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.

OUR DAILY SNIPPETS ARE HERE.

TUESDAY,  APRIL 13,  2010

THE RIGHT THING TO DO – AT 7:31 P.M. ET:  I've sometimes written here that one of the most honorable things you can do in politics is to keep your movement honest.  It's hard, and painful.  It means going up against your friends, and sometimes losing them.

William F. Buckley Jr. stressed this throughout his storied career, working endlessly to fight extremism and nuttiness in the conservative movement he worked so hard to build.  He largely succeeded.  There was no one in liberalism who made the same effort, and the result is obvious.

Now a group of Oklahoma Republicans, following Bill Buckley's example, is doing the right thing:

A group of tea party leaders and Republican state legislators that wants to create a volunteer militia in Oklahoma has no place in the GOP, state Republicans told POLITICO on Tuesday.

The Associated Press has reported that tea party movement leaders and two Republican Oklahoma state lawmakers — Rep. Charles Key and Sen. Randy Brogdon, also a candidate for governor — have discussed forming a militia to defend against what they see as federal infringements on the state’s rights.

In a phone interview, state GOP Chairman Gary Jones said the tea party activists are only talking about forming a militia because “they are trying to make themselves out to be bigger than they are.”

“A lot of these people don’t care about being the majority, they just want a megaphone. They want a voice,” the state GOP chairman said. “Once they get a reporter to cover a story they have a megaphone, and they get pretty loud.”

Jones insisted that Oklahoma Republicans will not follow this “small faction within the party.”

“They’re going to look back and see there are not a whole lot of folks following them in this direction,” he said.

COMMENT:  There are limits in politics.  You have to police your own movement.  The Oklahoma GOP is doing the right thing by rejecting an extremist idea.  Contrast please with the Democratic Party, which tries to throw out Joe Lieberman but embraces Barbara Lee of California, a follower of Fidel Castro.

There have been several other conservative voices raised in recent days, cautioning about extremism.  They are following, not only Buckley's example, but Reagan's.  Reagan, like his political hero, FDR, knew where the limits were.  For those who think the skies are filled with black helicopters, maybe they'd be happier elsewhere.

April 13, 2010     Permalink

OUR STUDENT GOVERNMENT – AT 7:09 P.M. ET:  I listened to the president's speech wrapping up the nuclear proliferation summit in Washington. 

Listening to Obama is like listening to a well-practiced "motivational speaker."  Smooth words.  Exciting words.  Better look for the substance.

Wonderful things were done, the president assured us.  Why, nations came forward (think an evangelical meeting), and these nations made commitments.  Yes, commitments my friend, right here in River City.  (Think "The Music Man.")  The heavens have lightened!  We are the good people!

And, yes, Mr. Obama did announce some actions that some countries have taken, like giving up some nuclear material.  And then, unfortunately for Mr. Obama, there were press questions.

And so Bill Plante of CBS News spoiled Mr. Obama's hustle by noting, very simply, that the final agreement announced by the summit made it clear that all commitments were voluntary.

Oh.

Yeah, it's a little problem in the grown-up world, but there is absolutely no enforcement mechanism in the summit's summary of joy.  None at all.  And little problems like Iran and Pakistan were left out entirely.  As Charles Krauthammer said, many of these "world leaders" will return to their capitals tomorrow wondering what the whole thing was about.

It was about Obama.  Now, true, we are glad that the president has raised the profile of nuclear terrorism.  He is to be commended for that.  All praise.  But where this president fails, and fails badly, is translating rhetoric into reality.  He reflects the narrow, cloistered, in some cases immature world in which he has spent most of his life.  We saw this with health care.  We're seeing it in foreign policy.  It's words that count to him.  The deeds go undone, or are left to others. 

Words can indeed matter.  Churchill used the English language as a weapon.  But Churchill backed his words with actions.  Thus far, the president's actions in foreign policy have been anemic at best, treacherous at worst, except for his buildup in Afghanistan. 

