It's Polite But Is it Presidential?

Barack Hussein Obama bows again.

This time to the Japanese emperor.

Some will "tsk, tsk" and remind us that Obama is the President of the United States.

And I will reply, "Don't tell me. Tell him."

Recent Weird Presidential Art

For all those think it is unseemly to depict President Obama as "The Joker," ala Heath Ledger, it was only last July that Vanity Fair used this as a cover, depicting our last president.

I don't think it raised much of a fuss even from die-hard Bush fans. (On the center and right you sort of get used to this kind of treatment by the media and the Left.) It was considered high art by all the left people.

Somewhat earlier the Village Voice in New York City had this sophisticated characterization to offer its readers:



Move along, folks. Nothing unseemingly here.

So where did the Obama art originate?

On Day Two of the media circus, no one is sure, but researchers have found a Flickr posting of a Chicago engineering student, doing a photoshopped takeoff on a Time magazine cover just two days before Obama's inauguration (four images down). His caption:

"Not necessary indicative of my political views. But I do think hes not all he said he is. You can already sense he's backing off his claims of change."



Quite a bit like the LA posters, isn't it?

Americans have never held their presidents in such high regard as to consider their images sacred, and I believe that's a good thing, all in all. We don't elect kings, archdukes, Gods or even messiahs (despite the campaign rhetoric)! We nominate and elect fallible human beings, some of whom surprise us with good behavior, courage and wisdom, while others disappoint us with hubris, paranoia, concupiscence and/or arrogance. Most presidents are somewhere in between.

The ability of the lowliest American to take his exalted leader down a few pegs, vicariously speaking, is one of the weird aspects of our culture that I think works to our advantage. It's political speech that helps us decide what we really think, pro or con. It allows people to mentally blow off steam while at the same time solidifying their values.

So for all those angry "experts" who are ready to imprison the Obama the Joker artist, I say this:

"Buy your own crayons."

Oooh! Double-digit Rasmussen Deficit for The One

The Verdict is in from President Obama's health care speech on Wednesday that morphed into an attack on the Cambridge, Mass., police -- and by extension all law enforcement officials. The People are not pleased.

Rasmussen's Daily Presidential Tracking poll shows that there is now a double-digit gap of 11 points between those who really like the president's performance and those who really, really don't.

That's the highest so far. Only 29 percent of those polled strongly approve of The One. He seems to have found a ledge, demographically speaking, to hang on to, but it isn't enough for a coattail effect for other politicians to latch on to. Meanwhile his negatives, those strongly disapproving, have jumped to 40 percent.

Other internals of the polling aren't good for Obama. Some 76 percent polled now view him as "politically liberal," a label he has tried to fudge since running for president. This means that the moderates, or as I like to call them "the squishy middle", are now discovering for themselves the real Barack Hussein Obama and they are having buyer's remorse.

Promising bigger, more intrusive government and higher taxes during a period of rising unemployment and economic uncertainty, while stirring the pot of racism, isn't exactly going to win a lot of friends in America which, strangely enough, continues to be a center-right kind of place.

Americans continue to love liberty, often without even knowing why.

More On Obama's Errant Toss

I hate to make too much of President Obama's bad first pitch at the All Star game ... well, actually, I don't. Anyone who throws a baseball that poorly deserves to be mocked unmercilessly. But I digress ...

The media treatment of the president seemed to indicate an understanding that he would be 1) booed by some in the crowd and b) wouldn't deliver a strike like his predecessor. Andrew McCarthy has these observations today:

In its live broadcast, Fox (and remember, this is Fox Sports, not Fox News) covered Obama's first pitch at a very weird angle that conveyed his spastic motion but didn't do justice to how pathetic the toss was. But that's nothing compared to ESPN's laughable coverage. Here's the clip. Besides reporting only that there was a "standing ovation for the commander-in-chief," the announcer made a point of noting that Obama's pitch "didn't bounce" before reaching home-plate (though the announcer did cop to the "horrible camera work that made the trajectory of the pitch impossible to see).

Now, take a look at this clip from MLB.com, about 24 seconds in. It's the only decent footage I've seen, and it shows that Obama's first pitch did bounce. In fact, the pitch did not even reach home-plate — and they evidently knew it wouldn't. The player who was sent out to catch Obama's pitch (more on that in a moment) was crouching on top of home plate, not behind it where catchers always set up. And even so, he had to reach out a couple of feet in order to short-hop the ball, which otherwise might have bounced all the way to the backstop.

Now, about that player who caught Obama's pitch: It was none other than the Cardinals' great first-baseman, Albert Pujols. What does that matter? Well, the tradition is that the first pitch is tossed to the catcher, not the first-baseman — and, in fact, the starting catcher for the National League last night was the Cardinals' own Yadier Molina. But while Molina is popular, Pujols is like God in St. Louis (in fact, a fan in the stands either last night or the night before was holding a banner that said, "In Albert We Trust").

I think Obama's people knew he would get a very mixed reaction last night. His entrance was shrewdly orchestrated. The cheers and boos started as soon as he came onto the field, but he was steered immediately over to shake hands with Stan Musial — the most beloved player in the history of the Cardinals. No true St. Louis fan would boo Satan if he was shaking hands with Stan the Man.

Gotta love that last sentence.

Obama's First Pitch Was a Clunker

There's a lot to talk about today, most of it unfortunately nasty but necessary stuff that I wish we could avoid.

But before we get into it, I have to say something about President Obama's "first pitch" at the All Star game last night.

Very pathetic, especially for a guy who claims to be athletic.

At first Fox Sports did not show the result of the throw, which I thought was odd because they've got a dozen or so cameras set up to catch everything that happens. All they showed was the windup and the pitch, but they did not show the region of home plate where Albert Pujols was awaiting the throw.

Later, however, someone must've found a pair, because Fox showed a couple of replays of the end result. The president's throw took a long arc, like a little rainbow, that clunked down about six inches in front of the plate and then bounced into Albert's glove.

My wife could throw a first pitch better than that.

El Hombre was on the receiving end. La persona débil was on the mound.

I remember a few years back when former President George W. Bush was at Busch Stadium, throwing out the first pitch right after 9-11. He reared back, not in imitation of a pitcher but in the fair likeness of a normal man, and let fly with a fastball right into the mitt of whoever was catching at that moment. Perfect strike.

I have my differences with Bush 43 on how his "compassionate conservatism" paved the way for the madness we are now experiencing. But when it comes to being genuine and manly, the guy was the real thing.

I think that means something. People who "pretend" at sports are exhibiting a personality trait that often translates into other aspects of their lives. Beware the words of such a man, for if he will try to fool you into thinking he's an athlete (which if you look closely he can't), he will certainly try to hoodwink you in his speech. It's a lot easier.

UPDATE -- Red Stater would prefer to remember a more gallant moment of Presidential Pitching, the aforementioned Bush toss. So would I.

Presidential Approval Index -- Minus 8

It's been a week or so since we've checked in with Rasmussen's Presidential Tracking Poll and, oh my goodness, things aren't looking so good for the globe-trotting standard bearer of all things hopey-changey.


Not only is the honeymoon with the American people over, but it looks like we're just about to the "you sleep on the couch!" stage.

Rasmussen believes that the latest precipitous drop is because of the economic reports that show that job losses are still mounting and consumer confidence is also plummeting.

No doubt this explains some of the drop. Americans inexplicable continue to believe that their president somehow embodies economic success or failure when the reality is, or used to be, that a president has very little to do with it. President Obama has taken more of a direct role than any president since FDR, although Nixon would run a close third place. So maybe he should get credit or blame for the consequences.

But I think a good part of the loss of public confidence in our president is the dawning awareness of Americans that he is pushing for so many changes, on such slim hopes, so rapidly that we may not recognize the country in which we live very soon. The details of the Climate Bill (aka Waxman-Markey aka Cap and Trade aka Cap'n Tax aka the American Clean Energy & Security Act of 2009) are beginning to filter into the public domain and the public is not pleased.

And so we are left with a situation where only 30 percent of the American public strongly support President Obama. That isn't going to go down much more unless someone invents a sanity pill and we require all moonbat leftists to swallow it.

The President's Iran Policy is Outdated Now

The most striking aspect of President Obama's reluctance to publicly support the citizen rebellion in Iran is that he keeps making noises about how "it isn't too late" for the mullahs to begin peaceful negotiations with "the international community."

This guy wants to negotiate so badly that he can't see the reality that is before him.

President Obama wanted to use his deft diplomatic skills -- his view, not mine -- to get Iran to give up its nuclear weapons program in exchange for the Israelis to settle (again) with the Palestinians.

That isn't likely to happen now. If uprising fails, it will be a long time before any other is attempted, the hardliners have their hand strengthened, and anyone who tries to "do a deal" with them must ignore the fact that the regime has blood on its hands.

If the uprising succeeds, there is no regime to negotiate with anyway.

Meanwhile, Israel is taking no comfort in Mr. Obama's foot-dragging. He's coming across as vacillating, undecided. Dare we say, weak? He couldn't even bring himself to dis-invite the Iranian diplomats to 4th of July parties, a teensy-weensie sign of solidarity with the freedom marchers that would have sent a clear message.

If the president thinks the Israelis are going to embrace the threat of nuclear Armageddon as the stick with which to grab the peace carrot with the Palestinians, he's more naive than Jimmy Carter, and that's saying a lot.

We noticed stress in President Obama's voice several times in his Tuesday press conference. He's getting a bit testy with members of the press who dare to ask real questions not cleared in advance with staff. If he thinks the press is beginning to wake up from its mesmerized love affair, and this is how he responds, I'm afraid we are in for a great deal of relational angst in the coming months.

Having a real foreign policy beyond merely thinking he can jawbone the rest of the world like he jawbones the American media would be a first start in developing a spine.

False Hopes & Pants About the Ankles

There isn't much positive to say about what's going on in Iran, other than there are a good number of people who are very courageous and are putting their lives on the line for even a small chance for greater freedom. It's not hard for the average American to admire the courage.

Having said that, I don't think this is their moment to win. Maybe if a better groundwork had been prepared with the help of liberty loving governments, like America, they would have a chance. Perhaps if we had a president whose core beliefs included a strong love of individual rights, and who was willing to lean on Iran a little bit, their case would be stronger.

As it is, they are pretty much on their own. This doesn't mean they can't win. As I heard someone remark a few days ago, "If the Palestinians had modeled Martin Luther King or Ghandi, they'd have their own country by now." Non-violent protest is a very powerful thing: the power of organized love to bring opposition powers to heel is never to be underestimated.

(Caveat: Ghandi was facing those rascally British. MLK was facing down JFK and LBJ. Not exactly the historical precedents to inspire confidence. Remember that Tiananmen Square didn't end well.)

Beyond calculating the odds that the Iranian dissidents can achieve some degree of success, there is the question for us -- perhaps "mystery" is the better word -- of what President Obama thinks he is accomplishing with his wishy-washy statements.

Jim Hoagland, writing in the Washington Post on Sunday, believes that Obama is clinging to his hopes that he will get to "negotiate" with the mullahs over their nuclear weapons program, and he doesn't want to jeopardize his chances by supporting the dissidents.

The most serious challenge that Iran's Islamic rulers have ever faced caught President Obama and many European leaders by surprise. Their intelligence agencies did little to prepare them for a national catharsis that pits a combustible mixture of youthful protesters and political opportunists against Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

[SNIP]

But the president and his advisers still have not adjusted policies and tactics being overtaken by events. This is clear both from the initial "caught in the headlights" reaction by Obama as he temporized -- albeit with steely skill -- and from accounts of diplomatic and other official sources here.

(Uh, what is "steely skill"?)

The administration's words suggest Obama is caught in a political version of the theory of relativity -- that he moves along a predetermined course that prevents him from seeing the new situation in Tehran exactly as it occurs. He clings to the pre-election paramount goal of keeping alive the chances for a nuclear deal with any government in Tehran.

[SNIP]

... Obama should not have blurted out the (accurate) observation that challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi would probably not change Ahmadinejad's foreign and nuclear policies. This is the kind of assessment that intelligence chiefs whisper to their bosses to explain that their missed call doesn't really matter much.

In other words, our ever-narcissistic president was covering his posterior after getting caught with his pants down by events in Iran.

A good question to ask, though it is unlikely anyone at this White House will answer, concerns the intelligence that Obama received. Was it bad intel, and if so, why? Or was the intel good, but they chose to reinterpret it or ignore it?

I suppose we'll have to wait for Nancy Pelosi to tell us.

How Can We Kick You if You Won't Come Out to Play?

Guess who wants George W. Bush to come out of his self-imposed post-presidential isolation?

David Broder explains:

In a conversation the other day with a White House official, I heard something I'd never expected from an employee of Barack Obama's. "I wish," he said, "George Bush would speak up a little more."

In the five months since he left the presidency, Bush has immersed himself in his memoir. He has stayed home in Texas and rarely spoken publicly. The result has been that he has largely disappeared from the news and -- the point the Obama aide was making -- pretty much has been forgotten.

Bush's silence has made it harder for Obama to keep the public focused on Bush as being responsible for our present difficulties -- the weak economy, the unsettled wars, the scandals of Guantanamo and the detainee program.

Hard to keep using your favorite target when you've scatter-shot it into tatters in the public's mind, but the owner of the image won't provide you with a fresh version.

Isn't it sad how this new president doesn't want to stand on his own merits?

(Not) Telling the Truth About Islam's Past

Barack Hussein Obama, as he now refers to himself, is the first president that I have ever feared would cause harm to America through his words to foreign peoples.

