Buyers Giving Up on "Underwater" Homes

At our quarterly Board meeting of Vital Signs Ministries the other night, there was some discussion on what constitutes the "safest investment" options in today's market (besides, of course, the only truly safe investment, that proscribed in Matthew 6:20-21).

One of the possibilities mentioned was one's own house and land. However, it was pointed out that inflation, confiscatory taxes, politically-motivated real estate appraisals, and the government's overreaching ideas of eminent domain made this option much less of a guarantee than it was in former times.

To illustrate another factor relevant to our discussion, here's a Yahoo News story describing the situation of many of the 8.3 million American homeowners who owe more on mortgages than their homes are worth -- people who are just walking away.

Home prices are dramatically falling in parts of the nation, especially California, Arizona, Nevada, and Florida, leaving such unstable neighborhood conditions and "equity deterioration" that home buyers are simply giving up.

Some pack up and leave as soon as they realize their house is "underwater." Others, knowing that banks usually need several months to actually take possession of a house, keep living there but pay nothing. Instead they save up their money to start over at the next stop.

And some are waiting for Barack Obama to send someone else's money their way.

"More than half of Nevada's mortgage holders now owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth. Arizona holds second place with 32 percent of homeowners have negative equity, and Florida and California follow with 30 percent each, according to First American CoreLogic, an affiliate of property services firm First American Corp.

The total value of U.S. residential properties fell to $19.1 trillion in December 2008 from $21.5 trillion a year earlier. California's losses came to more $1.2 trillion -- roughly half the nationwide decline, the firm said."

A Belated Happy St. Patrick's Day

Given my wife's ancestry, my high regard for C. S. Lewis (born in Belfast, don't you know), and my preference for Irish Breakfast tea, it is really unforgivable that I failed to observe St. Patrick's Day here on Vital Signs Blog. But perhaps I can make up for that inexcusable oversight by bringing you this:

Today's Posts

Waiting for a Bounce?

In Vitro Fertlization: Regulation (Even Understanding) Is Overdue

Webster's Dictionary Now Includes Same-Sex Unions in Definition of "Marriage"

Obama's Post-Evangelical Prayer Circle

Obama Watch: It Ain't Pretty

The Girl Scouts of America: Adrift in a New Age Sea

Waiting for a Bounce?

The economy's hard take-down last year was due almost entirely to a longstanding government policy that forced banks to lend to unworthy borrowers plus missteps in Fed interest-rate policy.

The combination of soaring oil prices, bad mortgages, a collapsing housing market and rising interest rates crushed much of our financial infrastructure, causing mass bankruptcies, layoffs and a financial crisis that hammered economies around the globe.

But now, after months of seemingly nonstop bad news, there are hopeful signs on the horizon...

This editorial from Investor's Business Daily then goes on to list those "hopeful signs." I'm not an economist but this made for some interesting reading. Check it out.

In Vitro Fertlization: Regulation (Even Understanding) Is Overdue

Jill Stanek managed to get an op/ed piece into USA Today. Good move. And with a good article too, dealing with the need (and timely opportunity) for pro-life activists to seek legislative regulation of what Jill calls "the Wild West of women's reproductive care," in vitro fertilization.

For more information on this crucial topic, you might want to check out these previous Vital Signs posts:

In Vitro Fertilization: The Serious Moral Issues That Are Not Being Addressed

Uncomfortable Truths About In Vitro Fertilization

Culling Embryos to Get a Perfect Baby

Does the Pro-Life Movement Care About In Vitro Fertilization?

Ova Freezing as a Lifestyle Choice

In Vitro's Monstrous Secret

Stem Cell Research: Going Behind the Headlines

What Happens to the "Extra" Embryos?

Webster's Dictionary Now Includes Same-Sex Unions in Definition of "Marriage"

It's a classic example of Orwellian strategy. Modify attitudes and behavior by merely manipulating the language. (Hat tip: World Net Daily)

Obama's Post-Evangelical Prayer Circle

Joseph Loconte describes the "evangelical" leaders gathered in by Barack Obama who are either being co-opted (T.D.Jakes, perhaps) or who are, because of their own liberalism, being quite cooperative (Jim Wallis) in creating a religious veneer to Obama's far-reaching socialist schemes. It's troubling, but necessary reading.

When, in the throes of his presidential bid, Barack Obama cast off his controversial pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, his campaign advisers began soliciting for more acceptable replacements. There was no shortage of willing applicants. In a provocative essay called "The Inner Ring," C.S. Lewis suggested why that might be so: "I believe that in all men's lives at certain periods . . . one of the most dominant elements is the desire to be inside the local Ring, and the terror of being left outside." President Obama has recruited several Christian leaders to join one of the world's most exclusive inner rings, the presidential prayer team.

As reported over the weekend by the New York Times, Obama has carefully cultivated relationships with at least five influential ministers--all described as evangelical "centrists"--for private sessions of prayer and occasional political advice. There is nothing unusual about American presidents seeking spiritual support and counsel. For his part, President Obama has made a point of denouncing the abuse of religion for political gain. Yet given the roster of the anointed, and the Obama record on religion thus far, the temptation to manipulate faith for partisan ends is likely to prove irresistible.

The Obama prayer caucus includes Rev. Otis Moss Jr., a veteran of the civil rights movement, and Rev. Jim Wallis, political activist and editor of a left-leaning magazine. Two others, Bishop T.D. Jakes and Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, black megachurch pastors and successful entrepreneurs, served as occasional spiritual advisors to President George W. Bush. Rev. Joel Hunter, leader of an evangelical megachurch in Florida, made a public break with the Christian Coalition a few years ago. "These are all centrist, social justice guys," Rev. Eugene Rivers, a politically active pastor in Boston, told the Times.

A problem with this characterization, reported with facile approval by Laurie Goodstein of the Times, is that it blinks at political reality. Jim Wallis, for example, has been a fierce and partisan critic of the Bush administration, the Republican party, and religious conservatives. On the eve of the Iraq war, Wallis compared Bush to the Egyptian pharaoh who persecuted the Jews, one of the most despicable characters in the Old Testament. He once attacked the late Catholic thinker, Father Richard John Neuhaus, as a "hired political assassin on behalf of the rich and the powerful." Even a brisk review of his magazine, Sojourners, reveals a political agenda nearly indistinguishable from the Democratic party platform. "It's a politically astute move," says Michael Cromartie, vice president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. "But calling Jim Wallis a centrist is a lot like calling Jesse Jackson and Pat Roberson centrists...

