One of the really comical things about Barack Obama is the gap—no, chasm—between his rhetoric about  peace, justice, the "world community," etc. and the ugly realities of his foreign policy. If there still remains a despot, dictator, tyrant, anti-Semitic head case or genocidal thug that the Obama Administration hasn't sucked up to, it can only be because the White House has lost his phone number.

I say comical, and there is something funny about it: Just seeing Obama and Hugo Chavez together was a howl. It's not very funny for the victims of Obama's new best friends, however. Observers here in the US of A may laugh at the spectacle of the Obama Administration's ongoing effort to restore to power in Honduras a raving anti-Semite who believes that Israeli mercenaries are shooting death rays into his head, but probably the people of Honduras don't get the joke. Still, in the Age of the Messiah, I suppose we have to take our laughs where we find them—in this case, south of the border, down Tegucigalpa way.

Posted by tmg110 at 9:48 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

…which could be a fair amount, check out this article by Fred Barnes for the Weekly Standard. In it, he assesses Republican prospects for 2010.

Barnes concludes that there's a real chance for a GOP surge sufficiently strong to flip the House of Representatives back to Republican control. The poor economy, the uncertain international outlook and the Obama Administration's bumbling are conspiring to erode the Democratic Party's position. In the worst case for the Dems, Republicans could pick up more than 40 House seats—enough to take control of the chamber—and three or four Senate seats.

There's a year to go before the 2010 election, and a lot can happen in a year. But unless the Democrats do something rather quickly to arrest their slide, the progressive moment may pass pretty quickly—with a squeal of brakes as it fishtails toward the edge of an electoral cliff.

Posted by tmg110 at 9:00 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

This is painful to watch.

Back in March, President Obama did what I and many other observers believed to be the right thing: he appointed a new commander for Afghanistan and expressed a renewed commitment to victory in that protracted and difficult conflict. The war in Afghanistan, he told us, was one that America could not afford to lose.

Having assessed the situation on the ground, the new commander, General Stanley McChrystal, concluded that without a major commitment of additional forces and a switch to an energetic counterinsurgency strategy, the US could indeed lose the war. His recommendations call for the dispatch of an additional 45,000 troops to Afghanistan.

To say that McChrystal's assessment was unwelcome to the White House would be to understate the case by an order of magnitude. It was received there with consternation verging on panic. Polls show that the American people are dubious about the war in Afghanistan, while Obama's progressive base is up in arms at the possibility of "escalation." Having claimed for years that Iraq (a war of choice) was a distraction from Afghanistan (a war of necessity), progressives are now showing their true colors in the form of a white flag. And it appears that the President is fearful of antagonizing them.

As a result, we now have before us the pathetic spectacle of a nervous White House seeking to cut the ground from beneath the feet of its own hand-picked commander. Were it not for the fact that so many lives are at stake, the spectacle of that noted strategist, Vice President Joe Biden, emerging as General McChrystal's most vocal critic inside the Administration would be laughable. Joe Biden! The man who's been wrong on just about every foreign policy issue for the past quarter-century! It beggars parody.

On Face the Nation today, Obama's national security advisor, retired General Jim Jones, sought to downplay the seriousness of the situation in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, his soothing assurances coincided with the terrible news that ten US troops had just been killed in a Taliban attack—news that lent Jones' comments a disturbing air of unreality.

This isn't the stimulus package or card check or the Olympics. This is a life-and-death issue. It involves the safety and security of our country. It also involves hundreds of thousands of Americans in uniform, of whom my own daughter is one. If the President of the United States is too fearful of the political consequences to do what it takes to achieve victory, then I can't support him on the war.

It would be a terrible thing to abandon Afghanistan at this stage—a disastrous setback for the US and a catastrophe for the people of that unfortunate country. It would be worse, however, to sacrifice the lives of our troops for the sake of the Biden Doctrine. Either fight to win, Mr. President, or bring them home.

Posted by tmg110 at 4:16 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

So  far as the possibility of the Olympics coming to Chicago was concerned, my interest was academic. I would have been long gone from the Windy City before the Olympic fanfare sounded across the lakefront. Academically, then, I thought it was terrible idea to bring the Olympics to one of the most corrupt municipalities in the nation. To imagine what Mayor Richard Daley's city administration and the denizens of Cook County government would have made of the opportunity quite takes one's breath away. It would have been like electing a crack addict to serve as President of Colombia…

Posted by tmg110 at 9:14 AM EDT

Updated: Saturday, 3 October 2009 9:20 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Barack Obama's Olympic humiliation in Copenhagen was remarkable in two respects: that an American president would put his prestige on the line over such a trivial issue, and that he and his advisers so thoroughly miscalled the play. So far as one can tell from the outside, the White House actually believed that the selection of Chicago was in the bag. Precisely how they managed to persuade themselves of this non-fact is an open question, but their poor judgment resulted in a major embarrassment.

Moreover, this was a self-inflicted wound. Obama could very easily have held himself aloof from Chicago's Olympic bid. He is, after all, the president of the United States. There are many other issues, far more important, on his agenda—issues with a priority claim on his limited time. To expend time and energy on his home town's Olympic hopes was a startling example of poor judgment from a president whose intelligence and political skills have been so highly touted. Fred Barnes puts it well in this blog post for the Weekly Standard:

[W]here was the charisma, the skill in persuading people to see things Obama’s way? The media has built Obama up as a communicator who’s the equal of Ronald Reagan and Franklin Roosevelt. True, he’s delivered several fine speeches, but all of them before he became president. Now he’s either lost his touch or never was the orator the press said he was.