I never questioned the patriotism of Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43, or even Jimmy Carter (not while he was in office, anway). I never thought Bill Clinton was unpatriotic; just occasionally embarrassing.

I'm not so sure about BHO. His "World Apology Tour 2009" continued this week, and a closer examination of his anticipated Cairo Speech is very troubling. He says some things about Islam and its history that simply are not factual. Is this because he is misinformed, or is this a deliberate deception, and for whom is the deception intended if this is the case? For the Muslim world, or for American citizens?

I'm not the only one who is wondering.

Today's National Review Online carries an article entitled "Making Believe: Obama's speech was deep in fable, short on fact" by Contributing Editor Andrew C. McCarthy.

I recommend you read it in its entirety, but I am going to reprint generous portions for discussion:

The oration was called “A New Beginning.” “A Pretend Beginning” would have been a more accurate. ...

[SNIP]

... the speech was warmed-over leftist dogma sprinkled with a fictional accounting of Islam and its history. ... What the president did was promote various fictions about Islam while airbrushing truths that are not merely harsh but are the facts behind the rampage that has victimized us for much of the last three decades. That rampage, moreover, was substantially discounted in a haze of moral equivalence.

It would be bad enough to do this under any circumstances, but it is inexcusable to do it while paying only lip-service to one of the few truths the president did speak: namely, that any “partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t.”

“What it isn’t” is a religion of peace with a legacy so overflowing with achievement in science, philosophy, and the arts that civilization, as President Obama claimed, owes a great “debt to Islam.” In fact, the ledger runs heavily in the other direction.

Islam was spread by the sword — not by the allure of its still problematic message — and many of the cultural achievements within the Muslim world that the president glossed occurred despite Islam (particularly in the areas of literature, art, and music) or are more properly understood as the accomplishments (especially in science and architecture) of better-educated peoples whom Muslims conquered. The president rehearsed the claim that Islam single-handedly “carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment.” This is a myth. As Robert Spencer has ably recounted, it is not true that Muslims alone preserved the works of Aristotle, Galen, Plato, Hippocrates, and other pillars of Western enlightenment. More significantly, arrested development in the Islamic world owes to an anti-intellectualism that persists to this day in enclaves holding that no education beyond the study of the Koran is necessary.

Sullivan recounts the president's de-coupling of Islamic verse to make a point that the Koran does not, in fact, make. I discussed this in a PREVIOUS POST here.

Noting a bowdlerization even this egregious does not do justice to how misleading the president’s tactic was. Though Obama portrayed Islam as having a “proud tradition of tolerance,” it has a far more consequential legacy of intolerance. Islam strives for hegemony, seeking not to co-exist but to make all the world the realm of the Muslims (dar al-Islam) while regarding those parts not under its dominion as the realm of war (dar al-Harb).

Sura 5:33 is far from aberrant, and the “Holy Koran,” quite apart from its several other commands to violence, dehumanizes Jews in several places as the children of monkeys and pigs. It admonishes that Muslims “take not the Jews and the Christians as friends and protectors” (5:51). The hadiths of the prophet are replete with tales of non-Muslims slaughtered, forced into slavery, and reduced to humiliating dhimmitude. Mohammed’s vision of the end of the world foresaw Jesus returning to abolish Christianity and impose Islam, while Jews are killed by Muslims (with the help of trees and stones, which alert the faithful, “Muslim, there is a Jew behind me — come and kill him!”

In fact, even President Obama’s cordial greeting of “assalaamu alaykum” to his Egyptian audience conveys (no doubt unintentionally) something of basic Islamic intolerance. Under sharia (Islamic law), as Spencer explains, “a Muslim may only extend this greeting — Peace be upon you — to a fellow Muslim. To a non-Muslim he is to say, ‘Peace be upon those who are rightly guided,’ i.e., Peace be upon the Muslims.”

This last paragraph is vitally important to understand -- Mr. Obama used the greeting of one Muslim to another, not the non-Muslim greeting to the Muslim. This may have through ignorance or oversight. Or it may have been an intentional signal. More importantly, how did the Muslims who heard the president's speech interpret it?

You may think that I am splitting hairs on this point, but the president, who is engaging in "mass communicatin'" and diplomacy, is representing the people of the United States, not just himself. Islamic scholars in the Middle East do not share the same understanding of constitutional government that we have. There is an Islamic principle that any territory, once ruled by Muslims, is forever Islamic and cannot be legitimately governmented by infidels.

It could be interpreted that if Obama can be considered a Muslim (though perhaps what we Christians would call a "backsliding" one), and he is leader of America, then America becomes Muslim territory, and thus Islamic rule must be consolidated and enhanced through such things as shari'a.

