R.I.P. BO-Care? The public option is dealt a serious blow by the Dems in the US Senate!

Can things get worse for Pres BO?

On Tuesday afternoon, a Senate Finance Committee voted 15-8 to kill a public option amendment:

"The first proposal failed in a 15-to-8 vote, which followed several hours of debate. The second proposal failed 13-10.

Taken together, the votes were a defeat for liberal Democrats who view government-sponsored insurance for the middle class as a key component of President Obama's health care overhaul." (FOX)

At the end of the day, it was Dems who killed it because Republicans did not have the numbers:

"In the end, Baucus and four other Democrats -- Sen. Kent Conrad (N.D.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), Bill Nelson (Fla.) and Thomas R. Carper (Del.) -- joined all 10 Republicans on the committee in voting against the Rockefeller amendment.

On the Schumer amendment, Baucus, Conrad and Lincoln voted with the Republicans to defeat it." (WashPost)

What happens next? I think that the public option suffered a major setback in the Dem majority Senate!

My guess is that they will try again but run into the same result, specially after every poll shows that the public is in no mood to give up their current insurance.

Also, it will be even more difficult to pass anything as we get closer to the 2010 election cycle.

Moral of the story: There is no unity in the majority party AND the public opposition is reaching Washington.

More importantly, the public is smart enough to know that you can't create a huge entitlement (16% of GDP) without consequences, such as more taxes and lesser quality:

Sarkozy is the latest to cancel his subscription to "BO's fairy tale"!

Pres BO now finds himself in a very historic spot: The French president thinks that he is a wimp!

By the way, can you imagine what the 2002-03 Iraq UN meetings would have been like with the serious Sarkozy rather than the despicable Chirac in the pockets of Saddam Hussein?

Back to the present, Pres Sarkozy and PM Brown of the UK wanted to use the UN meetings to confront Iran.

What did Pres BO want to do? He did not want anything to spoil his debut running a Security Council meeting. (It was all about the show for BO!)

What did Pres BO get out of his meeting? He got a non-binding resolution promoting a fantasy world without nuclear weapons. Don't you feel safer now? The UN has passed another resolution telling the bad guys to behave and join the civilized world!

Jack Kelly, national security expert, has a good post: Sarkozy's Contempt for Obama

"The contempt with which the president of France regards the president of the United States was displayed in public last week.

Nicolas Sarkozy was furious with Barack Obama for his adolescent warbling about a world without nuclear weapons at a meeting Mr. Obama chaired of the United Nations Security Council last Thursday (9/24).

"We must never stop until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of the earth," President Obama said.

What infuriated President Sarkozy was that at the time Mr. Obama said those words, Mr. Obama knew the mullahs in Iran had a secret nuclear weapons development site, and he didn't call them on it."

The WSJ adds an editorial:

"President Obama wants a unified front against Iran, and to that end he stood together with Nicolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown in Pittsburgh on Friday morning to reveal the news about Tehran's secret facility to build bomb-grade fuel.

But now we hear that the French and British leaders were quietly seething on stage, annoyed by America's handling of the announcement."

Sarkozy is not impressed.

Better than, Americans are not either: 51% Say Obama Not Tough Enough on Iran

How important is Pres Sarkozy's reaction? Our friend Bill Katz has a great post and explanation:

"But Sarkozy is clearly saying what others in Europe are thinking.

And Europe is moving to the right."

Just check the elections in Germany where "low taxes" won the day, i.e. no Obama-economics for the Germans!

P.S. So we will add Pres Sarkozy to the list of those who have cancelled their subscription to "the fairy tale":

This is not going to be the presidency that BO and his followers had in mind

George Friedman of STRATFOR makes a good point about the challenges facing Pres BO in Afghanistan and Iraq:

"During the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign, now-U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said that like all U.S. presidents, Barack Obama would face a foreign policy test early in his presidency if elected.

That test is now here.

His test comprises two apparently distinct challenges, one in Afghanistan and one in Iran.

While different problems, they have three elements in common.

First, they involve the question of his administration’s overarching strategy in the Islamic world.

Second, the problems are approaching decision points (and making no decision represents a decision here).

And third, they are playing out very differently than Obama expected during the 2008 campaign."

Yes, the issues are indeed playing out very differently than candidate BO expected them to....as Mr Friedman writes!

Sound the alarm: This is not going to be the transforming "domestic" presidency that Dems dreamed of!

This is not going to be the "health care" or "cap and trade" presidency! (He can't even get a Dem majority to go along with him on both of these campaign promises!)

