He’s disappointed:

President Obama has just spoken on AfPak. I closed my eyes and listened closely to his words, coming via the BBC from the other side of the world.

The President’s words were disappointing. He talked about our goal to reach a force level of 134,000 Afghan soldiers and 82,000 police by 2011. This is not even in the neighborhood of being enough. Further, the increase of 21,000 U.S. troops is likely just a bucket of water on the growing bonfire. One can only expect that sometime in 2010, the President will again be forced to announce another increase in U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

If there were not people like Gates and Petraeus up there, my gut would say to pull out. It is only my faith in the military, and what I saw them accomplish against heavy odds in Iraq, that gives me hope.

Others would disagree with me. A well placed and very experienced British officer just emailed me his impressions, to whit:

“An impressive statement of intent – I particularly liked the bits about bearing down on Afghan corruption and corruption in how USAID money is spent. The speech inspires confidence and, as he is not Bush, it could encourage others to come to the party in a more meaningful way.

I don’t mean any offence about Bush as I for one see history judging him more favorably than contemporary commentators it’s just that the Europeans might follow Obama in a way that they never would Bush.”

And so my views clearly are not held by everyone. Most British and American officers – especially American – have been far more positive about Afghanistan than I have been. My confidence in them is great, and before publishing this I called London to talk about this. There is more confidence coming from the British Army than meets the public eye.

As an aside, I’d like to note the thunderous silence from the anti-war left over this – nothing in recent memory has painted them better as the hypocrites they are. That said…

I, too, hope that the British officer is correct and that the mere fact of Obama being President will pull in more support for the Afghan campaign…I hope this because I’m worried that all Obama has done is send enough troops to ensure that we lose slowly. We have learned – to our sorrow in Vietnam, to our glory in Iraq – that you can’t do war by halves – its all the way in, or all the way out.

In late 2006, President Bush was faced with the choice of either surrendering Iraq to the terrorists, or putting such a powerful force into Iraq that the terrorists would be crushed. President Bush decided to double down, and we – and the Iraqi people – have reaped the benefit. While even many of President Bush’s erstwhile allies were calling for half measures such as the absurdly stupid Iraq Study Group program, he decided that in war there really is no substitute for victory. Here in early 2009, President Obama is facing a similar choice and while the announced goal is all one can hope for, the means provided don’t seem to meet the needs of the moment.

What will happen if, a year from now, President Obama is facing a lengthening US casualty list and an ever more brutal enemy? Will he announce, a few short months ahead of the 2010 mid-terms, that he is sending more troops into the war zone…or will he strike some sort of deal with Iran and other terror masters in order to allow a “decent interval” between US withdrawal and terrorist triumph? What may be won relatively easy with 30,000 more troops today might not be retrievable with 130,000 troops my April of 2010 – to send 21,000 today might prove the largest folly of all.

The news story:

“Roberts didn’t tell us the truth. At least Alito told us who he was,” Reid said, referring to Samuel Alito, the second Supreme Court justice nominated by President George W. Bush. “But we’re stuck with those two young men, and we’ll try to change by having some moderates in the federal courts system as time goes on — I think that will happen.”

Why should Reid make such a wickedly false statement? Could be one of two reasons:

1. Reid is setting up a situation where Obama nominees will be excused from tough questioning on their judicial philosophy.

2. Reid is setting up either the eventual impeachment of Roberts and/or setting up a bid to put term limits on Supreme Court Justices.

The former is more likely than the latter, but we can’t ignore the prospect of Obama and his Democrats attempting to entirely re-cast the Supreme Court. The four liberal Justices are likely to retire, and no problem – Obama will appoint people even more ignorant in their leftist fanaticism than the current four liberals. But how to get around those four young conservative Justices? Rather difficult – each of them is almost certain to outlast an Obama Administration, even if Obama is re-elected. So, lay the ground work to force the conservatives out at some point.

As I said, it is more likely that Reid is just preparing the ground for kook leftist Obama nominees to skate by without any intense questions – all of a sudden, intense Senatorial scrutiny will not be needed, ya know? But we must be on our guard as the people who lead our nation are people who are entirely unaware of what liberty actually is, and thus they will violate law and precedent with complete indifference.

Have a bunch of things to do in the morning – including visiting my Dad – so haven’t got the “oomph” to wright anything for the AM at the moment.

Have at it, boys and girls.

Typical:

When President Barack Obama recently called for construction spending, he probably did not envision Web design. Yet the website financialstability.gov that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner announced more than a month ago with the Financial Stability Plan (FSP) was launched with the banner “This site is coming soon”—and the banner remains (link has screen shot taken March 23rd). A former Federal Reserve official remarked after visiting the site looking for information, “Is this supposed to make me confident?”