Back to the article:

More to the point, the president takes the risible position (as did his predecessor) that “Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism — it is an important part of promoting peace.” Islam, however, is palpably a huge part of the problem in combating violent extremism, which is serially committed by Muslims under the influence of notable religious scholars (including more than a few educated at al-Azhar University, the “beacon of Islamic learning” that co-hosted the president’s speech) who invoke some of the many scriptures the president elected not to mention.

It is true enough that Islam must be part of the solution to the promotion of peace, but for two reasons alone. First, while it is possible to ignore Islamic doctrine’s nexus to terrorism, the nexus cannot credibly be denied, and therefore the need to deal with it is unavoidable. Second, and related, there can be no peace unless Islam reforms — unless it purges its savage elements and compellingly condemns the violence committed in its name. This can’t be done as Obama and others would like to do it: by telling Muslims everything is fine, that their religion is wonderful as is, while making believe the bad scriptures don’t exist and radicals are merely a tiny fringe of crazy people. That is a strategy designed by liberals to convince other liberals who don’t need convincing, so desperate are they to believe all is well. It does nothing to discredit the violent fundamentalists in the eyes of other Muslims; in fact, it enhances their credibility because it ignores their doctrinal justifications of terror rather than offering a credible counter-construction.

Worse, assuming there is no credible counter-construction (which may very well be the case), there is an enormous amount of reform to be done — work that can only be done by Muslims. We cannot rouse them to the task by telling them we think Islam, as it currently exists, is promoting peace.

Everyone talks peace, but in seeking it, the question must always be asked: How do we get there from here? You do not travel the road to peace by pretending understandings that do not exist, and by trying to bamboozle your opponent (or your base of support) into thinking fantasy is reality. To do so is to build a peace that will not be peace at all.

Muslims who correctly understand the teachings of their religion have always known that peace comes through victory, not compromise. Compromise would be a repudiation of their faith.

I can understand that, even appreciate it.

I believe that President Obama also understands this about Islam, but for whatever reasons he doesn't want to say it aloud.

That worries me. It should you as well.

Quoting Scripture Out of Context

One of my pet peeves are those who take Scripture out of context, quoting a verse, or a portion of a verse, but ignoring the context in which it is found.

And since quoting scripture out of context is practically a national past time in America, I get peeved a lot.

But today we have the spectacle of our quasi-Islamic president, B. Hussein Obama, before the people of Cairo, Egypt, quoting from the Koran.

Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths but, more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam.

The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as -- it is as it if has killed all mankind. And the Holy Koran also says whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.

I like the message. It's a great message. Unfortunately, it is totally out of context within the passage from the Koran:

"5.32": For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our apostles came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land.

It is an admonition to the Jews not to kill Muslims. The following verse explains the context even more:

"5.33": The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,

You can understand why President Obama did not quote this verse, which clearly would fuel the righteous fire of extremists.

And we were worried about how they would feel about water boarding?

Why a Town Hall Meeting in New Mexico?

Is it really necessary that President Obama fly Air Force One to New Mexico for one of his campaign-style (totally staged) "town hall meetings" on credit card reform? According to Reuters, that's what he plans for next week.

Let's do a positive-negative analysis of this.

POSITIVE:

1) People will know that President Obama really cares about their financial struggles.

2) The President can avail himself of some great New Mexican cuisine, if he's smart about it.

3) Gov. Bill Richardson could use some distraction in his life.

4) The mainstream press will have an Obamagasm and something wonderful to report.

NEGATIVE:

1) Air Force One (and it's shadow) will burn over 10,000 pounds of jet fuel, cost the American taxpayer well over $1 million, put a bunch of tons of climate-killing CO2 in the atmosphere (if you believe the administration's own environmental BS).

2) It will cost the State of New Mexico a considerable amount of money to provide law enforcement coordination.

3) Mr. Obama will tell New Mexico citizens that help is on the way on a new law to force credit card companies to treat people better. This legislation is in the pipeline as a result of new Federal Reserve rules adopted LAST YEAR -- when George W. Bush was president. He is taking credit for something his predecessor began.

4) With his own party in control of Congress, there is no need to promote the legislation as there is no serious opposition to it. It is grandstanding for the sake of grandstanding.

5) Financial analysts warn that the legislation, which will mandate lower interest rates, will result in fewer credit cards being issued to consumers, not more. So the effort to "help" will backfire.

I know a few will complain that I have strong negatives and weak, farcical positives in my analysis. The problem is, I couldn't find any positives for this trip. Mr. Obama might as well stay in Washington for his town hall meeting. It would have the same positive effect on the press, he would answer the same questions (since they are planted anyway), and think of all the money he could claim to save.