So we've had another conference.  It reminds me of all the conferences the League of Nations had in the 1930s.  The bottom line is this:  If Iran gets the bomb, who will take us seriously?  If Al Qaeda sets off a dirty nuke in an American city, who will fear us?  What will we have left, except the fading pages of the program from today's conference?

April 13, 2010    Permalink

DEMAND FOR REPEAL GROWS – AT 10:02 A.M. ET:  Rasmussen reports that support for outright repeal of Obamacare is growing:

Rasmussen Reports has released new numbers today showing increased support for the full repeal of Obamacare. The new weekly polling results show that 58% of likely voters now support repeal of the government takeover of health care. A full 50% strongly support the repeal.

The telephone survey of likely voters nationwide finds 38% still oppose repeal, including 32% who strongly oppose it...

...Eighty-eight percent (88%) of Republicans and 54% of voters not affiliated with either major party favor repeal. Sixty-one percent (61%) of Democrats are opposed.

COMMENT:  The polling reflects a pattern we see in other policy areas as well.  The only voters strongly supporting Obama today are Democrats.  He's lost the independents, and he never had the Republicans. 

This bodes well for the GOP in November, unless the party messes things up, which it has a unique ability to do.

April 13, 2010     Permalink

WHO NEEDS DOCTORS WHEN "THE ONE" WILL LAY ON HANDS? – AT 9:18 A.M. ET:  Already we are seeing the negative effects of the reckless Obamacare law.  From The Wall Street Journal:

The new federal health-care law has raised the stakes for hospitals and schools already scrambling to train more doctors.

Experts warn there won't be enough doctors to treat the millions of people newly insured under the law. At current graduation and training rates, the nation could face a shortage of as many as 150,000 doctors in the next 15 years, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges.

So you'll wait.  So what.  Look how European you'll feel. 

That shortfall is predicted despite a push by teaching hospitals and medical schools to boost the number of U.S. doctors, which now totals about 954,000.

The greatest demand will be for primary-care physicians. These general practitioners, internists, family physicians and pediatricians will have a larger role under the new law, coordinating care for each patient.

The U.S. has 352,908 primary-care doctors now, and the college association estimates that 45,000 more will be needed by 2020. But the number of medical-school students entering family medicine fell more than a quarter between 2002 and 2007.

A shortage of primary-care and other physicians could mean more-limited access to health care and longer wait times for patients.

Right-wing tea party propaganda.  I hear the n-word.

What do these peasants out there want?  Real doctors?  They must stop watching these TV medical shows.  It's a new day now.  Everyone gets mediocre care.  We are all victims....equally.

April 13, 2010    Permalink

THE GRIM REALITY – AT 8:37 A.M. ET:  This has just come in, and there are few details, but it is disturbing.  From the Jerusalem Post:

Iran will join the global nuclear club within one month, according to the deputy research chief of the Islamic republic’s Atomic Energy of Iran (AEOI).

Fars on Tuesday quoted Behzad Soltani, who also serves as the secretary-general of the AEOI’s Scientific Cooperation Council, as saying that “no country would ever think about attacking Iran” once the nuclear threshold has been crossed.

It is not clear from the story exactly what that "nuclear threshold" is.  I would, though, take this seriously.  No one doubts that the Iranian program is moving forward at a quick pace. 

"We do not intend to use the peaceful nuclear energy merely for generating electricity and energy, rather our next step would be expanding use of this technology,” Soltani reportedly said. Radiation, he said, can ensure that “foodstuff, proteins and vegetables are preserved for a longer time and with a higher quality.”

Soltani added that construction work on a large-scale nuclear powerplant and a smaller research reactor in the Iranian city of Arak is nearing completion and is now at 70 percent.

COMMENT:  An Iranian bomb would be a major blow to American foreign policy and prestige, although some of the mainstream media would probably go into spin mode and minimize it, the better to serve the administration it helped put into power. 

There is absolutely nothing on the horizon, including so-called sanctions, that will stop the Iranians.  Regime change might do it – the success of the democracy movement – but Obama will do nothing to help the Iranian freedom fighters. 

