Today, Bloomberg published an article with a rather conspicuous headline: “Dollar Reaches Breaking Point as Banks Shift Reserves”. In it, the authors explain how rapidly central banks and international traders have turned against the greenback:

Central banks flush with record reserves are increasingly snubbing dollars in favor of euros and yen, further pressuring the greenback after its biggest two- quarter rout in almost two decades.

Policy makers boosted foreign currency holdings by $413 billion last quarter, the most since at least 2003, to $7.3 trillion, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Nations reporting currency breakdowns put 63 percent of the new cash into euros and yen in April, May and June, the latest Barclays Capital data show. That’s the highest percentage in any quarter with more than an $80 billion increase.

World leaders are acting on threats to dump the dollar while the Obama administration shows a willingness to tolerate a weaker currency in an effort to boost exports and the economy as long as it doesn’t drive away the nation’s creditors. The diversification signals that the currency won’t rebound anytime soon after losing 10.3 percent on a trade-weighted basis the past six months, the biggest drop since 1991.

…Intercontinental Exchange Inc.’s Dollar Index, which tracks the currency’s performance against the euro, yen, pound, Canadian dollar, Swiss franc and Swedish krona, fell to 75.77 last week, the lowest level since August 2008 and down from the high this year of 89.624 on March 4. The index, at 76.104 today, is within six points of its record low reached in March 2008.

This issue has serious implications for the nation, as a weak dollar leads to higher oil prices, which in turn impede the forces of economic recovery. One cannot help but surmise that this bit of economic reality has played into the decision of the Obama administration to embrace a weak dollar policy for the time being (pricier oil leads to increased demand for the administration’s beloved alternative energies). Sadly, part of the blame for the dollar’s miserable situation lies with former President Bush (who hardly ever showed a propensity for a strong dollar policy), as the dollar’s value declined nearly 50 percent throughout his two terms. Also sadly, few prominent Republicans, with the exception of Gov. Palin (I apologize if I have forgotten any), have recently voiced concerns with the plight of the greenback. With this in mind, I would like to ask our Romney supporters if Mitt has made any recent public statements on the dollar. During his campaign, did the Governor advocate a strong dollar policy? And if so, can you provide specific policy recommendations or proposals he offered? I honestly claim ignorance on his performance in this area, so I feel curious.

Whereas Rasmussen has pegged Obama’s approval rating as more or less hovering in the 48-52 range for the past two months, Gallup has given the President a six-point jump in the past week, from 50 to 56. I know that the two companies poll different groups of people (likely voters for Rasmussen and registered voters for Gallup, if I’m not mistaken) and that Rasmussen weights their results to party identification, but what’s the deal? Does the Gallup bounce simply represent an outlier, or do their methods account for the wide discrepancy?

Stimulus boondoggle aside, it appears that the neophyte politician ended up becoming the boy prince that we were so doggedly trying, during the 2008 campaign season, to convince the nation that he’d become. Barack Obama’s inexperience has caught up with him — fast. His approval ratings have already plummeted to the 50% range — so much for uniting the nation — and despite the fact that the Democrats control both chambers of Congress with commanding majorities, the combined power of the executive and legislative branches have been able to produce approximately nothing.

The president has been overly critical toward Israel (I have argued elsewhere that he has outright abandoned the Jewish state) but those are just words. He has pledged to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center, but it doesn’t look like that’s actually going to happen. He tried to impose a government-run health care scheme on us, but that fell through. He has not tried to take away anyone’s guns. He’s been totally silent on social and religious issues. Direct talks with Iran? Not yet, anyway. Cap-and-trade? Dead on arrival. Tax increases? Nope.

Surely words matter, but they are also ephemeral. When Obama exits, so will his words. As long as a tangible trail is not left behind him, then all will be well. We can deal with words. We’ve dealt with far worse before and made it out alive.

Thus far, it’s been a scary ride, but hindsight so far should grant us fantastic relief. Without even doing much of anything, Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress have allowed their power over the nation’s political consciousness to implode. Half of the Democrats in the Senate, from Harry Reid to Chris Dodd to Blanche Lincoln, are now highly vulnerable, the president’s political capital is weakening evermore by the day, and grassroots conservatives are again focused on size-of-government issues. Have we ever witnessed such political incompetence before? Have we ever seen such an awful misreading of what the nation’s mood is?

So as a member of the Republican Party, I say: this is great news, except for one thing: everyone hates us, too.

CBS News Survey on Afghanistan

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the situation with Afghanistan?

• Approve 42% (44%) [48%]
• Disapprove 34% (35%) [30%]

Among Republicans

• Approve 20% (32%) [31%]
• Disapprove 58% (45%) [47%]

Among Democrats

• Approve 54% (58%) [64%]
• Disapprove 16% (26%) [17%]

Among Independents

• Approve 44% (38%) [43%]
• Disapprove 36% (38%) [31%]

Do you think the U.S. is doing the right thing by fighting the war in Afghanistan now, or should the U.S. not be involved in Afghanistan now?

• Right thing 51% (47%)
• Not involved 39% (42%)

Among Republicans

• Right thing 76% (67%)
• Not involved 21% (25%)

Among Democrats

• Right thing 37% (36%)
• Not involved 49% (55%)

Among Independents

• Right thing 47% (45%)
• Not involved 41% (41%)

From what you have seen or heard about the situation in Afghanistan, what should the United States do now–should the U.S. increase the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, keep the same number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan as there are now, or decrease the numbers of troops in Afghanistan?

• Increase 37% (29%) [25%]
• Keep the same 17% (27%) [23%]
• Decrease 38% (32%) [41%]

Among Republicans

• Increase 57% (42%)
• Keep the same 20% (29%)
• Decrease 16% (17%)

Among Democrats

• Increase 27% (23%)
• Keep the same 15% (28%)
• Decrease 52% (42%)

Among Independents

• Increase 34% (27%)
• Keep the same 16% (25%)
• Decrease 39% (31%)

Survey of 829 adults was conducted October 5-8. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 45% Independent; 33% Democrat; 22% Republican. Results from the poll conducted September 19-23 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted August 27-31 are in brackets.

Mason-Dixon Virginia Gubernatorial Survey

• Bob McDonnell 48%
• Creigh Deeds 40%
• Undecided 12%

Among Independents

• Bob McDonnell 47%
• Creigh Deeds 33%
• Undecided 20%

Among Men

• Bob McDonnell 56%
• Creigh Deeds 35%
• Undecided 9%

Among Women

• Creigh Deeds 45%
• Bob McDonnell 40%
• Undecided 15%

Age: 18-34

• Creigh Deeds 46%
• Bob McDonnell 42%
• Undecided 12%

Age: 65+

• Bob McDonnell 56%
• Creigh Deeds 36%
• Undecided 8%

Survey of 625 likely voters was conducted October 6-8. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points.