Unfortunately for BO, and his devout followers caught up in mindless "hope and change", this is going to be a presidency consumed with national security and foreign policy problems.

Who would have believed that on election night when crowds greeted the president-elect with tears and so much hope?

As we enter the fall of 2009, Pres BO faces those awful foreign policy challenges that nobody wanted to talk about during the 2008 campaign.

He faces an emboldened Iran and an even more aggressive North Korea.

Who loved his UN speech? Chavez! Castro! Khaddafi!

In Afghanistan, he faces the reality of making a lot of campaign promises about sending troops and fighting to win.

Again, this is going to be a very unpleasant presidency, specially for those who thought that we could fix all our problems by simply voting for the anti-Bush!

Here is the bottom line: The bad guys don't care whether there is a Bush or a Gore or a Kerry or an Obama in The White House.

The bad guys care about the president's toughness....is the guy in the Oval Office tough enough to make those unpleasant calls that only the president of the US gets to make?

Is BO tough enough?

Time will tell. However, Iran and North Korea do not think that he is!

In the meantime, get ready for a lot of disillusionment and disappointment when BO's supporters come to terms with the reality that the candidate was a lot more fun to watch than the president who won't be able to deliver on all those "healing the planet" speeches!

Like Carter and LBJ, Obama will be another Dem president who ran on domestic issues but got consumed with awfully difficult foreign policy problems.

It won' be very easy for Pres BO!

P.S. Greg Sheridan has some thoughts from down under. He is the foreign editor of The Australian.

Last week, he wrote an interesting article: Lots of People Love Obama, But Does Anyone in the World Really Fear Him?

"It's a lot of very impressive talk.

And yet, and yet...Machiavelli said for a prince it is better to be feared than to be loved."

It gets better:

"Here's my worry about Obama. Lots of people love him and he is indeed very lovable.

But I wonder if anyone at all, anywhere in the world, really fears him."

Iranian missiles, Afghan mess and BO is worried about Chicago 2016?

Richard Cohen is the latest liberal worried about BO:

"Sooner or later it is going to occur to Barack Obama that he is the president of the United States. As of yet, though, he does not act that way, appearing promiscuously on television and granting interviews like the presidential candidate he no longer is.

The election has been held, but the campaign goes on and on.

The candidate has yet to become commander in chief."

Cohen has a point!

Today, Iran fired 3 missiles, the last one capable of reaching 1200 miles!

Today, we are still waiting for Pres BO to make a decision vis-a-vis Afghanistan. After all, don't we have guys in harm's way over there?

Today, we learned that Pres & Mrs BO will be flying to Copenhagen to promote Chicago 2016.

Am I missing something? Can't Pres BO do a teleconference presentation and promote Chicago '16? Does he have to take Air Force One and fly all the Copenhagen for a quick personal appearance?

I don't get Pres BO's priorities.

What will the "Bush police state" crowd say about this?

Remember how Pres BO went to the UN and announced that the era of Bush was over?

Is it really? It's hard to tell when you look beyond the rhetoric.

Let's read today's editorial from The Washington Post: Mr. Obama Punts...And the left cheers as the president embraces what it once decried as a lawless detention scheme.

"Like President George W. Bush, President Obama now asserts that the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force gives him the right to hold some terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial."

Here is my favorite part:

"If the administration's abdication is irresponsible, the reaction of the civil liberties community has been breathtakingly hypocritical."

No kidding? Don't you remember all of those marches with signs saying that Bush was shredding the constitution or creating a police state?

I agree that Pres Bush was right and I'm happy that Pres BO has broken another campaign promise.

The Wash Post is right about the left's hypocricy!

We liked the old UN a lot more!

Like many of you, I view the UN with much skepticism.

Let me add this.

I have met some very good people who've worked at the UN.

And the UN has done some good work in health and nutrition.

So we don't write off the UN.

We just don't like "the day of speeches"!

It was embarrassing to watch despot after despot go to the microphone and say one stupid thing after another.....it was sick!

We like this one from Tim Collard, a retired British diplomat who spent most of his career in China and Germany. He is an active member of the Labour Party.

This is what he wrote: What the hell is the point of the United Nations?

"So the circus has come to town again. The unspeakable Gaddafi is given a reasonable 15 minutes to speak, and goes on for an hour and three quarters of clowning, tearing up the UN charter and talking complete nonsense about swine flu."

Here is the problem: Who is paying for all of this?

Also, how did the UN deteriorate into this? Who needs this?

