Overseas overtures not working

'He talks too much," a Saudi academic in Jeddah, who had once been smitten with Barack Obama, recently observed to me of America's 44th president. He has wearied of Mr. Obama and now does not bother with the Obama oratory.

He is hardly alone, this academic. In the endless chatter of this region, and in the commentaries offered by the press, the theme is one of disappointment. In the Arab-Islamic world, Barack Obama has come down to earth.

He has not made the world anew, history did not bend to his will, the Indians and Pakistanis have been told that the matter of Kashmir is theirs to resolve, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the same intractable clash of two irreconcilable nationalisms, and the theocrats in Iran have not "unclenched their fist," nor have they abandoned their nuclear quest.

There is little Mr. Obama can do about this disenchantment. He can't journey to Turkey to tell its Islamist leaders and political class that a decade of anti-American scapegoating is all forgiven and was the product of American policies—he has already done that. He can't journey to Cairo to tell the fabled "Arab street" that the Iraq war was a wasted war of choice, and that America earned the malice that came its way from Arab lands—he has already done that as well. He can't tell Muslims that America is not at war with Islam—he, like his predecessor, has said that time and again.

It was the norm for American liberalism during the Bush years to brandish the Pew Global Attitudes survey that told of America's decline in the eyes of foreign nations. Foreigners were saying what the liberals wanted said.

Now those surveys of 2009 bring findings from the world of Islam that confirm that the animus toward America has not been radically changed by the ascendancy of Mr. Obama. In the Palestinian territories, 15% have a favorable view of the U.S. while 82% have an unfavorable view. The Obama speech in Ankara didn't seem to help in Turkey, where the favorables are 14% and those unreconciled, 69%. In Egypt, a country that's reaped nearly 40 years of American aid, things stayed roughly the same: 27% have a favorable view of the U.S. while 70% do not. In Pakistan, a place of great consequence for American power, our standing has deteriorated: The unfavorables rose from 63% in 2008 to 68% this year.

Full Story

Stewardship

President Obama has shattered the budget record for first-year presidents -- spending nearly double what his predecessor did when he came into office and far exceeding the first-year tabs for any other U.S. president in history.

In fiscal 2009 the federal government spent $3.52 trillion -- $2.8 trillion in 2000 dollars, which sets a benchmark for comparison. That fiscal year covered the last three-and-a-half months of George W. Bush's term and the first eight-and-a-half months of Obama's.

That price tag came with a $1.4 trillion deficit, nearly $1 trillion more than last year. The overall budget was about a half-trillion more than Bush's for 2008, his final full fiscal year in office.

Full Story

Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience

On November 20, a group of Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical leaders released a statement, the Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience, on the issues of life, marriage, and religious liberty in our culture. The full text is here. Below are some excerpts from each section.

On Life

Although public sentiment has moved in a pro-life direction, we note with sadness that pro-abortion ideology prevails today in our government. The present administration is led and staffed by those who want to make abortions legal at any stage of fetal development, and who want to provide abortions at taxpayer expense. Majorities in both houses of Congress hold pro-abortion views. The Supreme Court, whose infamous 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade stripped the unborn of legal protection, continues to treat elective abortion as a fundamental constitutional right, though it has upheld as constitutionally permissible some limited restrictions on abortion. The President says that he wants to reduce the “need” for abortion—a commendable goal. But he has also pledged to make abortion more easily and widely available by eliminating laws prohibiting government funding, requiring waiting periods for women seeking abortions, and parental notification for abortions performed on minors. The elimination of these important and effective pro-life laws cannot reasonably be expected to do other than significantly increase the number of elective abortions by which the lives of countless children are snuffed out prior to birth. Our commitment to the sanctity of life is not a matter of partisan loyalty, for we recognize that in the thirty-six years since Roe v. Wade, elected officials and appointees of both major political parties have been complicit in giving legal sanction to what Pope John Paul II described as “the culture of death.” We call on all officials in our country, elected and appointed, to protect and serve every member of our society, including the most marginalized, voiceless, and vulnerable among us.

On Marriage

We understand that many of our fellow citizens, including some Christians, believe that the historic definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is a denial of equality or civil rights. They wonder what to say in reply to the argument that asserts that no harm would be done to them or to anyone if the law of the community were to confer upon two men or two women who are living together in a sexual partnership the status of being “married.” It would not, after all, affect their own marriages, would it? On inspection, however, the argument that laws governing one kind of marriage will not affect another cannot stand. Were it to prove anything, it would prove far too much: the assumption that the legal status of one set of marriage relationships affects no other would not only argue for same sex partnerships; it could be asserted with equal validity for polyamorous partnerships, polygamous households, even adult brothers, sisters, or brothers and sisters living in incestuous relationships. Should these, as a matter of equality or civil rights, be recognized as lawful marriages, and would they have no effects on other relationships? No. The truth is that marriage is not something abstract or neutral that the law may legitimately define and re-define to please those who are powerful and influential.

