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.

WEDNESDAY,  AUGUST 4,  2010

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 11:07 P.M. ET:  Excellent talk-show host Mike Scully and Jean Spik, a loyal supporter of Urgent Agenda from our first day, refer us to a superb piece by Dorothy Rabinowitz in today's Wall Street Journal.  She is discussing the conflict over whether a Muslim organization should put a mosque at Ground Zero:

Americans may have lacked for much in the course of their history, but never instruction in social values. The question today is whether Americans of any era have ever confronted the bombardment of hectoring and sermonizing now directed at those whose views are deemed insufficiently enlightened—an offense regularly followed by accusations that the offenders have violated the most sacred principles of our democracy.

It doesn't take a lot to become the target of such a charge. There is no mistaking the beliefs on display in these accusations, most recently in regard to the mosque about to be erected 600 feet from Ground Zero. Which is that without the civilizing dictates of their superiors in government, ordinary Americans are lost to reason and decency. They are the kind of people who—as a recent presidential candidate put it—cling to their guns and their religion.

Wonderfully stated.  Please read the whole piece, for a Dorothy Rabinowitz column is a complete gem.  She takes on the increasingly pompous Mayor Bloomberg of New York, a generally fine mayor who sometimes enters the inebriated state of political correctness.  The mayor supports the mosque, and seems to have the same feeling for the people of New York as Barack Obama has for the people of the United States. 

And consider this, from Dorothy:

The notion that it is for the greater good that the people be led to suspect virtually any cause but the one they had the most reason to fear reflects a contempt for the citizenry that's of longstanding, but never so blatant as today. It is in the interest of higher values, Americans understand—higher, that is, than theirs—that they are now expected to accept official efforts to becloud reality.

And finally...

The center may be built where planned. But it will not go easy or without consequence to the politicians intent on jamming the project down the public throat, in the name of principle. Liberal piety may have met its match in the raw memory of 9/11, and in citizens who have come to know pure demagoguery when they hear it. They have had, of late, plenty of practice.

As I said, read the whole thing...and frame it.

August 4, 2010       Permalink

THE STAGGERING RACIAL DIVIDE – AT 6:17 P.M. ET:  A new Gallup report shows the enormity of the racial divide when measuring support for President Obama.  I guess this is understandable, but it is sad and divisive nonetheless:

PRINCETON, NJ -- President Obama's job approval rating averaged 88% among blacks and 38% among whites in July, a 50-percentage-point difference that has been consistent in recent months but is much larger than in the initial months of the Obama presidency. Obama's job approval ratings among blacks, whites, and Hispanics in July are all at their lowest levels to date, although the overwhelming majority of blacks still approve.

Issues of race and the Obama presidency have been in the news again in recent weeks with the situation involving Shirley Sherrod, the black Department of Agriculture employee who was fired and then offered a new position at the agency after edited videos of a speech she made dealing with racial matters were widely circulated on the Internet.

Blacks' approval of the job Obama is doing dipped below the 90% threshold for the second month in a row in July; the 88% July average is the lowest monthly average approval rating blacks have given Obama yet, although not significantly lower than the 89% recorded in June.

COMMENT:  I am staggered by Mr. Obama's standing among whites.  Only 38%?  And his standing among Hispanics is only 54%, barely over a majority.  When he was inaugurated, the president enjoyed 62% support among whites and 74% among Hispanics.

So, we see that Mr. Obama's overall approval ratings, now hovering in the low 40s, are distorted upward by African-American support.  African-Americans account for about one in nine citizens. 

The last two presidents promised to be uniters, rather than dividers.  Both have proved divisive.  I don't know what the answer is to this, but there surely must be someone on our side who can appeal across ethnic barriers.  It may simply be a question of using the right language.  It may also be a question of courage.  I've always believed that both African Americans and Hispanics are fundamentally conservative in their private views, but that the Republican Party never figured that out.

August 4, 2010        Permalink

THE EMBARRASSMENT, THE ANGUISH – AT 9:53 A.M. ET:  Amazing what a little pull can do.  The nation of Spain, not always regarded as a multicultural paradise, has just been cleansed by our State Department, to avoid a bit of awkwardness.  From London's Daily Mail:

The Obama administration faced an embarrassing diplomatic blunder today after it was forced to pull a warning about racism in Spain - just as the First Lady arrived in the country for a summer holiday.