Sure enough, Huckabee and Kasich are teaming up for a live webcast on October 13th. It looks like Kasich thinks Huckabee’s good name is worth something in Ohio. Here are the details from Kasich’s website:

On Tuesday, October 13 at 12:15pm EST, please join Ohio Gubernatorial candidate John Kasich, former Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, and a live studio audience of young Ohioans for an interactive webcast. In an effort to reverse the brain drain that is crippling Ohio’s competitiveness, Tuesday’s conversation will center on the imperatives of creating jobs and revitalizing Ohio’s anemic economy.

The forum, “Opportunity Ohio: Bringing a New Day to the Future of Ohio’s Youth,” will focus on keeping young people engaged, educated and employed in Ohio. In a live webcast from The Ohio State University, Kasich and Huckabee will entertain questions from both the studio audience and from Twitter and FaceBook users about the importance of restoring economic opportunity to all young Ohioans.

HOW TO JOIN THE WEBCAST

Neighborhood Research (R) New Jersey Gubernatorial Survey

• Chris Christie 36% (37%) [37%]
• Jon Corzine 35% (33%) [35%]
• Chris Daggett 11% (8%) [6%]
• Undecided 18% (22%) [22%]

Among “Definite” Voters

• Chris Christie 36% (40%) [39%]
• Jon Corzine 36% (33%) [36%]
• Chris Daggett 11% (7%) [6%]
• Undecided 17% (20%) [19%]

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Chris Daggett 17% (8%) [3%] / 4% (1%) [1%] {+13%}
• Chris Christie 28% (28%) [19%] / 31% (26%) [26%] {-3%}
• Jon Corzine 28% (21%) [21%] / 46% (48%) [46%] {-18%}

Survey of 300 “very likely” or “definite” voters was conducted October 6-8. The margin of error is +/- 5.7 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 42% (44%) Democrat; 35% (31%) Republican. Results from the poll conducted September 14-17 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted August 12-21 are in brackets.

Stop the presses – this could be one of the bigger stories of the 2009 campaign.

Yesterday, Newark’s Star-Ledger (New Jersey’s most widely circulated paper) made it’s endorsement in the upcoming gubrernatorial race. They didn’t go with Jon Corzine, nor did they back Republican challenger Chris Christie. Instead, the editorial board swung their support to an independent for the first time in the history of the publication

I’ve written on Daggett here before – but I think this development justifies repeating myself: it is time to stop viewing Daggett as a spoiler.

Yes, Daggett is lagging in a distant third, but he’s been gaining ground quickly and now polls consistently around 15% of the vote. That’s a jump of almost ten points in the past month - and this endorsement will give him another kick. In fact, I think this could be the tipping point in the whole race.

If you doubt that an endorsement from the “dinosaur media” will be much help to Daggett, consider the case of Creigh Deeds. Deeds was the worst-funded and least known candidate in Virginia’s Democratic gubernatorial primary, and was a distant third in the polls a month before the election. Of course, after he got the nod from The Washington Post, he took off like a rocket and won the nomination in a rout. One newspaper sent Deeds from worst to first, and don’t think they can’t do it for Daggett.

Now, The Star-Ledger is no Washington Post, and we’re talking here about an indy in general election rather than a long-shot in a primary – but I think the principle may hold. At the very least, this endorsement offers a sort of permission to other potential endorsers and voters who like Daggett but didn’t want to look stupid.

Considering that neither Christie nor Corzine are widely viewed as good (let alone competent) candidates, I would put good money on the Daggett campaign’s primary strategic assumption – which is that large numbers of New Jersey voters are fed up and ready to go independent, and will abandon the major candidates once Daggett proves that he can win rather than spoil.

Daggett talks a lot about tipping points, snowball efforts, and only needing 34% to win a tight race. I think he is right – and I will add that I think this “tipping point” he speaks of is somewhere around 20% in the polls (which I think he could get with the Star-Ledger on his side). Those first 20 points are going to be the hardest – but once you hit a certain point your support stops growing in a linear fashion and starts to exponentiate.

Am I willing to endorse this guy? Heck no. He bothers me on environmental issues and his advertising is done by a firm whose previous claims to fame include Jesse Ventura, Ned Lamont, and Alan Grayson. That said, I am starting to wonder why I am the only person sounding alarm bells.

And considering how the campaign has been handled - I doubt I will shed a tear for Christie if Chris Daggett becomes New Jersey’s next governor.

Mason-Dixon/Las Vegas Review-Journal Nevada Political Survey

If the 2010 Republican primary election for Nevada’s U.S. Senate seat were held today for whom would you vote if the candidates were:

• Sue Lowden 23% [14%]
• Danny Tarkanian 21% [33%]
• Sharron Angle 9% [5%]
• Undecided 44% [47%]

If the 2010 election for Nevada’s U.S. Senate seat were held today, for whom would you vote if the choice were between Harry Reid, the Democrat and Sue Lowden, the Republican?

• Sue Lowden 49% [45%]
• Harry Reid 39% [40%]
• Undecided 12% [15%]

If the 2010 election for Nevada’s U.S. Senate seat were held today, for whom would you vote if the choice were between Harry Reid, the Democrat and Danny Tarkanian, the Republican?

• Danny Tarkanian 48% [49%]
• Harry Reid 43% [38%]
• Undecided 11% [13%]

If the 2010 Republican primary election for Governor were held today for whom would you vote if the candidates were:

• Brian Sandoval 41%
• Jim Gibbons 20%
• Undecided 35%

If the 2010 election for Governor were held today, for whom would you vote if the choice were between Rory Reid, the Democrat and Brian Sandoval, the Republican?

• Brian Sandoval 50%
• Rory Reid 33%
• Undecided 17%

If the 2010 election for Governor were held today, for whom would you vote if the choice were between Rory Reid, the Democrat and Jim Gibbons, the Republican?

• Rory Reid 49%
• Jim Gibbons 37%
• Undecided 14%

If the 2010 election for Governor were held today, for whom would you vote if the choice were between Rory Reid, the Democrat, Brian Sandoval, the Republican, and Oscar Goodman, an Independent?

• Brian Sandoval 33%
• Oscar Goodman 33%
• Rory Reid 25%
• Undecided 9%

If the 2010 election for Governor were held today, for whom would you vote if the choice were between Rory Reid, the Democrat, Jim Gibbons, the Republican, and Oscar Goodman, an Independent?

• Oscar Goodman 36%
• Rory Reid 27%
• Jim Gibbons 24%
• Undecided 13%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Oscar Goodman 49% / 9% {+40%}
• Brian Sandoval 38% / 7% {+31%}
• Danny Tarkanian 30% / 11% {+19%}
• Sue Lowden 31% / 15% {+16%}
• Barack Obama 46% [44%] (49%) / 43% [43%] (32%) {+3%}
• Harry Reid 38% [37%] (34%) / 50% [50%] (46%) {-12%}
• John Ensign 23% [30%] (39%) / 43% [37%] (37%) {-20%}
• Jim Gibbons 14% [15%] (10%) / 51% [54%] (57%) {-37%}

If John Ensign were to resign from the U.S. Senate, which one of the following Republicans would you like Governor Jim Gibbons to appoint to fill the vacant seat?

