Our subscription drive ended Friday.  It happened to coincide with a renewal period for subscriptions taken out six months or a year ago.  Here are the results:

Renewals were spectacular, exceeding our expectations.  Our renewal rate continues to be more than 90 percent.  In addition, a number of previous subscribers added to their subscriptions and some chose our increasingly popular family plan, allowing a gift subscription to a relative or friend.  Very gratifying.

Our drive for new subscribers started sluggishly, as we reported, but ended well.  There was a real spurt in the final days, allowing us to reach about 80 percent of our new-subscriber goal.  Given the economy, that isn't bad at all, but we must concentrate on building our subscriber base.

I deeply appreciate the support of our readers.  It keeps us going.  I reported earlier this year that we were hovering at about 50% of what it would take to make us secure.  That has jumped to closer to 60%.  We are in no danger of going off the air.  The issue for us is maintaining our quality, our output, and adding service.  Based on our latest drive, I am optimistic.

MONDAY,  NOVEMBER 23,  2009

OBAMA AND THE WORLD - AT 6:47 P.M. ET:  Victor Davis Hanson, noting that even some liberals are griping over the non-results of Obama's Asian travels, wonders why.  Obama, Hanson argues, is merely pursuing the foreign policy he promised us, the change we can believe in:

From the trivial expressions like bowing to the more fundamental one of deferring to the Chinese Communist leadership, Obama is merely establishing the outlines of the promised new foreign policy.

France will be as prominent as we are in the Mideast negotiations; Russia will adjudicate regional disputes with former Soviet republics and interests in eastern Europe; progressive nations like Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, Ecuador, Peru, and others will establish a Latin American consensus that favors a statist, anti-capitalist, and less democratic paradigm of indigenous governance. China, naturally, will insidiously begin to shape the regional futures of the Koreas, Taiwan, Japan, and the Philippines. Turkey can sort out its problems with Greece. The UN Human Rights Council will be the proper forum in which to express unhappiness with human-rights transgressions abroad.

This new consensus is what Obama promised, and it is what Obama is doing his best to deliver.

And it goes further:

Exceptional American support for human rights, preeminent worry about a nuclear Iran, democracy abroad, tilts to old friends like Britain and Israel, security guarantees to democratic allies, American enforcement of global commercial and trade protocols — all that was included under the old American notion of exceptionalism and, logically, should expire with it. The Asian tour should have delighted Obamaites as the proper expression of Obama's philosophy: two equal nations, neither one more exceptional than the other (or any other), their systems merely "different," not better or worse, simply chatting about mutual concerns.

COMMENT:  There are plenty of certified members of America's elite - especially on college campuses - who have no problem with any of this.  It's what they've been teaching their students for years.

Fortunately, there are some signs, especially in opinion polls, that many Americans are starting to worry about this trend.  Unfortunately, there are other Americans who will just go along, especially if Obama can deliver enough government money to their mailboxes. 

The changes Obama is making in our foreign policy are the most profound since the United States emerged from isolationism.  That change was necessary, and allowed us to protect this nation effectively.  Obama's changes are not necessary, not wise, and endanger the country the president is sworn to protect.

November 23, 2009   Permalink

THERE IS NO SHAME LEFT - AT 6:10 P.M. ET:  There is no shame left in the Democratic Party.  Legal Insurrection, which is on our blogroll of recommended sites, shows how the game is played.  Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, shows how it's definitely played, Louisiana style:

Yesterday, Mary Landrieu closed the deal for a payoff to Louisiana in exchange for her vote to let Harry Reid's health care restructuring bill go to Senate floor debate. The deal had been negotiated over weeks, with initial reports putting the price tag at $100 million, only to have Landrieu brag that the real price was $300 million.

Now, it turns out that Landrieu has agreed to hold a fundraiser for Reid in New Orleans:

Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., will host a fundraiser for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., in New Orleans next month, an event that comes on the heels of Reid's assistance getting Louisiana a windfall of Medicaid money in the health care reform bill.

The event was planned "several weeks ago," according to Landrieu's office. She and political consultant James Carville will host a brunch on Dec. 12 at the St. Charles Avenue home of David Voelker, an investor who chairs the Louisiana Recovery Authority and was a supporter of Barack Obama's presidential campaign.

I am sure the two are not connected. Just like Landrieu's vote had nothing to do with the payoff.

COMMENT:  It is on things like this that your future health care may depend.  Welcome to change we're supposed to believe in.

November 23, 2009   Permalink

POLLING IMPLICATIONS - AT 5:47 P.M. ET:  Even The New York Time is starting to acknowledge that President Obama has become poll-deficient, a political malady for which there is no definitive cure.  In a fair-minded piece, Adam Nagourney considers the implications of the president's declining numbers:

History suggests that Mr. Obama’s approval rating could be one of the key factors in determining how his fellow Democrats fare in the mid-term election. It is an urgent concern for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which has distributed a slide-show presentation to supporters that charts the correlation between a president’s rating and his party’s performance in mid-term congressional elections. For the past 50 years, almost without exception, the party has lost seats whenever its president’s average approval rating in September and October before the election dropped below 50 percent.

Republicans, at least as of today, are envisioning trying to tie Mr. Obama to Democrats in marginal districts who would prefer not to be too closely associated with him and his policies, the way Democrats used Mr. Bush against Republican candidates — a development that would have seemed farfetched six months ago.

Nagourney points out that the president's numbers are, ironically, more a problem for his party than for him.  The Democratic Party faces a critical mid-term election next year.  Mr. Obama has three years to repair his damaged standing.  Both Presidents Reagan and Clinton saw low presidential poll numbers drag down their parties early in their terms.  But both men cruised to easy victories when they ran for reelection.

So, Republican optimism for next year is reasonable.  To assume that the tide will continue to run favorable through 2012, based on today's numbers, is a stretch.

However, if the GOP can actually field a strong candidate in 2012 - unlike Walter Mondale, who lost to Reagan in 1984, or Bob Dole, who lost to Clinton in 1996 - we could be smiling for quite a time.

November 23, 2009   Permalink

OBAMA IN THE POLL DOLDRUMS - AT 4:07 P.M. ET:  The president just returned from a major trip to Asia, on which he accomplished nothing.  Maybe there was a nice Chinese dinner, but that was about it.  The polls continue to reflect the president's lack of accomplishment, and the fact that this miracle worker cannot perform miracles.  Rasmussen reports:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 28% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -13 (see trends).

For the first time in the Obama Administration, the Approval Index has been in negative double digits for nine straight days. Among men, the President’s Approval Index rating is -20. Among women, it is -7.

And...

Overall, 46% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-three percent (53%) now disapprove.

That's a seven point spread, nothing to sneeze at.  I haven't seen too many sneezes coming from the White House.  Some nervous coughing, but no sneezes.

The president is in trouble.  Does he know?  Does he believe his speechifyin' can get him out of this?

November 23, 2009   Permalink

OH, THE POMPOSITY - AT 9:30 A.M. ET:  The New York Times is going pompous on the discovery of those e-mails between "environmental" scientists in Britain, suggesting collusion to suppress the truth.  Michael Goldfarb in the Weekly Standard notes the Times's position, and its stellar hypocrisy:

With the release of hundreds of emails by scientists advocates of global warming showing obvious and entirely inappropriate collusion by the authors -- including attempts to suppress dissent, to punish journals that publish peer-reviewed studies casting doubt on global warming, and to manipulate data to bolster their own arguments -- even the New York Times is forced to concede that "the documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists." But apparently the paper's environmental blog, Dot Earth, is taking a pass on publishing any of the documents and emails that are now circulating. Andrew Revkin, the author of that blog, writes:

The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted

This is the position of the New York Times when given the chance to publish sensitive information that might hinder the liberal agenda. Of course, when the choice is between publishing classified information that might endanger the lives of U.S. troops in the field or intelligence programs vital to national security, that information is published without hesitation by the nation's paper of record. But in this case -- the documents were "never intended for the public eye," so the New York Times will take a pass. I guess that policy wasn't in place when Neil Sheehan was working at the paper.

As a journalist, there is no greater glory than publishing materials that were not meant to be published. If I could, I would only publish emails and documents that were never meant to see the light of day -- though, unlike the New York Times, I draw the line at jeopardizing the lives of American troops rather than jeopardizing the contrived "consensus" on global warming.

COMMENT:  There is nothing more self-righteous than a journalist on the defensive.  The Times is rising to the occasion.  The greatest wish of the media establishment, of course, is that this story would go away.  It won't.  It's the tip of the global-warming iceberg, even a melting iceberg.  The "science" behind global warming is open to too much question to allow it to go unchallenged.  A mistake could cost trillions, and set the economies of the world back decades.

