I have a new piece up at Hudson New York.  It's called "The Ultimate Weapon."  For those interested, it's here.

SATURDAY,  OCTOBER 10,  2009

WHY SHOULD WE CARE? - AT 11:38 P.M. ET:  The common-sensical columnist Anne Applebaum, writing in the Washington Post, cares for our emotional needs by explaining why we shouldn't care that much about the Nobel Peace Prize:

The Nobel Committee consists of five Norwegians, selected by the Norwegian parliament. In his will, Alfred Nobel, the Swedish dynamite tycoon who thought up this whole thing, specifically wanted Norwegians to choose the winner, apparently because Norwegians, being outside the European mainstream, would be less likely to be politically corrupt. The trouble is that Norwegians, being outside the European mainstream, are also more likely to be eccentric. Norway is a wonderful country and Norwegians have some of the highest living standards in the world -- thanks to their low population numbers and their large deposits of oil and gas – but the last time I was there, I got in an argument with someone over which country was more evil, the United States or North Korea. This being a few years ago, at the height of the Bush Terror, you can guess which side the Norwegian was on.

COMMENT:  Despite the bit of nastiness about the "Bush Terror," I feel much better now.  If people actually knew what the Nobel Peace Prize is, and who actually awards it, news of the winner would appear on page 24.

October 10, 2009   Permalink

NEW YORK TERROR FUNDS SLASHED - AT 5:41 P.M. ET:  This has far less to do with New York than with the lack of seriousness in the way "anti-terror" funds are allocated in Washington.  They often seem to be dispensed based more on political clout than defense needs.  From CBS:

After facing one of the most serious terror threats since the 9-11 attacks, Department of Homeland Security officials are slashing a big chunk of anti-terror funding to New York City.

Local lawmakers say the cut could put American lives at risk.

Just weeks after Najibullah Zazi was nabbed in an al-Qaida terror plot to explode dirty bombs here, the feds have inexplicably slashed Big Apple terror funding designed to build a network of sensors to uncover nuclear or radioactive devices in a 50 miles radius of the city.

"To me this is beyond comprehension that less than a month after al-Qaida attempted an attack against New York City that you would have the Congress cutting the money that New York City needs to defend itself from a dirty bomb attack. It's absolutely mind-boggling," Rep. Peter King, R-Long Island, told CBS 2 HD on Thursday afternoon.

COMMENT:  Considering what we've spent to bail out banks and provide "stimulus" earmarks to every Dem congressman and senator with a going pulse, cutting anti-terror funds to a prime target is obscene. 

Once again we see the attitude of today's Democratic Party toward defense of the nation.  Harry Truman, wherever he is, must be stunned.

October 10, 2009   Permalink

HERE COME THE GROWN-UPS - AT 5:04 P.M. ET:  There are children in politics, and there are grown-ups.  Very often we have to call on the grown-ups after the children have spilt their milk and messed up the place.

Sometimes, however, the children make far more than minor mischief.  Sometimes they cost lives, as when children dither and waste time when important questions of war and peace are involved.  We're in such a time now, as the president of the United States cannot seem to decide on a course in southern Asia.  As Fox News reports, problems requiring adult judgment stand in his way:

An ongoing hostage standoff in Pakistan is adding to growing concerns about the stability of that nuclear-armed country as President Obama decides whether to shift U.S. focus to Pakistan or ramp up the war in Afghanistan.

Further complicating U.S. relations with Pakistan, a key ally in the region, is the Pakistani military's hostility toward conditions recently attached to a nearly $2 billion aid package.

Military advisers are pushing Obama to increase manpower in Afghanistan to battle the Taliban, but some other advisers reportedly are suggesting that the U.S. should consider allowing the Taliban into a political role in Afghanistan's future so that the U.S. can turn its attention toward eliminating roots of the Al Qaeda threat in Pakistan.

But the new violence in Pakistan could undercut any concessions being considered for the Taliban.

"What happened today in Pakistan should encourage [Obama] to follow the advice of the military because they know better the strength of the Taliban," Walid Phares, a terrorism analyst and senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies told FOXNews.com.

COMMENT:  It is perfectly evident from news reports that Obama and his leftist followers are looking for a cheap way out in southern Asia.  If their strategy fails, after all, they can always blame BUSH (!!). 

But conditions are deteriorating in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.  There is no cheap way out.  But a president who has just been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize will not be inclined to take the expensive, and correct course.  In an administration where image is everything, courage will not do.