Consider a few items. The administration plans to open the flood gates of federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research and, in all likelihood, abortion, trampling the moral convictions of millions of ordinary Americans. A revamped faith-based initiative, which would deny the right of charities to consider religious commitment in hiring decisions, threatens to become a protocol for secularization. The president's education proposal throws hundreds of millions of dollars at failing public schools, but rejects vouchers for children from poor families to help them escape these mismanaged monstrosities and attend private religious schools. In short, much of Obama's political vision contradicts the religious ideals of his prayer partners and the constituencies they supposedly represent...

The danger for Obama's inner circle is not only that they'll keep quiet about issues that are contentious. They now face a relentless temptation to rationalize policies that are morally dubious or offensive--to give them a religious veneer--for the sake of continued access to the president. Is Jim Wallis, a professed pro-life evangelical, likely to challenge Obama's pro-choice agenda? So far he has managed to praise the president for "breaking the symbolic cycle" of debate over abortion, whatever that means.

Will T.D. Jakes play the role of prophet if the White House's faith-based initiative treats churches as pawns of the secular state? "Our hope," Jakes wrote after the election, "is in his ability to provide the medicine this nation desperately needs to rise again." That doesn't sound like the same minister who tells his flock to take responsibility for their own lives and put their trust in God. Likewise, in a recent Time magazine interview, Joel Hunter expressed not a whisper of worry about Obama's social vision. "I find it hard to believe that I'm in the inner prayer circle," he gushed. There may be a reason for his inclusion that goes beyond the legitimate need of a political leader for spiritual support. Barack Obama, after all, has made no secret of the fact that he plans to change the anti-God image of his party.

Even men with good intentions, armed with faith, are not immune to the delicious intimacies of power: A short ride in Air Force One could produce more converts than a week of revival meetings. "Of all the passions," explained C.S. Lewis, "the passion for the Inner Ring is the most skillful in making a man who is not yet a very bad man do very bad things."

Obama Watch: It Ain't Pretty

* Barack Obama's first nominee for the federal bench turns out to be a doozy. It is the far-left David Hamilton, a former fund-raiser for the radical activist outfit ACORN...a former leader of the Indiana chapter of the ACLU...a federal district judge who recently invalidated a law requiring the registration of sex offenders...and who also prevented enforcement of an Indiana law that required information and a waiting period before an abortion. Paul Mirengoff, who alerted Power Line readers to this awful choice, concludes, "Not to worry, though, the New York Times calls Hamilton a 'moderate.'"

* Oops! Maybe Barack Obama shouldn't get too angry over those AIG bonuses. After all, there might be someone in the MSM (Are you listening, Katie?) who might dare to report that Obama himself (when still a junior Senator) received a $101,332 bonus from American International Group in the form of political contributions. Indeed, the two biggest Congressional recipients of bonuses from the AIG are two of the cats acting most aggrieved about others getting them: Chris Dodd and Barack Obama. As John Malek said in the note which alerted me to this Right Side Politics story, "This just drips of irony and hypocrisy."

* And while we're on the subject of those AIG bonuses, note this -- Julie Hirschfeld Davis, reporter for the Associated Press no less, writes "Cue the outrage. For months, the Obama administration and members of Congress have known that insurance giant AIG was getting ready to pay huge bonuses while living off government bailouts. It wasn't until the money was flowing and news was trickling out to the public that official Washington rose up in anger and vowed to yank the money back."

* Ilan Berman in the American Spectator describes the "rookie mistake" made by Barack Obama by sending a secret letter to Dmitry Medvedev, one in which Obama cravenly backpedaled (without getting anything in return) from the Bush administration plans to deploy missile defenses in Eastern Europe. A dumb move. A dangerous move. And, not surprisingly, the Russians have already begun to exploit it.

* The Obama administration, almost giddy in the way it seeks out ways to run counter to the policies of President Bush, announced that Obama will endorse a United Nations declaration calling for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality.

* My, my. When the New York Times' Maureen Dowd starts taking aim at a Democrat, that spells trouble. Just ask Bill Clinton and Al Gore. But yet here she is, Dowd laughing at the way "Team Obama" has mishandled the AIG bonus matter. The gal even starts off with a shot at the President's increasingly-problematic dependence on the TelePrompter.

* And speaking of the TelePrompter, check out this Fox News report (it's getting a bit of play from the MSM too) about how the thing malfunctioned during a joint appearance of the Great Orator and the Irish Prime Minister. Another diplomatic coup for our amateur president

The Girl Scouts of America: Adrift in a New Age Sea

I've brought to your attention before the shift of the Girl Scouts to feminist ideals, Planned Parenthood and new age weirdness. (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5). This transition is alarming and sad...and counter-productive. But yet the leaders of the organization refuse to set things right.

Jane Chastain, once a proud member of the Girl Scout sisterhood but now a promoter of a much healthier alternative club, American Heritage Girls, reviews the ignoble affair in this World Net Daily article.

Wisdom and respect are the normal benefits of the aging process. Not so with the Girl Scouts USA! As the Girl Scouts turn 97 today, there is not much to celebrate. Membership is down. Cookie sales have dwindled, and they are floundering around trying to be relevant.

Yes, the GSUSA is dumping the "dorky" vests and "singalongs" around the campfire (the words of others, not my own) in an effort to be "cool" and "edgy." It's sad, really, like a senior citizen shopping for a bikini and getting a tattoo in an effort to be noticed.

Individual achievement and earning badges are out. Political correctness and self-esteem are in. Girls still will have an opportunity to earn badges – for now – but the emphasis is on the new Journeys programs, which focus on broad themes and encourage "groupthink."...

By the time an "enlightened" Girl Scout reaches the Seniors program, she is encouraged to become an "agent of change" for the global good and an "ambassador" for causes championed by left-leaning women's advocacy groups. Partnerships have been formed with Planned Parenthood, and the Girl Scouts have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with gun control advocates and radical environmental groups.

Moms have traditionally been the backbone of scouting. They have served as mentors and troop leaders, chauffeurs, fundraisers and organizers. Today, moms are being told to take a hike when their daughters become teenagers. Yes, moms are to be replaced at the most critical time in a girl's life with young adults or others judged to be suitably "hip" and trained by groups like the Ashland Institute who will lead their daughters down the garden path toward the New Age...