If the president really wanted to save Americans from the evil credit card companies, several of which owe their survival to the federal government, he would make these points.

* Credit card purchasing can be, and often is, financial suicide to young families. You pay many times over for the money you borrow at rates that are insane.

*Learn to budget and save. Pay cash for the things that you need, and you will discover the difference between "wants" and "needs."

*A $3,000 credit card balance will cost you over $10,000 over time if you can only afford to pay the minimum payments.

*The average American family has over $10,000 in credit card debt. Do the math.

*If you have existing credit card debts, start paying them off and eliminate your credit cards. Pay the smallest first, and use that freed up monthly payment to pay down on the next largest, and so on. It will amaze you how quickly you can become debt free. I would suggest visiting Dave Ramsey's website and learn about his Total Money Makeover program. He also has a book about it.

The American way used to be thrift, savings and hard work. Today it has become profligacy (spending), debt and hard work. The only thing that has stayed the same is hard work.

What is needed is knowledge and an attitude change.

Our president should set an example of thrift and savings with his "town hall meeting" by staying home. Instead he will demonstrate profligacy and debt, since the federal government is spending into record deficits this year, worse than any other year in history.

Shame on him.

President Gives National Prayer Day a Cold Kneeler

It's pretty obvious that President Obama did not read Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People." Had he done so, he would not have canceled the annual National Day of Prayer gathering today and refused to attend tomorrow's prayer breakfast.

His press flack, Mr. Gibbs, can declare that all Mr. Obama is doing is restoring the prayer day to its "former status" as a presidential non-event, but the impression is clear that our new president wants to have as little contact with traditional American religious groups as he can get away with.

"Prayer is something the president does every day," he said. "We're doing a proclamation, which I know that many administrations in the past have done."

Pressed by reporters as to the lack of a formal ceremony, Mr. Gibbs said the proclamation was Mr. Obama's choice.

"That's the way the president will publicly observe National Prayer Day - privately, he'll pray as he does every day," Mr. Gibbs said.

Someone should ask Mr. Gibbs, "Does he pray every day?" That is not altogether clear by the statement.

After the hubbub over Obama's insistence that he not pose in front of Christian symbols at Georgetown University, I would think he would not wish to further alienate Christians so quickly.

But then, I guess he'd rather take advice from Saul Alinsky than Dale Carnegie.

Obama May Revive Military Tribunals at Gitmo

Ah, reality!

This is going to piss off a bunch of people.

U.S. May Revive Guatanamo Military Courts (New York Times)

The Obama administration is moving toward reviving the military commission system for prosecuting Guantanamo detainees, which was a target of critics during the Bush administration, including Mr. Obama himself.

Officials said the first public moves could come as soon as next week, perhaps in filings to military judges at the United States naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, outlining an administration plan to amend the Bush administration’s system to provide more legal protections for terrorism suspects.

[SNIP]

Officials who work on the Guantánamo issue say administration lawyers have become concerned that they would face significant obstacles to trying some terrorism suspects in federal courts. Judges might make it difficult to prosecute detainees who were subjected to brutal treatment or for prosecutors to use hearsay evidence gathered by intelligence agencies.

Or, as some typically unnamed source told the NYT:

“The more they look at it,” said one official, “the more commissions don’t look as bad as they did on Jan. 20.”

Heh!

Now if they'd only look at the prison itself and realize that releasing scores of trained terrorists onto the streets of America is not a viable option for social stability, then perhaps Guantanamo could fully serve a useful purpose.

For those unhappy with this latest development, just remember, as Jim Geraghty says, "All Barack Obama promises come with an expiration date. All of them."

Will Mr. Obama Wear the Notre Dame Robe?

Will President Obama wear the doctoral robe at Notre Dame?

This will be an interesting test of whether Mr. Obama has issues with Christian symbols. From the Christian News Service online:

Notre Dame expects President Obama to wear the school’s traditional doctoral robe--which is emblazoned with a cross and a prayer to the Virgin Mary--when the president receives an honorary law degree from the university at its May 17 commencement ceremony.

“Yes,” replied Notre Dame Spokesman Dennis Brown, when CNSNews.com asked him if Obama would wear the robe that has been worn by previous graduation speakers at Notre Dame.

Another Notre Dame official confirmed that “everybody” wears Notre Dame's traditional doctoral robe when they receive an honorary law degree from Notre Dame.

In 2001, when President Bush received an honorary law degree from Notre Dame, he wore the school’s traditional doctoral robe inscribed with the prayer to the Virgin Mary. In 2008, when actor Martin Sheen received the Laetare Award from Notre Dame at its commencement ceremony, he wore the same traditional Notre Dame robe.