October 10, 2009   Permalink

CALIFORNIA, HERE WE DON'T COME - AT 12:15 P.M. ET:  California has often been a bellwether for the rest of the country.  The numbers coming out of the tarnished golden state are grim:

Oct. 9 (Bloomberg) -- California’s revenue collections trailed its forecasts by $1.1 billion during the first three months of the fiscal year, showing new deficits are emerging in the budget Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed July 28.

Revenue was 5.3 percent less than was assumed in the $85 billion annual budget during the three months ended Sept. 30. Income tax receipts led the shortfall, as unemployment reached as high as 12.2 percent in August.

“Revenues more than $1 billion under estimates and recent adverse court rulings are dealing a major blow to a budget that is barely 10-weeks old,” Controller John Chiang said in a statement. “While there are encouraging signs that California’s economy is preparing for a comeback, the recession continues to drag state revenues down.”

COMMENT:  I'm always amused when public officials talk about a state that is "preparing" for a comeback.  How do you prepare?  California is in terrible shape.  It is burdened by excessive spending, fleeing industry, and a large number of illegal immigrants. 

And Hollywood, a major industry in the state, is cutting back on budgets.

Soon the matrimonial lawyers might even leave.  Followed by the plastic surgeons.

This does not bode well for other states.  Illinois is also in trouble. 

And how does Washington react?  The Dems are already talking about a second stimulus package.  Boy, I hope it's as effective as the first one.  That really brought jobs back, didn't it?  They're also talking about a value added tax, which will kill purchasing, a sure way to improve the economy.

October 10, 2009   Permalink

WHAT? IS THIS THE BBC?  THE LEFTIST, ANTI-AMERICAN, SUPER-TRENDY BBC?  YES IT IS.  YES THEY CAN - AT 11:12 A.M.  Well, it took one mainstream news organization to break the silence on the global-warming racket, and BBC does it with a fine piece questioning the conventional "wisdom":

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.

And they were laughed at, and called the equivalent of Holocaust deniers.

What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our oceans. They are the Earth's great heat stores.

According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated...

And, after a period of warming, the oceans are starting to cool.

Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along.

They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature.

But those scientists who are equally passionate about man's influence on global warming argue that their science is solid.

And it's the true believers who, unfortunately, have the ear of politicians, starting with science whiz and chief cook Al Gore.

So what can we expect in the next few years?

Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.

It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).

Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely.

One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up.

COMMENT:  Yes indeed.  It sure is "hotting up."  And this country is being asked by the "international community" to spend trillions of dollars, and possibly wreck our economy, on the basis of "science" that may turn out to be entirely wrong. 

Let's be sure.  Is that too much to ask?

October 10, 2009   Permalink

OBAMA GAINS IN POLL - AT 10:16 A.M. ET:  Rasmussen reports:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that 32% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-five percent (35%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -3. That’s the President’s best Approval Index rating in nearly a month and matches his best rating since early July.

Forty-three percent (43%) give the President good or excellent marks on national security matters and 30% say he is governing on a bi-partisan basis.

Most voters say a middle class tax cut is more important than new spending on health care.

COMMENT:  The polling was done before announcement of the Nobel Peace Prize.  Some analysts report that the president's poll numbers stabilized in September.

My own sense is that the improvement is due largely to the decline in the number who "strongly disapprove."  Liberalism has a very strong base that will always "strongly approve" of any liberal office holder, especially a minority office holder.  That base, I estimate, is in the 25-28 percent range.  It is very difficult to drive the "strongly approve" number for a liberal president below that base.

The combat for conservatives is to make sure the liberals don't get the extra 22-25 points needed, beyond the base, for an electoral victory.  Conservatives failed last year.  It must not happen again.

October 10, 2009   Permalink

REAL CLASS - AT 9:58 A.M. ET:  The State Department greeted the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama with a statement that showed that even our diplomats have learned the Chicago style of politics:

In a clear dig at former President George W. Bush, a State Department spokesman compared President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize to the flying footwear his predecessor faced in Iraq.

"From our standpoint, you know, we think that this gives us a sense of momentum … when the United States has accolades tossed its way, rather than shoes," State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley told reporters on Friday.

Crowley was referring to a 2008 incident in which an Iraqi reporter hurled his shoe at Bush during a news conference in Baghdad.