Staff at the U.S. State Department removed the contentious advice to travellers, which included the phrase 'racist prejudices could lead to the arrest of Afro-Americans who travel to Spain,' on Monday.

Yeah, I could see where that would be embarrassing.  Also true.

The First Lady landed in the Costa del Sol this morning for a break with her youngest daughter Sasha, nine.

She is on a four-day visit and will be staying at the five-star Villa Padierna, rated as one of the world's top 30 hotels, with 40 friends. The party has reserved 60 rooms.

This has raised many eyebrows here.  The Obamas are taking many vacations.  We don't begrudge the first lady anything, but I wonder what the taxpayer tab for this will be.  I hope we learn that the trip is privately funded, but I doubt that it is.

But Mrs Obama's trip now risks being overshadowed by a row about institutionalised racism.
The State Department advice sat alongside information about ETA and Islamist terrorist attacks in the country.

Please note that Prime Minister Zapatero of Spain takes special pleasure in lecturing the United States.  Maybe some of this publicity will silence him, if only for a few moments.

She and Sasha were then transported by car to the seaside resort of Marbella.

Flags welcoming the Obama family were waving in the breeze as Marbella - often associated with reality TV and gangsters - geared up for their arrival.

Look, Michelle is from Chicago.  Gangsters?  In Chicago they call them neighbors...or judges.

COMMENT:  The appearances here are frankly less than ideal.  In a time of deep economic recession, the sight of the first lady on such a gala romp will ruffle feathers.  Feathers are attached to bodies that vote.

August 4, 2010       Permalink

WHAT?  YOU MEAN THESE PEASANTS ARE ALLOWED TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS?  WHAT IS THIS – AMERICA?  – AT 8:45 A.M. ET:  Oh dear, oh dear, those people in flyover country have been permitted by the local, non-Ivy-League authorities to have a say on health care.  This voting business has got to stop.  From The New York Times:

Missouri voters on Tuesday easily approved a measure aimed at nullifying the new federal health care law, becoming the first state in the nation where ordinary people made known their dismay over the issue at the ballot box.

The measure was intended to invalidate a crucial element of President Obama’s health care law — namely, that most people be required to get health insurance or pay a tax penalty. Supporters of the measure said it would send a firm signal to Washington about how this state, often a bellwether in presidential elections, felt about such a law.

And...

“This really wasn’t an effort to poke the president in the eye,” said State Senator Jim Lembke, a Republican. “First and foremost, this was about defining the role of state government and the role of federal government. Whether it’s here in Missouri with health care or in Arizona with illegal immigration, the states are going to get together on this now.”

Residents in Arizona and Oklahoma are expected to cast ballots this year on amendments to their Constitutions aimed at accomplishing the same idea.

That must be scaring the daylights out of the Armani crowd in Washington.  They never noticed that the name of the country is the United States of America.  They don't like the states.  Real people live in those things. 

Missouri is sending a message.  I think there'll be many more.

August 4, 2010    Permalink

BETTER AIM NEXT TIME – AT 8:28 A.M. ET:  The president of Iran had a less than perfect day:

TEHRAN (Reuters) – Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad survived an attack with a homemade explosive device on his motorcade during a visit to the western city of Hamadan on Wednesday, a source in his office said.

The source said Ahmadinejad's convoy was targeted as he was traveling from Hamadan's airport to give a speech in a local sports arena and the president was unhurt but others had been injured in the blast.

One person had been arrested, the presidency source said. There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the attack.

I do hope President Obama has the sense not to send the dear leader a note of congratulations over having survived the attack.

And get this:

The populist, hard-line Ahmadinejad has accumulated enemies in conservative and reformist circles in the Islamic Republic as well as abroad.

Conservative and reformist circles.  What does that mean?  Some analysis please.  Wait, it's a Reuters story.  No, please don't analyze.  Reuters would

August 4, 2010 Permalinkwind up blaming BUSH (!!).

Dear leader had his own take on the assassination attempt:

During a speech to a conference of expatriate Iranians in Tehran on Monday, Ahmadinejad said he believed he was the target of an assassination plot by Israel. "The stupid Zionists have hired mercenaries to assassinate me," he said.

Standard line. 

August 4, 2010     Permalink

THE DISGRACE – AT 8:04 A.M. ET:  By now most of you know that the "Ground Zero mosque" cleared its final legal hurdle in New York City.  Now the sponsors of this project can go ahead and build...if they can raise the money.  And, as Bill O'Reilly said last night, if they can get construction workers to work on it.