And these are the people who liberals want running health care…

Yep:

Reflecting on the campaign, Palin said there were “a variety of reasons” Republicans lost in November, namely the faltering economy, but she seemed to place most of the blame on the press.

“Some in the media actually participated in not so much the ‘who-what-where-when-why’ objective reporting on candidates and positions, those five W’s that I learned when I had a journalism degree so many years ago in college, when the world of journalism was quite different than it is today,” she said.

“No, things have changed,” she continued. “But complaining? Or whining? Absolutely not. But I am going to call it like I see it. It doesn’t do any good to whine about any of this. But I can call it like I see it. Sometimes it gets me in a lot of trouble when I speak candidly, and I speak from the heart and I do such a thing. But I am going to.”

“And there was that media slant this go round,” she said. “And unless things change, the GOP had really better can stand together, ’cause we got that on the battlefield also. I call it like I see it and like I lived it on the campaign trail. Not complaining, but dealing with reality.”

“Those are the cards that are dealt us,” she said, “and we had better learn to play that hand and do things right and do things better.”

Just as we don’t get to go to war with the army we want, so we also don’t get to go into political battle with the MSM we want. The MSM is essentially a propaganda arm of the DNC and we’re just going to have to deal with that – and learn to use it against itself. MSMers are naturally lazy, intellectually incurious and, especially on top, very much self-absorbed – such traits are ripe for exploitation by a carefully crafted media campaign.

But even with the best possible media campaign, the plain fact of the matter is that the GOP will have to speak over the heads of the MSM in order to really reach the people – using the various New Media formats, we’re going to have to get the word out without the benefit of a carefully edited soundbite designed to be relentlessly drilled into the American mind by endless MSM repetition. We’re going to have to actually think our way through this – we’ll leave the mindless talking point stuff to the liberals.

The most important thing is to never complain – never let them think they’ve got our number. We have to show complete disdain for the views of the MSM and the Democrats. We have to figure out way to express in short bursts just how contemptible the Democrats are, from Obama on down. We have to show that we’re the party of the people, while they are the party of the incompetent, the corrupt and the ignorant. In things like the Obama Administration’s re-classifying the War on Terrorism as an “Overseas Contingency Operation”, we’re being handed all the ammunition we need to turn the tables on the Democrats and make everyone with a brain positively embarrassed to be within a country mile of a Democrat position.

We shall have them, and we shall conduct a genuine revolutionary change in America – of course, it will be a re-establishment of the Revolution of Washington and Jefferson as our paradigm. Right makes might – all we need now is the spirit to carry on the fight.

Notre Dame students take the commencement invitation to task:

On the Feast of the Annunciation of the Lord, when we remembered the appearance of the Angel of the Lord to Our Lady and her response, her “Fiat” of surrendered love to the Father’s invitation to become the home of the Incarnate Word, the struggle for fidelity to the Catholic Faith on the U.S. Campus which bears her name continued…

In defense of the unborn, we wish to express our deepest opposition to Reverend John I. Jenkins, CSC’s invitation of President Barack Obama to be the University of Notre Dame’s principal commencement speaker and the recipient of an honorary degree. Our objection is not a matter of political partisanship, but of President Obama’s hostility to the Catholic Church’s teachings on the sanctity of human life at its earliest stages. His recent dedication of federal funds to overseas abortions and to embryonic stem cell research will directly result in the deaths of thousands of innocent human beings.

We cannot sit by idly while the University honors someone who believes that an entire class of human beings is undeserving of the most basic of all legal rights, the right to live.The University’s decision runs counter to the policy of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops against honoring pro-choice politicians. In their June 2004 statement Catholics in Political Life, the bishops said, “The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors, or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”

Fr. Jenkins defends his invitation by saying that it does not honor or suggest support for the President’s views on abortion, but rather support for his leadership. But our “fundamental moral principles” must be respected at all times. And the principle that requires us to refrain from the direct killing of the innocent has a special status even among the most fundamental principles. President Obama’s actions have consistently shown contempt for this principle, and he has sought political gain by making light of its clear political implications. Leadership that puts the lives of the most innocent at risk is leadership we must disdain. In the face of President Obama’s actions, Father Jenkins’ words ring hollow…

There is a species of Catholic who seem to take a perverse joy in extending honors to people who are in clear opposition to basic Catholic teaching. The more extreme the person’s opposition to Church teaching, the more eager are such Catholics to embrace him – Obama wouldn’t have made it to this honor had there been someone out there in America of both greater prominence and stronger opposition to Christian belief about Life issues. The invitation to Notre Dame indicates that for all intents and purposes, President Obama is the most anti-Life person available.

