Here it is in PDF – a quote:

Dear Attorney General Holder,

As you are aware, the Commission on Civil Rights investigates, among other things, complaints alleging that citizens are being deprived of their right to vote by reason of their race, color, religion, sex, age, disability and national origin, or by reason of fraudulent practices. Referred to as the “conscience of the nation,” the Commission and its individual members have historically stood against systemic efforts to corrupt the electoral process and disfranchise qualified voters…

…In November 2008, several commissioners wrote to your predecessor, Attorney General Michael Mukasey, urging him to launch a nationwide investigation into ACORN’s practices in the face of widespread evidence that it has engaged in filing possibly hundreds of thousands of fraudulent voter registration applications in some fourteen states – in invidious invitation for corruption in our electoral process…

…We respectfully urge the Department of Justice to undertake such a full-fledged, nationwide investigation of ACORN, including an assessment of whether ACORN’s conduct violates various applicable federal statutes, and to conduct its work with all deliberate speed. The integrity of our electoral system demands no less.

Ok, liberals; commence explaining this away. Also, we wonder how long before Obama manages to get a new Commission appointed? Certainly can’t have a Commission which asks for this sort of thing – next thing you know, people might start demanding that only citizens vote…and they only vote once! What would Democrats do if that came to pass?

This just sorta slipped out in the New York Times:

Slipped ever so casually into a New York Times profile on Dr. Francis Collins, the new director of the National Institutes of Health, is this stunning and not-so-objective example of reporting:

“First, there is the God issue. Dr. Collins believes in him. Passionately. And he preaches about his belief in churches and a best-selling book. For some presidential appointees, that might not be a problem, but many scientists view such outspoken religious commitment as a sign of mild dementia.”

Excuse me. Rewind the tape, please. Did the New York Times just say that people who believe in God and talk about it have dementia?

In an otherwise unremarkable profile, this offhand remark, which is never backed up by anything that could even remotely be considered “evidence,” is included as part of a discussion on whether Dr. Collins, who happens to be Christian, could possibly handle the reins of NIH and believe in God at the same time. Quoted in the article is another doctor who says that Dr. Collins’ two-year search for God after being questioned by a patient about his beliefs and his conclusion that yes, there is a God, is “enough to cause concern.”

One of the many things which amazes me is how monumentally stupid some people will be as regards religion. The knots some people twist themselves in to over their insistence on non-belief is amazing. Its plain as a pikestaff that God exists (one of a hundred examples: if the universe is expanding, it must be expanding in to something…meaning there is something before, and thus outside, the universe; try and work that in to Darwinism, suckers), but here come the non-believers who simply will not admit that there might be something smarter than they are. Its really rather sad – and sterile, too.

While some do hold to “special creation” – that God created everything as is at some relatively recent time – most people are ok with a universe billions of years old. Most are also ok with evolution – I mean, if we’re talking about a creature which, via slow stages, changed from ape to man, who really wants to argue against it? Especially since so many men can be ape-like in their day to day affairs? But what is stupid is to say that it happened by accident – that some self-creating microbe billions of years ago by accident changed in to a man…and also in to a whale…and a fruit fly…and a lizard…it just can’t happen. It defies common sense to believe such an idiotic notion…but it is believed. And so stout is the belief that, per the above article, these people are coming to view belief in God as a mental disorder (which, even if they are right, it can’t be – if we really did evolve by accident to have the best means of survival, then belief in God is proven to be part of our vital survival evolution…those who are denying God are denying evolution, and essentially trying to kill us all…if we take their views at face value; such is the topsy-turvydom of the non-believers).

I also wonder why they bother – it takes a lot of work to be a non-believer. You have to continually reinforce your non-belief – can’t for a moment allow even a sliver of the supernatural, or the jig is up. Meanwhile, believers are free to believe in God and evolution – both of which tend to make sense of the world as we know it.

Earlier this week, Defense Secretary Gates made an interesting comment.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates met with a seven-member bipartisan delegation of House members this morning as part of his new strategy of lining up support behind President Obama’s Afghanistan strategy — whatever that turns out to be.

“He said that when we do make a decision, Republicans have an obligation not to make Afghanistan “Obama’s war,” said Pete King (R-N.Y.), one of five GOP members to vote for a recent defense appropriations bill the party opposed over IMF funding.

Other attendees at the 8 a.m. breakfast in Gates’s private Pentagon dining room included: Reps. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), Ed Royce (R-Calif.), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), Tim Walz (D-Minn.) and Vic Snyder (D-Ark.).

King, who supports Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s call for 40,000 additional combat troops, emphasized the need for Obama’s battle plan to be based on regional military and political objectives and not the vicissitudes of congressional opinion

I am not really sure what that means, or the implication. For one thing, today, it is Obama’s war. The final decisions are made by him. Republicans have supported Operation Enduring Freedom, and there has been no evidence to support the claim that Republicans have turned their back on it the way Democrats have turned their backs on Iraq for being “Bush’s War.”

In fact, the only politicization of Afghanistan seems to be coming from Obama, who appears to be conflicted over listening to commanders on the ground or left-wing anti-war activists oven how to move forward. Obama’s turned a blind eye to Afghanistan for nine months, ignoring requests for more troops. He does own the war now because he has let the situation deteriorate.