November 23,  2009   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY - AT 9:15 A.M. ET:  From former New York Times columnist and government official Les Gelb:

President Obama’s nine-day trip to Asia is worth a look back to fix two potent problems, past and future. First, the trip’s limited value per day of presidential effort suggests a disturbing amateurishness in managing America’s power. On top of the inexcusably clumsy review of Afghan policy and the fumbling of Mideast negotiations, the message for Mr. Obama should be clear: He should stare hard at the skills of his foreign-policy team and, more so, at his own dominant role in decision-making. Something is awry somewhere, and he’s got to fix it.

Well, at least someone outside conservative ranks said it.  Our foreign policy is a mess, and the people running it seem to have gotten most of their experience in student government.

Secondly, the Asia trip presented an important opportunity to carve out a new American leadership role in the world’s most dynamic economic region, and Mr. Obama missed it. He only scratched the surface in his calls for multilateralism and mutual understanding. He needs to paint pictures of how Washington will help solve regional security and trade problems. Otherwise, most Asian nations will continue their unwanted drift toward China and away from the United States.

Gelb makes the entirely valid point that presidents should not travel abroad unless agreements are nailed down in advance:

Obama’s travels were a chance to settle or make concrete progress on thorny issues like greenhouse-gas emissions, and the fate of U.S. bases on Okinawa, which the new Japanese government insists on moving. It was time to announce ways to gain fixes of the U.S.-South Korean trade treaty, long stalled in Congress. It was a moment to show that Beijing would actually make some mutually beneficial compromises on exchange rates or economic sanctions against Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs. Absent guarantees of progress on issues such as these, Mr. Obama should have taken a well-deserved vacation in Hawaii.

And...

The White House might try to blame the State Department (such an easy and delicious target) for the missteps. But State’s role in the conceptual planning of the trip was not central, and the department’s senior Asia hand, Kurt Campbell, surely knew better. It’s also hard to tar the National Security Council’s own senior Asia expert, Jeff Bader, another pro like Campbell. Perhaps even higher officials at the NSC dropped the ball. Perhaps Mr. Obama might take responsibility himself, as President Kennedy did after the Bay of Pigs fiasco in 1961. Now, that would truly clear the air—and open the door to some obvious and necessary changes in the administration’s decision-making machinery.

COMMENT:  Well said.  We have amateurs in charge, and trendy amateurs at that.  And we are still, presumably, at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, with struggles looming over Pakistan. 

It proves that having a president who went to the "right" schools is not enough, not nearly enough.  This administration has much to learn, but apparently doesn't realize it.  When you've been told all your life how bright you are, and you think your College Board scores are the most important numbers in your life, this is the result.

November 23, 2009    Permalink

STRANGE CONFLICTS IN HOLDER'S JUSTICE DEPARTMENT - AT 8:43 A.M. ET:  With his decision, undoubtedly approved by the White House, to try the mastermind of 9-11 in New York, more and more attention is being focused on Attorney General Eric Holder and his newly appointed staff at the Justice Department.  Some of this isn't pretty, as the Washington Times reports:

The Obama Justice Department is having problems prosecuting terrorist cases because top department attorneys have conflicts of interest.

According to documents obtained exclusively by The Washington Times, Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli, No. 3 official in the Justice Department, had to recuse himself on at least 13 active detainee cases and at least 26 cases listed as either closed or mooted...

...Mr. Perrelli's recusals presumably stem from the work that either he or his former firm, Jenner & Block LLP, did on behalf of detainees while Mr. Perrelli served on the firm's management committee and on its appellate and Supreme Court practice groups. And Mr. Perrelli is just one official; a number of other Justice Department officials apparently did private-sector work on detainee cases.

People are entitled to a legal defense, but this makes you wonder what kind of individuals Eric Holder is appointing.  A lawyer is not required to pursue terrorist cases.  The Washington Times makes a great point:

This is an important topic. Even if each official who did prior work on detainee cases has indeed properly recused himself from those cases while at the Justice Department, there could be such a large number of affected officials that the department's prevailing ethos could be tilted strongly in the detainees' favor.

Personnel selection in any government department is critical to policy, especially at the middle level, where policy is often carried out.

None of this is to say that Mr. Perrelli did anything wrong. His recusals are proper, but the extent of the recusals raises questions about whether the attorney general has enough unbiased advisers around him to have made good judgments about how to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and other detainees. He certainly did seem terribly ill-informed when asked basic questions at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday about how Miranda rights for detainees would be treated in civil courts and if any enemy combatant from a foreign battlefield had ever been tried in American civil courts. Columnist Charles Krauthammer justly called Mr. Holder's responses "utterly incoherent." If the incoherence stems from an inherent bias among President Obama's appointees at the Justice Department, senators and the American public have the right to know it.