We Christians are commanded to show love towards all, to forgive all who repent no matter what their sins are, to show respect for everyone regardless of their beliefs or actions – an unfortunate reality of modern, American life is that too many Christians forget that love doesn’t mean make nice/nice with those who oppose us; forgiveness can only come after repentance; respect for persons doesn’t extend to necessarily respecting their views, especially when their views are so clearly wrong. In what way should we show our love for President Obama? By praying for him, daily; by praying that he will have a change of heart and come over to the Culture of Life. We are also to pray that he will lead our nation well and that he will increase the justice and peace of our society – but just as we pray that the pornographer will give up his ways, this doesn’t mean we’re to offer honors to unrepentant pornographers. Obama has to change, then we can honor him with commencement addresses and honorary degrees. To do otherwise entirely degrades what it means to be commencement speaker at Notre Dame.

As I’ve said before, it is not for us Christians to beg for crumbs at Caesar’s table – it is for Caesar to come to the Lord’s table, and join with us in His work. Obama knows in his heart what he should be doing – whether or not he will follow the dictates of the conscience God has given him is his choice and none of us can judge him. But we can judge his actions, and just as much as his actions show him to be in opposition to us, so must our actions make clear that we are not beholden to him.

Anyone keeping track of how many of these there have been?

EPA Statement on Jon Cannon

“Today I am voluntarily removing my name from consideration to be Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. It has come to my attention that America’s Clean Water Foundation, where I once served on the board of directors, has become the subject of scrutiny. While my service on the board of that now-dissolved organization is not the subject of the scrutiny, I believe the energy and environmental challenges facing our nation are too great to delay confirmation for this position, and I do not wish to present any distraction to the agency.”

We’re starting to get into fourth-rate people by now – is there any talent left in the Democratic party? Anyone who doesn’t labor under an ethical cloud?

Interesting:

AIG guy resigns via NYT op-ed, makes a compelling case for why he’s being screwed by his bosses and the pols, when he’s innocent of everything in this horrible mess, and he’s just a regular guy from a humble background, an American Dream come true who is being shafted…

…Not to get all class warfare about it, but that guy lives on a different planet than I do. $742,006.40 after taxes sounds about like about what I made over about 15 years of 12 hour days plus getting shot at and yelled at a lot in the service of the Boston Herald, but the old man always told me I should be an accountant, and I didn’t pay any attention, so I’m not complaining…

…Any financial brainiacs out there willing to work for something less than two million bucks? Never mind Mom, Apple Pie and the American way, how about $1 million? I bet we can fly in a planeload of financial brainiacs from Bangalore at a fraction of Jake’s price. Outsourcing Wall Street to India. That’d get their attention.

Certainly the Indians couldn’t do it any worse…and if they do end up screwing the pooch, it will cost us a lot less. Heck, for some of the fine citizens of Kolkata, I bet $10,000.00 sounds like a lot of money. There’s the additional poetic justice in the fact that these corporate bosses have been exploiting India’s cheap labor for years – so why shouldn’t we, the people, do it, too?

My, goodness, Democrats are getting fearful about their chances:

With many U.S. newspapers struggling to survive, a Democratic senator on Tuesday introduced a bill to help them by allowing newspaper companies to restructure as nonprofits with a variety of tax breaks.

“This may not be the optimal choice for some major newspapers or corporate media chains but it should be an option for many newspapers that are struggling to stay afloat,” said Senator Benjamin Cardin.

A Cardin spokesman said the bill had yet to attract any co-sponsors, but had sparked plenty of interest within the media, which has seen plunging revenues and many journalist layoffs.

Cardin’s Newspaper Revitalization Act would allow newspapers to operate as nonprofits for educational purposes under the U.S. tax code, giving them a similar status to public broadcasting companies.

Under this arrangement, newspapers would still be free to report on all issues, including political campaigns. But they would be prohibited from making political endorsements.

Translation: “For crying out loud, I’ve got to save these MSMers or the New Media will allow the people to find out what a completely worthless liberal I am”.

But isn’t this also typical liberalism? I mean, here we have an industry failing because of a combination of new technology and poor product (hey, its not our fault that MSM reporting is mostly regurgitated DNC talking points), and along comes a liberal to embalm the dead…and if you don’t think that eventually taxpayer dollars will flow to these print versions of NPR, then you just don’t know how liberals operate. Eventually there will grants to the New York Times Foundation in order to disseminate “non-partisan” information on socialized medicine.

This is a big, old sh** sandwich and while our Democrats will try to make it look appetizing, I don’t think many Americans will actually want to take a bite.

Transcript, if you missed it (as I did).

OBAMA: The first step we took was to pass a recovery plan to jump-start job creation and put money in people’s pockets. This plan’s already saved the jobs of teachers and police officers. It’s creating construction jobs to rebuild roads and bridges.

And yesterday, I met with a man whose company is reopening a factory outside of Pittsburgh that’s rehiring workers to build some of the most energy-efficient windows in the world.

Someone check that out – I’m willing to bet $5 its either an outright lie, or a half-truth.