Real class.  The obsession with BUSH (!!) continues.  The statement is an embarrassment to the United States, but nothing will be done about it.

Oh, by the way, the Democratic National Committee released a statement accusing Republicans who oppose the award of siding with terrorists.  The New York Times more or less reports the debate.

October 10,  2009   Permalink

FRIDAY,  OCTOBER 9,  2009

REDS DIDN'T GET THE MEMO - AT 9:24 P.M. ET:  Well, as Laurel & Hardy used to say, this is a fine mess.

No sooner than we stab our East European allies in the back by pulling missile defense, in order to appease the Russians, than the Russians show us their deep gratitude.  From AFP:

The new missile plan from US President Barack Obama's administration raises questions and Moscow is waiting for Washington to explain its intentions, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Friday.
"The statements that are constantly being voiced raise more questions than answers," Lavrov told reporters during a visit to the Moldovan capital for a summit of ex-Soviet countries.

"We would like to receive full clarification," Lavrov added, referring to the plan presented by the Obama administration last month to replace an older plan backed by George W. Bush that would have placed missile defence facilities in eastern Europe.

Moscow and Washington are now holding talks so Russia can "understand the configuration" of the new missile defence system, Lavrov said, but he added that reports of some US proposals were raising eyebrows in Moscow.

He said a recent US report that the United States might include Ukraine in its missile defence plans was "rather unexpected."

COMMENT:  Next time we make a concession to the Russians, maybe we'd better negotiate it, to be sure there's a concession in return.  Right now we're looking for something Moscow has given us for dropping missile defense in Poland the Czech Republic.  Maybe there's a rebate check in the mail, or a free printer, or something.

If you hear, let me know.

October 9, 2009   Permalink

THE RISKY SIDE OF THE NOBEL - AT 7:03 P.M. ET:  It seems to me that the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama carries with it a large risk for the American people.

The award will be given in Oslo on December 10th.  Between now and then the president has critical decisions to make regarding the national defense of the United States.  He is a man who 1) has never shown much interest in defense; 2) was brought up and has lived in a profoundly left-wing atmosphere; and 3) has a huge ego and is obsessive about his image.

Not a good brew.

We know that, when Obama recently presided over a session of the UN Security Council, he already knew that the Iranians had built a secret nuclear plant.  France had wanted Obama to announce the discovery at that meeting - a dramatic moment, with the heads of state of the world looking on.  But the French were stunned when the White House turned them down.  Obama didn't want a clash with Iran to spoil his moment, during which he gave a speech on nuclear proliferation that did not mention a single country.

The president has another moment on December 10th, in Oslo.  That moment, especially for an egotist, has got to be in his mind as he makes important decisions, between now and then. 

How can a Nobel Peace laureate send 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan?  Doesn't look good to the Norwegians.

How can a Nobel Peace laureate take on the Iranians when there's a speech, in a tuxedo, to be made before a bunch of pacifists and leftists in Oslo?  They're looking for Obama to reflect their style - appeasement, accommodation, and blaming America, Britain and Israel.

Given the president's record, I fear he'll be influenced, not by what is right for American and even global security, but by the style he'll be expected to show in Oslo.

Thus, a tragedy might have begun today.

October 9, 2009   Permalink

THE NOBEL EFFECT - AT 6:18 A.M. ET:  There is well-deserved hilarity over the president "winning" the Nobel Prize.  It reminds me of those "prizes" that kids get at summer camp.  You know, "best all-around sleeper" and "outstanding achievement in ice-cream eating." 

Now, every adult knows that those summer-camp ribbons are just promotions by the owners to get the kids to come back.  The owners generally meet with their staff at the end of the season and decide what ribbon goes to what camper.  Every camper gets at least one ribbon.  They all walk up to the rostrum to collect the prize, while parents beam:  "You see, Joey, it doesn't matter that you sank every time you jumped in the water, you're still an outstanding swimmer."

So now the camp counselors in Oslo have decided to give young Obama a ribbon.  "Outstanding peace advocate in his first months in office," or something like that.  He gets the pretty ribbon, and some money.  Under American law, he probably can't accept the money, but it's the ribbon that counts.

And, of course, he'll be back at camp during the 2012 campaign, as a "Nobel Peace Laureate."

That prize will mean as much as the prizes at summer camp, but Obama's supporters - including the people who'll make billions on "global warming" - will beam like parents.

We welcome you to Camp Obama, we're mighty glad you're here.

