Why Obama's Nobel speech was flat and uncompelling

By Byron York | 12/10/09 9:40 AM EST | Washington Examiner

. . . it was a speech Obama didn't want to make. It's odd when you start an address accepting a great honor by recognizing the painfully obvious fact that you don't deserve it. Many speeches begin with a note of false humility -- "I'd like to thank the Academy for this award, even though there were so many great performances this year" -- but rarely is the humility as appropriate as Obama's. In any event, the speech lacked a certain life because the president's heart did not seem in it.

But the bigger problem is that Obama doesn't actually know what he was talking about. At the highest levels of human achievement, we honor people who have done great things. When they speak, we know they have a deep knowledge of their subject. When Dwight Eisenhower talks about waging war, we listen. When Steve Jobs talks about the computer revolution, we listen. When Martin Luther King talks about civil rights, we listen. When Lech Walesa talks about standing up to communism, we listen. We listen to hear the deep knowledge that such experience gives a speaker.

Barack Obama hasn't done anything that would warrant our listening to his speech at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony. It doesn't mean he doesn't know anything; if he gave a speech on, say, beating the Clintons at their own game, we would listen because he would have that kind of deep knowledge that brings real insight. But this? No.

Sean Hannity & Michelle Malkin Talk Fistgate & Obama's Deranged Safe School's Czar Kevin Jennings

Who’s funding GLSEN? Corporate phone/e-mail contact list; Update: GLSEN gay bar guides for teens, by Michelle Malkin.

Al Gore Reads His Global Warming Poem To CNN Reporter

Dick Cheney: Obama Does Not Share That Belief of American Exceptionalism

"I think most of us believe and most presidents believe and talk about the truly exceptional nature of America. Our history, where we come from, our belief in our Constitutional values and principles. Our advocacy for freedom and democracy and the fact that we’ve provided it for millions of people all over the globe and so unselfishly. There’s never been a nation like the United States of America in world history. And, yet when you have a president that goes around and bows to his host and proceeds to apologize profusely for the United States, I find that deeply disturbing. That says to me there’s a guy who doesn’t fully understand or share that view of American exceptionalism that I think most of us believe in."

Journalism and Freedom

Government assistance is a greater threat to the press than any new technology.
By RUPERT MURDOCH | DECEMBER 8, 2009, 3:47 A.M. ET | Wall Street Journal

We are at a time when many news enterprises are shutting down or scaling back. No doubt you will hear some tell you that journalism is in dire shape, and the triumph of digital is to blame.

My message is just the opposite. The future of journalism is more promising than ever—limited only by editors and producers unwilling to fight for their readers and viewers, or government using its heavy hand either to overregulate or subsidize us.

From the beginning, newspapers have prospered for one reason: the trust that comes from representing their readers' interests and giving them the news that's important to them. That means covering the communities where they live, exposing government or business corruption, and standing up to the rich and powerful.
Technology now allows us to do this on a much greater scale. That means we have the means to reach billions of people who until now have had no honest or independent sources of the information they need to rise in society, hold their governments accountable, and pursue their needs and dreams.

Does this mean we are all going to succeed? Of course not. Some newspapers and news organizations will not adapt to the digital realities of our day—and they will fail. We should not blame technology for these failures. The future of journalism belongs to the bold, and the companies that prosper will be those that find new and better ways to meet the needs of their viewers, listeners, and readers.

read more

Shhh! Don’t confuse Reid with history while he’s playing the race card!

By Michelle Malkin • December 7, 2009 03:11 PM

It was the GOP that fought slavery and the Democrat Party that battled to preserve it.

It’s the Democrat Party, not the GOP, that boasts an ex-Klansman among its senior leaders.

But don’t confuse Harry Reid with history while he invokes slavery to lambaste the GOP for opposing the government-run health care takeover.

Details? Bah!

read more

Abortion re-emerges as top issue

Health care debate puts divisive topic at forefront
By Valerie Richardson | Tuesday, December 8, 2009 | Washington Times

Those who remember the 1980s must be experiencing deja vu: Meryl Streep is the toast of Hollywood, Michael Jackson's latest release debuted at the top of the charts, and abortion is the hot-button political topic in Washington.

The abortion issue never really went away, but it's back with a vengeance, driving the political debate on health care, jeopardizing the president's coalition on his centerpiece legislation and threatening to turn the tide of the 2010 elections.

That's not just the opinion of dedicated pro-life and pro-choice activists with an interest in puffing up the importance of their signature issue. Anyone in Washington who had forgotten about the issue's power to sway policy and shape debate can consider themselves reminded.

"I do believe that abortion turned out to be an unexpected and not entirely welcome addition to the health care debate," said Jennifer Duffy, senior political editor at the Cook Political Report, in an e-mail. "It changed the tone somewhat and has exposed fissures in both parties that have been dormant for several years."

read more

Obama and Democrat Leadership: Out of Touch and Desperate

by Heather Higgins | Posted Dec 8th 2009 at 7:23 am

President Obama’s meetings at the Senate on Sunday, much like his visit to Copenhagen this week, are not indicators of inevitability; they are portents of panic. The reports coming out of the closed door, Democrats-only, meeting of internal divisions that are still irreconcilable, despite the high rhetoric of historic moment, only make the point more vividly: can you say “desperation”?

The sensible Democrats know they are in trouble. They know the American people have lost confidence that the Administration and Congress share their priorities.

read more