Good morning Obama! Iran fired more missiles!

Coincidence or not? More missiles over the weekend!

Why do I get the feeling that Iran is not very impressed with "hope and change"?

Let's review the morning's headlines:

Iran test-fires missiles amid nuclear tension

Again, we woke up to Iran's latest war games:

"Iran said it successfully test-fired the longest-range missiles in its arsenal on Monday, weapons capable of carrying a warhead and striking Israel, U.S. military bases in the Middle East, and parts of Europe." (FOX)

Elliott A. Cohen teaches at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies. He served as counselor of the State Department from 2007 to 2009.

Today, he wrote this: There Are Only Two Choices Left on Iran

"Pressure, be it gentle or severe, will not erase that nuclear program.

The choices are now what they ever were: an American or an Israeli strike, which would probably cause a substantial war, or living in a world with Iranian nuclear weapons, which may also result in war, perhaps nuclear, over a longer period of time."

Let's review the options again:

1) A nuclear Iran---This is an unacceptable option because Iran will pass the bombs to terrorist groups, such as Hezbollah.

2) Israel attacks----This is a very risky option because Iran will retaliate against our naval forces in the Straits of Hormuz or in Iraq. In other words, a huge war.

3) The US attacks-----This is the best military option because we are the only country with enough firepower to penetrate the underground facilities. (It will take an unprecedented aerial attack with some ground forces to check on the bombed facilities)

The bad news about Option 3 is that we will have to do it with little, if any, international support. Does Pres BO have the guts to be unpopular in the streets of Europe?

So here we are! There are no pretty options!

Of course, the best option is to support "regime change" and stand with the people demonstrating and getting killed in Tehran. Or, we could come up with real sanctions, such as a naval blockade that denies the regime gasoline! (Iran has oil but enough refining capacity!

Unfortunately, BO calls that "meddling" and would rather say or do nothing. (BO won't meddle in Iran because we're busy meddling in Honduras!)

Let's pray for a miracle. However, I don't see much hope for a peaceful resolution with Iran! You can't appease bad guys, as we learned in the past:

Even the liberals are telling BO to stop the TV blitz!

We've seen a lot of Pres BO this week.

We saw him at the UN.

We saw him at the G-20 meetings!

We also saw his numbers drop!

Rasmussen: "Overall, 48% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-one (51%) disapprove."

Gallup: Despite Media Blitz, Little Change in Obama Job Approval

Coincidence? Perhaps?

Obama fatigue? Yes!

Howard Fineman, hardly a member of the right wing conspiracy, has a message for Pres BO: The Limits of Charisma---Mr. President, please stay off TV

"The president's problem isn't that he is too visible; it's the lack of content in what he says when he keeps showing up on the tube."

That's exactly right! He does not say anything new, except to remind us that he is not Bush or that he inherited a bad hand!

Well, it's getting boring and routine.

Back to Fineman and Pres BO's obsession with blaming everything on Pres Bush:

"He did it again in that U.N. speech.

The delegates wanted to know what the president was going to do about Israel and the Palestinian territories.

He answered by telling them what his predecessor had failed to do.

This was effective for his first month or two.

Now it is starting to sound more like an excuse than an explanation."

Again, Fineman is not a conservative or partisan like me. I think that a lot of liberals agree with Fineman! However, who is going to tell Pres BO that it's time to govern rather than give another speech?

Why are we cutting US-Mex border agents?

Did I miss something? Has US-Mexico border violence gone down?

Today, we learned that Pres BO's administration has decided to cut back on border agents:

"A Department of Homeland Security annual performance review updated by the Obama administration on May 7 said the Border Patrol “plans to move several hundred Agents from the Southwest Border to the Northern Border to meet the FY 2010 staffing requirements, with only a small increase in new agents for the Southwest Border in the same year.”" (CNNS)

Don't get me wrong. We want border agents on the US-Canada border, too. However, I am not reading about violence up there.

Also, what message are we sending to Mexico? Shouldn't we add more agents to work with Mexican customs officers?

Frankly, I don't understand this decision!

We will miss William Safire a lot!

We learned today that William Safire died.

"Safire spent more than 30 years writing on the Op-Ed page of The New York Times. In his "On Language" column in The New York Times Magazine and 15 books, Safire traced the origins of words and everyday phrases such as "straw-man," "under the bus" and "the proof is in the pudding." (FOX)

Safire was a Nixon speechwriter and a great guest on Meet the Press.

I loved his annual predictions column. I will miss reading that!

He was also a lot of fun to read because of his unique way of using words.