It now appears that service to this country may also be on the way out with the new emphasis on globalism. Last year at the 51st Girl Scout National Council Session and Convention, the traditional flag ceremony was trashed, as was the playing of our Nation Anthem. Flags of all nations were brought in bunched together to the tune of "September" by Earth, Wind and Fire.

All civic organizations are losing membership with more things competing for our attention and more demands on our time. However, the Girl Scouts, in an effort to keep up with the times, have thrown out their core value system, the very thing that makes scouting a worthwhile endeavor...

Today's Posts

Obama & Change

"9 Things the Media Messed Up About the Obama Stem Cell Story"

From the "You Gotta' Be Kidding" Department: President Obama Wants an Exit Strategy from Caring for Our Wounded Veterans

New Study Cuts Through the Global Warming Hype

Rabbi In Charge of Western Wall Tells Pope Benedict Not to Wear His Cross

Behind Those AIG Bonuses, There's Something You Should Be More Angry About

Barack's Bailout Bamboozle

Obama & Change

"9 Things the Media Messed Up About the Obama Stem Cell Story"

Wow.

Josh Brahm, the Director of Education & P.R. for Right to Life of Central California, has put together a very thorough, very enlightening review, "9 Things the Media Messed Up About the Obama Stem Cell Story."

It is an education in itself, covering the details of the issue and why those details are so stubbornly ignored and/or distorted by the MSM. Very good stuff.

(Hat tip: Jivin J at Jivin Jehoshaphat)

From the "You Gotta' Be Kidding" Department: President Obama Wants an Exit Strategy from Caring for Our Wounded Veterans

Commander David K. Rehbein of the American Legion, the nation's largest veterans organization, was part of a meeting yesterday in which Barack Obama presented his proposal to shrug off America's wounded veterans onto private insurance companies.

Huh? The President wants the government to cease caring for the men and women who have been hurt serving their country? Could he really be suggesting that?

Yes, he could. And yes he did.

So it's no wonder that the American Legion Commander was pretty put out after the meeting.

"It became apparent during our discussion today that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan," said Commander Rehbein. "He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it."

"This reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate ' to care for him who shall have borne the battle' given that the United States government sent members of the armed forces into harm's way, and not private insurance companies. I say again that The American Legion does not and will not support any plan that seeks to bill a veteran for treatment of a service connected disability at the very agency that was created to treat the unique need of America's veterans!"

"I only hope the administration will really listen to us then. This matter has far more serious ramifications than the President is imagining."

New Study Cuts Through the Global Warming Hype

Dr. Anastasios Tsonis, credited with the development of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Atmospheric Sciences Group, comments on a new study by UWM which utilizes a complicated math application known as synchronized chaos. Dr. Tsonis (photo at left) points out that the fear of earth's massive meltdown due to global warming just isn't justified by the scientific evidence. Sorry, Al Gore and Barack Obama; but you're dead wrong.

Dr. Tsonis: "In climate, when this happens, the climate state changes. You go from a cooling regime to a warming regime or a warming regime to a cooling regime. This way we were able to explain all the fluctuations in the global temperature trend in the past century. The research team has found the warming trend of the past 30 years has stopped and in fact global temperatures have leveled off since 2001."

But what about Al Gore's frantic claims that humans are responsible for burning up the planet and Barack Obama's plans to use man-made global warming hype as leverage to get his socialist political package accepted? Again; sorry, guys but the evidence just isn't on your side.

Dr. Tsonis: "But if we don't understand what is natural, I don't think we can say much about what the humans are doing. So our interest is to understand -- first the natural variability of climate -- and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural."

Of course, don't expect to see this story travel too far. Like our Democrat leaders are saying, "Why waste a good crisis?" So, even if hard science knocks man-made global warming into a cocked hat (as it has), the leftist political powers that be and their allies in the mainstream media will continue to ignore altogether such stories as this one (I found it via a local Milwaukee TV station) and instead report yet more of the same scare tactics.

Rabbi In Charge of Western Wall Tells Pope Benedict Not to Wear His Cross

First it was a group of Austrian bishops led by the Archbishop of Vienna that were prohibited from visiting the famed Wailing Wall of Jerusalem because they refused to remove (or hide under their clothing) their crosses. That was in November of 2007. Then in May of last year, a group of Irish clergy representing both Catholic and Protestant churches were barred from visiting the Wall for the same reason.

And now, the fellow responsible for those two affairs, Shmuel Rabinovitch, rabbi of the Western Wall, has warned the Vatican that even Pope Benedict XVI should be prepared to remove the cross he always wears in public if he wants to visit the Wall during his visit to Israel next month.

The rabbi apparently believes the Wall is something exclusive to Judaism. That's very unfortunate. For what the Western Wall (the only extent structure from ancient Jerusalem) should also represent is the link between Christianity and its Jewish roots.

Christianity embraces the Old Testament with its revelation of God's Law, His gracious treatment of Israel, His purpose that Israel serve as His megaphone to all nations, and His eternal plan to bring forth from the seed of Adam and Eve (through King David) a Messiah/Savior Whose sacrifice on the cross would be to atone for the sins of all people -- Jew and Gentile, male and female, slave and free.

It is sadly ironic. For the cross that so offends rabbi Rabinovitch is not only the most precious symbol of Christianity; it is also the Hope of Israel.

Behind Those AIG Bonuses, There's Something You Should Be More Angry About

What should tick you off a lot more than AIG paying that $165 million in bonuses (contractually obligated, by the way) should be 1) the government's abject failure to properly regulate AIG in the first place and 2) the socialist power grab it represents, a move which undermines our economy and endangers our political liberties.

Below are just a couple of the illuminating paragraphs from today's Wall Street Journal editorial on the matter. But go ahead and read the whole thing right here.

...Given that the government has never defined "systemic risk," we're also starting to wonder exactly which system American taxpayers are paying to protect. It's not capitalism, in which risk-takers suffer the consequences of bad decisions. And in some cases it's not even American. The U.S. government is now in the business of distributing foreign aid to offshore financiers, laundered through a once-great American company.

The politicians also prefer to talk about AIG's latest bonus payments because they deflect attention from Washington's failure to supervise AIG. The Beltway crowd has been selling the story that AIG failed because it operated in a shadowy unregulated world and cleverly exploited gaps among Washington overseers. Said President Obama yesterday, "This is a corporation that finds itself in financial distress due to recklessness and greed." That's true, but Washington doesn't want you to know that various arms of government approved, enabled and encouraged AIG's disastrous bet on the U.S. housing market...

Barack's Bailout Bamboozle

As described yesterday, the public is waking up to just how badly organized was Barack's bailout bamboozle. And the ringing of that alarm continues today from rather unexpected quarters. For instance, here's Michael D. Shear and Paul Kane in the Washington Post:

President Obama's apparent inability to block executive bonuses at insurance giant AIG has dealt a sharp blow to his young administration and is threatening to derail both public and congressional support for his ambitious political agenda.

Politicians in both parties flocked to express outrage over $165 million in bonuses paid out to executives at the company, demanding answers from the president and swamping yesterday's rollout of his efforts to spark lending to small businesses.

The populist anger at the executives who ran their firms into the ground is increasingly blowing back on Obama, whom aides yesterday described as having little recourse in the face of legal contracts that guaranteed those bonuses.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, peppered with questions about why the president had not done more to block the bonuses at a company that has received $170 billion in taxpayer funds, struggled for an answer yesterday afternoon...

The Obama administration was already facing a skeptical public and members of Congress critical of the huge sums of money the government has allocated to shoring up the devastated financial system.

News of the latest AIG bonuses only compounded the political problems that the huge expenditures pose for the president. The administration has tried to manage the public anger by expressing empathy with the outrage over the large outlays to financial firms, while explaining that they are necessary to stabilize the economy.

Earlier this month, the administration added to the bailout money needed to keep AIG functioning, saying failure of the company would be disastrous for the larger economy. And the administration is all but certain to return to Congress for hundreds of billions of dollars more to aid the financial system.

But the bonus issue, in particular, is hounding Obama as he pursues his larger goals, in part because of the president's own repeated declarations of outrage -- offered again yesterday -- aimed especially at the firms that are feeding at the public trough...

But reports about the latest AIG bonuses quickly undermined whatever political capital Obama has earned with his past efforts.

Over the weekend, White House officials expressed outrage at the bonuses paid out by AIG but said there was nothing they could do to stop them. After news of the bonuses dominated news coverage for two days, the administration took a newly aggressive stance.

Asked why the administration is attempting to claw back the bonuses now but did not do more to block the payments earlier this month when it was authorizing the latest $30 billion in new loans to the struggling insurer, Gibbs was unresponsive...

Today's Posts

Today's blog posts are a bit late but that will happen every Monday because the earliest part of the day finds us sidewalk counseling at the Bellevue abortion mill. We know you'll be patient so, thank you.

"The Faithful Go To Church, The Rest Go To Therapy"

Well, That Wasn't Much of a Honeymoon, Was It?

President Obama: Deep Thinker, Gifted Orator or Just a Bubblehead with a TelePrompter?

"If You Go Back to the Studio, We’ll Break Your Legs."

The Audacity of Hype: It's More Dangerous Than You Think

Kathleen Parker: One of the New Breed of Kinda' Conservatives

"The Faithful Go To Church, The Rest Go To Therapy"

Filmmaker Michael McGruther takes an insightful look into Hollywood's hatred of Christianity in this Big Hollywood post. It's a very good essay.

At the very heart of the Christian way of life is the belief that we individual Christians, no matter what our faith, can best effect society with gentle nudges towards God by living a Christ-like life the best we possibly can, while recognizing at the same time that there has in fact only ever been one real Christian to walk the Earth - Jesus. We’re not capable of that kind of perfection. We know this. We are merely asked to try.

Secularists don’t know that simple fact about faith and feel threatened by their own ignorance, which quickly spirals into enmity as a defense against what they deeply fear is the truth. After all, Pride is what made the Devil. And the Devil’s main goal is your total separation from any kind of relationship with God, which can easily be described as anxiety, loneliness, fear, panic attacks, suicide…anything to get you away from sincerely trying to follow God. In other words, people of faith go to church while secularists go to therapy...

Secularists throw their hands up and give in to “humanity” instantly, under the guise that urges and desires must be completely natural (which they are) and are therefore just fine to enjoy with wild abandon (which they are not). They do not understand that resisting is the real road to that spiritual Utopia we’re always striving for.

We Christians know all to well that we are human and that sin drives a wedge between us and God. No you’re not “going straight to hell” because you happen to sit in a hotel room with a steady diet of hookers and drugs between movie shoots. Although you may wind up in jail at the hands of your fellow Man, what that behavior will really do is gently and pleasurably separate you from knowing God.

By “separate” I mean you will slowly not be able to tolerate anyone you meet of faith (even if they’ve never bothered you) and you will soon find yourself shaking your fist at organized religion as the root of all evil. Your mind will become incapable of accepting that there is anything bigger than your own self and all the other “selfs” you socialize with. You will be, quite literally, out on a limb with no real friends and sooner or later you will realize that, either to your great horror or sinister joy. Welcome to free will...

The precise goal of a Devilish society is to get as many people away from God as possible through a steady diet of media distractions and stories and role models all meant to edify their Devilish position while tearing down ours. It’s completely harmless to us if others in society are not up for what Christianity asks of its faithful, but where we draw the line is the distorted representation of faithful people in our pop culture entertainment, a culture dominated by secularist ideals and themes.

Look, If you want to know where all the real sinners are, go to church. You’ll see them on their knees begging for forgiveness and admitting they cherished something else in their hearts over God. But if you want to know where the real Devils are, go to Hollywood where the path to hell is paved in gold.

Well, That Wasn't Much of a Honeymoon, Was It?

Michael Goodwin in the New York Daily News:

Not long ago, after a string of especially bad days for the Obama administration, a veteran Democratic pol approached me with a pained look on his face and asked, "Do you think they know what they're doing?"

The question caught me off guard because the man is a well-known Obama supporter. As we talked, I quickly realized his asking suggested his own considerable doubts.

Yes, it's early, but an eerily familiar feeling is spreading across party lines and seeping into the national conversation. It's a nagging doubt about the competency of the White House...

Polls show that most people like Obama, but they increasingly don't like his policies. The vast spending hikes and plans for more are provoking the most concern, with 82% telling a Gallup survey they are worried about the deficit and 69% worried about the rapid growth of government under Obama. Most expect their own taxes will go up as a result, despite the President's promises to the contrary.

None other than Warren Buffet, an Obama supporter, has called the administration's message on the economy "muddled." Even China says it is worried about its investments in American Treasury bonds. Ouch...

His promises and policies contradict each other often enough that evidence of hypocrisy is ceasing to be news. Remember the pledges about bipartisanship and high ethics? They're so last year.

The beat goes on. Last week, Obama brazenly gave a speech about earmark reform just after he quietly signed a $410 billion spending bill that had about 9,000 earmarks in it. He denounced Bush's habit of disregarding pieces of laws he didn't like, so-called signing statements, then issued one himself.

And in an absolute jaw-dropper, he told business leaders, "I don't like the idea of spending more government money, nor am I interested in expanding government's role."

No wonder Americans are confused. Our President is, too.

Bill Low in the Dallas/Ft.Worth Star-Telegram:

...In the big scheme of things, the mistakes made by President Barack Obama thus far are relatively minor, but they are forming a pattern that shows serious weakness. It is a weakness that may be interpreted by our friends and our enemies as indicative of a flaw they can use to their own advantage.

We know about the appointment exceptions made for lobbyists and tax dodgers that culminated with the withdrawal of Sen. Tom Daschle, who was both a lobbyist and a tax dodger.

When control over the drafting of the stimulus bill was surrendered to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, it was another indication of presidential weakness.

When he was out-foxed by the then-governor of Illinois, people were amazed that the leader of the free world was so easily manipulated by a discredited politician standing on the precipice of an indictment. American presidents are supposed to be strong and firm but Gov. Rod Blagojevich made him look weak.

Obama made an amateurish mistake with his handling of the budget and yet another with the letter he sent to the Russians.

He just signed a spending bill loaded with pork and almost 9,000 earmark projects that he pledged not to do.

All of these errors share a common thread.

It is painfully obvious that Obama is yielding to old-style political demands when the country is expecting real leadership.

First-term presidents never get too far away from their political tool kit, but as a candidate, Sen. Obama was uniquely successful with his pledge to eliminate "business as usual" if elected. He forged a special bond of trust with a huge number of voters who saw him as a genuine agent of "change we can believe in."

President Obama is now retreating from that pledge, and "business as usual" is seen as a serious weakness because of the voter backlash it will inevitably generate.

That backlash could ultimately render the Obama presidency impotent.

The predators of the world are already beginning to evaluate their options.

And, gasp -- even David Broder in the Washington Post:

...Meantime, on the main challenge -- the economy -- the criticism has begun to infect the mainstream media as well as the conservative wing. I was struck last week to read heartfelt pleas to Obama from my Post colleague David Ignatius and David Brooks of the New York Times to get his priorities straight and concentrate on the crucial task of rescuing banking, credit, housing and jobs.

These are people who deeply admire and respect Obama and wish him nothing but success. But, like some thoughtful congressional Democrats with whom I have spoken, they worry that he has bitten off more than he can chew.

Criticism of this kind is not an augury of failure. But it does signal that the honeymoon is over.

President Obama: Deep Thinker, Gifted Orator or Just a Bubblehead with a TelePrompter?

Bob Parks (photo at right) is a writer, blogger and the VP of Marketing and Media Relations for the New Media Alliance. In this brief piece in the Canada Free Press, Parks wonders about Barack Obama's eerie dependence on the TelePrompter.

Let’s be fair here.

If George W. Bush cancelled news conferences with foreign leaders because (of the appearance) he’d need a teleprompter guiding him through responses while the others didn’t, just what would the left be saying about him?

Remember Barack Obama’s primetime press conference where the punditry later complained his answers averaged 10-15 minutes each? Could it have been he was being fed pertinent mini speech segments?

With that, take a good listen (if you haven’t already) when he speaks without his security prompter. Progressives will excuse him, saying he’s being thoughtful, while some of us think he’s in search of a thought, period.

Uuuuh.

Speculation is that David Axelrod is the man behind the prompter, whether it be speeches or press conference crib notes, and if that’s the case it should make us all wonder what’s really happening upstairs in the president’s head. Is he really this deep thinker or is he just a bubblehead, doing what he’s told to do and say?

"If You Go Back to the Studio, We’ll Break Your Legs."

Ah yes. Islam -- that tolerant, sensitive religion of peace.

The Daily Mail (U.K.) reports here that a Christian minister who has had debates with Muslims on his TV gospel program was recently beaten by three men, robbed of his Bible and laptop, and threatened with further retaliations if he continue on television.

The Audacity of Hype: It's More Dangerous Than You Think

In his op/ed piece for the Detroit News, ("Obama Opens New Era of Recklessness"), Nolan Finley describes just how audacious, irresponsible and dangerous is the man at the helm.

The miraculous marketing machine that carried a junior senator into the White House is now at work trying to convince Americans that writing fat checks from an empty Treasury represents a giant step toward fiscal responsibility.

President Barack Obama has sent Congress a $3.6 trillion federal spending plan that outlines his administration's priorities.

It starts out $1.75 trillion in the red, the largest deficit by any measure in the nation's history. But because he's Barack Obama and everything he does must be chiseled in stone and handed down from the mountaintop, he's proclaimed this first budget as ringing in a "New Era of Responsibility."

Call it the Audacity of Hype...

Obama will spend less of the budget on defense than any president since Jimmy Carter, a dangerous choice in a world that is increasingly unsettled and where those hostile to America's interests remain unsubdued.

Overall, the Obama budget will make Americans more dependent on government, explode the federal deficit, risk further crippling of the economy and leave the nation more exposed to its enemies.

If this is what responsibility now looks like, then we have for sure entered a new era.

Kathleen Parker: One of the New Breed of Kinda' Conservatives

Not everyone who calls themselves "conservative" is one. In my book, not even those who've made the ranks of Town Hall columnists necessarily qualify. (For example, see the Vital Signs Posts warning about Kathleen Parker's and Burt Prelutsky's acceptance of abortion.)

Since then Parker has found time to insist Sarah Palin get off the G.O.P. ticket, bark at America's criminal penalties regarding marijuana, and snidely suggest that the Obama family values were healthier than those of Christians working to preserve marriage.

Wrote Parker,

You want Ward Cleaver? Meet Barack Obama. Michelle is June Cleaver with a law degree. Family values don't get more traditional than those of the Obamas, who ooze marital bliss and whose adorable daughters make feminist cynics want to bake cookies and learn to smock.

Though we may perish of boredom, the Obamas may do more to elevate the American family than all the pro-marriage initiatives conceived by those who claim to speak for the deity...

Well, Ms. Parker is at it again -- this time castigating Dittoheads who dare criticize the leftist bias of the mainstream media.

You might want to keep Kathleen Parker in mind the next time you get one of those Town Hall requests for financial support.

Today's Posts

The Discovery of Pluto

Don't Miss John Sununu's "The Politics of Global Warming"

President Obama: Backing the Wrong Horse in the Stem Cell Contest

Dr. Kevorkian Wannabe Receives Standing Ovation from (Who Else?) His Unitarian Church

Michael Steele Should Go

Another Judge Ignoring Religious Freedom, Common Sense and the Constitution

The Discovery of Pluto

On this day in 1930 Clyde W. Tombaugh announced the discovery of Pluto.

Go on; you've got a whole weekend to celebrate.

Don't Miss John Sununu's "The Politics of Global Warming"

Sure, it's a tad longer than most newspaper or internet articles, but John H. Sununu's superb analysis of "The Politics of Global Warming" (his address given at the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change) is one of the best-argued you'll find.

Check it out. Print it off. Make copies for your friends.

President Obama: Backing the Wrong Horse in the Stem Cell Contest

Nicholas Wade is all for President Obama's move on financing embryonic stem cell research. Nevertheless, by checking out a few facts, he ends up throwing a bit of cold water on the affair. It is an unusual example of balanced reporting to find in the New York Times. Here are some of Wade's observations:

...However, the president’s support of embryonic stem cell research comes at a time when many advances have been made with other sorts of stem cells. The Japanese biologist Shinya Yamanaka found in 2007 that adult cells could be reprogrammed to an embryonic state with surprising ease. This technology “may eventually eclipse the embryonic stem cell lines for therapeutic as well as diagnostics applications,” Dr. Kriegstein said. For researchers, reprogramming an adult cell can be much more convenient, and there have never been any restrictions on working with adult stem cells.

For therapy, far off as that is, treating patients with their own cells would avoid the problem of immune rejection.

Members of Congress and advocates for fighting diseases have long spoken of human embryonic stem cell research as if it were a sure avenue to quick cures for intractable afflictions. Scientists have not publicly objected to such high-flown hopes, which have helped fuel new sources of grant money like the $3 billion initiative in California for stem cell research.

In private, however, many researchers have projected much more modest goals for embryonic stem cells. Their chief interest is to derive embryonic stem cell lines from patients with specific diseases, and by tracking the cells in the test tube to develop basic knowledge about how the disease develops.

Despite an F.D.A.-approved safety test of embryonic stem cells in spinal cord injury that the Geron Corporation began in January, many scientists believe that putting stem-cell-derived tissues into patients lies a long way off. Embryonic stem cells have their drawbacks. They cause tumors, and the adult cells derived from them may be rejected by the patient’s immune system. Furthermore, whatever disease process caused the patients’ tissue cells to die is likely to kill introduced cells as well. All these problems may be solvable, but so far none have been solved...

Dr. Kevorkian Wannabe Receives Standing Ovation from (Who Else?) His Unitarian Church

And one argues that we haven't created a culture of death in America? Here from the Atlanta Journal Constitution:

Of the 200 applications for death, Dr. Lawrence Egbert approved them all.

As medical director and co-founder of the Georgia-based Final Exit Network, Egbert in the past four years approved the applications of people who wanted to die because they were diagnosed with terminal cancer.

He approved the applications of people who wanted to die because their bodies were wasting away with ALS or multiple sclerosis.

He approved the applications of people who had not been diagnosed as terminally ill but whose quality of life, in their mind, was no longer worth living...

Egbert said he doesn’t feel guilty for “hastening” the deaths of about 200 people.

“The only times I have felt guilty as a doctor is if my patient dies during anesthesia, when I was an anesthesiologist during surgeries,” he said.

Since his arrest in Baltimore and two days spent in jail, Egbert said he’s getting “nothing but applause” from colleagues at Johns Hopkins and the Unitarian Church in Baltimore he said he attends —- where, last Sunday, “I got the first standing ovation in the church’s history.”...

Michael Steele Should Go

I'm certainly not alone in my disappointment of the Republican National Committee and its new Chairman, Michael Steele.

* "I think it is very troubling for a public figure, of either party, particularly one who presents himself as pro-life, to describe the abortion issue as being a matter of 'individual choice,'" That is language straight out of Planned Parenthood's messaging playbook," said Charmaine Yoest, the president and CEO of Americans United for Life Action, who said she hadn't heard from the RNC. "There are millions of pro-life Americans, Republican and Democrat, who are looking for leadership on the life issue and they will find Mr. Steele's comments disturbing and demoralizing.

* Ed Morrissey ...However, the problem with Steele isn’t the GQ interview. It’s the fact that he can’t seem to make up his mind and stick with it. Steele seems to have environmentally-dependent political views. When he’s talking with DL Hughley, the Republican Convention looks like a Nazi rally. When he’s talking on TV, Rush Limbaugh is ugly and incendiary. When Steele talks with GQ, he’s pro-choice. And Steele reverses himself with amazing alacrity when speaking in entirely different environments. He appears to have no convictions and no principles when he makes these gyrations on the national stage, as though he stands for nothing but Michael Steele and access to the media spotlight.

I have seen the man speak with conviction and passion at conservative events and leave everyone mightily impressed, but now we have to wonder whether Steele just tailored the message for the audience, as he appears to have done with Hughley and GQ. I don’t necessarily buy that, as he has easier ways to get media air time than being in the Republican Party, but it’s hard not to ask the question these days.

One thing is certain: he’s a lot less media savvy than most of us thought. And since he doesn’t seem to have much skill in organization, we have to ask ourselves why we should support his continued tenure as RNC chair.

* Philip Klein over at American Spectator reminds us of previous Steele bumbling on the matter of abortion (especially a very revealing debate during the 2006 U.S. Senate race in Maryland where Steele "was all over the place on Roe" before finally admitting, "My desire is that we follow what stare decisis is at this point, yes.")

Klein then concludes, "The problem with Steele's defenders is that they like the idea of Steele -- i.e., the idea that Steele is going to reach out to moderates. But the reality of Steele is quite different. He is proving himself to be a shape shifter who is trying to please everybody, but in the end delivering a completely muddled message. Ultimately no pro-choice independent or Democrat is going to be more inclined to become a Republican as a result of that GQ interview, because Steele comes off like a bumbling clown who is trying to have it both ways. The mere fact that we have to have a whole debate over what he means demonstrates that he's doing a terrible job at communicating. And lest we forget, communication was supposed to be his strong suit."

Bobby Eberle agrees that Steele's GQ comments on abortion were wacky ("It sounds very much to me like Steele is trying to have it both ways... be a "pro-lifer" but not sound like one. Is it any wonder that some folks out there doubt his conservative credentials?") but he emphasizes quite another fumble Steele made in the interview.

...Even though the abortion comment is the one making news, there was another section of the interview that really grabbed my attention. The comments stemmed from the question, "Why do you think so few nonwhite Americans support the Republican Party right now?" Here is Steele's response:

'Cause we have offered them nothing! And the impression we've created is that we don't give a damn about them or we just outright don't like them. And that's not a healthy thing for a political party. I think the way we've talked about immigration, the way we've talked about some of the issues that are important to African-Americans, like affirmative action… I mean, you know, having an absolute holier-than-thou attitude about something that's important to a particular community doesn't engender confidence in your leadership by that community—or consideration of you for office or other things—because you've already given off the vibe that you don't care. What I'm trying to do now is to say we do give a damn.'

Ok, I don't even know where to begin. Just look at the first sentence. In order to succeed, is he saying that the Republican Party must be like the Democrats? All the Democrats do is break the country up into interest groups (women, minorities, unions, etc.), tell them they are oppressed, and offer to fix "their" problems. That is NOT the way of the Republican Party. We are the party of opportunity for all because our values apply to all.... Not one group over another group... but all Americans moving forward to the best of their abilities.

And then there is the statement: "I mean, you know, having an absolute holier-than-thou attitude about something that's important to a particular community doesn't engender confidence in your leadership by that community." I'm not sure if he's talking about the immigration issue or what, but the "holier-than-thou" comment is offensive to me. Standing up against illegal immigration is the right thing to do. If it offends people, then we need to do a better job of explaining the issue... not changing our beliefs so that we can attract a particular group. Come on! We either stand up for what we believe in, or we might as well join the Democrats.

Republicans win by sticking to their core beliefs. We win when we can articulate those beliefs and show how they benefit the entire country (not one group or another). We win with conservative government and a respect for the hard work put forward by all Americans. It's a simple formula, and we need that message to be delivered by our leader...

* And finally, here's the take on Michael Steele from Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (aka "Joe the Plumber"), “Unfortunately we have a chairman up there who wants to redefine conservatism; he wants to make it hip-hop, put it in a new package and sell it...You can’t sell principles. Either you have them or you don’t.”

Another Judge Ignoring Religious Freedom, Common Sense and the Constitution

A North Carolina judge believes that a mother's home schooling isn't sufficient and, despite the facts that the kids are bright, engaged, and have tested two years above their grade levels, he says they must go to government school to escape the limitations of a religious-based education.

This is, of course, preposterous. Pompous. And, by the way, unconstitutional.

But what does Ned Magnum care? He's a judge.

Today's Posts

"Just Promise Me You Won't Spend It On an Astronaut Costume"

What If the Stealth Candidate Had Told the Truth Before the Election?

Death Stalks the Highways: Drunks, Dopers and...Text Messengers?

James Carville: Hypocrisy's Poster Boy

Democrats Vote Against Quality Education (Yet Again)

What Got Us Into This Mess?

Are They Really That Stupid? Or Do They Just Think You Are?

"Just Promise Me You Won't Spend It On an Astronaut Costume"

Don't understand the philosophy behind the government's new bailouts? Here's a clever 30-second video that will break it down for you.

What If the Stealth Candidate Had Told the Truth Before the Election?

Victor Davis Hanson imagines what a Barack Obama campaign speech would have sounded like -- if Obama dared to tell the American people what he really was going to do when he got into the White House.

This is a dilly.

Death Stalks the Highways: Drunks, Dopers and...Text Messengers?

As you well know from having to dodge them on the roads, drivers who are preoccupied with everything but...well, driving...are making life ever more hazardous.

Indeed, the irresponsible dolts who endanger us all by mixing their driving with applying their makeup, reading a map, eating their lunch, or using their cell phone have increased in such a jeopardous degree that many states have begun legislation against them.

It couldn't come too soon.

However, as reckless as the above activities are (often as bad as driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs), there is a new danger that is rapidly drawing the attention of police and safety groups. That is the remarkably stupid practice of typing out text messages while driving. Estimates now suggest that a staggering 20% of all drivers are sending or receiving text messages while behind the wheel. And when zoomed in on younger drivers (18-24) that percentage soars to nearly 70%.

These figures add up to something quite terrifying -- death on the highways.

In one infamous example from New York last year, five young women, fresh from their high school graduations, were killed when their vehicle collided with a tractor-trailer. Police discovered the teenage driver had been texting moments before the crash.

And just a few days ago, a Utah man who had killed two men while trying to drive and text message at the same time was sentenced. But because Utah hasn't yet passed effective laws regarding this extreme danger, the perpetrator got off with a measly 30 days in jail and some community service. And this even though prosecutors had obtained cell phone records that showed the killer not only was texting from the time he left his home until the time of the crash, he continued to text message while being questioned about the crash by the police!

Legislators must take note. Government's first responsibility is to protect its citizens. And increasingly, the public needs protection from the perilous behavior of irresponsible, preoccupied and deadly drivers.

James Carville: Hypocrisy's Poster Boy

Democrat pundit, strategist and muckraker James Carville is making quite a big deal about Rush Limbaugh's hope that President Obama fails. But, of course, Carville doesn't fairly describe what specifically it is about Obama's socialist program that Limbaugh opposes. And now, it turns out, neither does Carville bring up that he himself is on record as hoping that President George W. Bush would fail.

Democrats Vote Against Quality Education (Yet Again)

Jonathan Tobin, over at Commentary asks "Will Someone Ask Obama About Voucher Kids?"

There are many disgraceful aspects to the $410 billion 0mnibus spending bill that is working its way to passage in Congress. But amid the many porky earmarks and boondoggles that are part of this travesty there is one provision worth singling out: the killing of the experimental school choice program that was giving 1,700 D.C. children a chance to get out of their failed public school system and attend a quality private or religious school. The Senate vote on Tuesday ensured that the program will be effectively killed after the 2009-10 fiscal year.

This was hardly a surprise, given that killing any plan that would give families vouchers to attend the school of their choice was a priority for the Democrats. President Obama has been a consistent opponent of school choice.

The arguments that choice would hurt public schools are a joke. Forcing failed public school systems to compete can only make them better. As for the loss of funds, Washington, D.C., like some other urban areas, already spends far more per student than other districts that give kids a better education. Other attempts to smear choice, such as claiming it will fund Farrakhan’s schools, are red herrings. State education standards about curricula can deal with that problem. The notion that such plans will undermine the separation of church and state is a canard. Public education means educating the public not slavishly supporting a government-run monopoly on education.Wherever voucher plans have been tried, the demand for them has been overwhelming as parents desperately try to give their children a better education than the one provided by the often terrible public schools in the area.

The hypocrisy of liberal Democrats, who claim to be acting on behalf of the poor and the underprivileged, spiking efforts that throw a lifeline to inner-city kids is appalling. But Obama’s hypocrisy is even more special. This happens to be a man who is sending his own two adorable children to a private school, not the awful D.C. public schools that he is trying to “protect” from voucher advocates. In fact, the Sidwell Friends School that his daughters attend has a number of recipients of the D.C. voucher plan. Though Obama says he wants the kids who are currently in the program not to be chucked out, he doesn’t want any voucher children to be there in the future. He wants to deny other kids whose parents are not as wealthy as Sasha and Malia’s parents the same chance for a decent education.

What does this say about the values of this man? Does Obama, and the many liberal religious groups (and I’m speaking specifically about liberal Jewish groups who have been in the forefront of opposition to school choice), not think that the inner-city minority children who benefit from vouchers are worthy of a chance for a decent future? Are they not created in the image of God, as are their own children? I know I’m not the first person to say this, but what I would like to see is a reporter put this question directly to President Obama at his next press conference...

What Got Us Into This Mess?

If you want to read a very short book on how we got into the financial crisis, I don't think you could do better than John B. Taylor's Getting Off Track: How Government Actions and Interventions Caused, Prolonged, and Worsened the Financial Crisis. Taylor argues persuasively that the Federal Reserve kept interest rates too low for too long in 2002-05 and that "government programs designed to promote home ownership, a worthwhile goal but overdone in retrospect," together with the credit that was plentiful because of unduly low interest rates created the housing bubble.

"The rapidly rising housing prices and the resulting low delinquency rates likely threw the underwriting programs off track and misled many people." The ratings agencies also bear some responsibility for creating the toxic assets that clog the banks and other financial institutions. "The ratings agencies underestimated the risk of these [mortgage-backed] securities because of a lack of competition, poor accountability, or, most likely, an inherent difficulty in assessing risk due to complexity." He also mentions, rather fleetingly, the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in flooding the marketplace with mortgage-backed securities...

Taylor's book is a useful antidote to the mantra, spread by some Democrats including Barack Obama, that the crisis is the proximate result of Reagan- and Bush-style deregulation or the Bush tax cuts and other macroeconomic policies. When you get past this rhetoric, it is very hard to find a plausible chain of causation from either deregulation or the Bush tax cuts to the financial crisis. I think Taylor is clearly right that "government policies caused, prolonged and worsened the crisis"—but the governmental policies he identifies, not deregulation or the Bush tax cuts. As Treasury and the Federal Reserve struggle to come up with ways to solve the financial crisis, it's important for those of us who are bystanders to establish the correct narrative, and Taylor's short book is an invaluable asset in this enterprise.

(Michael Barone, "Ad Hoc Fed, Treasury Acts Caused the Financial Crisis, Not Deregulation, Tax Cuts" in U.S. News & World Report, Thomas Jefferson Street blog)

Are They Really That Stupid? Or Do They Just Think You Are?

Bill Clinton is, according to CNN's "science stooge" Dr. Sanjay Gupta, a man who has studied the issue of stem cells. No kidding? Then why does Clinton go on to repeatedly talk of the acceptable morality of experimenting on human embryos -- as long as they're not fertilized!

Huh?

That's right; our former President's study of the issues somehow failed to uncover Fact One of the matter. By definition, an embryo is what happens when a female egg has been fertilized! You can't get more basic than that. So, how can you interpret Clinton's performance as anything besides either 1) bizarre ignorance or 2) the most outrageous gobbledygook deliberately designed to deceive CNN's gullible viewers?

Considering that Gupta (Obama's first choice for Surgeon General, remember?) never once corrected Bill's bonehead assertions, it is hard not to conclude the latter.

Here's Jill Stanek's post on the new comedy team of Bill and Sanjay, complete with video clip and relevant transcript. And from this page, you can contact Dr. Gupta and tell him what you think of his unprincipled, unscientific performance.

Today's Posts

Heed the Writing on the Wall (Or How To Fit Belshazzar’s Wall, Winston Churchill, and Francis Schaeffer Into One Brief, But Provocative Essay)

You Just Can't Find Good Help Nowadays: Freeman Finally Withdraws.

Fight Back Against Bad Science. Fight Back Against Obama's ESCR Policies.

Nebraskans Respond to Obama's Renewal of ESCR Funding

Reagan, Religion and the Cold War

Another MSM Chief Expresses Worry About Obama's Performance

Et Tu, Camille? Renowned Liberal Excoriates Obama Administration. (But, Of Course, It's the Staff's Fault.)

Heed the Writing on the Wall (Or How To Fit Belshazzar’s Wall, Winston Churchill, and Francis Schaeffer Into One Brief, But Provocative Essay)

The painting is Rembrandt's.

The essay is Ranald Macaulay's.

Both are excellent.

You Just Can't Find Good Help Nowadays: Freeman Finally Withdraws.

With his connections to anti-American regimes (Islamic and Communist) and his extreme views, Charles Freeman was an inexplicably horrible, dangerous pick for the National Intelligence Council.

Yet Barack Obama, most Democrats and their lackeys in the MSM refused to even criticize Freeman, let alone move to get his nomination dropped.

But as more and more came out about his past -- and more and more heat was generated by Republicans and even a few Dems like Chuck Schumer of New York -- somebody finally got the message and "persuaded" Freeman to get off the stage.

Chalk up yet another bonehead choice by Team Obama.

But, not surprisingly, Freeman had to shove his foot in his mouth one more time before he went, blaming his withdrawal on the friends of Israel.

“The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth.”

So far, no statement from the President.

For a bit more on Freeman, check out this Jennifer Rubin post.