And, of course, there is military action.  But the Iranians calculate, probably correctly, that the Obamans would never attack because it might "offend" the Muslim world, and that they will make it impossible for Israel to attack.

If I were an Iranian mullah today, I'd be mulling victory.

April 13, 2010     Permalink

OH DEAR, OH DEAR, THEY'VE DONE IT AGAIN – AT 8:08 A.M. ET:  The Obamans, I mean.  At what point do we start to scream at the endless series of foreign-policy mistakes made by the amateur operators in charge of the White House?

Just yesterday the administration was telling us that there had been a breakthrough in getting China on board with sanctions against Iran.  The in-the-tank press echoed this enormous success.  We had moved mountains.  We had moved tea leaves.  The Great Wall itself was seen to move, under the hand of The One.

Uh, not so fast, fellas.  China has now weighed in to explain its own foreign policy, and it ain't what the house of Obama the divine was claiming yesterday. 

WASHINGTON (AFP) – China said Tuesday sanctions were not the answer to the Iranian atomic standoff, denting US President Barack Obama's hopes of sealing a deal to punish Tehran as he hosted a summit on nuclear arms.

Obama was expected to urge world leaders to harden their resolve to lock down nuclear material on the second day of a 47-nation summit in Washington aimed at keeping atomic weapons out of terrorist hands.

However the conference threatened to be overshadowed by growing tension on Iran, which the United States and its allies accuse of covertly working on a nuclear weapon. Iran says it is pursuing only civilian power.

The two-day gathering saw Obama meet Monday with Chinese President Hu Jintao and others in consultations he described as "impressive", buoyed by Ukraine's renouncement of its bomb-grade uranium.

"I think it's an indication of how deeply concerned everybody should be with the possibilities of nuclear traffic," Obama told reporters.

COMMENT:  What a joke.  It's perfectly obvious that China hasn't changed its policy at all, and that any sanctions the Chinese support at the U.N. will probably begin and end with the sale of bubble gum to Iran. 

This is what happens when an administration is based on constant fast hustling, the golden voice of the guy at the top, and little of substance.

April 13, 2010     Permalink

BOW-WOW – AT 7:44 A.M. ET:  The president of the United States has bowed down again, this time to the leader of China.  This follows the well-publicized bows to the king of Saudi Arabia, a place where a Christian cannot celebrate Christmas, and Japan, a nation whose unbowed democracy was created by American blood.

Scott Johnson, of Power Line, comments:

Whence the source of Obama's "respect" for the King of Saudi Arabia and the president of China as opposed to other heads of state? We are left to speculate on the meaning of Obama's bowing and scraping for ourselves.

Obama means to teach Americans to bow before monarchs and tyrants. He embodies the ideological multiculturalism that sets the United States on the same plane as other regimes based on tribal privilege, royal bloodlines and one-party rule.

Obama gives expressive form to the idea that the United States now willingly prostrates itself before the rest of the world. He declares that the United States is a country like any other, only worse, because we have so much for which to apologize. When it comes to the United States, he has a serious case of what Peter Wehner dubs denigration reflex.

Despite his obsequiousness to tyrants, Obama is not a humble man. On the contrary, Obama is a man of extraordinary arrogance. He seeks fundamentally to transform the United States. With him, a new age begins.

COMMENT:  Scott is correct.  The most painful element is Obama's seeming indifference to the contrast between democrats and dictators.  Like most graduates of the far left, he sees little value in democracy, and does nothing to advance it in the world.  Indeed, he appears to believe that the delivery of services by government to the "oppressed" masses is far more important than any democratic norm.

Obama does not bow down to the prime minister of England or Canada, and isn't even photographed with the prime minister of Israel. 

And yet, a young generation of Americans, miseducated in our increasingly left-wing schools, apparently has no problem with this president's behavior. 

A Republican takeover of Congress this fall may well clip Obama's domestic wings in some respects, but foreign policy is the province of the president, and the damage Obama does can continue, even with Congress potentially against him.

Imagine if this man got a second term, when he will have nothing to lose politically, and can run free.