According to news reports, Safire was fighting cancer. I understand now why I had not seen him on the Sunday morning shows in some time.

Great columnist. One of the best!

How can this principal keep her job?

We love people who are passionate about politics. However, they have no business bringing their politics to the nation's classrooms.

A couple of days ago, we heard about the little kids singing praises to Pres BO.

Today, we read this about the principal:

"The principal of a New Jersey elementary school where young students were videotaped singing the praises of President Obama is making no apologies for the videotape and says she would allow the performance again if she could, according to parents who spoke with her Thursday night."

That's wrong!

She should be reprimanded or fired for engaging in this kind of politicization of our classrooms.

Sorry! She needs to go and do something else for a living!

Dear BO: Make a decision because there are soldiers in Afghanistan who need to know if you meant it during the campaign!

As we posted before, Afghanistan is and will be very tough.

However, we need a president who will make a decision, specially since he announced last March 27th that we had just implemented a new strategy in Afghanistan.

Pres BO also named a new commander, an extremely talented man who is an expert on the kind of military operation that we need in Afghanistan.

Frankly, Pres BO's indecisiveness is tough to watch. It is putting US and other NATO troops at risk because we don't have the resources necessary to do the job.

How do you tell the UK and Canada to stay? How do you ask others to join the US when our commander in chief can't make a decision?

Ruben Navarrette has a good post today: Obama At War With His General

"According to McClatchy, some members of McChrystal's staff said they don't understand why Obama called Afghanistan a "war of necessity" but still hasn't given them the resources they need to do what is necessary.

Good question.

We should all be asking the same thing."

Frankly, this is not very difficult at all.

First, was candidate BO, and subsequently Pres BO, sincere about Afghanistan being a war of necessity and "the central front" on the war on terror?

Did he mean it? Was he just telling a lot of Dems what they wanted to hear? Was he just using Afghanistan to beat up Bush, and McCain, over Iraq? (One left blog admits that the Dems were just playing politics with Afghanistan!)

Second, if "yes" then listen to your commanders rather than the polling data that shows Americans souring on the war.

By the way, I think that Americans are souring on Pres BO's indecisiveness not the overall mission. It's the Dem party not the public in general who is souring rapidly on this war! See Gallup: "The data indicate that Republicans do seem willing to support Obama should he make a decision to increase U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan. On the other hand, Democrats seem willing to oppose Obama in this case."

Third, if Afghanistan is not vital.....then pack up and come home. Leave a quick strike force behind and conduct covert operations to kill leaders, which is what we were doing under Pres Bush!

Go to the UN Security Council and let the UN worry about it. Let the Security Council pass resolutions. Let's give multinational operations a chance! Send a multinational force and do peace keeping as we build the Afghan forces and build schools.

Again, we need a decision, specially from a candidate, now president, who was so firm about the need to fight and win in Afghanistan.

This is a video from the campaign.

Let me help you identify the characters in this video.

One man in this video is saying that we must send more troops to Afghanistan.

His name is Barrack Obama and he won the election:

Regulations and taxes are killing California!

Captain Ed has a great post about California and all of those regulations driving taxpayers and employers to Texas or somewhere else: Regulation costs California economy almost $500 billion!

It is truly amazing:

"The study finds that the total cost of regulation to the State of California is $492.994 billion which is almost five times the State’s general fund budget, and almost a third of the State’s gross product.

The cost of regulation results in an employment loss of 3.8 million jobs which is a tenth of the State’s population.

Since small business constitute 99.2% of all employer businesses in California, and all of non-employer business, the regulatory cost is borne almost completely by small business.

The total cost of regulation was $134,122.48 per small business in California in 2007, labor income not created or lost was $4,359.55 per small business, indirect business taxes not generated or lost were $57,260.15 per small business, and finally roughly one job lost per small business."

A few days ago, we made reference to The Economist and America's future, a comparison of Texas and California.

Where would you rather open a business? It's Texas all the way!

Sadly, California has been destroyed by over-regulation, political correctness and high taxes.

Regime change? California needs one very badly!

Remembering Peter, Paul AND specially Mary's beautiful voice!

A few days ago, I put my PP & M CD in the car and enjoyed some of their great songs.

Of course, Mary Travers died last week after a long battle with cancer.

I have always loved folk music. It's fun and very nice to sing along to.

Let's enjoy another PP & M song, and pay special attention to Mary Travers' voice.

I love "Where have all the flowers gone" and "Tiny Sparrow":

"Where have all the flowers gone, long time passing?