• Dean Heller 24%
• Brian Sandoval 17%
• Danny Tarkanian 17%
• Sue Lowden 14%
• Jim Gibbons 4%

If the 2012 election for Nevada’s U.S. Senate seat were held today, would you vote to re-elect incumbent John Ensign, would you consider voting for a challenger, or would you definitely vote to replace Ensign?

• Re-elect Ensign 22% [30%] {28%} (31%)
• Consider a challenger 22% [23%] {30%} (31%)
• Definitely replace 44% [37%] {31%} (28%)

(more…)

On Saturday, October 10th, Mike Huckabee endorsed John Kasich for Ohio Governor. He issued the following statement on his Huck PAC website:

I am pleased to endorse my good friend John Kasich for Governor of Ohio. John is a lifelong conservative who believes and has fought for lower taxes, more efficient and effective government, transformation of education, and ending the influence of special interests.

John served nine terms in the United States House of Representatives, before retiring from the House in order to pursue new challenges and experiences outside of Washington. John is a strong advocate of personal responsibility and while he served in Congress he played major leadership roles on a variety of issues. While a member of Congress, John repeatedly argued that government shouldn’t live beyond its means. As Chairman of the House Budget Committee, John worked to build the plan that balanced the federal budget for the first time since the late 1960’s.

John Kasich worked hard to achieve fiscal responsibility while he was in Washington, but he didn’t stop there. He also chaired the historic congressional conference committee that overhauled the welfare system. He built on his commitment to limited government and championed defense reform and worked hard to eliminate wasteful government spending by effectively building coalitions with members of both sides of the aisle.

John Kasich will provide exactly the kind of conservative leadership the people of Ohio need. I urge all of you to support John in his campaign for Governor of Ohio.

I would not be surprised to see Huckabee make a visit to that state in the coming months as he has done for some of the other Republican candidates he has endorsed.

(Hat Tip: Jill Stanek.)

The most recent e-mail sent out by Michael Steele claimed that by noting that Hamas and some Republicans had similar reactions to President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize win, the Democratic National Committee was “calling Republicans terrorists.” For those of you who never passed high school English, the point of the analogy was not to say that Republicans were terrorists, but to compare the reactions of two different groups. The analogy was quite offensive as it was, really; there was no need to make anything up about it. (Actually, I was more relieved to see that there are those on the left willing to unequivocally state that Hamas is a terrorist organization.) This is, unfortunately, not some bizarre anomaly in the Steele canon; the man is one notch above Joe Biden in his propensity for gaffes.

Because of the torrent of health care-related news, it generally went unreported that Steele heaped praise upon Bertha Lewis, the head of ACORN, in a recent speech, claiming that she was doing all that she could do get rid of the “bad apples” in the organization. He also responded to criticism by Congressional staffers regarding his RNC-generated “Health Care Bill of Rights” policy prescription, which praised the merits of the broken Medicare system, by saying that they must have a “bug up their you-know-what.” Yeah, that’s it!

Bear in mind, now, that these recent gaffes are sequels to statements that Olympia Snowe should be primaried, Bobby Jindal merits “slum love,” civil unions are “crazy,” Republicans need to get into “hip-hop settings” — and that all of these gaffes are part of a “strategy.”

Despite all of this, however, I don’t regret Mr. Steele’s win. The alternative to Michael Steele was Katon Dawson, a fairly repugnant good-old-boy who was a member of a whites-only country club. But in hindsight, it’s rapidly beginning to look like it was a horrifying set of options similar to the current alternative of Iran-gets-bomb/Iran-gets-bombed. While the party’s fundraising has been steady under his tenure, Steele qua spokesman has been a fairly consistent embarrassment. In the glorious tradition of George W. Bush and Sarah Palin, watching a Steele interview leaves the viewer in a total state of nervousness.

Michael Steele’s novelty is his main appeal. He’s a manchild in many ways, seeming perpetually out of place in the world of business and politics. Both his race and demeanor take people aback — often in an initially positive way — but in February 2009, his record as an administrator was all but a blank slate: in a position dedicated to fundraising, party unity, and competent messaging, would he be able to innovate and create much-needed change? Contrary to my expectations, it doesn’t look like he’s doing it.

Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com

Barack Obama has become the second President to win the coveted Nobel Peace Prize.  The standards for accomplishment sure have changed.  Here’s what it took his predescesor, Teddy Roosevelt, to win the same award.  When the Russo-Japanese War started, in 1904, Japan was a rapidly modernizing island trying to gain a foothold on the Asian continent.  A French-German-Russian alliance had foiled their first serious attempts, a decade earlier, after the Sino-Japanese War.  But, in the intervening years, she had won new friends, most notably Great Britain, while discarding old enemies (Germany).  Russia was a slowly toppling Goliath, burdened by an agitated peasant class and weak autocratic leadership.

After the Russians balked at withdrawing their influence from Manchuria and Korea, the stage was set for an epic battle- the first in centuries- between the east and the West.  But, epic was exactly what it wasn’t.  From the Battle of Port Arthur onward, the Japanese dominated sea and land, so much so that by 1905 there was a real possibility that Japan could break into Siberia.

Enter Teddy Roosevelt.  Unlike many of his European contemporaries, Roosevelt wasn’t menaced by the thought of “The Yellow Peril”.  Indeed, Teddy admired the Japanese and thought that, of the two, Russia’s autocracy posed greater dangers to American interests (Pringle 266-267).  This sentiment made him a natural Japanese choice as an arbiter when peace negotiations got underway.

Still, Roosevelt was no fool.  He understood the need for a balance of power in the East and he was afraid that a hugely victorious Japan would feel encouraged to push through all of Manchuria on the way to further imperial goals.  Though Japan was generally eager for peace and wanted to consolidate her gains, this possibility was not out of the question in 1905.

So he inserted himself into the fray, scheduling a “peace conference” in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.  The conference itself was in bad shape from the start.  Russia, contending with domestic troubles, couldn’t afford to cave to a “loser’s peace”.  Unfortunately, this was exactly what Japan demanded.  In addition to recognition of rights in Korea, she argued for payment of a massive indemnity and the surrender of the Sakhalin Island.  Russia was intractable on the first point and cagey on the second.

During the negotiations Roosevelt was a marvel of ingenuity, firmness and, yes, energy.  Of the late negotiations, Edmund Morris wrote:

Roosevelt, by now had become a one man electrical storm of cables-St. Petersburg, Peking, Paris, London, and Tokyo (Morris 413).