The official explanation from the White House for this past week's atrocious cover-up of the name of Jesus at the president's Georgetown University speaking engagement was that they didn't want any imagery other than the American flag; no mixed messages, they said.

I don't think a lot of us buy that explanation, but if Mr. Obama wears the Notre Dame robe, I'll be willing to shut up about it. (I still think Georgetown should have refused, but that's my beef with them.)

If, on the other hand, it's a problem for him ...

Pirates an 'Annoying Distraction'?

Did you know that the pirate attack on a U.S. flagged ship is an "annoying distraction" to President Obama?

So says an analysis piece by Reuters.

WASHINGTON, April 9 (Reuters) - Ragtag teams of modern-day Blackbeards are posing an annoying distraction for Barack Obama, forcing him to add Somalia to an already long list of foreign policy challenges.

American presidents are told to expect the unexpected, and Obama is seeing that this week. First it was a North Korean test of a ballistic missile last weekend. Now comes a swashbuckling high-seas standoff with armed renegades.

Obama so far has sent U.S. Navy ships to protect an American-flagged freighter that managed to repel a pirate attack but whose captain was taken hostage.

America's recent experience with Somalia has not been good, making caution a key element of U.S. policy in dealing with the country.

The Obama administration was careful not to give the crisis too much prominence, with delicate negotiations under way to try to secure the captain's release.

The article notes that Mr. Obama has declined to say anything about the situation for two days.

A couple of points.

First, Mr. Obama has yet to do anything about the North Korean missile launch. In the fast-paced diplomatic world, his dithering -- especially after issuing tough threats before the launch -- is a loss of face. Not sending a message has sent a message.

Second, the article refers to America's "recent experiences" with Somalia. Not so recent, actually. You have to go back 16 years to just before the Black Hawk Down incident where the Clinton administration decided to bail out of attempts to pacify the terrorist war lords. The Reuters language is a code phrase which translated says, "American progressives do not have the stomach for a tough fight."

If Mr. Obama wants to resolve this pirate crisis, he's going to have to abandon the wimpy progressive playbook. What he needs to do is tell the pirates that the United States is going to blow their homes off the map, with everyone and everything in them, if they do not release Captain Richard Phillips immediately. What we should do is promise only that we will not eradicate them if they comply, but promise them that not only will they be killed if the captain is harmed, but that their families will not survive either.

Some will call me a war monger. Nonsense. This is how you "negotiate" with thugs. You have to know what is important to them. This is how you prevent future acts of piracy, by forcing the pirates to go into a safer line of thievery, one that does not tread on the toes of America or, if you prefer, the Great Satan.

But relax. Mr. Obama will not abandon his nearly non-existent girly diplomacy.

"We don't want to go back there," said presidential historian Thomas Alan Schwartz, a professor at Vanderbilt University. "This may be one of those points where Obama is going to have to cash in some of his international chips and get the U.N. to go in there."

"Somebody needs to go into Somalia and govern the place," he said.

Democratic strategist Doug Schoen, who worked in the Clinton White House, called the crisis "a real test of national resolve" that the Obama White House and opposition Republicans need to work together to deal with.

Or, in short, the Obama people will look to the U.N. to cover their posterior, even though the U.N. couldn't govern its way out of a wet paper bag, or they will let the Republicans come up with a policy with a little backbone that, if it succeeds, they can take credit for and, if it fails, they can blame on the GOP.

Not exactly Profiles in Courage.

Not-so-smart Diplomacy on Parade

Not only is the Obama administration having trouble getting anyone to work with Tax Cheat Timmy Geithner over at Treasury, but they are running into problems -- perhaps intentionally -- of appointing an ambassador to the Vatican.

According to Massimo Franco, author of "Parallel Empires," a recently published book on U.S.-Vatican relations, the Obama administration has put forward three candidates for consideration but each of them have been deemed insufficiently pro-life by the Vatican.

One of the few conditions the Vatican places on diplomats accredited to the Holy See is that they hold pro-life views in line with Church teaching.

Franco says the administration is now looking for a professional diplomat rather than a political appointee because finding an authentically pro-life candidate within the Democratic Party is proving impossible. The task is further hampered by the administration’s desire to reward individuals who gave donations to Obama’s campaign.

"Finding an authentically pro-life candidate within the Democratic Party is proving impossible"?

Surely it's not that bad. Or is it the donation thing?

Since the U.S. opened formal diplomatic relations with the Vatican 25 years ago under President Reagan, all ambassadors have been political appointees and pro-life Catholics of varying degrees, even under the Clinton administration.

