THURSDAY,  JANUARY 7,  2010

IS THIS SERIOUS? – AT 8:13 P.M. ET:  At one time, this would have been considered an April Fool's joke.  But it's actually serious, and it's a classic example of left-wing journalism presented without shame, or even a wink.  The publication is Britain's fashionably left Guardian.  The writer, Suzanne Goldenberg, has been following the party line for years.  You can't make this up:

America's love affair with the automobile could be sputtering to an end. Some 14m cars were taken out of action in 2009, 4m more than rolled off the assembly lines and onto the roads, a report from the Earth Policy Institute said today.

Whaa?  We don't love our cars anymore?  As Johnny Carson used to say, "I did not know that."  Do you think the recession might have something to do with those figures, Suzanne?  Or Suzie?  Or Ms. Marx, or whatever? 

Of course, you see "Earth Policy Institute" and you know where this stuff comes from.

It was the first time more cars were scrapped than sold since the second world war, reducing the size of the US car fleet from an all-time high of 250m to 246m.

That's less than two percent. 

Last year was an extraordinarily bad year for the US auto industry. Two of the three big car makers — GM and Chrysler — went through bankruptcy and were bailed out by the US government. Sales fell 21.2% from 2008 and the total sales volume was the lowest since 1982. Many consumers held off buying new cars because of fears of losing their jobs.

Ah, she got something right.  Recession.  Recession.  And yes, our car makers are in trouble.  But what about that worker's paradise, Sweden, once known for great cars?  Volvo is now owned by the Chinese, and Saab is pretty much history.  And maybe Suzanne should look at her own country, Britain.  Who owns Rolls-Royce this year?  I think it's the Germans, the guys we beat not many decades ago.

This is the worst economic downturn since the great Depression.  But Americans don't love their cars any less. 

The Obama administration's efforts to spur demand by offering motorists up to $4,500 on trade-ins of older cars and pick-up trucks saw 700,000 older models taken off the road. But that did not affect the total number of vehicles on the road because consumers could only take advantage of the scrappage scheme if they replaced their old clunkers with new more efficient vehicles.

Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute, said the slump in car sales goes beyond the economic recession. Americans may finally have decided that — with cars — enough is enough. The country now has 246m licensed cars for 209m licensed drivers.

Yes indeed.  Haven't you all heard your friends and relatives saying, "Enough is enough.  Down with these miserable, capitalist gas burners.  I'll walk!"  Why, I hear it every day.  And of course teenagers are shunning cars, and moving toward bikes.  I know it, I know it.

"This is not a one-time event. We expect the shrinkage to continue into the indefinite future," Brown told a conference call today.

The automobile is one of the greatest instruments of equality in history – allowing people of average means to do what only the wealthy once could.  Maybe that's why all these snotty elitists hate it so much.  Who are those peasants out there who want to do what we do?

Remember, if you want to get invited to the trendiest parties, say something nasty about your car today.  And declare that you won't go to Disney World unless you can travel by hydrogen-powered bus. 

Then start waiting.

Yuch.

January 7, 2009   Permalink

PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 101 – AT 7:37 P.M. ET:  You would think, given recent events, that the Obamans would be ultra-careful about someone they'd nominate for an anti-terror position.  Think again.  Poor vetting, which has cursed this administration, is back with us, as Fox News reports:

There's more trouble ahead for President Obama's nominee to lead the federal agency in charge of airport security.

Seven Republican senators on Wednesday wrote to the White House demanding information about the conflicting accounts nominee Erroll Southers gave Congress over background checks he ran on his then-estranged wife's boyfriend two decades ago.

Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., previously had held up Southers' confirmation over concerns that he would unionize screeners at the Transportation Security Administration. Even after the failed bombing of a Northwest Airlines flight on Christmas led lawmakers to call for Southers' swift approval, DeMint stood by his objections.

The questions raised about the background checks added to his concerns -- DeMint joined six other senators in raising the issue with the White House.