His suggestions to resolve these dilemmas were interesting and inventive.  He proposed that Russia “buy back” the Northern part of the Sakhalin Island, which the Japanese now occupied and which couldn’t possibly be reconquered by Russia’s battered Navy.  This would act as a de-facto indemnity, while allowing the Russians to save face, and letting Japan keep the portion of the Sakhalin Island they historically had a right to.  When Russia declined this proposal, he moved to pressure the Japanese, who had a greater immediate interest in peace (the cost of the war was prohibitive relative to likely future gains).  He pointed out that, even without receiving an indemnity payment, Japan would be in better financial straits if they ended the war now.  To this he added a light threat, noting that “the civilized world” wouldn’t stand by quietly if Japan continued the war just to extort an indemnity from Russia (Pringle 268).

These manueverings had their effect and, by September an agreement had been reached along the broad lines Roosevelt had proposed: there would be no indemnity and Japan would only claim its historic portion of Sakhalin.  Of the result, Henry Adams said to Roosevelt “you have established a record as the best herder of Emperors since Napoleon”.  Indeed, he had.

And the treaty itself was not without wider implications. By getting the Japanese to give ground (and Roosevelt was astute enough to understand the Japanese had gotten the short end of the stick), he weakened some of the government’s prestige in the eyes of their public.  A truly imperial Japan was still 25 years off.  And while the Czarist regime suffered mightily with the peace, it might have collapsed entirely had they bought it on Japan’s terms.

It is not entirely inconceivable that, without Roosevelt’s intervention, a Russian Revolution would have occurred a decade earlier. But, even if it’s too much to say he forestalled imperial Japan, Communist Russia, and an earlier world conflict, he at least won a peace.  What peace has our latest nobel laureate won?  This is what happened in Portsmouth.  What happened in Denver?

-

Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com or at his Pawlentyesque blog

Michael Tanner, of the Cato Insitute, recently penned an op-ed for Investors.com, in which he challenged the reported budgetary implications of the Baucus Bill:

The $829 billion cost is for the next 10 years, 2010-2019, but the most expensive provisions of the bill don’t take effect until July of 2013. The cost over the bill’s first 10 years of actual operation is closer to $1.3 trillion.

In addition, the bill assumes that Congress will implement a 21% reduction in Medicare payments that is already scheduled under current law. The only problem is that Congress has been supposed to make those reductions since 2003 — and never has. There is no reason to believe it will do so this time either.

Most importantly, the bill does not achieve its deficit reduction by controlling spending or reducing health care costs. In fact, by the end of the 10-year budget window, the cost of the program is expected to be growing at 8% per year. But revenue from the bill’s new taxes would be growing between 10% and 15% per year.

In particular, the bill imposes a 40% excise tax on health insurance plans that offer benefits in excess of $8,000 for an individual plan and $21,000 for a family plan. Insurers would almost certainly pass this tax on to consumers via higher premiums.

As inflation pushed insurance premiums higher in coming years, more and more middle-class families would find themselves caught up in the tax — providing the government with more revenue.

The overall tax increases in the bill are more than double the amount of deficit reduction. This isn’t a health care efficiency bill or a cost-containment bill. It is a tax-and-spend bill, pure and simple.

And, when not raising taxes, the bill simply pushes costs on to others. For example, the bill would push $35 billion in Medicaid costs off onto already cash-strapped state governments. Other costs would be offloaded onto businesses and individuals.

Tanner’s remarks echo those recently made by our own Alex Knepper. Perhaps the most glaring shortcoming of the Baucus Bill involves its failure to address costs, the area of health care with the greatest need for reform.

Not surprisingly, Iran has snapped back at Israel for statements made by former Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh:

Iran’s ambassador to the UN, Mohammad Khazaee, sent a letter of protest to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moonin which he wrote that “there is no explanation for Israel’s continuing threats against Tehran”.

He was referring to an interview given by former Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh to the Sunday Times in which he said that if Iran were not further sanctioned by this Christmas Israel would attack the country.

Sneh told the paper that if Israel were forced to attack the Islamic Republic on its own it would do so, remarks the Iranian ambassador deemed “irresponsible”.

He said he hoped the UN would take steps against such comments. “Remarks such as these, stated once in a while by Israeli leaders, are no more than sorry excuses aimed at avoiding supplying answers regarding Israel’s nuclear arsenal and deflecting public awareness from the crimes and terror Israel commits in the region,” he said.

Perhaps someone with greater knowledge of the Israel-Iran issue can provide some insight. In my point of view, with research showing that sanctions often hurt the people of the receiving country more than the government, such measures do not appear prudent, as they would burden Iranian citizens, who have demonstrated an inspiring thirst for democracy and freedom.

Just weeks after Pres. Obama announced changes to the U.S.’s planned missile defense system in Eastern Europe, Russia has begun to push back against the new plan:

Moscow and Washington are now holding talks so Russia can “understand the configuration” of the new missile defence system, [Russian Foreign Minister Sergei] Lavrov said, but he added that reports of some US proposals were raising eyebrows in Moscow.

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

US defence publication Defense News reported Thursday that Washington might consider Ukraine as part of its new anti-missile programme, and had added the ex-Soviet country “to the list of possible early warning sites.”

How’s that for appreciation and reciprocity?

From their scathing OP-Ed:

The top and bottom of last year’s Republican ticket represent the recent failed past and future potential of the party. Both are vying for party leadership, but the past should get out of the future’s way.

Sen. John McCain is, as Politico noted last week, “working behind-the-scenes to reshape the Republican Party in his own center-right image.” The loser of last year’s run for the White House is recruiting candidates, raising money and campaigning for them, and even taking sides in GOP Senate, House and gubernatorial primaries.

Some people apparently need a hook to exit the stage. McCain’s personal story is one of the most compelling in America, but as a politician, he leaves much to be desired.

~snip~

The Arizonan won last year’s Republican nomination largely on the strength of his valorous military biography; a candidate with a focus on Reaganite principle would have had a chance of actually winning the election.

The former POW has consistently taken positions that more closely resemble those of liberal Democrats. Employing the worst kind of class warfare rhetoric, he opposed President George W. Bush’s tax cuts.

He pushed for amnesty for millions of illegal aliens and, most infamously, joined with liberal Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., to restrict the political speech guaranteed by the First Amendment through his campaign finance law — which the Supreme Court may soon gut in its Citizens United v. FEC case.

In his concession speech McCain said, “I don’t know what more we could have done to try to win this election.” Well, the fact he doesn’t know why he lost is the problem — especially as he spreads the losing ways of his own so-called “maverick” Republicanism.

The McCain campaign does have one positive legacy, however: It made Sarah Palin a national figure.

The former Alaska governor, already popular among grass-roots Republicans, is growing in credibility. Her much-criticized decision to resign the governorship is beginning to look like a move that made perfect sense — not just for herself but for Alaskans — in the face of the long knives the Democrats had ready for her as a sitting chief executive.

Palin is becoming a bold, principled voice on issues ranging from the global war on terror to financial markets. “Now is not the time for cold feet, second thoughts, or indecision,” she said regarding White House skittishness on Afghanistan.