No one has a civil right to have a non-marital relationship treated as a marriage. Marriage is an objective reality—a covenantal union of husband and wife—that it is the duty of the law to recognize and support for the sake of justice and the common good. If it fails to do so, genuine social harms follow. First, the religious liberty of those for whom this is a matter of conscience is jeopardized. Second, the rights of parents are abused as family life and sex education programs in schools are used to teach children that an enlightened understanding recognizes as “marriages” sexual partnerships that many parents believe are intrinsically non- marital and immoral. Third, the common good of civil society is damaged when the law itself, in its critical pedagogical function, becomes a tool for eroding a sound understanding of marriage on which the flourishing of the marriage culture in any society vitally depends. Sadly, we are today far from having a thriving marriage culture. But if we are to begin the critically important process of reforming our laws and mores to rebuild such a culture, the last thing we can afford to do is to re-define marriage in such a way as to embody in our laws a false proclamation about what marriage is.

On Religious Freedom

We see this, for example, in the effort to weaken or eliminate conscience clauses, and therefore to compel pro- life institutions (including religiously affiliated hospitals and clinics), and pro-life physicians, surgeons, nurses, and other health care professionals, to refer for abortions and, in certain cases, even to perform or participate in abortions. We see it in the use of anti-discrimination statutes to force religious institutions, businesses, and service providers of various sorts to comply with activities they judge to be deeply immoral or go out of business. After the judicial imposition of “same-sex marriage” in Massachusetts, for example, Catholic Charities chose with great reluctance to end its century-long work of helping to place orphaned children in good homes rather than comply with a legal mandate that it place children in same-sex households in violation of Catholic moral teaching. In New Jersey, after the establishment of a quasi-marital “civil unions” scheme, a Methodist institution was stripped of its tax exempt status when it declined, as a matter of religious conscience, to permit a facility it owned and operated to be used for ceremonies blessing homosexual unions. In Canada and some European nations, Christian clergy have been prosecuted for preaching Biblical norms against the practice of homosexuality. New hate-crime laws in America raise the specter of the same practice here.

The courts begin to crumble

While a seriously flawed candidate, this is where McCain would have made a difference: court nominations. He remained one of the 29 to continue the filibuster. Since the legislative and executive branches continue to ignore the Constitution, the judicial branch - as it was under FDR - is the only guard left at the republic's gate. This is the only reason I voted for McCain. Looks like the gate will swing wide open pretty soon.

Democrats on Tuesday ended a Senate filibuster against a controversial appeals court nominee, bolstering President Obama's efforts to push the federal judiciary to the left in the face of Republican opposition.

Democrats, with a bit of Republican help, voted 70-29 to limit debate on U.S. District Judge David Hamilton, exceeding the 60 votes needed and assuring his confirmation to the Chicago-based appeals court by a simple majority of the 100-member Senate.

At least 10 Republicans broke from the filibuster. The final vote is expected Wednesday.

Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., voted against ending the debate on Hamilton.

"Judge Hamilton is the definition of an activist judge and is clearly not qualified to sit on a court of appeals," he said in a written statement. "Judge Hamilton, who spent years working with the ACLU and ACORN, has used his position on the bench to drive his personal political agenda."

President Obama's judicial picks are being closely watched after eight years of mostly conservative judicial picks under President Bush.

Republicans have objected to holding a vote on Hamilton's confirmation since June, when the Judiciary Committee reported his nomination favorably to the full Senate.

Conservative Republican senators and their judicial-watching outside groups then launched a major political assault on Hamilton.

They criticized his rulings against Christian prayers in the Indiana legislature and against a menorah in the Indiana Municipal Building's holiday display.

Conservatives were furious that Hamilton struck down part of an Indiana law requiring women to make two trips to a clinic before they could get an abortion. He said the requirement placed an undue burden on a woman's constitutional right to choose to end a pregnancy.

Beyond the political message, the filibuster effectively ended a bipartisan accord reached in 2005, when 14 senators signed onto a deal that effectively stopped Democratic filibusters of Bush's judicial nominees except in extraordinary circumstances.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., who led the opposition to Hamilton, argued that Hamilton's record met his definition of extraordinary circumstances.

Hamilton's confirmation by itself will not have a large political effect. The 7th Circuit appellate court, which serves, Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, has seven judges nominated by Republican presidents -- while Hamilton would be the fourth chosen by a Democrat.

Last week, the Senate confirmed U.S. District Judge Andre Davis of Baltimore for the appeals court based in Richmond, Va., giving Democratic nominees a 6-5 edge on the 4th Circuit that once was a conservative legal bastion.

Other appellate courts are close to a political turnaround.

Full Story and another

Another page from the FDR playbook

Speaking in the heart of America's biggest lender, President Obama told Fox News in an interview Wednesday that the piling on of U.S. debt could drag the country into a "double-dip recession," though he said he's still considering additional tax incentives for businesses to reverse the rising unemployment rate.

The president, who is in China as part of his tour through several Asian countries where he is addressing economic challenges, spoke candidly about the precarious balancing act his administration is trying to perform with regard to the U.S. economy. He wants to spend money to kick-start the economy, but at the same time is in danger of creating too much red ink.