COMMENT:  Our great fear is that there is some real sympathy for the detainees, indeed for radical Islam, in some precincts of the Justice Department.  This is a leftist administration, the most leftist in the nation's history.  The overall philosophy is affecting Justice, the most sensitive department in the government.  We have reason to be worried, very worried.

November 23, 2009   Permalink

SARAH SURGING - AT 8:09 A.M. ET:  Laugh now, Obamans.  Andrew Malcolm, in the L.A. Times's Top of the Ticket blog, reports that the polling gap between President Obama and the ever-ridiculed Sarah Palin has narrowed dramatically.

Not that it matters politically because obviously she's a female Republican dunce and he's a male Democrat genius.

But Sarah Palin's poll numbers are strengthening.

And Barack Obama's are sliding.

Guess what? They're about to meet in the 40's.

Depending, of course, on which recent set of numbers you peruse and how the questions are phrased, 307 days into his allotted 1,461 the 44th president's approval rating among Americans has slid to 49% or 48%, showing no popularity bounce from his many happy trips, foreign and domestic.

Yeah, the emperor has no political new clothes.

Riding the wave of immense publicity and symbiotic media interest over her new book, "Going Rogue," and the accompanying promotional tour, Palin's favorable ratings are now at 43%, according to ABC. That's up from 40% in July.

One poll even gives her a 47% favorable.

It remains a struggle.  Sarah's unfavorables still top 50%, but they are declining.  She's a polarizing figure, but, if the polling is accurate, an increasingly popular one.  She brings out passions, positive and negative.

November 23,  2009   Permalink

SUNDAY,  NOVEMBER 22,  2009

COUNTERTERROISM:  EUROPE AND AMERICA - THE CONTRAST - AT 11:17 P.M. ET:  Reuel Marc Gerecht has done some of the most perceptive writing about the war on terror.  Reflecting on the Major Hasan case, Gerecht makes the point that Europe takes internal threats from radical Muslims much more seriously than does America.  From The Wall Street Journal:

Whether it's anti-Muslim bigotry, the large numbers of immigrant and native-born Muslims in Europe, an appreciation of how hard it is to become European, or just an understanding of how dangerous Islamic radicalism is, most Europeans are far less circumspect and politically correct when discussing their Muslim compatriots than are Americans.

A concern for not giving offense to Muslims would never prevent the French internal-security service, the Direction de la Surveillance du Territoire (DST), which deploys a large number of Muslim officers, from aggressively trying to pre-empt terrorism. As Maj. Hasan's case shows, this is not true in the United States. The American military and especially the Federal Bureau of Investigation were in great part inattentive because they were too sensitive.

Moreover, President Barack Obama's determined effort not to mention Islam in terrorist discussions—which means that we must not suggest that Maj. Hasan's murderous actions flowed from his faith—will weaken American counterterrorism. Worse, the president's position is an enormous wasted opportunity to advance an all-critical Muslim debate about the nature and legitimacy of jihad.

Never thought I'd see the day when Europe seemed tougher on terrorism than the United States, but I never thought I'd see the age of Obama either.

It shouldn't require the U.S. to have a French-style, internal-security service to neutralize the likes of Maj. Hasan. He combines all of the factors—especially his public ruminations about American villainy in the Middle East and his overriding sense of Muslim fraternity—that should have had him under surveillance by counterintelligence units. Add the outrageous fact that he was in email correspondence with Anwar al-Awlaqi, a pro-al Qaeda imam well-known to American intelligence, and it is hard not to conclude that the FBI is still incapable of counterterrorism against an Islamic target.

Pathetic, but true. 

Powerfully intertwined in all of this is liberal America's reluctance to discuss Islam, Islamic militancy, jihadism, or anything that might be construed as invidious to Muslims. The Obama administration obviously doesn't want to get tagged with an Islamist terrorist strike in the U.S.—the first since 9/11. The Muslim-sensitive 9/11 Commission Report, which unambiguously named the enemy as "Islamist terrorism," now seems distinctly passé.

And one reason this happened is the intellectual trendiness among America's elites - in the universities and the press. 