October 9,  2009   Permalink

MORE NOMINATIONS FOR OBAMA - AT 12:01 P.M. ET:  Reader Betsy Gorisch writes, recommending more awards for The One:

I think he should also have gotten the one for literature.  He's published--count them--two books.

And he should get the one for medicine.  He has plans for the health-care system, so there you are.  No contest.

And the one for chemistry.  I mean, all you have to do is watch him give a speech, and wow there's all that chemistry.  So.

Also the one for physics should go to him.  He's always talking about how he's going to bend the cost curve, and you have to be pretty good at physics to do all that curve-bending.

Plus economics.  People in Detroit are lining up to get Obama Money, from Obama's Stash.  So he's a great economist, right? Check.

What a guy.  Really.

COMMENT:  Betsy is right.  Next year they should give him all the Nobels.  He's so obviously earned them.  And it's the least we can do for a deity.  All praise.  Hallelujah!

October 9, 2009   Permalink  

PURE BIAS - AT 11:29 A.M. ET:  The following appeared in an AP story this morning on Obama's winning of the Nobel Peace Prize:

Bush was reviled by the world for his cowboy diplomacy, Iraq war and snubbing of European priorities like global warming.

COMMENT:  Reviled by the world?  The whole world?  Everyone?  I wonder how the reporter knows.  Must've been a really big polling sample.

Cowboy diplomacy? Precisely when and where?  In fact, our diplomacy was quite normal, resulted in a remarkable AIDS program in Africa, the dramatic enhancement of our relations with India, the world's largest democracy, and a superb relationship with Eastern Europe, now eroded by Obama.  Toward the close of Bush's second term, even Western Europe was moving in our direction.

But let's not let facts disturb us.

October 9, 2009   Permalink

IF WE CAN GET SERIOUS HERE - AT 9:55 A.M. ET:  I went to a Hudson New York briefing yesterday by the truly great John Bolton.  I wish we'd known about the Nobel Peace Prize before the briefing.  He would have had some choice remarks.

Bolton was, of course, appointed ambassador to the U.N. by President George W. Bush, but the Senate refused to confirm him.  Too tough on behalf of the United States, according to news stories at the time.  He did serve for a period, under prevailing law, without Senate confirmation, but had to step down by a given date.

Bolton was superb yesterday, and, as always, blunt.  His major points:

- Barack Obama isn't particularly interested in National security.

- Obama wants to eliminate the structures that made possible our victory in the Cold War.  He is naive and Wilsonian.

- Our Honduras policy is an embarrassment.  Hillary Clinton apparently told some meeting that the policy, which favors an ousted ally of Hugo Chavez, is actually designed to undercut Chavez.  No one understands that logic.

- Obama is the first post-American president.

- Obama sees the United States as just another country, with no special qualities.

- The president is projecting weakness on Afghanistan, which will have its impact down the line.

- Even if Obama sends the requested troops to Afghanistan, he has already undermined our policy there by his equivocal statements.

- People have underestimated the impact of French President Sarkozy's biting speech to the UN, in which he practically ridiculed Obama for Obama's simple-minded view of the world.

- Obama's policy in the Mideast favors a gradual American withdrawal and softness toward Iran.  The result will be that the Arab nations will cut independent deals with the Iranians.

- Obama's overall foreign policy means that there is no penalty for doing anything...except being an ally of the United States.

- Oh, and Ambassador Bolton said that he'd learned on the best authority that North Korean Dear Leader Kim Jong-il favors the public option.

A terrific speech.

October 9, 2009   Permalink

GROWN-UPS ARE STUNNED - AT 9:06 A.M. ET:  We are hoping that the reaction in Poland to this morning's Nobel news will sweep around the world.  There are indications from our check of the internet that it's already happening. Reader Joseph J. Gallick alerted us to this, from the Wall Street Journal:

Poland is stunned to see the Nobel Peace Prize given to U.S. President Barack Obama. You can always count on Poland’s outspoken ex-president and its best-known Nobel Prize laureate Lech Walesa to be undiplomatic:

“Who? What? So Fast?” a shocked Walesa said when reporters told him about the latest Obama win.

“Well, there’s hasn’t been any contribution to peace yet. He’s proposing things, he’s initiating things, but he is yet to deliver,” he said.

Walesa went on to say that we should see this as encouragement for Obama.

Others in Poland are also amazed, so much so that they began questioning the value of the prize.