Republicans want success in both Afghanistan and Iraq. It doesn’t matter who is in office. But Obama needs to understand that the war in Afghanistan is his war now. This isn’t a political campaign now. Important decisions must be made. Soundbytes don’t matter. Winning does. Obama has to want to win.

Does he want to win?

I think it is clear that he doesn’t care one way or the other. He’s too busy trying to destroy our economy and wreck the American health care system to give a damn what is happening in Afghanistan or Iraq. He’s been watching Afghanistan turn into a quagmire without blinking an eye.

But, hey, that’s worth a peace prize, right?

After all this talk as candidate and President about taking the fight to Taliban, now we get this:

President Obama’s national security team is moving to reframe its war strategy by emphasizing the campaign against Al Qaeda in Pakistan while arguing that the Taliban in Afghanistan do not pose a direct threat to the United States, officials said Wednesday.

As Mr. Obama met with advisers for three hours to discuss Pakistan, the White House said he had not decided whether to approve a proposed troop buildup in Afghanistan. But the shift in thinking, outlined by senior administration officials on Wednesday, suggests that the president has been presented with an approach that would not require all of the additional troops that his commanding general in the region has requested.

In other words: Obama’s leftwing base is opposed to fighting for victory in Afghanistan while an outright cut-and-run would damage Obama irretrievably on the national security and terrorism issues…so, a compromise and, like all compromises in war, its a miserable thing. Obama’s team – if not yet Obama – is leaning towards a cowardly scuttle of Afghanistan. Perhaps with a “decent interval” to get Obama past the 2012 campaign.

This cannot be allowed – to surrender Afghanistan to the Taliban (and any “power sharing” arrangement would just be a temporary delay of outright Taliban control) is to lose the War on Terrorism. It will completely undo all our efforts since 9/11 and put us squarely back where we were the day we pulled out of Somalia in 1993. We’ll become sitting ducks – waiting here at home in a defensive crouch for the enemy to strike…but an ever more inattentive crouch as months and years go by with no direct attack on us. We’ll have 9/11, again – perhaps with WMD instead of hijacked planes.

We must fight – and keep fighting as long as is necessary to turn Afghanistan in to a viable nation with a reasonable level of liberty and prosperity. If we do anything else, then we just sign the death warrants of untold thousands of people – Americans among them, in the by and by. Its fight now, or fight later – and Obama’s people, typical of corrupt, liberal elites, are only thinking of the next year or two…that thousand might die after 2012 doesn’t concern them in the least…only the next election matters.

…you got it.

Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” the Norwegian Nobel Committee said, citing his outreach to the Muslim world and attempts to curb nuclear proliferation.

The stunning choice made Obama the third sitting U.S. president to win the Nobel Peace Prize and shocked Nobel observers because Obama took office less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline. Obama’s name had been mentioned in speculation before the award but many Nobel watchers believed it was too early to award the president.

The man has done nothing in nine months. He’s had a ridiculously short career. If there are liberals out there who think he actually has done something noteworthy since January, I’ll give you the chance to make that case, but what did he do between January 20 and February 1 that makes him even remotely qualified to do anything or win anything?

I guess freeing captured terrorists earns you the Nobel Peace Prize?

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan:

Comment: absurd decision on Obama makes a mockery of the Nobel peace prize

The award of this year’s Nobel peace prize to President Obama will be met with widespread incredulity, consternation in many capitals and probably deep embarrassment by the President himself.

Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent. It was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel committee as a way of expressing European gratitude for an end to the Bush Administration, approval for the election of America’s first black president and hope that Washington will honour its promise to re-engage with the world.

Instead, the prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronising in its intentions and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has barely begun his period in office, let alone achieved any tangible outcome for peace.

I doubt, however, that Obama is embarrassed – he probably thinks he’s earned it…

UPDATE: Cartoonists respond.

UPDATE III, by Mark Noonan: What the heck; might as well help Obama win the Heisman.

UPDATE IV, by Mark Noonan: Harvey over IMAO notes we’re being unfair:

Three dead Somali pirates.

When was the last time you read a front page headline about a Somali pirate attack on an American ship?

It’s more than Carter or Gore did.

As usual:

Former President George W. Bush addressed a capacity crowd Wednesday night at the Wilderness Resort and Convention Center in Sevierville.

Bush wowed a crowd of more than 9,000 that attended a three-day conference of the Phil Waldrep Ministries based in Decatur, Ala.

Bush gave the enthusiastic crowd a patriotic message of joy, hope and faith in our families…

…The former president shied away from any political stance and said each U.S. leader must surround themselves with people they can trust.

“Always surround yourself with people that you’re not afraid to listen to,” he said.

“Base your decisions on your values that are steadfast and don’t change with the times. It’s essential that when you look in the mirror you can be proud of what you see. Never compromise your values for popularity. Take a stand and defend it.”

Bush said he was proud to represent the United States during his eight-year tenure.

“The institution of president is so much more important than the person,” he said. “I tried to bring honor to the office for eight years.”