"It's just part of a pattern of we are not vetting these candidates clearly," DeMint told Fox News. "I think more and more senators are concerned that this is not the kind of person we want leading, probably at the most vulnerable point we are as a nation as far as keeping our people secure."

Southers wrote to senators last week clarifying "inconsistencies" in his recollection of the background checks. The former FBI agent originally wrote in an October affidavit to a Senate committee that he asked a San Diego police employee to run a background check on his estranged wife's boyfriend and was censured by the FBI 20 years ago for it. He called it an isolated incident.

But after the committee approved his nomination and sent his name to the Senate, Southers wrote back and said that he actually personally ran background checks twice.

COMMENT:  The usual game played in these situations is for an administration to say something like, "These events occurred two decades ago.  The nominee acknowledged his error and has grown since."

The problem is, the inconsistencies in Southers's "recollection" of the events occurred only weeks ago.  And who can really believe a man who says that he doesn't recall looking, personally, for information about his estranged wife's boyfriend?  That's not something someone forgets.

This involves the integrity of a man chosen for a sensitive national-security position.  He should depart.

January 7, 2009   Permalink

THE CONSERVATIVE RESURGENCE – AT 7:18 P.M. ET:  A new Gallup Poll has good news for conservatives:

PRINCETON, NJ -- The increased conservatism that Gallup first identified among Americans last June persisted throughout the year, so that the final year-end political ideology figures confirm Gallup's initial reporting: conservatives (40%) outnumbered both moderates (36%) and liberals (21%) across the nation in 2009.

More broadly, the percentage of Americans calling themselves either conservative or liberal has increased over the last decade, while the percentage of moderates has declined.

And...

The rather abrupt three-point increase between 2008 and 2009 in the percentage of Americans calling themselves conservative is largely owing to an increase -- from 30% to 35% -- in the percentage of political independents adopting the label.

COMMENT:  It seems to me that the key figure is the small percentage of Americans who call themselves liberals, contrasted with the vast power that liberals have in Washington today.  Only 21%, according to Gallup, are liberals.  (And that number is probably smaller among actual voters.)  And yet, liberals control the White House and Congress, and are pushing through an agenda that most Americans oppose.

Conservatives plus moderates equal 76% of the Gallup sample.  By any reasonable standard, that 76% should have far greater power in Washington.  We look forward to a corrective in November.

January 7, 2009   Permalink

THE PRESIDENT TAKES RESPONSIBILITY – AT 5:40 P.M. ET:  President Obama spoke to the American people today, summarizing reports, which he'd ordered, focusing on how a terrorist boarded a plane on Christmas day and tried to blow it up, even though our government had been warned about him. 

We all know that the president is a superb speaker – as long as you don't look too carefully at the substance, or don't expect any great use of language.  He's an impact speaker.  Fine voice, clear delivery, someone who can move an audience by his presence.  Those traits were on display today.  Mr. Obama went through all the failings in our system that allowed the Christmas bomber to come close to success, stopped only because the bomb he carried malfunctioned.  And the president took personal responsibility.  You know, "the buck stops here" kind of statement.

The statement lacked the grace of President Kennedy's after the Bay of Pigs.  When asked by a reporter whose fault it was, Mr. Kennedy replied simply, "I am the responsible officer of the government."  Kennedy had a great understanding of how to use the right phrase at the right moment.  Obama speaks in a kind of modified legalese, taking ten words where three would do.  But, in his own way, the president did acknowledge that he bore ultimate responsibility, or something like that.

Obama said that a number of new steps would be taken to tighten security.  Then, sadly, his speech degenerated into the usual stuff about not giving up our values – as if anyone has suggested that – and avoiding partisanship, as if it's somehow unpatriotic to criticize an administration performance that he'd just admitted was pathetic. 

He did say that we are "at war" with Al Qaeda.  Good.  But if we are at war, the Christmas bomber is a soldier in that war, a combatant.  And yet, the president avoided the obvious question that follows logically from our being "at war":  Why was the bomber read Miranda rights, and told that he had a right to remain silent, as if he were a shoplifter?  No enemy soldier is read Miranda rights, and no enemy soldier, in the grown-up world, is allowed to get lawyered up. 