April 13, 2010    Permalink

MONDAY,  APRIL 12,  2010

NONSENSE – AT 7:39 P.M. ET:  Oh, I just love nothing journalism like this.  There is an old song, "Put on a Happy Face," and it fits these stories:

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama's drive for tougher sanctions on Iran picked up momentum on Monday in talks with Chinese President Hu Jintao that also focused on their countries' fractious economic relationship.

Obama's drive did not pick up momentum, or anything else.  This is eyewash, and nothing more.

Their 90-minute encounter came at the start of a two-day nuclear security summit of nearly 50 countries aimed at finding ways to prevent terrorists from getting their hands on weapons-grade nuclear material.

Ukraine provided the first example by agreeing to give up its highly enriched uranium.

No news there.  But get this:

Iran's nuclear program, which the West fears is a cover to build an atomic bomb, is not on the agenda of the summit, but the presence of so many world leaders in one place gave Obama an opportunity to again make his case for fresh sanctions to be imposed on Tehran over its refusal to halt uranium enrichment.

Not on the agenda?  "Right, Mrs. Lincoln, your husband is fully protected.  Oh, here comes Mr. Booth."

Why wouldn't the most important nuclear issue in the world be on the agenda?  This is the biggest gathering of heads of state called by the U.S. since 1945, and Iran isn't on the agenda.  Imagine.

U.S. and Chinese officials who briefed reporters after the talks described a positive, constructive atmosphere on Iran. China, which has close economic ties with Iran, has been reluctant to sign on to tougher sanctions.

So where is the momentum?  Oh, I know.  Other news outlets say that China has agreed to begin discussions on a U.N. sanctions resolution.  Isn't that lovely?  Won't you sleep better tonight?

Now, note that China hasn't agreed to sanctions, only to talk.  Actually, they agreed on that last week.  What a breakthrough.  It's like Japan agreeing to discuss a nonaggression pact with the United States on December 6, 1941.

Show me UN sanctions with teeth.  I'll give you 100 years to try.

April 12, 2010     Permalink

YIKES – AT 7:30 P.M. ET:  To say that Marco Rubio is running away with the primary race for the GOP Senate nomination in Florida is a vast understatement.  From Rasmussen:

Support for Florida Governor Charlie Crist’s U.S. Senate bid has fallen this month to its lowest level yet. Just 28% of the state’s likely Republican voters support his candidacy now, down six points from March.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely GOP Primary voters in the Sunshine State shows former state House Speaker Marco Rubio edging up a point from last month to 57%, his highest level of support to date. Three percent (3%) like some other candidate in the race, and 12% are undecided.

Republican Primary voters see Rubio as a stronger candidate than Crist in the General Election. Eighty-one percent (81%) say Rubio would be at least Somewhat Likely to win if nominated while just 63% say the same of Crist. Those figures include 53% who say Rubio would be Very Likely to win and 30% who see Crist as Very Likely to win.

The latest polling of the general election contest shows both Crist and Rubio with a double-digit lead over their likely Democratic opponent, Congressman Kendrick Meek. You can check the latest Florida polling updates and other news every day on the Rasmussen Reports Florida Page.

COMMENT:  There is only one flaw in this script.  There are reports that Crist may drop out of the GOP primary race and run in the general election as an independent.  While Rubio is sinking Crist in the primary, his support is heavily, and understandably, among conservative Republicans.  Moderate and liberal Republicans favor Crist.  If Crist runs as an independent, he can be the spoiler, and siphon off enough votes for the Dem to win.  The seat is currently in Republican hands, and holding it is crucial.

I'd like to see some polling on a three-way race, with Crist involved.  I'm sure Crist's people already have done such polls.

April 12, 2010    Permalink

VULGAR – AT 6:07 P.M. ET:  The Pulitzer Prizes were announced today.  At one time it was an exciting announcement.  Now it's a big yawn.  The Pulitzers are given by Columbia University, and you may be sure that the political left's interests are preserved.

But there is unintended hilarity here.  Consider:

...Kathleen Parker, a conservative political columnist, won the award for commentary...