She has warned that “we’re ignoring the looming crisis caused by our dependence on foreign oil,” arguing that America will be at foreign powers’ “mercy if they decide to dump the dollar as their trade currency.”

First off, my apologies for my near-total absence from the site recently.  A flurry of planning for my daughter’s birthday party (today! Woo hoo!), coupled with being sick from Monday night to Thursday afternoon (and still feeling the effects today), has kept me from paying the attention I want to pay to the world around me.  The only noteworthy event I can think of was the long-discredited Nobel Peace (Appeasement) Prize (Tool), and that’s been discussed ad nauseum.

Instead of going that route, I want to put out a thought on leadership.  I don’t have the exact quotes on hand (and don’t want to take time to look them up), but I seem to recall the NPP Committee made some lame comment about Pres Obama showing leadership by ceding decision-making on certain issues to Europe.  Determining a person’s/group’s areas of competence and assigning them responsibilities is an aspect of leadership, but just saying “Gee, we’ll do whatever you’re doing” isn’t.  Obama’s doing the latter, and the NPP Committee likes the abdication of leadership it represents, not that it shows leadership.  Oy, Rome’s downward spiral continues!

Oh, yes.

Americans [haven't] absorbed the depths to which this country’s reputation had sunk under the Cheney era…they also haven’t fully absorbed the turn-around in the world’s view of America that Obama and the American people have accomplished. Of course, this has yet to bear real fruit. But you can begin to see how it could; and I hope more see both the peaceful intentions and the steely resolve of this man to persevere…

I see this prize as an endorsement of his extraordinary reorientation of world politics, and as an encouragement to see it through…look up for a moment, see how far we’ve come in pivoting away from global conflict, and give this man a break for his efforts and the massive burden he now bears.

And, in the darkness that still threatens, know hope.

-

Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com or at his Pawlentyesque blog

(more…)

According to The Hill newspaper on Friday, Representative Anne Eshoo (D-CA), who introduced the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act in 2008 to regulate decibel levels on television ads, has gotten her bill through committee by a voice vote.

This is pathetic- a voice vote? So it’s not exactly Afghanistan or health care, but the principles of personal choice and personal discipline are being hammered here. Fortunately, I wrote a piece that’s going to change the mind of every person who supports her bill here. Enjoy.

Today we saw the official end of the Nobel Peace Prize, having finally allowed the partisan hacks running the committee to degrade the award to the point of total irrelevance. The Nobel Committee for years now has been diluting this award with each passing political statement, with Jimmy Carter and Hezbollah, with Al Gore, and now capping off the end of the prize with President Barack Obama, who was nominated 12 days after taking office. To just underscore just how big of a joke this is, lets run down the list of president’s who the committee felt were unworthy:

President Franklin Roosevelt: Won the second World War, helped bring an end to the Great Depression and restore economic prosperity, and co-founded the United Nations.

President Harry Truman: Helped end the second World War, created NATO, took strong stands to contain Communism, enacted the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe.

President Dwight Eisenhower: Led the Allies to victory over Adolf Hitler and the Axis Powers, brokered a peaceful end to the Korean War.

President Richard Nixon: Brought an end to the Vietnam War, broke the Sino-Soviet Alliance, opened diplomatic relations between the West and Communist China.

President Ronald Reagan: Brought an end to the Cold War and defeated the Soviet Union, helped fight Communism around the world particularly in South America, created the greatest expansion of wealth and prosperity in US history.

Yet in just 12 days in office Barack Obama, according to the Nobel committee, accomplished more for peace then all of these great leaders.

Nobel Prize, RIP.

Follow Max Twain on Twitter.

Vang Pao spent most of his 79 years putting his life on the line against communists even after Democrats in Congress betrayed Laos in 1975

I understand why the Nobel Committee award their most prestigious award to President Barack Obama. He has brought peace to many, especially including communists, fascists and terrorist sheltering dictators from Venezuela to Libya to Iran. The fear that an American cowboy might upset their tent poles is no more.

When the wanted dead or alive fear still lived, the Peace Prize went to those that criticized President George W. Bush, especially those Americans that lambasted their nation’s leader on non-American soil. For example, Al “[Bush] betrayed our country. He played on our fears” Gore famously fought for the kind of peace that comes from solitude at home when one can’t afford gasoline to go anywhere, but I digress.

But what if the Nobel Prize actually was awarded to people that risk their very lives for peace? Peace being defined as the kind that is enjoyed when evil is defeated, rather than the kind the Nobel Committee seems to prefer that exists under tyranny or in the grave.

The Nobels have gotten it right at times. Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King, Jr. come to mind. My nominee, like them has also spent time in prison and was recently released:

A federal grand jury in California investigating an alleged plot to overthrow the government of Laos has dropped charges against a leading figure in the nation’s Hmong community, the U.S. attorney’s office in Sacramento said Friday.

The grand jury’s decision absolves 79-year-old Vang Pao, a former major general in the Lao army who is revered by the Hmong refugees he helped resettle in the U.S. and labeled a hero by Vietnam War veterans.

Charges remain against 10 others, including a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel, and were added against two new defendants.

While Pao expressed relief that charges against him were dropped, his attorney said he’s frustrated that his former co-defendants remain under indictment on charges the defense has insisted were exaggerated.

“We’re glad the government has finally paid attention and recognized that Gen. Vang Pao is innocent,” said his attorney, John Keker. “We’re disappointed that the case, a very unfair sting operation, is continuing against some good people.”

U.S. Attorney Lawrence G. Brown declined to comment other than in a written statement.

“Today’s charging decisions are the culmination of a comprehensive investigation of the charged plot and review of all evidence that has been gathered,” he said.

Hundreds of supporters have rallied outside the federal courthouse in Sacramento during each of Pao’s court appearances since charges were brought in 2007. The defendants have argued that they were entrapped and believed they were being recruited by the U.S. government to fight communists, as they had been during the Vietnam War.

“Oh, thank God the charges were dropped,” said the Rev. Sharon Stanley of Fresno Interdenominational Refugee Ministries, who works with Hmong. “I feel strongly that given the long history of the United States and our CIA’s recruitment of General Pao and the Hmong communities, that his decision is an appropriate one.”

Former CIA Chief William Colby once called Pao “the biggest hero of the Vietnam War,” for the 15 years he spent leading a CIA-sponsored guerilla army fighting against a communist takeover over the Southeast Asian peninsula.

I have long held the Hmong in a special place in my heart due to my former executive assistant. This is a portion of a 2006 column entitled “Only conservatives still true to JFK’s ideals” that relates to today’s award of the Peace Prize:

“I don’t care about the people of Iraq.”

I was shocked when that statement was made to me last year by a Democrat friend.

I shouldn’t have been!

That quote pretty much sums up the moral bankruptcy of modern-day liberalism and my former party today.