So the president's statement, in part eloquent, ultimately failed to satisfy those demanding a mature view of the war against terror.  It's apparent that Mr. Obama still has a pre 9-11 mentality, and regards this "war" as, essentially, a law-enforcement problem.

President Harry S. Truman sought originally to apply a similar standard to the Korean War, calling it a "police action."  That phrase enraged the American people, who knew a shooting war when they saw one.  Our soldiers were being killed just as dead in Korea as in World War II.  Mr. Obama might do well to recall the Truman case, and challenge his own lawyer's mentality.

January 7, 2009   Permalink

WILL THIS HEAD ROLL? – AT 9:48 A.M. ET:  This is one of those "hard to believe" stories, but it's apparently true.  We were alerted to it by Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit.  From the New York Daily News:

WASHINGTON - The top official in charge of analyzing terror threats did not cut short his ski vacation after the underwear bomber nearly blew up an airliner on Christmas Day, the Daily News has learned.

Michael Leiter, director of the National Counterterrorism Center since 2007, decided not to return to his agency's "bat cave" nerve center in McLean, Va., until several days after Christmas, two U.S. officials said.

"People have been grumbling that he didn't let a little terrorism interrupt his vacation," said one of the sources.

The NCTC, the post-9/11 clearinghouse for intelligence to detect terror plots against the U.S., is under intense scrutiny for failing to "connect the dots" on Nigerian bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

Leiter's spokesman declined to say when the terror-center chief returned to Washington and fully retook the helm of his analysis agency, which is near CIA headquarters just outside the nation's capital.

COMMENT:  Behavior like that sets him up for being the ideal sacrificial lamb.  Also, Leiter doesn't seem to be a member of any group that will scream if he's fired.  This head is meant for rolling.

January 7, 2009   Permalink

STRANGE MANEUVERINGS – AT 9:13 A.M. ET:  The administration, in the person of its national security adviser, is shrewdly preparing the American people for the bad news contained in a report to be issued later today.  From Fox News:

James Jones, a retired four-star Marine general, says Americans will feel "a certain shock" when a report is released today detailing the intelligence failures that could have prevented the Christmas Day attack.

Americans will feel "a certain shock" when a report is released today detailing the intelligence failures that could have prevented the alleged Christmas Day airline bomber from ever boarding the plane.

In an interview published Thursday in USA Today, White House national security adviser James Jones said President Obama "is legitimately and correctly alarmed that things that were available, bits of information that were available, patterns of behavior that were available, were not acted on."

"That's two strikes," he was quoted as saying, referring to the failed Northwest jet attack and the shooting massacre at Fort Hood, Texas, in November. The Army base attack left 13 dead after officials failed to act on intelligence identifying suspected gunman Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan as a threat to fellow soldiers.

Jones, a retired four-star Marine general, told the paper that Obama "certainly doesn't want that third strike, and neither does anybody else."

Oh good, I'm glad the president doesn't want a third strike.  And I'm genuinely glad that Jones mentioned Fort Hood, a successful attack that didn't have to happen, and which has been forgotten in all the bother over the Christmas airliner attack.

Now, will someone please utter the following declaration:  "There will be no more political correctness."

Political correctness is choking our intelligence efforts, just as it is choking our universities and elements of the press.  If there's a blessing in disguise here – and, to use Churchill's phrase, the disguise is very thick indeed – it's that we may finally be willing to confront the disgrace and danger of political correctness.

After Fort Hood, the first reaction of the Army's chief of staff was to worry publicly that the attack might hurt diversity in the military.  The officer involved, General George Casey, should have been handed his retirement papers.

Maybe there's change coming that we can believe in.  I'll believe it when I see it.

January 7, 2009   Permalink

THE NEW MASSACHUSETTS MIRACLE – AT 8:28 A.M. ET:  Something quite remarkable is happening in Massachusetts.  A Democratic candidate is getting criticized by the liberal press.