Where have all the flowers gone, long time ago?

Where have all the flowers gone?

Young girls have picked them everyone.

Oh, when will they ever learn? Oh, when will they ever learn?

Where have all the young girls gone, long time passing?

Where have all the young girls gone, long time ago?

Where have all the young girls gone?

Gone for husbands everyone.

Oh, when will they ever learn? Oh, when will they ever learn?

Where have all the husbands gone, long time passing?

Where have all the husbands gone, long time ago?

Where have all the husbands gone?

Gone for soldiers everyone

Oh, when will they ever learn? Oh, when will they ever learn?

Where have all the soldiers gone, long time passing?

Where have all the soldiers gone, long time ago?

Where have all the soldiers gone?

Gone to graveyards, everyone. Oh, when will they ever learn?

Oh, when will they ever learn?

Where have all the graveyards gone, long time passing?

Where have all the graveyards gone, long time ago?

Where have all the graveyards gone?

Gone to flowers, everyone.

Oh, when will they ever learn? Oh, when will they ever learn?

Where have all the flowers gone, long time passing?

Where have all the flowers gone, long time ago?

Where have all the flowers gone?

Young girls have picked them everyone.

Oh, when will they ever learn? Oh, when will they ever learn?"

"Come all ye fair and tender ladies,

Take warning how you court your men.

They're like the stars on a summer's mornin'

First they'll appear and then they're gone.

If I had known before I courted

what all his lyin' could have done

I'd have locked my heart in a box of golden

and never would have courted none.

I wish I were a tiny sparrow

and I had wings and I could fly.

I'd fly away to my own true lover

and all he'd ask I would deny.

Alas I'm not a tiny sparrow

I have not wings nor can I fly

And on this earth in grief and sorrow

I am bound until I die.

Come all ye fair and tender ladies

Take warning how you court your men.

They're like the stars on a summer's mornin'

First they'll appear and then they're gone.'"

Who is going to tell the world that the Dems won't let BO close GITMO?

On Friday night, we got this headline: AP sources: Gitmo closing goal of Jan. may slip

What's the problem?

Nobody wants one of the 200-plus terrorists in their districts.

In "real world terms" rather "yes we can" fantasy land, our mainland jails reside in congressional districts AND nobody wants to tell their constituents that a terrorist is moving in AND we don't see a lot of countries lining up to take them either.

Frankly, I agree with Congress on this one.

GITMO is exactly where they belong! These are 200-plus people who must be kept away from the US mainland.

There goes another campaign promise......along with Iraq where Pres BO is fulfilling the Bush-Iraq agreement.

So who is going to tell the world?

Who is going to revise Pres BO's speech to the UN and remind the audience that closing GITMO ain't going to happen......no matter how popular it may be at the UN!

In the meantime, we refer the world to Professor VD Hanson's latest post on Pres BO's speech to the UN:

"By staking out the messianic, prophetic ground, and his strident anti-Bush credentials, observers are going to note his serial hypocrisies, such as keeping the Patriot Act, rendition, tribunals, Predator attacks, the Petraeus plan in Iraq, wiretaps, intercepts, etc., and in fact anything that smacks of a transnationalist protecting U.S. interests first, and global ones, second."

Caution: Obama-mania comes with lots of disillusionment!

Guess who lied about their nuclear program and moved us closer to a war?

We woke up Friday to some rather amazing headlines:

CAUGHT BY SURPRISE: IRAN BUILDING SECOND NUKE PLANT

Obama, Brown and Sarkozy Say Secret Plant Violates Pact

I agree with Bill Katz:

"The implications are grave.

The Iranians have been caught red-handed.

If they have one secret facility, we must logically ask how many others they have.

If the purpose of their nuclear program is peaceful, why was it necessary to hide part of it?"

The US is now moving toward two awful options:

First, we take out the Iranian facilities with a massive bombing campaign and some ground troops.

We will probably have to act alone (perhaps with the UK) because the UN Security Council will never agree to a military action.

Frankly, most countries don't have the aerial or naval power necessary to damage facilities underground.

Second, we let Israel do it.

However, we will likely get drawn in because Iran will retaliate against our troops in Iraq (or Afghanistan) and attempt to shut down the Straits of Hormuz.

Very bad options indeed. I don't see how we avoid a war with Iran, directly or indirectly, in the next 12 months!

Unfortunately, I don't see a peaceful solution to this because the Iranian leadership is not going to cooperate with any inspectors or obey UN resolutions.