What has struck me about the discussion over this issue is, once again, the arrogance of those who favor the mosque.  Some, no doubt, are well meaning.  But the endless condemnation of those who oppose the mosque as "racists" or "bigots" is pretty hard to take.  The language of the sixties is back with us, full blown.  Similarly, I'm incensed when the pro-mosquers start waving the American flag, a flag that, in other circumstances, they'd barely recognize.  I almost choke when they invoke "American values," values some of them ridicule.  Mayor Bloomberg, who has been a fine mayor, made a fool of himself yesterday when, with the Statue of Liberty as a backdrop, and surrounded by clergy, endorsed the mosque and invoked "American values."

No one is denying the First Amendment rights of those who want to build the mosque.  We are saying that their action is insensitive to the survivors and to the American people generally.  As O'Reilly also pointed out, this is a national, not a local issue.  Ground Zero is not merely a patch of real estate in Manhattan.  It is the scene of a national tragedy brought about by a military attack.  But President Obama has, disgracefully, declined to make any comment about the mosque issue.  Only 20% of Americans favor the mosque, as registered in a recent poll.  Maybe that's why the president doesn't want to get involved.  I have a hunch I know where he stands.

Press coverage has also been as insensitive as the mosque builders.  "Modern" reporters don't like to deal with such basic things as human feelings.  It isn't what they were taught be the leftovers from the sixties who miseducated them in college.

How much wiser it would have been for the Muslim community simply to say, "We understand the feelings involved.  We'll build somewhere else."  And then, they might have received widespread support and financial contributions.

Most of the journalistic and political class has performed badly.  Why am I not surprised?

Let's hope the thing never gets built.  The money people may not want to be identified with it.

August 4,  2010     Permalink

TUESDAY,  AUGUST 3,  2010

WHAT WAS THAT ABOUT CHANGE? – AT 11:02 P.M. ET:  Deflation is here, the deflation of the Democratic Party, that is.  From the great ambition of just months ago, the party that controls the presidency, the House and the Senate, is but a shadow of what it was.  From The New York Times:

Senate Democrats on Tuesday abandoned all hopes of passing even a slimmed-down energy bill before they adjourn for the summer recess, saying that they did not have sufficient votes even for legislation tailored narrowly to respond to the Gulf oil spill.

Although the majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, sought to blame Republicans for sinking the energy measure, the reality is that Democrats are also divided over how to proceed on the issue and had long ago given up hope of a comprehensive bill to address climate change.

This is what arrogance gets you.  The people have lost faith in the Democratic Congress, in part because it consistently ignored popular will in the first year of Obama's reign.  Eventually, people get fed up.

Senate Democrats still hoping to pass legislation to aid small businesses with tax breaks and expanded loan programs, as well as to approve aid to states for Medicaid and to help prevent teacher layoffs. But their once ambitious agenda ahead of the summer recess, which begins at the end of this week, has shriveled.

COMMENT:  Either the Democrats misread the 2008 election results, or didn't care.  It's most likely the latter.  The party's congressional wing is led by old liberal stalwarts with safe seats, who pursue their own ideology regardless of what the nation thinks.  And they have not been in a mood to negotiate with, or compromise with, Republicans. 

It doesn't help when the speaker, Nancy Pelosi, a multimillionaire, represents a district in San Francisco that is grossly out of touch with the rest of the country.  San Francisco is to the United States what hip hop is to the Metropolitan Opera. 

The problem for the country is that the seats the Dems will probably lose this November are held by first and second termers, many of them reasonably sane.  The "give me earmarks or give me death" types, often representing districts gerrymandered for them, will be back, ready as always to tax air.

August 3, 2010     Permalink

LOST IN THE SHUFFLE – AT 8:46 P.M. ET:  Lost amidst such stories as Chelsea's wedding and the Earth-shattering saga of Shirley Sherrod (remember?), there's the little matter of Thursday's Senate confirmation vote on Elena Kagan.  The result is preordained, but it's important for Republicans to put up a good fight, if only to educate the public.

The more I look at Kagan's record, the more uneasy I am about sending her to the high court.  She's a political figure whose service to the law was primarily her deanship at the Harvard Law School, an administrative post.  She has made no great contribution to legal thinking and has never been a judge.  She is certainly scholarly and personable, but that isn't enough.  From The Wall Street Journal:

WASHINGTON—The full Senate began debating Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court on Tuesday, with Republicans continuing to say she was a political nominee who would seek to advance a liberal agenda.