Conveniently omitted is the fact that this "conservative" columnist endorsed Barack Obama for president.  Well, I guess it is a way for an alleged rightie to get a Pulitzer.

The politicization of the Pulitzers is sad.  The same can be said about the Peabodys and the Oscars.  The situation isn't, perhaps, as bad as with the "prestigious" George Polk awards, named for a man who, it has been powerfully demonstrated, falsified his World War II record. 

We should point out that many of the winners of these awards deserve them, and have done fine work.  Yes, corrupt corporations or police departments must be exposed.  But corrupt "social service" groups, educational institutions and "peace" organizations must also be exposed.  We wait for those stories to be honored...or even written.

April 12, 2010     Permalink

NEW WOMAN IN TOWN? – AT 9:40 A.M. ET:  ABC News reports a new candidate added to the short list of possible Supreme Court nominees to replace Justice Stevens:

Last Friday we told you that President Obama's short list of possible nominees to replace Justice John Paul Stevens on the US Supreme Court contains fewer than 10 names.

We told you that 7th circuit Court of Appeals Judge Diane Wood, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, DC Court of Appeals Judge Merrick Garland and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano are on the short, list -- and now we've learned another.

Former Georgia Supreme Court chief justice Leah Ward Sears is also on the short list, a senior White House official tells ABC News.

Sears, who will turn 55 in June, was the first female African-American chief justice in US history, and when nominated for the state supreme court by then-Gov. Zell Miller in 1992, she became the first woman and the youngest person to ever sit on the court.

She stepped down from the court last year and currently practices law at Schiff Hardin.

A graduate of Emory University Law School, Sears was on President Obama’s short list last year. A member of the left-leaning American Constitution Society, she is also a friend of conservative Justice Clarence Thomas.

COMMENT:  We hope that Justice Thomas has influenced her more than has the American Constitution Society.

April 12, 2010     Permalink

APRIL 12 – AT 8:57:  Franklin D. Roosevelt died on this date in 1945, some 65 years ago.  There is a certain irony in those numbers.  It was FDR who introduced Social Security.  An American born on the day he died is eligible for full benefits today.

There are now attempts to compare Barack Obama with Franklin Roosevelt.  The comparison is absurd.  Whether we agree or disagree with Roosevelt's New Deal policies, he was a giant of a president, whereas Obama is a miniature.  Roosevelt, who was Ronald Reagan's political idol even as Reagan moved to the Republican Party, exuded strength.  Obama displays weakness.  Roosevelt made a concerted effort to explain things to the American people.  Obama feels no need.

Roosevelt tried to understand what Americans were saying.  In a famous incident at the White House gates on the day he died, a soldier was asked by a reporter, "Did you know him?"  "No," the soldier replied, "but he knew me."  Contrast please with the utter indifference to public opinion shown by President Obama during the health-care debate.

Roosevelt understood and nurtured the alliance with wartime Britain.  Obama has trashed that alliance, symbolically sending back to Britain the bust of Winston Churchill, Roosevelt's ally.

Roosevelt, a patrician, seemed to have an instinctive feeling for the average American.  Obama, from decidedly more modest origins, seems to have none, describing some Americans as clinging to their guns and their religion.

Roosevelt knew what "victory" meant and relished the word.  Obama will not use it.

No, the comparison doesn't quite work. 

April 12, 2010     Permalink

OUR SOURCE TELL US – AT 8:31 A.M. ET:  As you know, from time to time we present the views of an American expert who has spent quality time in Afghanistan.  The individual prefers not to be identified, but has given us remarkable bits of insight in the past.  Here is the latest: 

The July 2011 withdrawal date, designed to spur the Afghans to begin
to stand on their own, actually has the opposite effect. They
realize that any improvement on their own part (smooth elections,
competent governance, effective military units) increases the pace at
which the US withdraws. To delay our inevitable withdrawal, they then
have the perverse incentive to make things look worse rather than
better, hoping that we would be unlikely to leave them completely in
the lurch.

In other words, they know we will start leaving in July 2011. If they
look good, we will leave rapidly. If they look terrible, we will
leave slowly, giving the Afghan powers that be additional opportunity
to consolidate their power bases by drawing off American largesse.