There'll be a special election in Massachusetts on January 19th, less than two weeks away, to fill the U.S. Senate seat vacated by the death of Edward M. Kennedy.  The Dem candidate, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, who has a history of imperious behavior, apparently believes the seat is properly hers, and that no effort should be required of her.  Her unknown GOP challenger, Scott Brown, was within nine points of her in a recent poll, but that hasn't gotten her off the throne.

Even writers at the veddy veddy liberal and proper Boston Globe have become disgusted.  Brian McGrory, a Globe columnist, put it bluntly: 

If you're a registered voter in Massachusetts, your friendly Democratic Senate candidate, Martha Coakley, is sticking her thumb in your eye.

Coakley, in exquisitely diva-like form, is refusing all invitations to debate her Republican opponent in the race, Scott Brown, unless a third-party candidate with no apparent credentials is included on the stage. She may also require a crystal bowl of orange-only M&Ms in her dressing room, but we haven't gotten that far yet. Her demands have led to an astonishing result: there will be just one -- that's one -- live televised debate in the Boston media market this general election season.

The sad fact is that it may not matter.  The election will probably be closer than most in Massachusetts, but the place is filled with people who pull the Dem lever automatically.  And the many college towns will be out in force for Martha.  Odds are that she'll win. 

This is all part of a Coakley pattern. When she ran for attorney general, she didn't allow even the Republican candidate on a debate stage. In fact, she refused to debate at all.

And yet they keep electing her.  Liberal.  Female.  Feminist.  Who could ask for anything more? 

In fact, Coakley has a dark side.  She was involved in one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in recent memory, the despicable Amirault case, in which clearly innocent members of a family were falsely imprisoned on trumped-up child-abuse charges during the child-abuse madness of the 1980s.  Coakley has consistently refused to help right the wrongs, which were exposed by the great Dorothy Rabinowitz of The Wall Street Journal.  A great lawyer Coakley is not.

For that matter, let's take a look at Coakley's campaign schedule for today. Well, actually, we can't. There isn't one. She isn't doing anything in public -- no meetings with voters, no debates, no public appearances. For all we know, she's spending much of her time at home with the shades drawn waiting for Jan. 19, Election Day, to come and go.

Which is the real problem with all this. Voters want their political candidates to earn the position -- with hard work, innovative ideas, and a hearty nod to the process. The funny part about a good campaign is that voters not only get to meet the candidate, but the candidate gets to meet the voters and learn what's on their minds.

In Washington, senators don't get to dodge their opponents. Right now, dodging looks like the Coakley way.

So the question must be asked:  In the light of Coakley's queenly behavior, does Scott Brown have a shot?  As we said above, Coakley will probably win.  And the Republican National Committee, reflecting its usual lack of imagination, isn't giving Brown much help.  But there could be a miracle in the offing if enough members of the public get good and angry at being taken for granted.  And even a close call in Massachusetts would be some kind of statement.

If I were the Republican leaders in Washington, I'd go all out for Scott Brown.  Hey, you never know.  With liberals criticizing Coakley, the GOP could benefit from stay-at-homes who don't have the enthusiasm to come out and vote for her.

But, alas, the remnants of the Kennedy family will do their duty today and endorse Coakley, which will give her a boost in some circles.  What a sad end to the legacy – to see the family endorsing a candidate who won't even fight for the job.

January 7, 2009   Permalink

TERROR NEWS – AT 8:10 A.M. ET:  Isn't it remarkable how terror has made a comeback?  The Obama revolution was supposed to relegate this Bushian thing to the rear burner, but the terrorists wouldn't cooperate.  It's a cultural thing.

Two stories this morning grab our attention.  Yemeni authorities confirm contacts between the Christmas day bomber and a radical imam, as The New York Times reports:

SANA, Yemen — A senior official here confirmed on Thursday that the young Nigerian man accused of attempting to bomb an airliner approaching Detroit on Christmas Day had met with Al Qaeda operatives and with Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical American-born Internet preacher, in Yemen before setting out on his journey.