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 13-6 in favor of Ms. Kagan last month and there is little doubt she will be confirmed when the full Senate votes, likely on Thursday. Already, five Republicans have declared they will vote for her, ensuring she will have more than the 60 votes required to close off debate on her nomination.

But the majority of Republicans are expected to oppose her, citing what they describe as her lack of qualifications and other reasons.

Republican criticism of Ms. Kagan has centered around her policy work in the Clinton White House and her decision to limit military recruiters' access to Harvard Law School students because of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.) said Tuesday on the Senate floor that she lacks "real world" experience and would be tempted to engage in "political spin" from the high court.

COMMENT:  I'm afraid Sessions is correct.  We always hope to be pleasantly surprised by Supreme Court judges, and very occasionally we are, but usually the surprise is in the other direction.  I would not vote to confirm her as I think her agenda is political, not judicial, but I'm willing to write her a fan letter if I'm proved wrong.

August 3, 2010     Permalink

OBAMA COLLIDES WITH MORE POLLS – AT 9:51 A.M. ET:  The Gallupers don't have good news for the president this morning:

Only 41% of those surveyed Tuesday through Sunday approved of the way Obama is handling his job, his lowest rating in the USA TODAY/Gallup Poll since he took office in January 2009. In Gallup's separate daily tracking poll, his approval was at 45% Monday.

Can you imagine the psychological impact if Obama's numbers start heading into the 30s?  Were talking Bush country...and that was after eight years of Bush. 

And...

"It's hard to find any positive news that would boost public opinion," says Richard Eichenberg of Tufts University, who studies presidential polling and foreign policy.

That is a major part of the presidential dilemma.  Another part is the fact that Mr. Obama no longer seems to have the personal popularity he once did.  Many Americans have come to see him as arrogant and aloof, and indifferent to their views.  They are correct. 

The drop in support also follows the online posting of more than 76,000 documents by WikiLeaks. Two-thirds of those polled said it was wrong for the website to publish the documents.

And those two thirds are also correct.  Prosecute, prosecute.

The president is in political trouble, but the Republicans have yet to get a coherent national campaign going, so don't break out the champagne, er, organic fruit juice, just yet.

August 3, 2010      Permalink

AS A NEW YORKER, I STAND ACCUSED AND CONVICTED – AT 9:05 A.M. ET:  We are terrible people here.  How do I know?  The leftist think tank, the Center for American Progress, says so.  From the Weekly Standard: 

The quote from the Center for American Progress:

"...let the rest of us understand this: The debate over the Ground Zero Mosque is, in fact, a debate over American values. Those who oppose it don’t have them."

The numbers from Quinnipiac:

New York City voters oppose 52 - 31 percent a proposal by a Muslim group to build a mosque and cultural center two blocks from Ground Zero, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. Another 17 percent are undecided.

The mosque at Ground Zero has become a major national story.  If 52 percent of New York City voters, among the country's most liberal, oppose the mosque, I could only imagine what the feelings are in, say, Kentucky.  And Ground Zero is not just a New York site.  It's a national shrine.

The debate over the mosque is healthy, yet ugly.  The usual suspects, of course – the political class, the First Amendment absolutists, the "progressive" left – are perfectly fine with the mosque.  Why, approving it underlines their intellectualism, their rationality, their understanding, their love for "the other."

But most people, me included, oppose the mosque.  As Sarah Palin said, in a few eloquent words, "It tears at the heart."  Of course, language like that is ridiculed by the fashion plates of the wine and Brie crowd.

The reason it tears at the heart is a simple matter of respect.  We will of course defend the right of law-abiding Muslims to worship in America.  But just as Muslims demand respect, they must show it to others, and, sadly, some Muslim groups fail that test.  A mosque should not be built at Ground Zero because we were attacked by Muslim extremists on September 11, 2001, and the mosque will be seen, perhaps unfairly, as an "in your face" expression of Muslim presence and even dominance.  Sometimes respect is shown by just bowing out and saying, "I understand."   Relatives of Ground Zero victims are still mourning, and their approval should be sought before any Muslim institution is built near the funeral pyre that Ground Zero became.

This is a case, like many cases, where the people are wiser than the political class, but the political class refuses to listen.

August 3, 2010      Permalink

THIS COULD BECOME VERY BIG – AT 8:47 A.M. ET:  We have the first small step in the campaign to challenge Obamacare in the courts.  It may be one small step for conservatives, but it could lead to a giant leap for mankind:

In the first substantive legal ruling on President Barack Obama’s health care reform law, a federal judge has rejected the Justice Department’s request to dismiss a lawsuit from Virginia’s state government challenging the reform’s requirement that individuals purchase health insurance.

U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson ruled that enough legal issues were in dispute in the case to allow the suit, brought by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, to go forward. At issue is whether the insurance mandate included in the reform exceeds the federal government’s authority under the Constitution — in particular, whether Congress’s ability to regulate commerce allows the federal government to penalize those who decline to buy or obtain health insurance.

The lawsuit is also based in part on a law passed in that state in March seeking to bar the federal government from imposing any mandate to purchase health insurance.

“Unquestionably, this regulation radically changes the landscape of health insurance coverage in America,” Hudson wrote in a 32-page decision filed Monday morning. “Never before has the Commerce Clause … been extended this far.”

Hudson said there was no clear legal precedent allowing the federal government to impose such a rule, even under Congress’s power to require individuals to pay taxes. However, he also conceded there was no clear precedent to the contrary.

COMMENT:  Yes, the Obamans could call it a tax, which would probably make it constitutional.  Trouble is, when the health bill was being debated, the Obamans denied that it was a tax. 

It would be great if this provision failed to pass constitutional muster, and that might happen in the Supreme Court on a 5-4 vote.  If the government can require us to buy health insurance, what else can it require us to buy?  The expansion of federal power involved here is vast, and frightening.

August 3, 2010      Permalink

YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS UP – AT 8:18 A.M. ET:  We now have the Obama administration's official warning about the next great threat to American liberty, personal dignity, and progressive civilization.

You're right.  It's Kindle.  Rotten, miserable, gray-screened, fascist, homophobic Kindle.

I knew it all along.

Byron York in today's Washington Examiner rips bare the Obaman assault on this threat to change we can believe in.

Are you ready?  It seems that in 2009, Amazon announced a pilot program to supply a small number of students at some colleges, Princeton included, with the Kindle, to see if the electronic book-reading device was practical for college students.  With Kindle, you load software into the device, which looks like a picture frame, and read books on the screen.

Seemed like a fine idea...until the colleges got warning letters from the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division telling them they were under investigation for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Thomas Perez, the division's ultra-militant new chief, proudly announced the action:

"We acted swiftly to respond to complaints we received about the use of the Amazon Kindle," Perez recently told a House committee. "We must remain vigilant to ensure that as new devices are introduced, people with disabilities are not left behind."

It seems a group called the National Federation of the Blind complained that there was no way for a non-sighted person to use Kindle.

In subsequent talks, the Justice Department demanded the universities stop distributing the Kindle; if blind students couldn't use the device, then nobody could. The Federation made the same demand in a separate lawsuit against Arizona State.

Curious.  Books are sold, as are newspapers.  Yet, unless they're in Braille, only sighted people can use them.

Some officials at the schools were puzzled. Given the speed of technological development and the reality of competition among technology companies -- Apple products were already fully text-to-speech capable -- wasn't this a problem the market would solve?

That's not Perez's way. To him, keeping the Kindle out of sighted students' hands underscored "the importance of full and equal educational opportunities for everyone."

And...

In early 2010, after most of the courses were over, the Justice Department reached agreement with the schools, and the federation settled with Arizona State. The schools denied violating the ADA but agreed that until the Kindle was fully accessible, nobody would use it.

More rational people were solving the problem.

Early on, Amazon told federation officials it would apply text-to-speech technology to the Kindle's menu and function keys. And sure enough, last week the company announced a new generation of Kindles that are fully accessible to the blind. While the Justice Department was making demands, and Perez was making speeches, the market was working.

Silly Mr. York.  This administration doesn't believe in the market.  Or invention.  Or ingenuity.  It believes in regulations.

Not all advocates for the disabled go along with such craziness.  One was quoted as being appalled by Perez's action, saying,  "It's a gross injustice to disadvantage one group, and it's bad policy that breeds resentment, not compassion."

COMMENT:  We are truly returning to the 1960s under this regressive administration.  The last time this kind of madness surfaced, it produced carloads of Republicans.  May it happen again.

August 3,  2010     Permalink