However, in view of the absence of qualified Catholic candidates, insiders say another option could be for the administration to choose a non-Catholic pro-life candidate rather than a Catholic whose record on pro-life issues is at odds with Church teaching.

To me choosing a non-Catholic, with over 60 million American Catholics, seems a bit silly, even myopic. My guess is that the Obama administration would like to find an excuse to end the 25-year period of diplomatic relations with the Holy See.

My expectations of the Obamatons are getting lower and lower.

Master of the False Choice

This administration may do things clumsily, but in rhetoric it is the master of the false choice.

A timely example, from today:

Obama, at Tuesday's education event, rejected criticism that he is trying to do too many things at once, citing three predecessors who managed to juggle challenges on many fronts --Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy.

"President Kennedy didn't have the luxury of choosing between civil rights and sending us to the moon. And we don't have the luxury of choosing between getting our economy moving now and rebuilding it over the long term," he said.

Mr. Obama added that Roosevelt had to fight the Depression and World War II at the same time. No choice.

Not exactly true, for either president.

President Kennedy most certainly had the luxury to choose between the moon shot and civil rights, because other than a bit of rhetoric, he didn't do anything about it. (As a U.S. senator, JFK actually voted against an Eisenhower sponsored Civil Rights Act in 1957!) The Civil Rights Act of 1964 came after his assassination, with LBJ and a majority of Republican lawmakers shaming the Democrat party, which at the time was Southern dominated and not nearly so broad-minded, into going along. This is not to say that JFK was incapable of doing two things at once. He was vastly more competent than our current president and most certainly understood the necessity for across-the-board tax cuts, a strong defense, and an expanded space program that challenged the American imagination and employed a great number of private sector firms.

As for FDR, Roosevelt had the luxury of fighting the Depression for seven or eight years before the clouds of the Second World War gave him the "out" that he so badly needed on the economic front. Remember, FDR took office in 1933. World War II became a back-burner issue for FDR in 1939-40 as he pushed a reluctant Congress to help arm Great Britain. He lost the luxury of a choice on December 7, 1941, but the very act of war caused Roosevelt to declare to insiders that he was no longer Dr. New Deal but Dr. Win the War. The war finally brought the nation out of the Depression, not government manipulation.

Mr. Obama uses the rhetorician's tactic of setting up a false premise knowing that most people don't think fast enough -- or know enough about history -- to realize its absurdity.

Foreign Policy 'Tests' & Tired New Presidents

VP Joe "Did I Just Say That?" Biden predicted his boss would be tested in his first six months as president.

Headlines the past 24 hours indicate that he may for once have said something correctly.

The Red Chinese navy is getting a little too feisty.

WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon charged Monday that five Chinese ships shadowed and maneuvered dangerously close to a U.S. Navy vessel in an apparent attempt to harass the American crew.

Defense officials in the Obama administration said the incident Sunday followed several days of "increasingly aggressive" acts by Chinese ships in the region. The incident took place in international waters in the South China Sea, about 75 miles south of Hainan Island. [SNIP]

The USNS Impeccable sprayed one ship with water from fire hoses to force it away. Despite the force of the water, Chinese crew members stripped to their underwear and continued closing within 25 feet, the Defense Department said.

Stripped to their underwear?

This wasn't an isolated incident. There have been several others in recent days, and it isn't unprecedented. Thanks to 9/11 most people have forgotten that the Chinese forced down an American aircraft in April 2001 to test President Bush 43 early in his first term.

But you also have North Korea rattling its sabre by declaring that anyone who messes with its "satellite" launch will trigger a war. No one actually believes the Norks have satellite capability, they're just testing a long range missile.

What happens when the rhetoric turns into an incident? An anonymous source at the White House told a British reporter over the weekend that President Obama and his team are "overwhelmed" by the amount of work that must be done each day and the information that comes along with it.

Allies of Mr Obama say his weary appearance in the Oval Office with Mr Brown illustrates the strain he is now under, and the president's surprise at the sheer volume of business that crosses his desk.

A well-connected Washington figure, who is close to members of Mr Obama's inner circle, expressed concern that Mr Obama had failed so far to "even fake an interest in foreign policy".

If this is even close to reality, that's the scariest thing I've heard since January 20. News like this is but an encouragement for the "testing" that Biden predicted.

Barely Managing to Reach the Keyboard ...

Feeling worse. Not sure it's the flu.

Watched President Obama issue a couple of executive orders that weren't at all horrible. I know that the Law of Unintended Consequences will probably bite him somewhere down the road but capping pay raises for staff is a good show in tough times, and reining in lobbyists is long overdue. I only hope that the regs on lobbyists are enforced equally.

Then again, maybe I didn't hear any of this right (I am under the weather, after all).