By working with them on a daily basis, I think I came to understand
that they have a much different framework for making these
calculations. For us, the Taliban is a problem to be solved,
eliminated. For them, the Taliban is a reality to be lived with and
accommodated as necessary. Thus, they will be extremely reluctant to
throw their nascent Army units into a tough counterinsurgency fight
against the Taliban, especially in our absence.

COMMENT:  Hmm.  Wonder if the administration has thought of any of this.  Why don't I think so?

April 12, 2010    Permalink

AM I READING THIS RIGHT? – AT 8:03 A.M. ET:  Readers, tell me if you think this is as nutty as I do.  The reporter for The Politico, Carol E. Lee (as opposed to Robert E. Lee), reports on her hero's latest escapade, as follows:

PRAGUE — Ronald Reagan had Reykjavik. Barack Obama has Prague.

Right.  And Bogart and Bergman had Paris.  You can see where this is going.   

Both presidents staked out neutral soil on which to try to make progress in moving beyond the Cold War.

Oh please.  Is the reporter comparing Reagan and Obama?  To start, Reagan proceeded from strength, and a belief in his own country.  Obama proceeds from weakness, and a belief in....we don't know, do we?

And, Earth to Carol Lee:  The Reagan administration ended 21 years ago, as did the real Cold War. 

For Reagan, Reykjavik, Iceland, was the place where he had a breakthrough in negotiations with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that eventually led to a pact to reduce each nation’s nuclear arsenals.

Bit of an exaggeration.  The key point about Reykjavik is that Reagan would not agree to any compromise on missile defense, ending the conference.  Gorbachev saw, and felt, Reagan's determination, backed up by a massive defense buildup. 

For Obama, the enchanting capital of the Czech Republic is where he outlined his vision of a world without nuclear weapons — a proclamation that opened him up to criticism that he is a naive dreamer. His return to Prague on Thursday, a year later, to sign a new nuclear arms treaty with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev was a modest victory lap and a bit of a homecoming...

...Just as Reagan’s efforts to reach an agreement with Gorbachev on nuclear weapons became synonymous with Reykjavik, Prague is now very much an Obama administration destination.

COMMENT:  This reporter should be writing romantic comedies, not diplomatic reports.  Comparing Barack Obama to Ronald Reagan is like comparing an average hitter in the Little League to Joe DiMaggio. 

April 12, 2010    Permalink

AND NOW FOR THE REAL WORLD – AT 7:45 A.M. ET:  Details come out about a planned terror attack on New York.  I thought all this would stop as soon as The One addressed the Muslim world.  Guess they didn't have their radios turned on.  From the New York Daily News:

The cooperation of would-be lead bomber Najibullah Zazi has helped law enforcement officials piece together a fuller picture of the evil plan to kill innocent straphangers around the 9/11 anniversary last year.

Zazi and his two Queens friends allegedly planned to strap explosives to their bodies and split up, heading for the Grand Central and Times Square stations - the two busiest subway stations in New York City.

They would board trains on the 1, 2, 3 and 6 lines at rush hour and planned to position themselves in the middle of the packed trains to ensure the maximum carnage when they blew themselves up, sources said.

During Zazi's brief visit to Queens from his home in Denver last September, he rode the subway multiple times to the Grand Central and Wall St. stations, scouting where to best spread death and mayhem, the sources said.

Zazi has confessed that he, Medunjanin and Ahmedzay - all buddies from Flushing High School - traveled to Pakistan in August 2008 to fight with the Taliban against U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

There they were recruited by Al Qaeda for the Manhattan "martyrdom" mission.

COMMENT:  Fact:  Last week the Obama geniuses announced that terms like "Islamic fundamentalist" and "jihadist" will no longer be used in Defense Department documents dealing with the war on terror. 

So let's be good Americans and understand that the plot described above was conceived by people with no ideology, for no apparent purpose, and on behalf of no cause.  Just frustrated by changes in the weather, that's all.

April 12,  2010     Permalink