No shock there.  And...

Mr. Awlaki was also linked to an American officer, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who is accused of a shooting spree at Fort Hood, Texas, in which 13 people were killed last November.

Say what?  Accused?  Even in careful journalism it's permitted to drop the "accused" or "alleged" when there is no reasonable doubt.  He did it.  He doesn't deny it.  The only issue is the nature of his defense.

Mr. Awlaki, whose calls for holy war resonate among Al Qaeda sympathizers, exchanged e-mails with Major Hasan before the Fort Hood shootings.

And we knew about it, too.  Presumably, the administration is investigating what went wrong, but for some reason the Christmas day bomber is getting far more publicity, although no one died.

And another story.

(CNN) -- Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility for the suicide bombing in Afghanistan last month that killed seven CIA employees and contractors and a Jordanian military officer, according to a statement posted on Islamist Web sites.

Al Qaeda is resurgent.  Terror is resurgent.  This attack occurred in Afghanistan, but a third of all terror attacks mounted against the United States since 9-11 occurred in 2009, on Barack Obama's watch.

Mustafa Abu Yazid, al Qaeda's commander of operations in Afghanistan and its No. 3 man, said the attack avenged the death of Baitullah Mehsud, leader of the Taliban in Pakistan who was killed in a missile strike last August, and al Qaeda operatives Saleh al-Somali and Abdullah al-Libi.

The December 30 blast at a U.S. base in Khost, in southeastern Afghanistan, killed seven CIA operatives including two from private security firm Xe, formerly known as Blackwater. The eighth victim was Jordanian Army Capt. Sharif Ali bin Zeid, a cousin of Jordan's King Abdullah II.

A former U.S. intelligence official identified the suicide bomber as Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi, a Jordanian doctor who acted as a double agent. He was recruited as a counterterrorism intelligence source, according to a senior Jordanian official.

Have you noticed how many terrorists, and terror leaders, are physicians?  What do they teach in the medical schools over there?  This is an interesting issue, and someone should look into it.

COMMENT:  I suspect we'll have more stories like this as 2010 unfolds.  Already, the usual suspects in the media are lining up to defend Obama's anti-terror record, but if a few attacks are successful, the comparison with the Bush years will be inevitable.  Despite the media's efforts, Bush may well come out on top in public opinion, at least on national security.

January 7,  2009   Permalink

WEDNESDAY,  JANUARY 6,  2010

WHEN JOHN KERRY SPEAKS, NOBODY LISTENS – AT 8:20 P.M. ET:  Is there a duller man in politics than John Kerry?  Is there a man whose timing is worse?  The man just shines with distinction. 

Now, apparently speaking for his party, Kerry takes on Dick Cheney.  Just at the time when Americans are becoming concerned again about terror, and the former vice president speaks the words Americans agree with, Kerry attacks him.  What great strategy.  From The Politico:

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) went after former Vice President Dick Cheney on Wednesday for leading Republican “hysteria” in the wake of the attempted Christmas Day bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner.

Did you see any hysteria?  I didn't.

“Unfortunately, too many Republicans have treated this episode as a political opportunity,” Kerry said in a statement. “Led by former Vice President Dick Cheney, they have resorted to partisan denunciations that serve no legitimate purpose and have no place in the nation’s vital debate over how to fight terrorism.”

Yeah, right.  Like all that bipartisanship that Kerry gave us during the Bush administration.  The Republican criticisms have been entirely appropriate, and often constructive. 

“The hysteria of Mr. Cheney and some of his fellow Republicans is sadly reminiscent of the days when the previous administration substituted fearmongering for sound policy and led us into an unnecessary and tragic war in Iraq while starving a necessary conflict in Afghanistan,” Kerry added.

Would you get that?  Has Kerry noticed that the "necessary conflict in Afghanistan" does not have the support of the base of his own party?  And at a time when Americans are starting to realize that President Bush kept the country safe in the years after 9-11, Kerry attacks...BUSH (!!).

Oh, and Big John: We're winning in Iraq.  It's tough, nothing certain, but Bush's surge policy, developed by David Petraeus, has paid off.  What do you read every day, Senator?

January 6, 2009   Permalink

THIS IS PATHETIC – AT 7:48 P.M. ET:  Chicago is overwhelmed with crime.  The south side, home to Barack and Michelle Obama, is a shooting gallery.  And what brilliant idea is being put forward to improve law enforcement?  From NBC News in Chicago:

The Chicago Police Department is seriously considering scrapping the police entrance exam, sources tell Fran Spielman.

Dropping the exam would bolster minority hiring and avert legal battles, according to one source, while others confirm that the exam could be scrapped to open the process to as many people as possible.

However, the lack of an exam would make Chicago the lone major city without one, and experts contend that the exam is integral to eliminating unqualified applicants.

The CPD has tried in recent years to boost minority hiring by offering the police exam online and turning to minority clergy to help in the recruitment effort.

What an insult to minorities, as if there aren't enough minority men and women who can pass the exam.  But how can you recruit minorities for the police department when you have the likes of Rev. Wright, and pastors like him, preaching hatred against authority and against the nation?  The lack of minority recruitment is a function of social attitudes.  New York has an extremely diverse police department, and one that is multilingual, and it hasn't cancelled exams.

Fraternal Order of Police President Mark Donahue said the plan "sounds ridiculous."

"With this, you're taking away one of the steps that attempts to legitimize the (hiring) process," he said.

Asked about plan Wednesday morning, Mayor Daley said he was unaware of any plans to do away with the exam.

"I never heard anything about that," he said.

But the city's Department of Human Resources didn't deny it. In a statement, the department said the city is "reviewing all options right now on how to handle the application process."

COMMENT:  Barack Obama's interest in Chicago, since becoming president, has been essentially limited to trying to get the Olympics for the city.  I would hope he'd have one of his Chicago-based aides pick up a phone and read the riot act to the dudes who came up with this crazy plan, the effect of which would be to make the city an embarrassment.

January 6, 2009   Permalink

GERSON NAILS IT – AT 5:58 P.M. ET:  A distinguished scholar, who prefers anonymity, writes to alert us to today's superb column by Michael Gerson on the Obama view of terrorism.  This is about the best analysis of the subject that I've read:  From the Washington Post:

A president can't be held responsible for every mistake at every level of government. But every level of government takes its cues from the president and his main advisers. And it is difficult to argue that the Obama administration has even attempted to create an atmosphere of urgency in the war on terror. The listless, coldblooded and clueless response of the Hawaii White House to the Christmas Day attack was only the most recent indication...

...Add to this the Holderization of the war on terrorism. Attorney General Eric Holder began his work not with a high-profile assault on al-Qaeda but with a high-profile assault on the CIA -- making clear to every ambitious officer that counterintelligence is a dead end of recrimination and legal bills. And now both the mastermind of Sept. 11, 2001, and the underwear bomber are headed toward celebrity trials.

And remember this quote well:

The reality here is simple and shocking: A terrorist with current knowledge of al-Qaeda operations in Yemen has been told he has the right to remain silent.

Gerson was one of President George W. Bush's speechwriters, and that is a great campaign line.

And granting Abdulmutallab that privilege only because he tried to commit murder on American soil is an incentive of disturbing perversity.

Finally...

The president has occasionally talked of a war on terrorism. But lip service is different from leadership. In the war on terrorism, 2009 was not a year of urgency and vigilance. It was a year of lullabies, hot toddies and Ambien -- though it nearly ended with a bang.

COMMENT:  Very well said.  The fact is, the president's heart isn't in it.  This is a president nurtured on the hard left, a man who believes that terrorism is the result of poverty and oppression – oppression by us, that is – when in fact it is the fruit of an ideology taught in schools and training camps, much as was the Nazi ideology, or the ideology that produced Japanese kamikazes in World War II.     