The sentiment expressed in that quote is consistent with the giggles I heard from fellow liberal Democrats in 1983 in reaction to President Ronald Reagan’s “Evil Empire” speech.

I was also shocked then. I shouldn’t have been!

The best reason for why I should not be shocked occupies the receptionist chair in my SouthPark office.

She is a descendant of the Hmong people of Laos who were allies of the United States until the government of South Vietnam fell in 1975. Massive slaughter of millions followed at the hands of the North Vietnamese communists and Cambodia’s Pol Pot. More than 300,000 Laotians, mostly Hmong, fled. But thousands of Hmong continued to fight against the evil of communism; hundreds of their guerrilla fighters surrendered only last month.

In 1975 I was an idealistic teen animated by the “Bear any burden for the cause of liberty” rhetoric by President John F. Kennedy, complimented by the “Love they neighbor” rhetoric of Jesus Christ, but quite ignorant of the details of the Vietnam War. I was a self-identified liberal anxiously awaiting my 18th birthday so that I could actively participate in my grandfather’s party.

Eyes averted from slaughter

Sadly, almost from the beginning of my political activism, I had to reconcile the irreconcilable, i.e. the rhetoric of JFK with the reality of the words and actions of the flower children of the 1960s and the McGovernites who took over the party. Democrats cut off funds from our South Vietnamese allies, averted their eyes from the slaughter and celebrate their role in “ending the war” as one of their greatest accomplishments even to this day. I shamefully averted my ears from the liberal Democratic giggles at Reagan’s notion of good and evil until the summer of 2001.

The “conservative epiphany” came as a result of confronting what I knew in my heart was true as I read Reagan’s letters and speeches and books about his long war against communism. Reagan cared so much for the oppressed that he even deemed the policy of containment to have immorally sentenced half the globe to slavery. He told the so-called “realists” in 1981 that henceforth, American policy toward the Soviet Union would be “We win, they lose.”

This was the liberal I had been looking for.

Did liberals stop caring about the oppressed when their hero was assassinated in 1963 or when they faced the draft board in 1968?

I recently wrote of liberal blindness to Mao’s slaughter on the 60th anniversary of the birth of the Chinese Communist Party.

Real peace is brought by freedom fighters and there are none more deserving than Pao and those like him, especially those in the armed forces of the United States that upset the “peace” of Qaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Iran’s mullahs, and UBL’s safe haven with the Taliban.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.

The award for Barack Obama may be the most stunningly undeserved use of the Nobel Peace Prize. When you add it up, the Nobel Prize Committee is giving Obama an “A” for effort, and even that’s not deserved when the President of France is calling you naive and making fun of you.

The Nobel Committee has made a spate of unjustified decisions in recent years, though. Consider the Nobel Prizes for Jimmy Carter, which was mainly an attempt to thumb its nose at George W. Bush for being a “big evil warmonger”.   Or think about the Nobel Prize for Al Gore for jetting around the world in large private jets to scare us to death about global warming.

There used to be a time when Nobel Peace Prize winners earned their awards through a lifetime of work for peace. Not today. Today, we give it to a guy for accomplishing nothing, as a slap on the back and an atta boy to the world’s favorite pats. Congratulations, Mr. President, Nelson Mandela had to spend 20 years in jail to get the award that you “earned” by being elected on a promise of hope and change. Mother Teresa had to spend decades in the slums of calcutta for the sick and dying to earn her award.

As bad as the Nobel Prize Committee’s decisions this decade have been, they have made dumb decisions before, like handing an award to terrorist Yasser Arafat become the committee was snowed into believing that the  Palestinians would change their way. Or the decision to award Woodrow Wilson the Nobel Peace Prize for coming up with the idea for the League of Nations (which ended up failing) and composing the Fourteen Points (which was totally ignored at the Versailles treaty.)

 However, beginning with the Jimmy Carter prize in 2002, the Noble Prize Committee began issuing awards to people who had no business even being considered for one. This however takes the cake. It devalues the award. With apologies to Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King, being a Nobel Peace Prize winner means far less than it did seven years.

You may have your Nobel Peace Prize, Barry, but I have this…

The integrity of the Nobel Peace Prize committee was first seriously called into question when terrorist leader Yassir Arafat received the distinguished award years ago. Proving Karl Marx’s maxim correct, history repeated itself, once as tragedy — with Al Gore claiming the prize but two  short years ago — and twice as farce, with our dear leader receiving it this year.

Yes, Barack Obama just won the Nobel Peace Prize for “giving the world hope for a better future” and for promoting nuclear disarmament — something every president since the age of nuclear weaponry dawned upon us has dreamed for.

Indeed, for “giving the world hope,” he stands alongside real heroes like Aung San Suu Kyi, Nelson Mandela, Elie Wiesel, and also among fellow jokes like Al Gore and Yassir Arafat.

But there exists a serious question: was this some kind of elaborate joke?

I don’t think that the suggestion is such an outrageous proposition. The president’s attempts to win the hearts of European leaders has been rather underwhelming, with embarrassingly cool receptions from nations ranging from France to Italy to Russia. It belies the imagination that any serious-minded person could honestly believe that Obama is actually worthy of standing next to luminaries such as Aung San Suu Kyi and Nelson Mandela because he “gave the world hope for a better future.” It’s complete and utter silliness, so incredibly preposterous that it sooner stirs laughs than outrage. This is the ultimate in mockery, worthy of a great work of satire.

This is a test for Obama. When the president receives this, he will have to think seriously about whether he truly deserves it. It may prove to be a humbling experience, one that could bring the most egotistical of men down to Earth.

Or maybe not.

Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com

Didn’t that sound like a death panel?

______________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli

Washington Post Virginia Gubernatorial Survey

If the election were being held today and the candidates were Creigh Deeds, the Democrat and Bob McDonnell, the Republican, for whom would you vote?

• Bob McDonnell 53% [51%] (54%)
• Creigh Deeds 44% [47%] (39%)

Do you think Creigh Deeds’ views on most issues are too liberal for you, too conservative for you, or just about right?

• Too liberal 44% [42%] (39%)
• Too conservative 7% [6%] (7%)
• Just about right 42% [47%] (37%)

Do you think Bob McDonnell’s views on most issues are too liberal for you, too conservative for you, or just about right?

• Too liberal 6% [7%] (6%)
• Too conservative 37% [40%] (30%)
• Just about right 51% [47%] (46%)

Regardless of how you may vote, whom do you trust to do a better job handling the economy and jobs?

• Bob McDonnell 53% [48%] (50%)
• Creigh Deeds 39% [43%] (35%)

Whom do you trust to do a better job handling education?

• Bob McDonnell 51% [43%]
• Creigh Deeds 40% [47%]

Whom do you trust to do a better job handling health care?

• Bob McDonnell 44% [43%]
• Creigh Deeds 42% [47%]

Whom do you trust to do a better job handling taxes?

• Bob McDonnell 51% [50%] (50%)
• Creigh Deeds 36% [39%] (31%)

Whom do you trust to do a better job handling transportation issues?