Obama's claque will argue that the fiasco in Copenhagen, was, after all, a minor setback. That Chicago has failed to land the Olympics is hardly a world-historical catastrophe. That much is true. But still, it tells us something about the man and his administration that isn't very reassuring—particularly to fathers like me whose sons and daughters are serving in the armed forces. So Obama got Copenhagen wrong, but we can trust him to get Afghanistan right? That's a profession of faith that I simply cannot bring myself to make.

Posted by tmg110 at 8:54 AM EDT

Updated: Sunday, 4 October 2009 11:55 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

As his various domestic policies demonstrate. Barack Obama is a profligate spender. And along with all our hard-earned tax dollars, the President has been spending something else, a form of currency that is absolutely essential to the success of any  presidency: the trust and confidence of the American people. It's all there in the latest Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll, and it surely makes gruesome reading for Obama and his supporters.

Obama's standing with independents—the key to his election—has collapsed. Only 46% now approve of the job he's doing as president, while 41% disapprove. In June, those numbers were 66% and 21% respectively. His overall approval rating stands at 50% approve, 42% disapprove, compared with 62% and 31% respectively back in June.

If this slippage had been the result of tough decisions on key issues like health care, the economy and Iran, it would be less worrisome for Obama. Tough decisions often have that effect on a leader's popularity. In Indiana the Republican governor, Mitch Daniels, saw his approval ratings plummet when he undertook to lease the money-losing Indiana Toll Road to a private company. But he persevered, his policy paid off for the state, and he was reelected in 2008 by a handsome margin.

In dismal contrast, Obama has nothing to show for the loss of his popularity. Instead of tackling the tough issues before him, the President dithered and passed the buck. As a result the vaunted stimulus plan is a bust, health care reform is stalled, climate-change legislation is moribund and the Administration's foreign policy is in disarray. Just six months ago, Barack Obama had the wind at his back and the sun in his face. Now he and his administration are foundering. Whatever this is, it certainly isn't presidential leadership. 

Posted by tmg110 at 7:41 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

So what can we expect many Gitmo detainees to do after the Obama Administration releases them? This.

Fahd Saleh Suleiman al Jutayli killed recently in a firefight between the Yemeni Army and al Qaeda-affiliated Houthi rebels in northern Yemen. The former Gitmo former detainee was captured in Pakistan after fleeing Afghanistan's Tora Bora Mountains in 2001. He was released from Gitmo and sent to his native Saudi Arabia in May 2006.

"We can't keep them locked up at Gitmo forever!" The Left squeals every time an inconvenient incident of this kind is brought to light. Oh, really? Why not?

Posted by tmg110 at 8:32 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Even by the not very distinguished standards of contemporary American political rhetoric, this outburst is noteworthy for its sheer vulgarity. Rep. Alan Grayson, Democrat of Florida, made a mockery of a great historical tragedy by comparing the American health care system to the Holocaust. He also opined that the Republicans want Americans to “die quickly.” All this on the floor of the US House of Representatives.

Mr. Grayson, Cicero you ain’t. What you are, is an absolute idiot. I can’t wait to see the chagrined voters of your district down there in Orlando fling you out of office in 2010.

Posted by tmg110 at 8:17 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

If not precisely a must read, The World Encyclopedia of Flags and Heraldry is a must page through. Lavishly illustrated in full color, this book by Alfred Znamierowski and Stephen Slater is divided into two sections, one devoted to flags and one to heraldry. The flags section covers everything from flag origins and design principles to current flags of the world. The heraldry section describes in detail the origins of European heraldry, its development and its modern manifestations around the world.

Every private library should include a good selection of browsable books, of which this one is a fine example. And for those interested in learning more about the fascinating histories of flags and heraldry (which are, incidentally, related at many points) The World Encyclopedia of Flags and Heraldry makes an excellent primer.

Where to buy? If there's a Barnes & Noble in your area, you may be able to find this book in large-format softcover for a mere $10.00. That not a deal—it's a steal!

Posted by tmg110 at 8:28 AM EDT

Updated: Thursday, 29 October 2009 8:39 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

For those addicted to the idea that a "public option" for health insurance would improve the quality of health care here in America, here's a cautionary tale from Canada:

When the pain in Christina Woodkey's legs became so severe that she could no longer hike or cross-country ski, she went to her local health clinic. The Calgary, Canada, resident was told she'd need to see a hip specialist. Because the problem was not life-threatening, however, she'd have to wait about a year.

So wait she did.

In January, the hip doctor told her that a narrowing of the spine was compressing her nerves and causing the pain. She needed a back specialist. The appointment was set for Sept. 30. "When I was given that date, I asked when could I expect to have surgery," said Woodkey, 72. "They said it would be a year and a half after I had seen this doctor."

Ms. Woodkey's story had a relatively happy ending, however—in Montana, where she got the necessary surgery done within two days of crossing the border. It cost $50,000, which she'll have to pay out of pocket since private insurance is outlawed in Canada. But the pain is practically gone now.

No one disputes that the US health care system has problems. But why we would want to exchange the problems we have now for the ones being inflicted upon Canadians like Ms. Woodkey? it's a question that advocates of the "public option," "single payer" and other stealthy routes to socialized medicine seem loathe to answer. 

Posted by tmg110 at 8:11 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink