Please note that you can leave a comment on any of our posts at our Facebook page.  Subscribers can also comment at length at our Angel's Corner Forum.

MAY 25,  2013

THE SPEECH – AT 11:27 A.M. ET:  It's been two days since President Obama delivered his landmark speech on national security, essentially signaling an end to the formal "war on terror," which of course has been a struggle, but not a war.

The left generally praised the speech, but many voices, especially at The New York Times, felt it didn't go far enough.  But some liberal voices have been responsibly cautious.  The Washington Post's thoughtful editorial page cautioned that our enemies might not let the president carry out his childlike (my term, not theirs) vision.  They have their own agenda, and it isn't Obama's.

Even The Times, in a news article today, outlined the threats this country still faces.

One of the biggest threats, by the way, usually goes unmentioned – the probability that terror groups, no matter how small or poorly organized, will eventually acquire more and more powerful weapons.  We fear they're already acquiring surface-to-air shoulder-launched missiles that could close down a nation's air transport system.  They will surely acquire chemical weapons.  And nuclear weapons are not out of the realm of possibility. 

Conservative analysts are contemptuous of Obama's speech and his academic vision of the world.  The great Michael Ledeen writes at Pajamas Media:

He’s actually getting worse. This president will not admit that we are in a war, as President George W. Bush defined it, with various terrorist organizations and with countries that support them. In his overlong, rambling speech to the National Defense University on terrorism and national security, the president never even mentioned Iran, which happens to be our main enemy and the world’s leading sponsor of international terrorism. Not one word.

You may well ask how it is possible for the president to talk about his counterterrorism “strategy” without addressing the main source of terrorism. You would be right to ask, and you should also ask how it is possible that, so far as I can see, not one of the pundits, experts and commentators noticed the omission. They were so busy with the future of Gitmo and where captured terrorists should be tried, and how many drones can fit on the head of a jihadi, that they missed the biggest thing.

Talk about a dog that didn’t bark!

The speech was bizarre, to put it mildly. It was often incoherent, as when he gritted his teeth and actually admitted that there is an ideological conflict between us and the terrorists. “Most…of the terrorism we face,” he said, ”is fueled by a common ideology…that Islam is in conflict with the United States and the West.” Without taking a deep breath, he hastily added that the “common ideology” was “based on a lie.” Why? Because “the United States is not at war with Islam…”

It’s typical of the president’s world-view that he would assume any such war to be instigated by us, but in this case the jihadis have it right, and he’s got it backwards. There is indeed a war, it is theirs, the jihadis’ war, and they are waging it because they firmly believe they are commanded to do so by the Almighty. They aim to destroy or dominate Western infidels and apostates. Those commands are in the Koran, and are repeated by a great mass of imams, ayatollahs and mullahs. Those thousands of Iranians or Hezbollahis who chant “death to America” mean just that. It’s the reason for their jihad against us.

COMMENT:  Ledeen is, as usual, right on the button.  Please read his entire article.  It's nice, in the stifling environment of the age of Obama, to get a breath of fresh air.

May 25, 2013       Permalink

IT GOES ON – AT 11:04 A.M. ET:  Major violence in Sweden entered its sixth night, with the self-deluded left convinced that it's all a matter of socio-economic issues.  There are shades of the kind of shallow thinking that left American cities ablaze in the 1960s:

Rioting in Sweden has spread beyond the capital in the sixth night of violence. Several cities saw cars and buildings set ablaze as police reinforcements in Stockholm sought to contain widespread unrest.

Almost a week-long spate of violence hit the central Swedish town of Orebro on Friday where police reported a fire at a school and several cars set ablaze. Police said masked youths also attempted to torch a police station in the city, which lies 160 kilometers (100 miles) west of Stockholm.
An old building was reportedly also set on fire in the town of Sodertalje less than an hour's drive from the capital.

In Stockholm meanwhile police reported that several cars were set ablaze in mainly immigrant suburbs in what was a comparatively quiet night.

"It is a bit calmer. Of course, there are still fires," said Towe Hagg, a police spokeswoman in Stockholm.

The city's quietist night thus far came after police reinforcements were called from across the country on Friday and dispatched to trouble-hit areas of the city.

On Thursday at least 30 cars and several buildings were set alight including a police station and a school in the northern suburb of Kista. The previous night police were called out to deal with some 90 incidents.

At least 29 people have now been arrested in connection with the violence.

The riots, the worst to hit Sweden in years, have shaken a nation famed for its openness, tolerance and model welfare state. Critics of the Swedish government say they have exposed a widening gap between the rich and poor - mostly young people with immigrant backgrounds. Widening youth unemployment has also been blamed.

Yup, it's those unemployed "youths" again.  Nothing about the fact that they often come from communities that don't want to integrate into Swedish society, don't want to join modernity, and have contempt for the very people who've helped them.

We did the same dance here before Rudy Giuliani came to power in New York in the early 90s and showed that a city could confront violence without solving every social "grievance" first.  That is why New York is one of the safest cities in America and Chicago is an urban disaster.  And the greatest beneficiaries of Giuliani's vision are African Americans, whose death toll from violence has dropped 80%.  They won't say "thank you" because their leaders, heavily invested in the leftist party line and the perks it brings to minority leaders, won't let them.  But every time New York's police commissioner, Ray Kelly, speaks to a black church, he gets a standing ovation.

Europe may or may not learn from our experience.  I'm guardedly pessimistic.  The left is too heavily ingrained in Europe to change.  But hope for miracles.

May 25,  2013     Permalink

MAY 24,  2013

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 7:20 P.M. ET:

SINISTER – Am I glad the IRS is protecting us!  Everyone knows that among the most suspicious of characters are those who...adopt children.  Oh yeah.  We know all about them.  And I'm sure that's why, as it was revealed today, some 70% of adoptive families have had at least a partial tax audit for 2012, as opposed to approximately one percent of the rest of taxpayers.  And 90% of those claiming an adoption tax credit were flagged for further review.  On guard for America.

PINKOS – Much buzz on the internet today over who invited Medea Benjamin, the far-left clown who runs Code Pink, into the president's speech yesterday.  It was a presidential address at a federal installation, and security was tight.  Obviously, someone let Benjamin in, and she proceeded to heckle the president.   The fact is, though, that Code Pink hecklers manage to get into many events, including addresses to Congress by foreign leaders.  They have tickets, despite their long America-hating record.  In the case of Congressional events, speculation is that some fringe members of Congress, especially in the California delegation, accommodate the Code Pinkers.  In the president's case, I don't know.  Was it an enemy of the president?  Or was it the administration itself, knowing that a left-wing heckler doesn't do the president any harm among mainstream Americans.  A top official of Code Pink, Jodi Evans, is also a major fundraiser for Obama. 

IMMIGRATION – With all the attention on the scandals, we've averted our eyes from an important immigration bill being worked up in the Senate by the so-called "gang of eight," a bipartisan group of senators.  However, it may be much ado about nothing.  Immigration is hot-button, and even a major Democratic senator is saying that the current proposal doesn't have enough support to pass the Dem-controlled  Senate.  It surely doesn't have enough to pass the GOP-run House.  Republicans, though, must be especially careful with this issue.  One of the top GOP priorities is attracting Hispanic voters, which can only be done with a thoughtful, non-hostile approach to immigration reform, while maintaining conservative principles.  Tough act.

UNIONS TURNING ON OBAMACARE – From Breitbart:   "Some labor unions that enthusiastically backed President Barack Obama's health care overhaul are now frustrated and angry, fearful that it will jeopardize benefits for millions of their members.  Union leaders warn that unless the problem is fixed, there could be consequences for Democrats facing re-election next year.  'It makes an untruth out of what the president said – that if you like your insurance, you could keep it,' said Joe Hansen, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. 'That is not going to be true for millions of workers now.'"  When will unions realize that the modern Democratic Party doesn't give a hoot about them, except at election time?  This is no longer "the party of the people."

May 24, 2013      Permalink

NOT SO FAST, BARACK – AT 11:10 A.M. ET:  Obama's timing wasn't all that great, but there he was yesterday giving a speech about scaling back counterterrorism, approaching it the way we did before 9-11, as an unfortunate law-enforcement problem.

Coming a month after Boston, and a day after a brutal terror attack in London, we may be forgiven for choking a bit.  Republicans are choking a lot:

President Obama drew sharp criticism from Republican senators Thursday for urging the repeal of the 2001 law that effectively authorized the war on terror.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., claimed the president was assuming Al Qaeda is "on the run," calling that mindset "really incredible."

The president addressed the law, known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), toward the end of an hour-long speech largely devoted to explaining and defending his administration's lethal drone program. He even referenced the fact that America is at war in defending the legality of the drone strikes.

But Obama made clear that his ultimate goal is to update, and then repeal, the use of force law, saying he wants to fight terrorism without keeping the country on a "perpetual war-time footing."

We are not on a war-time footing.  That is nonsense.  The military has been at war.  The nation is not at war.  How much inconvenience have you suffered?  Shortages?  Restrictions?  Our pain threshold is so low in this generation that having a bag inspected at an airport is a crisis.

In World War II we had 15 million men and women under arms, as against a population of about 130 million.  Today we have 1.4 million under arms, with a population of about 310 million.  We have one tenth the number of citizens under arms, and yet our population is two and a half times as large.  Are we at war?

"The AUMF is now nearly twelve years old. The Afghan War is coming to an end..."

The hell it is.  We're pulling out.  The war goes on.  What a crock.

"Core Al Qaeda is a shell of its former self," Obama said. "Unless we discipline our thinking our definitions, our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don't need to fight, or continue to grant presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflicts between nation states.

"So I look forward to engaging Congress and the American people in efforts to refine, and ultimately repeal, the AUMF's mandate. And I will not sign laws designed to expand this mandate further," he said. "Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue. But this war, like all wars, must end. That's what history advises. That's what our democracy demands."

It does?  Where is that written?

The resolution was passed by Congress three days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. It authorized the military and president to use all necessary force to go after those responsible, and prevent future acts of terror. It remains in effect.

COMMENT:  Obama's remarks are not surprising.  They follow the thinking of his new secretary of state, the delusional John Kerry, who, even after 9-11, argued that terrorism was a law-enforcement problem.  (Next time we're attacked, let's send the meter maids.)

Obama boasted that we haven't had a large-scale attack on American soil since he came to office, a profoundly selfish remark.  In fact, after September 11, 2001, we didn't have a successful large-scale attack on American soil during the remaining seven years of the Bush presidency. 

Al Qaeda may have changed, but it will strike again.  Obama's comments remind me of those made by some during the "phony war" period, the seeming lull in Europe between the Nazi invasion of Poland in September, 1939, and the Nazi thrust westward in the spring of 1940. 

Obama would have been well advised to discuss the probability that terror groups will get more and more powerful weapons.  He did not.  Apparently, the number of casualties in Boston was insufficient to wake him up.

May 24, 2013        Permalink 

A TREND – AT 10:06 A.M. ET:   New York State sheriffs have joined a federal lawsuit challenging aspects of New York's new, sweeping "gun control" laws.  This seems to be a trend.  Sheriffs in Colorado recently announced opposition to that state's new gun laws. 

Sheriffs are often elected, as opposed to police chiefs, who are often politically appointed.  The New York sheriffs make some excellent points that should be studied before other states go crazy and start enacting absurd, ineffective laws that will do nothing to reduce gun violence.  From Fox:

ALBANY, N.Y. – County sheriffs have asked to join the federal lawsuit challenging New York's tough new gun restrictions, calling some provisions vague and impossible to enforce fairly.

The New York State Sheriffs' Association and five individual sheriffs are asking U.S. District Judge William Skretny to add their position to the record. They support gun rights advocates seeking to block enforcement of new bullet limits for magazines and the tighter definition of assault weapons.

The sheriffs agree with the New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association that the law, passed after the Newtown, Conn., school shooting, is unconstitutional because it will prevent citizens from keeping commonly used firearms for home defense.

"The Supreme Court has confirmed that the Second Amendment protects arms typically possessed by law-abiding citizens, and identified that the right of self-defense is 'core' protected conduct that is at its zenith in the home," the sheriffs' brief said. "At a minimum, laws that criminalize the most common rifle in America today - a rifle that is often selected precisely for its self-defense capabilities - impinge upon that core right. The same is true of laws banning standard-capacity magazines."

COMMENT:  I recently was required to register my Smith & Wesson .22LR rifle, which I use for target shooting at a well-patrolled range.  I had to register it because it had one "military-style" feature, which adds nothing to the firepower of the rifle. 

As I registered, I imagined all the gun-toting criminals out there, eager to register to be sure they complied with the law.

Look, as I've written before, I have no problem with Constitutional, effective steps to reduce gun violence.  I even favor mandatory training for gun buyers, and including mental-health histories in the background-check program.  I favor professionally certified armed guards at schools.  But laws designed to polish the images of lawmakers are usually bad laws.  The New York law is laughable.  Meanwhile, vulnerable schools go unguarded. 

May 24, 2013        Permalink

THE FISH ROTS FROM THE HEAD – AT 9:47 A.M. ET:  Does the name "Eric Holder" ring a bell?  From NBC News, which itself is surprising: 

Attorney General Eric Holder signed off on a controversial search warrant that identified Fox News reporter James Rosen as a “possible co-conspirator” in violations of the Espionage Act and authorized seizure of his private emails, a law enforcement official told NBC News on Thursday.

The disclosure of the attorney general’s role came as President Barack Obama, in a major speech on his counterterrorism policy, said Holder had agreed to review Justice Department guidelines governing investigations that involve journalists.

"I am troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds government accountable," Obama said. "Journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs."

I'm sure Obama was brimming with sincerity.

Rosen, who has not been charged in the case, was nonetheless the target of a search warrant that enabled Justice Department investigators to secretly seize his private emails after an FBI agent said he had "asked, solicited and encouraged … (a source) to disclose sensitive United States internal documents and intelligence information."

Obama's comments follow a firestorm of criticism that has erupted over disclosures that in separate investigations of leaks of classified information, the Justice Department had obtained private emails that Rosen exchanged with a source and the phone records of Associated Press reporters.

COMMENT:  Eric Holder makes John Mitchell, Nixon's attorney general, look like a saint.  Holder is running a politicized Justice Department and it is time for him to "spend more time with his family."  Instead, he is asked by Obama to investigate himself.  Ah, the Chicago style has its advantages for those in power.

As Speaker Boehner said yesterday, It's "drip, drip drip."  Each day brings more revelations.

So many scandals, so little time.

May 24, 2013       Permalink

ANOTHER EUROPEAN FARCE – AT 8:50 A.M. ET:  It is amazing to me how many "sophisticated" Americans, especially those housed in our colleges and universities, look to Europe for guidance on how to live and run countries. 

One European country that is particularly admired by our betters is Sweden, not that the sophisticated classes know very much about that country.  They just think they know, and they love their Volvos, apparently unaware that Volvo hasn't been Swedish-owned in years.

Swedish diplomats run around the world extolling how wonderful their country is, how progressive, how enlightened...despite the fact that Sweden sold steel to the Nazis and remained neutral during the Cold War, letting the Americans and some NATO nations defend Western freedom. 

Consider what is happening in Sweden right now:

Youth gang riots in the Swedish capital Stockholm have entered fifth straight night. Hundreds of mostly immigrant teenagers tore through the suburbs, smashing windows and burning cars in the country’s worst outbreak of violence in years.

At least six vehicles were torched throughout the city late on Thursday while the police called for reinforcements from other Swedish cities bracing for further unrest.

Firefighters were putting out flames that engulfed several cars and a school in immigrant-dominated areas of Stockholm.

And...

Community leaders insist that a main reason for the violence is the high rate of unemployment in immigrant communities, particularly in the suburb of Husby near central Stockholm, one of the worst affected by the nighttime violence, Peter Oliver reported.

Although Sweden’s unemployment rate is below the EU average, joblessness among those under 25 has reached nearly 25 percent. The RT crew in Stockholm noted that a majority of those taking part in the violence are young.

“In Sweden you’ve got welfare, access to the educational system – up to university level, you got access to public transport, libraries, healthcare – to everything. And still they feel that they [immigrants] need to riot through stones and Molotov cocktails. It’s ridiculous and a bad excuse,” Swedish Democrats MP Kent Ekeroth told RT.

“Police can put down these riots in five minutes – if the politicians were to allow them,” Ekeroth added.

And...

The claims of social exclusion in immigrant-dominated suburbs have been partly conceded by Sweden’s Integration Minister Erik Ullenhag, who said the ministry is aware of “discrimination in these areas.”  But the riots “don’t improve the image of these areas, where there is a lot of positive stuff going on,” he added.

Yeah, riots are unpopular with those not rioting.

And...

For years, Sweden – one of Europe’s most tranquil countries, famous for its attractive immigration policies and generous welfare system – has been accepting an influx of immigrants, which now make up about 15 per cent of its population. These migrants have failed to integrate into Swedish society, and are only in the country to enjoy the country’s social benefits system, Swedish journalist Ingrid Carlqvist told RT.

“The problem is not from the Swedish government or from the Swedish people,” the editor in chief of Dispatch International said. “The last 20 years or so, we have seen so many immigrants coming to Sweden that really don’t like Sweden. They do not want to integrate, they do not want to live in [Swedish] society: Working, paying taxes and so on.”

And...

As rioting continues to rip through Stockholm, some claim the violence has clearly been orchestrated for ulterior motives, Lars Hedegaard, Editor-in-Chief of Swedish newspaper Dispatch International said to RT.

“Some people would like to gain recognition as stakeholder in society. In other words, there are people who would like to be in a negotiating position… that they can make things happen and go away. That they have power in local communities and should be reckoned with,” he explained.

“These riots in the country that are spreading and continuing for a long time that the [multiculturalism] success was a fiction, they never succeeded,” Hedegaard said.

COMMENT:  If you read the story you'll find that the writer does handstands to avoid using the term "Muslim," until he quotes a politician using it...and immediately describes the politician as a non-Swedish far rightist.  That's the way the journalism game is played.

Multiculturalism has become a bad joke, a code term for the old anti-American, anti-capitalist left.  But you may be sure that, within days, the socialist religionists in Sweden will form a commission to look into the "grievances" of the "youths." 

And this summer, well-heeled American "students" will spend their junior year abroad, learning to admire the wonders of European civilization, not realizing that they're dancing on a rotting corpse.

It reminds me of a famous photo of students from Barnard College showing disappointment when they learned that their summer trip to study in Nazi Germany had been canceled because of conditions in Europe.

Some mentalities never change. 

May 24,  2013     Permalink