• Bob McDonnell 49% [46%] (43%)
• Creigh Deeds 37% [38%] (31%)

Whom do you trust to do a better job handling the state budget?

• Bob McDonnell 52% [49%]
• Creigh Deeds 36% [40%]

Whom do you trust to do a better job handling gun control?

• Bob McDonnell 49% [47%] (48%)
• Creigh Deeds 35% [36%] (27%)

Whom do you trust to do a better job handling the abortion issue?

• Creigh Deeds 44% [44%] (34%)
• Bob McDonnell 42% [42%] (39%)

Whom do you trust to do a better job handling issues of special concern to women?

• Creigh Deeds 47% [48%]
• Bob McDonnell 41% [38%]

Which candidate has offered the better new ideas during the campaign: Deeds or McDonnell, or don’t you think either candidate has offered new ideas?

• Bob McDonnell 26%
• Creigh Deeds 16%
• Neither 51%

Based on what you know or have heard, do you think Creigh Deeds has been conducting mainly a positive campaign, or mainly a negative campaign?

• Positive 37%
• Negative 56%

Based on what you know or have heard, do you think Bob McDonnell has been conducting mainly a positive campaign, or mainly a negative campaign?

• Positive 60%
• Negative 32%

Overall, who is running the more negative campaign, Deeds or McDonnell?

• Creigh Deeds 44%
• Bob McDonnell 18%
• Neither 22%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Tim Kaine is handling his job as governor?

• Approve 60% [59%] (51%)
• Disapprove 37% [38%] (45%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?

• Approve 53% [53%] (47%)
• Disapprove 46% [47%] (51%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Nancy Pelosi is handling her job as Speaker of the House?

• Approve 38%
• Disapprove 58%

Do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases or illegal in all cases?

• Legal in all cases 24% [19%] (18%)
• Legal in most cases 35% [40%] (37%)
• Illegal in most cases 27% [27%] (27%)
• Illegal in all cases 11% [12%] (14%)

Survey of 1,001 likely voters was conducted October 4-7. The margin of error among adults is +/- 3 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 31% [32%] (27%) Democrat; 30% [29%] (34%) Republican; 36% [34%] (34%) Independent; Political views: 41% [44%] (37%) Moderate; 38% [36%] (41%) Conservative; 20% [20%] (20%) Liberal. Results from the poll conducted September 14-17 are in brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 11-14 are in parentheses.

Democracy Corps (D) New Jersey Gubernatorial Survey

If the general election for Governor were held today and the candidates were: Democrat Jon Corzine, Independent Chris Daggett, and Republican Chris Christie, for whom would you vote?

• Jon Corzine 41% [39%] {38%} (41%)
• Chris Christie 38% [40%] {41%} (43%)
• Chris Daggett 14% [11%] {10%} (7%)
• Undecided 7% [9%] {10%} (8%)

Among Independents

• Chris Christie 36% [41%] {45%}
• Chris Daggett 26% [15%] {16%}
• Jon Corzine 25% [32%] {25%}
• Undecided 13% [12%] {14%}

Among Men

• Chris Christie 44% [46%] {43%}
• Jon Corzine 34% [37%] {37%}
• Chris Daggett 15% [11%] {11%}
• Undecided 8% [6%] {9%}

Among Women

• Jon Corzine 46% [42%] {39%}
• Chris Christie 32% [35%] {40%}
• Chris Daggett 14% [11%] {9%}
• Undecided 7% [12%] {12%}

Favorable (Warm) / Unfavorable (Cool) {Net}

• Barack Obama 54% [57%] {55%} (57%) / 29% [28%] {32%} (30%) {+25%}
• Democratic Party 41% [42%] {44%} (45%) / 35% [38%] {37%} (34%) {+6%}
• Chris Daggett 15% [8%] {5%} (4%) / 18% [10%] {11%} (8%) {-3%}
• Republican Party 33% [31%] {33%} (32%) / 40% [40%] {39%} (43%) {-7%}
• Jon Corzine 37% [35%] {36%} (37%) / 46% [47%] {48%} (48%) {-9%}
• Chris Christie 30% [32%] {33%} (35%) / 42% [34%] {33%} (34%) {-12%}

Thermometer – Mean Temperature

• Barack Obama 60 [61] {59.3} (61)
• Democratic Party 52 [51] {51.0} (52)
• Republican Party 45 [46] {45.5} (44)
• Chris Daggett 45 [44] {40.1} (44)
• Jon Corzine 44 [42] {41.5} (43)
• Chris Christie 43 [47] {48.7} (48)

Survey of 614 likely voters was conducted October 6-7. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points. Click here for crosstabs. Party ID breakdown: 38% [37%] {38%} (40%) Democrat; 32% [34%] {31%} (29%) Independent; 29% [28%] {29%} (29%) Republican. Political views: 43% [39%] {45%} (41%) Moderate; 35% [36%] {32%} (31%) Conservative; 17% [20%] {19%} (23%) Liberal. Results from the poll conducted September 22-23 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 8-9 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 25-26 are in parentheses.

NEW YORK — Manhattan real-estate developer Daniel Rose erects skyscrapers for a living. Fittingly, he is passionate about an organization he launched that helps promising young Americans build solid foundations so they can rise to towering heights.

The Harlem Educational Activities Fund (heaf.org) marked its 20th anniversary with a rooftop gala at Fifth Avenue’s St. Regis Hotel. While CNN host Fareed Zakaria and non-profit activist Judith Aidoo were the evening’s honorees, the real stars were HEAF’s scholars. These lower-income, mainly minority kids from Harlem, Brooklyn, and the Bronx are exactly the sort of young people on whom too many give up. “Why even bother?” argue those who allege that oppression, poverty, and racism are impermeable barriers, rather than manageable speed bumps.

“We have so much to celebrate,” Rose explains. While 73.2 percent of 12th graders nationwide graduate on time, “100 percent of our students graduate from high school, and 95 percent graduate college within six years, compared with about 35 percent for black and Latino students nationally.” Among HEAF’s college graduates, “35 percent go on to get a master’s degree or more, compared with a national average of 9 percent for all Americans. HEAF works to break the cycle of poverty by paving the path of academic achievement.”

Among HEAF’s 27-member class of 2009, 100 percent enrolled in four-year colleges, including Cornell, DePauw, and Syracuse. They earned more than $1.4 million in merit-based awards. One Nigerian-born student scored a Gates Millennium Scholarship. His University of Rochester education and subsequent graduate degree will be financed completely by Bill Gates.

“We become the vehicle through which they learn to succeed,” says HEAF trustee Woody Heller, “and not by magic or grade inflation, but by hard work, diligent and directed study, enriched by our support, encouragement, and counseling.” Since its inception, HEAF has benefitted some 10,000 young people.