"There may be some tax provisions that can encourage businesses to hire sooner rather than sitting on the sidelines. So we're taking a look at those," Obama told Fox News' Major Garrett. "I think it is important, though, to recognize if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point, people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession."

Full Story

A suicide bomber president?

An interesting post from Doug Wilson - here is the content:

It is starting to look as though he might be doing it all on purpose.

Many years ago, William Simon commented that right wingers are prone to conspiracy theories precisely for this reason -- it seems apparent to them that the destructive nature of the proposed policies A, B, and C are evident to all, and so, when the policies are pursued anyway, come hell or high water, it must be because they, the perpetrators, are trying to take down the republic on purpose. William Simon understood this perspective until he got to the highest levels of power, only to discover that the liberals running around loose up there really did not have a clue. They really did not understand the basics of governance. They were legislating sunshine, and who could be against that?

But at some point, you gotta wonder . . .

Let's string them together, shall we? The president wouldn't be caught dead bowing to the Queen of England, for she is Anglo, but acts like Steppin Fetchitt when introduced to any royalty of color. We have a terrorist act at Fort Hood, the first on American soil in 8 years, and since a terrorist attack would be inconvenient, he refuses to call it that. Right after this terrorist attack, his attorney general announces that five fire-eating terrorists were being moved from Cuba to NYC in order to receive a civilian trial. Not to worry, Holder reassured us . . . it won't be a fair trial -- the results are already in. It will be a show trial, for the attorney general has already guaranteed us the convictions. We will show the rest of the world that fair trials in America necessarily result in convictions. But in the meantime, the trial will be enough of a circus to make the OJ trial look like a textbook sample of modesty and decorum. Trillions of dollars have been spewing from Washington like there was no tomorrow, because there probably isn't. He wants to ram health care through the Senate regardless of what anybody with a calculator thinks about it.

It begins to appear that he doesn't care if his is a failed presidency, just so long as the country fails along with him. The pilot doesn't mind if he goes down, just so long as the plane goes down with him. Is this a suicide bomber president? If so, it wouldn't be nihilism; this is basic left wing ideology. A new order will rise out of the chaos, as this secular utopianism has it. Things have to get better. A phoenix will arise out of the ashes. It has never worked before, but it probably will this time.

King George is smiling now!

From the L.A. Times:

(UPDATES: 12:22 p.m. A brief news video has been added below, showing the greeting in this photograph. Contrary to some claims, the video shows no reciprocal bow by the emperor, who traditionally bows to no one. And we've added a file photo from 2007 of Vice President Dick Cheney greeting the Japanese Emperor in the same door way in a different fashion.)

How low will the new American president go for the world's royalty?
This photo will get Democrat President Obama a lot of approving nods in Japan this weekend, especially among the older generation of Japanese who still pay attention to the royal family living in its downtown castle. Very low bows like this are a sign of great respect and deference to a superior.

To some in the United States, however, an upright handshake might have looked better.

Remember Michelle Obama casually patting Britain's Queen Elizabeth on the back during their Buckingham Palace visit? America's royalty tends to make movies and get bad reviews and lots of money as a sign of respect.

Obama could receive some frowns back home as he did for his not-quite-this-low-or-maybe-about-the-same-bow to the Saudi king not so long ago. (See photo here)

Holder: 9/11 not an act of war

The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

Michael Mukasey, the attorney general at the end of President Bush's second term, ripped his successor's decision to prosecute the Sept. 11 conspirators in a federal court, saying the trial will give jihadists a forum and could compromise delicate intelligence.

Mukasey, in an interview with Fox News, called the civilian trial announced Friday by Attorney General Eric Holder "the wrong place, under the wrong circumstances, in the wrong forum."

"After 9/11, we recognized that we were at war," he said, arguing that military tribunals were created for this kind of case and noting that they have been used since the Revolutionary War and during and after World War II.

"There are forums that allow the presentation of evidence in a controlled atmosphere, where you can limit access to classified information, and where you can receive evidence gathered on the battlefield, not necessarily under the kinds of conditions in which police gather evidence in a conventional case," he said. "That's not true in federal court."

On Friday, Holder announced that the self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Guantanamo detainees will be tried in federal court in New York for their alleged role in the attacks that killed 2,976 American civilians -- saying the U.S. will seek the death penalty against the defendants.

Holder said he decided to seek justice against the suspects in federal court rather than a military tribunal because the attacks targeted civilians on U.S. soil. But Mukasey and other critics say the attack was an act of war that should be prosecuted in a military tribunal.

Mukasey said it's unlikely that Mohammed will be acquitted because of his confession and other evidence linking him to the attack. But he added that same evidence could present problems in federal court.

"The real problem is that there is other evidence that may very well come from classified sources, that would be easier to handle in a military tribunal, much harder to handle in a civilian tribunal," Mukasey said.

He added that the trial also puts the terrorists on the kind of stage they seek.

"They want to be on a big stage and there's no bigger stage than New York," he said.

Full Story