Obama and Co can’t go a day, it seems, without using President Bush as a whipping boy – President Bush simply cannot bring himself to offer criticism, even of those who hate him. A Christian and a gentleman, its just not in him to match his critics’ invective.

I said back in 2008 that we’re going to miss him – I certainly do: I’d give my right arm to have him back in the White House for just a week, in order to make the decisions necessary to carry Afghanistan through.

Nauseating:

France’s Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand is facing intense pressure over a book he wrote that described paying for “young boys” in Thailand.

The book was written four years ago, before he joined the government, but is back in the headlines following his impassioned support for Roman Polanski.

Polanski has been arrested in Switzerland on child sex charges.

Mr Mitterrand, nephew of late President Francois Mitterrand, is expected to defend himself on TV later on Thursday.

Mr Mitterrand has come under attack from right and left.

In his 2005 book The Bad Life, he wrote: “I got into the habit of paying for boys,” saying his attraction to young male prostitutes was not dimmed despite knowing “the sordid details of this traffic”.

“All these rituals of the market for youths, the slave market excited me enormously… the abundance of very attractive and immediately available young boys put me in a state of desire.”

With people like Mitterrand high up in French government, its small wonder that a child molester like Polanski could be protected for decades.

But there is a larger issue, here: the complete break down of morality in elite circles has led to this sort of depravity. How many more are there like Mitterrand high up in government and corporations? Men who fly to poor nations and purchase boys and girls for sexual gratification? How can we have a moral society if the people who run it are grossly immoral, or even just willing to turn a blind eye to such abominations?

Hiding under the absurd “right to privacy”, protected by the cultural imperative to not be “judgmental” and ensconced in a world of wealth and privilege, we’re seeing the complete collapse of basic, human decency on a grand scale. Some one like Mitterrand would be lucky to escape with his skin a mere 50 years go – now, he might be forced out of government, but he won’t be forced out of the good life…and there could be rehabilitation for him, at some point…as long as he doesn’t offend the cultural elites, they’ll find it in their hearts to forgive…after all, to someone like Mitterrand (or Polanski), what is one, little boy, more or less? Its not like it was “rape-rape”, ya know?

We have to start insisting upon basic decency, again – no man or woman who breaks core, Judeo-Christian principles should be allowed power and privilege in our society. Its either that, or see this just get worse and worse.

No surprise at all:

The Federal Housing Administration, which insures mortgages with low down payments, may require a U.S. bailout because it has $54 billion more in losses than it can withstand, a former Fannie Mae executive said.

“It appears destined for a taxpayer bailout in the next 24 to 36 months,” consultant Edward Pinto said in testimony prepared for a House committee hearing in Washington today. Pinto was the chief credit officer from 1987 to 1989 for Fannie Mae, the mortgage-finance company that is now government-run.

The FHA program’s volumes have quadrupled since 2006 as private lenders and insurers pulled back amid the U.S. housing slump, Pinto said. The jump has left the agency backing risky loans and exposed to fraud in a “market where prices have yet to stabilize,” he said.

Can you just smell the genius here? Who but government could think of this? I mean, it takes that extra, special level of liberal government intellect to go on a lending spree when the economy is collapsing! Boy, wish I had thought of that – we conservatives sure can learn from liberals!

And don’t think its 36 months before we have to bail the government out, again – 6 to 9 months is more like it.

This does explain a lot:

…the Pill may also have changed women’s taste in men, according to a study.

Scientists say the hormones in the oral contraceptive suppress a woman’s interest in masculine men and make boyish men more attractive. Although the change occurs for just a few days each month, it may have been highly influential since use of the Pill began more than 40 years ago.

If the theory is right, it could partly explain the shifting in tastes from macho 1950s and 1960s stars such as Kirk Douglas and Sean Connery to the more wimpy, androgynous stars of today, such as Johnny Depp and Russell Brand.

Dr Alexandra Alvergne, of the University of Sheffield, says the Pill could also be altering the way women pick their mates and could have long-term implications for society.

‘There are many obvious benefits of the Pill for women, but there is also the possibility that the Pill has psychological side-effects that we are only just discovering,’ she said. ‘We need further studies to find out what these are.’

The links between the Pill and sexual preferences are highlighted in a paper in the journal Trends in Ecology and Evolution.

Scientists have long known that a woman’s taste in men changes over her menstrual cycle.

During the few days each month when women are fertile – around the time of ovulation – they tend to prefer masculine features and men who are more assertive.

On days when women are not fertile, their tastes swing towards more feminine, boyish faces and more caring personalities, researchers have shown.

However, if women are taking the Pill they no longer have fertile days.

On the plus side, since women who take the pill tend towards a more liberal world view, what we’re getting is liberal women ever more attracted to wimpier men, who are thus less likely to get a woman pregnant during those times when Mr and Mrs Liberal decide to have their one, designer baby. Liberals could be breeding themselves out.

With yet more tax and spend liberalism:

Confronted with big job losses and no sign the U.S. economy is ready to stand on its own, Democrats are working on a growing list of relief efforts, leaving for later how to pay for them, or whether even to bother.

Because the first Spendulus worked so well…