Like Clinton with NAFTA, BO will not have the Dems in Afghanistan!

I agree with David Brooks:

"These are the realistic choices for America’s Afghanistan policy — all out or all in, surrender the place to the Taliban or do armed nation-building. And we might as well acknowledge that it’s not an easy call."

That's right! No easy call in Afghanistan, specially when NATO is balking at sending troops and US public opinion is turning against sending troops.

Today's Gallup tells the story:

"Americans are more likely to say they would oppose (50%) rather than favor (41%) a possible decision by President Barack Obama to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan."

The poll has more interesting information:

"The data indicate that Republicans do seem willing to support Obama should he make a decision to increase U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan.

On the other hand, Democrats seem willing to oppose Obama in this case. Independents are also on the opposition side of the ledger."

Again, what an awful situation for a Dem president with majorities in the House and Senate!

What a mess!

Remember when Pres Bush proposed Soc Sec reforms?

Back in 2005, Pres Bush gave the first State of the Union of his second term. He spoke about the amazing Iraqi elections and Social Security reforms.

It turns out that Pres Bush was right. Social Security is going broke, going broke a little faster than projected.

IBD has a great editorial and warning: Red October

"As recently as last spring, the Social Security Trustees Report said outlays will begin to exceed revenues by 2016, one year ahead of 2008's report and three years sooner than many earlier projections.

More recent estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, however, show deficits in 2010 ($10 billion) and 2011 ($9 billion)."

How are we gong to make up this kind of money?

I don't know for sure. However, it may be a good idea to reconsider Pres Bush's 2005 reforms!

Wonder if the Dems are still applauding today? Pres Bush was right:

Thank you PM Netanyahu!

We love leaders who speak their minds.

We love leaders who tell the UN, and the world, what they need to hear.

Today, we join people of good faith everywhere....and say thank you PM Netanyahu!

We add our names to those of us who love freedom....thank you PM Netanyahu!

We join Christians and others who support the wonderful nation of Israel and their right to exist without missiles fired at their cities......we loved PM Netanyahu's speech!

Yes, we salute PM Netanyahu of Israel.

He had the guts to say what this collection of idiots at the UN had to hear:

""The man who called the Holocaust a lie spoke at this podium.

To those who refused to come and to those who left in protest, I commend you.

You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honor to your countries.

But to those who gave this Holocaust denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere -- have you no shame?

Have you no decency?""

Decency in the UN?

There is no decency in the UN, except for a handful of countries who walked out!

Again, we are so grateful that Israel has a leader. We believe that Israel has a right to defend itself:

Isn't this a bit weird? School children sing "praises to BO"?

Earlier this month, some of us objected to the lesson plans that were supposed to accompany Pres BO's speech to school children.

The lesson plans were eventually changed after parents raised questions about "the politicization" issue.

Now, we learn this:

"The superintendent of a New Jersey school where students were videotaped being taught to sing the praises of President Obama issued a statement Thursday saying the taping was unauthorized, but failed to address whether the the lesson -- taught durnig Black History Month -- was approved."

What was the song all about? Try this:

"One song that the children were taught quotes directly from the spiritual "Jesus Loves the Little Children," though Jesus' name is replaced with Obama's:

"He said red, yellow, black or white/All are equal in his sight/Barack Hussein Obama."

Here is a sample of the lyrics:

"Mm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama

He said that all must lend a hand

To make this country strong again

Mmm, mmm, mm!Barack Hussein Obama

He said we must be fair today

Equal work means equal pay

Mmm, mmm, mm! Barack Hussein Obama

He said that we must take a stand

To make sure everyone gets a chance

Mmm, mmm, mm! Barack Hussein Obama

He said red, yellow, black or white

All are equal in his sight

Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama Yes!

Mmm, mmm, mm Barack Hussein Obama"

We like this from Kevin McCullough:

"Those at the B. Bernice Elementary School in Burlington Township, New Jersey, may be unable to overcome their sycophantic Obama obsessions, but the children of America should not be required to chant his name, raise their hands, and repeat dogma that may not be exactly based in reality."

I have a question:

Were the parents advised or allowed to read the lyrics?

Who authorized this? I can't believe that a teacher just decided to take a bunch of kids and turn them into "we a madly in love with BO" chorus.

Was any of this related to the lesson plans related to Pres BO's speech to children?

Again, isn't it a bit weird to have kids singing songs like these?

It is to me!

Frankly, I smell a little "personality cult" coupled with a teacher caught up in Obama-mania!

P.S. Here is the video from a school in New Jersey: