the mullahs into peaceful moderates.  Just give the man some time.

"Proliferators must know that we are unwavering in our determination to collective defense."

No we're not.  We were unwavering.  Then we had something called Inauguration Day.

March 26, 2010   Permalink

NON-PALACE INTRIGUE, BUT IT'S ABOUT THE PALACE – AT 9:14 A.M. ET:  There's an absolutely fascinating story making the rounds, although it's gotten stunningly little attention in the mainstream media.  But it may have implications for the future.

It involves General David Petraeus, the head of CENTCOM, and a man sometimes mentioned as a possible candidate for the presidency.  Petraeus has consistently said he isn't interested, and I have minimized the idea here...until now. 

Petraeus is a master politician, one of the most politically astute leaders in the military.  He is a declared Republican.  To run in 2012 he'd have to go up against his commander-in-chief, either by running in Republican primaries or by accepting a "draft."  There is also the possibility that he could accept a vice-presidential nod tendered by the Republican nominee. 

Possible?  Consider this story from the Jerusalem Post:

Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the US Military’s Central Command (CENTCOM), telephoned IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi on Wednesday night to reassure Israel that comments attributed to him regarding supposed Israeli intransigence were spun out of context.

Last week, Petraeus testified before the Senate’s Armed Services Committee. A 56-page report that CENTCOM had submitted alongside Petraeus’s oral testimony caused a storm by claiming that Israeli intransigence was a problem for the US military and was fomenting conflict in the Middle East.

“The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests,” the CENTCOM report read. “Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of US partnerships with governments and peoples in the [Middle East] and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world.”

The above words, which appeared in the report but were not uttered by Petraeus in his oral testimony, were pounced upon by critics of Israel as confirmation of what many of them have said for years – that Israel is the source of instability in the region.

On Wednesday, though, Petraeus poured cold water on the written testimony. In an appearance at St. Anselm College in Goffstown, New Hampshire, he told reporters that his testimony had been spun by bloggers.

And indeed it was.  The worst offender, the obnoxious Mark Perry, a former adviser to Yasir Arafat, spun the story at supersonic speed, and got some TV appearances out of it, including one with the groveling Rick Sanchez of CNN, who practically anointed Perry, a kind of jihadist groupie, a new god. 

But notice what Petraeus did:  On the very day that his commander-in-chief, Barack Obama, was humiliating the prime minister of Israel, Petraeus was going around the president and phoning his Israeli counterpart to give him assurance.  This is almost unheard of. 

What message was Petraeus sending?  I can only provide what I hope is informed speculation.  He may well have been setting out his independence from a president whose appeasement foreign policy is sinking.  He may well have been signaling the Republican Party that he's willing, eventually, to take on this shell of a president.  He may well have been signaling to the large pro-Israel community in America that he doesn't support the current Obama nuttiness. 

I stress that this is speculation.  I have no inside information.  But please notice where Petraeus is this week.  He's in New Hampshire.  Does that ring a political bell? 

You may be sure that this Chicago-educated White House noticed Petraeus's move.  Don't be shocked if you see some leaked stories in coming months downplaying Petraeus and his accomplishments, and possibly even hinting that the administration may be cooling toward him.  That's the way the game is played, especially by bullies.  If Petraeus makes any clear move toward politics, Obama will go after him.  This could get very interesting.

March 26, 2010   Permalink

ANOTHER BAD DAY FOR AMERICA – AT 8:23 A.M. ET:  The great Ed Lasky (American Thinker) alerts us to a blunt piece by Ralph Peters, reviewing a bad day for American foreign policy, courtesy of The One and his brilliant thoughts:

Wednesday, March 24, 2010, was the worst day for US diplomacy in recent memory.

Between sunrise and sunset, we 1) handled our Israeli allies as enemies, 2) treated Pakistani gangsters as our benefactors and 3) got blindsided -- brilliantly -- by the Russians.

But who cares, as long as we've started down the road to socialized medicine?

First, the Russians: Well aware that President Obama desperately wants to hold in his hand a piece of paper guaranteeing nuclear arms cuts in our time, Moscow has been stalling and brawling to force us to bend to its will.

With a few last sticking points in play (which the White House refuses to make public), the Russian government blindsided US negotiators by announcing that the deal was done and the signing was on the calendar.

Folks, this is diplomacy at a level we can't begin to touch. With their unilateral announcement, the Russians ensured that Obama will cave on the final points -- otherwise, it would look as though he scuttled the disarmament deal and undercut his own argument for anti-nuclear sanctions on Iran.

Could we please hire Russian negotiators to work for us?

One of the things we've noted here in the last year is the sheer incompetence of Obama's foreign-policy team, starting with the increasingly heavy-handed Hillary Clinton.  

Simultaneously, the administration welcomed a Pakistani delegation with orgiastic generosity. The Pakistanis scribbled out the bill, and we whipped out our credit card.

Pakistan's undercutting every reform effort we've made in Afghanistan and setting itself up to be the one entity that profits from our blood sacrifices. Pakistani intelligence (the ISI) has been busting every Taliban member it can't control to enhance its clout in Afghanistan. And we imagine they're doing it for us.

And...

Last, but not least, there's our arctic treatment of Benjamin Netanyahu and our Israeli allies. Kim Jong-Il or Hugo Chavez would've gotten a warmer White House reception than Bibi did.

Wednesday in Washington was dedicated to shooting down one Israeli compromise offer after another. Of course, we haven't asked those valiant Palestinian freedom fighters (unfairly considered terrorists by reactionaries like me) to compromise a fraction of an inch.

The Palestinians dictate, the White House obeys.

Finally...

The ultimate travesty, of course, is that the Obama administration will spin each of Wednesday's triple-whammy debacles as a triumph. It showed those wicked Israelis who's boss; it gave treacherous Pakistanis all they demanded, and it got tricked by Russia into further weakening our strategic defenses.

This isn't a pattern of failure. It's a surrender cult.

COMMENT:  Ah, but Mr. Peters, the far left, both politically and journalistically, has no problem with surrender.  They welcome it.  Let's restrain the big, bad United States so that other "cultures" can take their rightful place in the world.  This is what they did in Vietnam.  They'll do it wherever they can. 

The sad fact is that there are "communities" in the United States who have no problem at all with the surrender cult.  They've been taught to believe that they're victims, and that the more the United States capitulates overseas, the more attention will be paid to them.  They live by their myths.

March 26, 2010   Permalink

THE BULLY SPEAKS – AT 8:11 A.M. ET:  In the end, you have to believe that the president of the United States is a bully.  He has the characteristics of a bully:  He never picks on anyone his own size, he distorts the truth, he intimidates friends, and, when faced with real opposition, he runs away or caves in.

The bully was on fully display yesterday in Iowa, as The Politico reports:

IOWA CITY, Iowa — President Barack Obama challenged Republicans Thursday to bring on the debate if they plan to run on a platform of repealing the health care reform bill he signed into law just two days ago.

“My attitude is: Go for it," Obama said. "If these congressmen in Washington want to come here in Iowa and tell small-business owners that they plan to take away their tax credits and essentially raise their taxes, be my guest."

Obama hit the trail Thursday in Iowa to promote the crowning achievement of his first 14 months in office: a sweeping overhaul of the nation’s health care system. And he started his campaign for the new law in the state where his caucus win in 2008 set him on the road to the White House.

COMMENT:  What a crock.  How dumb does this man think we are?  We all know that the health-care monstrosity can't be repealed while he's still in the White House.  He'd veto any repeal legislation, and it takes two-thirds of Congress to override the veto.  Repeal and replace will have to wait until he's sent packing, and we hope that will happen in 2012.

The line he's using, that repeal would take things away from small-business owners, is a joke, but it's the obvious one.  One of the fundamental positions of the left is that someone else is trying to steal something from "the people."  Yes, there are benefits to the health bill, but, bottom line, we're all going to wind up paying for it, and those payments will outweigh, by quite a bit, any benefits.

But the bully will push on.  Now, he's also encountered Iran, and each day brings news that his position is crumbling more and more.  Bully.

March 26,  2010   Permalink