Last year, HEAF served 342 sixth-to-12th graders, largely in government schools, plus 90 college students. These strivers enter HEAF with report cards at or near grade-level. Gifted kids and the learning disabled can get other help; HEAF targets promising students in the grade curve’s upwardly mobile middle who otherwise might be overlooked.

After school and on weekends, HEAF offers intense tutoring, mentoring, assistance with entering elite high schools, and college preparation. Cultural enrichment includes violin lessons, etiquette, public speaking, alternative-dispute-resolution classes, and summer camp. Sixteen HEAF students visited Belfast in July 2008 to study Northern Ireland’s peace process. Also, a HEAF senior won first place in the 2009 New York Mock Trial Competition. HEAF turns diamonds in the rough into sparkling gems worthy of Harry Winston, just steps from the St. Regis.

Sean Scott, M.D. is a physician in Philadelphia’s public-health Department. HEAF helped him advance from public assistance in Harlem to Yale University and Medical School. “HEAF did provide that safety net that I believed I needed, so that I wouldn’t fall through the cracks,” he says. “Whatever we were lacking, they were willing to fill in. It seemed like a dream come true.”

“Before HEAF, I was this naive girl living in a bubble, but HEAF made me look in the mirror,” says Octavia Smith, a Cathedral High School senior and Bronx resident. “I definitely would not have matured as quickly as I have, if it were not for HEAF… Academically, I would have failed chemistry and probably Spanish, and would not have been the least bit upset by it.” Instead, Smith says, “I take AP [Advanced Placement] biology, AP psychology, and AP English, along with other honors classes.” She also is applying to some 10 colleges, chief among them: Vassar, William and Mary, and Georgetown.

“If it were not for HEAF, I would be a senior in high school with no idea what was going to happen after the school year,” says Harlem’s own Justin Knox, who attends Humanities Preparatory Academy. “I would have been a different person focused on the wrong things.” Instead, Knox is track for college in 2010.

Since 1989, HEAF barely has taken government money. It only has accepted $192,000 under a four-year contract with the New York City Department of Youth and Community Development’s Out-of-School-Time Program, $4,000 from New York State for “Smart Board” teaching technology, plus $3,500 from the New York City Council’s discretionary fund.

HEAF’s $2.2 million annual budget relies overwhelmingly on private contributions, including some $600,000 raised September 30 at the St. Regis. Time-Warner and New York Life Foundation have granted HEAF more than $300,000 each, while Bank of America and the Carnegie Corporation donated $200,000 apiece.

HEAF rejects all the tired excuses for failure and instead demands high standards, solid performance, and excellent citizenship. Moving from the mantra “Engage/Educate/Elevate,” HEAF aims to “Expand/Expand/Expand.” It plans to deploy its model to heal so much that ails government education and, more broadly, America’s ghettos and barrios. HEAF chair Alexandra Korry states it crisply: “As long as the public schools fail us, HEAF will be there doing its part.”

_________________________________________________________________________________

-New York commentator Deroy Murdock is a nationally syndicated columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.

SurveyUSA/WABC-TV New Jersey Gubernatorial Survey

• Chris Christie 43%
• Jon Corzine 40%
• Chris Daggett 14%
• Undecided 2%

Survey of 639 Likely Voters was conducted October 5-7. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 42% Democrat; 38% Republican; 18% Independent. Political views: 46% Moderate; 31% Conservative; 18% Liberal.

Inside the numbers:

Of those who voted for Corzine in 2005, 67% stick with Corzine in 2009. 17% of 2005 Corzine voters crossover to Republican Christie in 2009; 13% vote Daggett. Of those who voted for Corzine’s 2005 Republican opponent, Doug Forrester, 82% vote for Republican Christie in 2009; 4% defect to Corzine; 14% vote Daggett.

Among men, Christie leads by 13. Among women, Corzine leads by 9. A 22-point gender gap. Among whites, Christie leads 3:2. Among blacks, Corzine leads 6:1. Christie, who became the Republican nominee after defeating a more conservative Republican, Steve Lonegan, in the primary, leads 4:1 among Conservatives. Corzine leads 4:1 among liberals. Moderates split. Corzine carries Northern Jersey. Christie carries Central Jersey and South Jersey.

40% of voters say property taxes are the most important issue; Christie carries this group 2:1. Among the 21% who say the economy is tops, Corzine, former chairman of Goldman Sachs, wins 5:3. Christie runs strongly among the 9% who say corruption is the top issue.

Christie leads among Jets fans, Giants fans and Eagles fans. Corzine leads among Springsteen fans, even though Christie has been to 120 Springsteen concerts.

Republicans must reject any bill that does not end state health insurance monopolies

It appears that the light of day that coincided with the Congressional end of summer recess killed the public option. But other nocturnal liberal dangers live on in the darkness of the post-Autumnal equinox with Congress re-adjourned.

In recent days we hear that Harry Reid may use parliamentary tactics to attach liberal health care provisions to the old House AIG-confiscatory taxes bill to avoid the constitutional requirement that revenue bills originate in the House; we see some polls showing a 50/50 split on ObamaCare after weeks of plurality or majority negatives; and we hear moderate republican voices, some falsely invoking the name of Ronald Reagan, urging compromise in the area of increased regulation of private insurance companies.

The Democratic Party majorities will do what they will do. If they want to ram a bill through on their own, they can. If they do, they will pay the price, unless they are given cover by cowards in the GOP.

That a bill does not have a public option is not nearly enough to justify supporting ANY bill that includes ANY of the following provisions:

1. Mandate that individuals buy health insurance;
2. Mandate that insurance companies accept all applicants for policies no matter if they have pre-existing conditions;
3. Mandate that private insurance companies ensure portability of policies.

The first mandate violates the basic liberty our founders fought and died for and which forms the basis of our historic prosperity. The second and third mandates destroy the very basis upon which the whole insurance business is based.

Most of the problems of pre-existing conditions and portability would be solved with the end of state monopolies. The interstate commerce clause was included in the Constitution specifically to address this precise circumstance.

Republicans and conservative Democrats must not vote for ANY health care bill that does not insist upon free markets across state lines in the health insurance industry, and should also insist upon federal tort reform as well, without which, we will suffer a huge loss in the supply of doctors and thus, suffer monumental increases in the cost of health care.

The GOP must resist the temptation to appease the misinformed public support for regulations concerning pre-existing conditions. If they don’t, they will lose the issue and this country will be exponentially closer to the Gomorrah we have been slouching towards for decades of increasingly powerful government.

The fact of the matter is that it is certain that no bill coming out of this Congress could possibly be worth voting for. ZERO!

It is a lie that the “status quo” is unacceptable. The town hall era showed that a large majority of Americans are content with their Medicare and/or private insurance. We need reforms but we can get none as long as Dems rule Congress and Obama is president. Period.

The status quo is wonderful compared to anything the ObamaDems could possibly propose. These are the times that try men’s souls and GOP spines.

For the sake of We the People, please hold firm.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

More ObamaCare links.