We hope that the president is learning, but I doubt if the wing of the party that he represents will ever learn much of anything, for it is devoted to those same myths.  The head of the Congressional Black Caucus, Barbara Lee of California, is a fan of Fidel Castro, and was the only member of Congress to vote against military action following the 9-11 attacks. 

We will have a difficult year coming up.  Jack Kennedy improved dramatically during his second year in office.  The jury is assembling to judge Barack Obama.

January 6, 2009   Permalink

A BREAK IN THE LINE – AT 10:07 A.M. ET:  One thing you look for in democracy movements that are mounted against a dictatorship is any break in the solidarity of the regime.  Iran may have had one.  From the Jerusalem Post:

The Iranian consul in Oslo resigned from his post to protest the government-sponsored violence against opposition protesters in Teheran last week, according to a report in The Norway Post Wednesday.

The report cited an interview that the consul gave to a public radio station in which he confirmed his resignation. He has held the position for three years.

"It was the Iranian authorities' treatment of demonstrators around Christmas which made me realize that my conscience would not allow me to continue in my job," he was quoted as saying.

The Norway Post went on to quote Rahman Saki, who heads the Norwegian-Iranian support committee voicing concern about the Iranian official's safety if he were to return to his home country. His family may also be at risk, Saki added.

Let's see if the Norwegian government – they're the Nobel Peace Prize guys – shows the slightest interest in this.  Norway and Sweden tend to be for peace and freedom until it's inconvenient.  They'd rather bash the U.S. and Israel. 

Planet Iran, a great website, is predicting a new round of demonstrations in Iran:

Following the successful demonstrations of Ashura (December 26th & 27th), the next official wave of protests has been slated for February 11th which marks the 31st year of the establishment of the Islamic revolution lead by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Of course, the demonstrators will get passionate support from President Obama.  That is a joke.

January 6, 2009   Permalink

THE CHICAGO WAY – AT 9:11 A.M. ET:  We keep warning here that Republican victories in 2010 are not in the bag.  Any number of things can happen that will improve Democratic fortunes.  One of them is rarely reported – a coming attempt to change the voter registration system, making it more Chicago-friendly.  American Thinker has the story:

It's called universal voter registration. The Wall Street Journal's John Fund described the Democrat plan recently at a David Horowitz Freedom Center forum.

"In January, Chuck Schumer and Barney Frank will propose universal voter registration. What is universal voter registration? It means all of the state laws on elections will be overridden by a federal mandate. The feds will tell the states: 'take everyone on every list of welfare that you have, take everyone on every list of unemployed you have, take everyone on every list of property owners, take everyone on every list of driver's license holders and register them to vote regardless of whether they want to be ...'"

And then drag them to the polls.

Leftist groups are already arguing that universal voter registration will solve all the problems with our voting system. But the left created most of these problems. The radical leftist Nation Magazine, for example, absolutely loves the idea of universal voter registration. This is the same magazine, however, that advanced Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven's Manufactured Crisis strategy. The Cloward/Piven strategy was designed to undermine government institutions by overwhelming them with impossible demands for services. Cloward and Piven focused on welfare, housing, and voting as the main targets of this strategy, and the radical group ACORN was specifically created for the purpose of executing it.

And...

The problems with universal voter registration are numerous and obvious. Many states' lists include vast numbers of illegals, including some states which allow illegals to obtain drivers licenses; because many homeowners have more than one home, there will be duplicates; because so many people are on so many separate federal and state government agency lists, there will be duplicates; and because so many lists exist with little or no cross-checking capability, all of these duplicates are likely to go uncorrected. Add to this the fact that Dems hope to extend voting rights to felons, and the whole thing begins to look like a nationwide Democrat voter registration drive facilitated by taxpayers.

Which it is.  The key objective is to register as many people as possible who are dependent on government programs.  They are reliable Democrats.

The same people pushing universal registration originally pushed the Motor Voter law, which has created cesspools of corruption:

The Motor Voter law was correctly identified as a facilitator of vote fraud. One of the few legal issues Barack Obama actually participated in as a lawyer was a 1995 suit against the State of Illinois, which he brought on behalf of ACORN. Then-Republican Governor Jim Edgars saw the newly passed Motor Voter act as creating the potential for massive vote fraud and refused to implement it. With the assistance of the Clinton Justice Department, Obama's legal team won that suit...

...It is not surprising that the Democrats are now choosing to push this new initiative, for universal voter registration will be Motor Voter on turbochargers. And who better to sign it into law than the president from ACORN?

COMMENT:  I'm afraid it's all true.  There are George Soros-funded organizations that are working specifically to manipulate the voting system.  One aspect of this is to elect secretaries of state in the various states who are "ACORN-friendly."  Secretaries of state normally control election machinery.  It was a Soros-backed secretary of state in Minnesota who was enormously helpful in getting Al Franken his Senate seat.  (You'll recall that recounts were required, and the real election was razor-close.) 

Even though this may be a "Republican year," many election can turn out to be very close.  Loose registration rules and friendly secretaries of state may do for the Democratic Party what the party could never, based on merit, do for itself.

January 6, 2009   Permalink

THE GREAT COMMITMENT TO OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE – AT 8:25 A.M. ET:  The Dems are talking tough about terrorism, at least this week, but they were prepared to cut the guts out of a major anti-terror unit...before the Christmas bomber struck.  From The Atlantic:

The highly touted intelligence fusion center at the heart of the nation's counterterrorism establishment was preparing for deep budget cuts across 2010, senior intelligence officials said. According to one official, who asked not to be identified because intelligence budget matters are classified, the administration and Congress slashed the budget for the National Counterterrorism Center by at least $25 million. Those affected, the official said, included employees responsible for maintaining the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE) system, which contains the list of about 550,000 known or suspected terrorists.

Who needs it, when you can give the money to ACORN?

Both the Director of National Intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, and the head of the NCTC, Mike Leiter, pressed to have the funding restored well before the Christmas Day attack exposed potential problems.

"Without question, recent events will cause those proposals to be re-considered," an intelligence official said.

The funds will probably be restored, for appearances' sake.  But the planned cut reflects the Democratic Party's true attitude toward counterterrorism.  The party's base just doesn't care.  They're interested in their social programs and in taking care of their interest groups.  This was once a great party.  Harry Truman must be spinning.

January 6, 2009   Permalink

OFFICE AVAILABLE, FULL MEDICAL PLAN – AT 8:03 A.M. ET:  A second Democratic senator, up for reelection, has chosen to retire.

Yesterday it was Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, running far behind in the polls, who announced he would not seek reelection in 2010.  Today, it is one of the most powerful men in the Senate.  From The Politico:

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) plans to announce Wednesday that he will retire from the Senate at the end of the year, capping a 30-year career where he rose to become one of the chamber's most influential members, several Democratic sources told POLITICO Tuesday night.

Dodd’s decision to retire is, at first glance, a blessing to Senate Democrats who worried they would have trouble holding the seat with the embattled senator in the race. Now Democrats expect that Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal will run in Dodd’s place, giving the party a stronger nominee in a race that was widely believed to be a toss-up.

Blumenthal, it is reported, will announce his candidacy today, before the corpse is even buried. 

The Dorgan retirement in North Dakota provides Republicans with an excellent chance for a pickup.  But it would be crazy for the GOP to write Connecticut off.  Yes, it's a blue state, and Blumenthal is popular.  But Connecticut also reelected Joe Lieberman, a moderate, after he'd lost the Democratic nomination to a leftist insurgent.  A moderate Republican, a Rudy Giuliani, could give Blumenthal a run for his money in a state where political surprises are fairly frequent.

Next door, in blue Massachusetts, the Republican challenger is only nine points behind the Democrat in the special election, to be held January 19th, to succeed Edward M. Kennedy.  This is a time for Republicans to fight.

We also learn that the Democratic governor of Colorado, Bill Ritter, will announce that he, too, will not run for reelection.  Another great GOP opportunity.

January 6,  2009   Permalink