In his Cairo speech in June, Mr. Obama pledged "to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear." Muslims don't need his help protecting Islam from mean-spirited Westerners—or from Western novelists, film directors or scholars who might see something in Islamic history that devout Muslims find insulting.

But Westerners could certainly benefit from Mr. Obama underscoring something else he touched on in his Cairo speech: Muslims should stop blaming non-Muslims for their crippling problems. He could ask, as some Muslims have, why is it that Islam has produced so many jihadists? Why is it that Maj. Hasan's rampage has produced so little questioning among Muslim clerics about why a man, one in a long line of Muslim militants, so easily takes God's name to slaughter his fellow citizens?

Gerecht sees Obama as a serious part of the problem, not a part of the solution:

As it stands now, however, Iranian youth who once so eagerly welcomed Mr. Obama's election by shouting his name in Persian—U ba ma! ("He is with us!")—are now writing the president's likely legacy among Muslims who yearn for a better modernity. Disappointed to see how determined Mr. Obama has remained to engage the regime they despise, they now forlornly chant U ba unhast ("He is with them.").

For Muslims who are on the front lines of Islam's bloody reformation, as well as for American counterterrorist officers who must find holy warriors in our midst, Mr. Obama has come down on the wrong side of history.

One of the best columns I've read on this subject recently.  Read the whole thing.

November 22,  2009   Permalink

  
A GEM - AT 9:19 P.M. ET:  A picture may be worth a thousand words.  Three pictures can be priceless, especially if they tell the story.  These three tell the story...well.  This comes from Lucianne: 

Now, I admit - I'm publishing this three hours after I put up some curtain rods.  But men on our side put them up with a certain style.  And we don't wear white shirts while doing it.

November 22, 2009   Permalink

BUY YOUR TICKETS NOW, WHILE THEY'RE AVAILABLE - AT 8:16 P.M. ET:  The producers, directors, and screenwriters for the trial of the century are already doing advance publicity.  At least they're honest about what they have in mind.  From the New York Post:

NEW YORK — The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said Sunday.

Scott Fenstermaker, the lawyer for accused terrorist Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, said the men would not deny their role in the 2001 attacks but "would explain what happened and why they did it."

The U.S. Justice Department announced earlier this month that Ali and four other men accused of murdering nearly 3,000 people in the nation's deadliest terrorist attack will face a civilian federal trial just blocks from the World Trade Center site.

Ali, also known as Ammar al-Baluchi, is a nephew of professed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Mohammed, Ali and the others will explain "their assessment of American foreign policy," Fenstermaker said.

"Their assessment is negative," he said.

Yes, I would imagine it is.  Of course, the Justice Department, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Obama White House, is unconcerned.

Critics of Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try the men in a New York City civilian courthourse have warned that the trial would provide the defendants with a propaganda platform.

Dean Boyd, a spokesman for the Department of Justice, said Sunday that while the men may attempt to use the trial to express their views, "we have full confidence in the ability of the courts and in particular the federal judge who may preside over the trial to ensure that the proceeding is conducted appropriately and with minimal disruption, as federal courts have done in the past."

COMMENT:  Well, it depends on which judge you get.  And the jury matters.  And...will the trial be televised?  Will Lance Ito give commentary?

The whole thing is rotten.  Bad decision by Eric Holder.  But he couldn't have made it without the boss's approval.

November 22, 2009   Permalink

MORE POLITICAL CORRECTNESS - AT 1:12 P.M. ET:  The Washington Times has a story about still one more institution with ties to foreign enemies, that evades much public scrutiny:

A Potomac, Md., Islamic center maintains links to Iran despite its claims that it is independent of a foundation that is being sued by the U.S. government on charges of funneling money to the Islamic republic.

Ali Mohammadi, the current manager of the Islamic Education Center (IEC) of Maryland, told The Washington Times that the center's only relationship to the Alavi Foundation is that of tenant to landlord. He quoted a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office as saying that forfeiture proceedings initiated earlier this month against the foundation - which also owns property in New York and other states - would not affect tenants of the foundation.

However, Mr. Mohammadi has served as the opening speaker for meetings between the Iranian-American community and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when he comes to the U.N. General Assembly each September.

Yeah, no relationship.  It's the same old story.  Iran?  Never heard of the place.

An Iranian-American who asked to be identified only by his first name, Ahmad, said the center is generally perceived as being sympathetic to the Islamic regime. He noted that Iran's interest section, which is in a small office in upper Georgetown, held a party at the Potomac center celebrating the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic revolution.