“Nobel Shnobel,” said Bartosz Weglarczyk, commentator for daily Gazeta Wyborcza. “Obama has great potential, great possibilities, but the peace prize for plans to do something? Chinese dissidents lost as usual because they can no longer plan anything. It’s absurd.”

COMMENT:   Maybe, just maybe, this absurdity will be turned to something good, as people realize what Obamamania has done to the world.  We hope.

October 9, 2009   Permalink

AND NOW BACK TO THE ADULT WORLD - AT 8:53 A.M. ET:    Among the issues that Nobel peace laureate Barack Hussein Obama Jr. will have to deal with on his way to Oslo to pick up the award:

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - A top official with Iran's most powerful military force—the Revolutionary Guard—says Tehran will "blow up the heart of Israel" if the Jewish state or the United States attacked Iran.
Cleric Mojtaba Zolnour, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's representative in the Guard, says that if a single U.S. or Israeli missile lands in Iran, Iranian missiles will hit Israel before the dust settles.

Zolnour's remarks were carried Friday by the state IRNA news agency.

Anti-Israeli stance is common for the hardline Guard, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has often called for Israel's destruction.

But Zolnour appears to be ratcheting up the rhetoric ahead of the next round of talks with the West this month over Iran's controversial uranium enrichment.

COMMENT:  But wait.  All Obama will have to do is wave that Nobel Peace Prize certificate in front of this guy, and peace will come to the region.

I can't wait to hear what songs are shoved down the throats of some American school children, now that The One has been made king of the world.

October 9, 2009   Permalink

GREAT QUOTE - AT 8:27 A.M. ET:  From Byron York, in the Washington Examiner:

In its announcement that President Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize this morning, the Nobel committee praised Obama for creating a "new climate" in the world in which "multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position" -- a clear reference to the Bush presidency. Then the committee praised Obama for a diplomacy "founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population" -- a clear reference to the committee's belief, or hope, that Obama does not believe in the strong assertion of specifically American values and attitudes.

COMMENT:  Good statement.  And, of course, we wonder how the Nobel committee assesses attitudes "that are shared by the majority of the world's population"?    How do you measure that, when much of the world is "served" by a controlled press?  What they really mean is the attitudes of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, which considers itself above the world.

October 9, 2009   Permalink

BULLETIN - AT 8:12 A.M. ET:  Reader Paul M. Postal alerts us to this late-breaking story:

NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN GETS NOBEL PEACE PRIZE FOR REACHING OUT TO NAZIS

Just thought you'd like to know.

October 9, 2009   Permalink

AN ABSOLUTE AND UTTER DISGRACE - AT 7:38 A.M. ET:  President Obama has been awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

On the basis of what?

The Nobel Peace Prize has always been a bit of a joke.  It has been given to a number of shady characters, like Yassir Arafat and Jimmah Carter. 

But this one, so to speak, takes the prize.  It will be waved in the face of Obama's opponents.  Here, see, America is back!  Back to appease.

The Nobel Peace Prize, is of course, not one of the "real" Nobel prizes.  It isn't given in Sweden.  It's given in Norway, and has often been influenced by the cynical, leftist politics of that country.  Ronald Reagan, who did more to advance peace than anyone else of our era, by bringing the Cold War to a peaceful and successful conclusion, never was awarded the prize.  It went to his counterpart, Mikhail Gorbachev, the Communist. 

In 2002, when the prize was given to Carter, a member of the selection committee openly said that it was a "kick in the shins" to George W. Bush.  That was a year after the 9-11 attacks, and Bush was trying to defend the United States against further outrages. 

This is another kick in the shins to Bush, but, more important, it is a kick in the shins to that part of America that still believes we have work to do in the war on terror, and believes that the first responsibility of the president is to protect the nation.

It is a dangerous move by the Nobel Peace Prize committee.  Obviously, it's intended to put pressure on Obama to be like Carter, which is his natural instinct anyway.

Question:  How can a man who's just won the Nobel Peace Prize send 40,000 troops to Afghanistan?  How does he send them before he goes to Oslo to pick up the certificate and make a "peace" speech?

It is a terrible day, in which the cynicism of European leftist politics embraces the most radical president we've ever had.  The world will not be better for this award, and Barack Obama, already a supreme egotist, will see himself more and more as above the office of president of the United States.

Let us hope Americans catch on, and realize the hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty of the moment.

Let us see it for the bad joke that it is.

October 9,  2009   Permalink