Just renting out space for parties.  Hey, they probably have Christian weddings and Bar Mitzvahs too. 

We had a similar situation before World War II, when some German-American institutions were misused as Nazi fronts.  Hollywood, in 1945, made a film about the situation:  "The House on 92nd Street."

Yet, as 9-11 fades into memory, and as the current administration refuses even to use the term, "the war on terror," there seems little zeal in America to find out the depth of possible enemy infiltration into local institutions.  A price will be paid.

November 22, 2009    Permalink

HEALTH CARE "REFORM" - THE MAIN EVENT - AT 12:37 P.M. ET:  The Senate voted last night to proceed to a major debate on health-care "reform."  But passage of anything is far from certain, as the Politico reports:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid eked out 60 votes on a procedural motion to start the health care debate Saturday night – but there’s no guarantee he can pass a bill on the merits.

And as he struggles, the reasons are clear: deep divides among Democrats on a public insurance plan, abortion, tax hikes and cost-cutting. Liberals want the plan to be generous enough. Moderates fear a budget-buster. And everyone is trying to avoid angering seniors.

Even in the blush of Saturday’s victory, Reid (D-Nev.) is far from having the votes to move his $848 billion package to final passage. At least four centrists have pledged to oppose it in its current form, largely over the public option. Reid is in a bind. Stay to the left, and moderates vote no. Move a tad to the right, and Reid faces insurrection from the left, as liberals in his own caucus and in the House vow not to compromise any further on their signature issue.

As one of the Senate most liberal members, Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), told POLITICO’s The Arena: “I have made it clear to the administration and Democratic leadership that my vote for the final bill is by no means guaranteed.”

COMMENT:  Even if the Senate can pass a patched-together bill, it would have to be reconciled in committee with the House version, which may be impossible.

At the same time, there is a history of moderate Democrats caving in at the last minute under pressure from party leaders, and trying to explain it to voters later.

The Dems could have avoided this mess had they used common sense - illegal under Democrat Party by-laws - and simply worked for some finely targeted fixes to the health-care system.  They might well have had bipartisan support.  But, driven by the party's left, they sought to completely revamp a health-care system that works well for most people, and to take over a sixth of the nation's economy. 

Would you let those people handle your household finances?

November 22, 2009    Permalink

FINANCIAL WARNING - AT 11:19 A.M. ET:  Given America's enormous debt, a good chunk of it owned by foreign nations, we should take warnings from those nations seriously.  From the Financial Times:

Germany’s new finance minister has echoed Chinese warnings about the growing threat of fresh global asset price bubbles, fuelled by low US interest rates and a weak dollar.

Wolfgang Schäuble’s comments highlight official concern in Europe that the risk of further financial market turbulence has been exacerbated by the exceptional steps taken by central banks and governments to combat the crisis.

Last weekend, Liu Mingkang, China’s banking regulator, criticised the US Federal Reserve for fuelling the “dollar carry-trade”, in which investors borrow dollars at ultra-low interest rates and invest in higher-yielding assets abroad.

COMMENT:   It isn't only foreign nations who are concerned.  A survey reported by Bloomberg several weeks ago revealed that Americans are increasingly disgusted by the financial gimmickry in the American economy, especially the high jinks they see on Wall Street.

We don't want socialism here.  It kills ingenuity, entrepreneurship and economic progress.  But if people turn against the economic system because of repeated systemic failures and what they see as smoke and mirrors, we can get it.  We can even vote it in.  We should be forewarned.

November 22, 2009     Permalink

THE DATE - AT 11:07 A.M. ET -  We acknowledge the anniversary of the assassination of President Kennedy, on this date some 46 years ago.  Whether you were a supporter of Mr. Kennedy or not, it's wise to recall that, on national defense, he was a stalwart.  His pledge to "pay any price" in defense of freedom seems quaint today, in these politically correct times, when the thinking of too many Americans is shaped by a broken educational system and a left-tilted press. 

Kennedy had to deal with a left wing in his party, but it was small and weak, and nowhere near as leftward as today's Democratic fringe.  Today, his views on foreign policy would probably lose him the Democratic nomination for president.

He lived in a different time.  In some ways, our time is better, in many ways worse.  Douglas MacArthur warned just before his death in 1964 that he feared there'd come a time when Americans wouldn't be willing to defend their country. 

Recalling Jack Kennedy, and Douglas MacArthur, it is dismaying to see the views circulating around our White House today.

November 22,  2009    Permalink