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.

SUNDAY,  AUGUST 8,  2010

HOUSTON, THE MOSQUE HAS A PROBLEM – AT 7:51 P.M. ET:  Life is so filled with complications.  By now everyone knows about the mosque that a vague Islamic group wants to build near Ground Zero in New York.  There is much controversy, pitting people with common sense and human sensitivity against elitists who think it's a grand, multicultural idea that can elevate the American soul.

But reader James Croak alerts us to something we didn't know about, that apparently no one involved in the public controversy knew about:  The people behind the mosque forgot one little detail.  From the New York Post:

Not so fast.

The developers of the controversial mosque proposed near Ground Zero own only half the site where they want to construct the $100 million building, The Post has learned.

One of the two buildings on Park Place is owned by Con Edison, even though Soho Properties told officials and the public that it owns the entire parcel. And any potential sale by Con Ed faces a review by the state Public Service Commission.

Con Ed, of course, is the electric company that services most of New York City and its suburbs.  It is less than loved by New Yorkers, who pay about the highest power rates in the country.

“We never heard anything about Con Ed whatsoever,” said a stunned Julie Menin, the chairwoman of Community Board 1, which passed a May resolution supporting the mosque.

And...

Rep. Peter King, who opposes the mosque, said the developers seemed to be “operating under false pretenses.”

“I wonder what else they are hiding,” said King (R-LI). “If we can’t have the full truth on this, what can we believe?”

The mosque guys do have a purchase option on the Con Ed building, but apparently at an undetermined price.  The state board that would have to approve the sale is controlled by the governor.

And how is the mosque campaign coming along?

...just $200 in donations has come in so far, according to Ameena Meer, head of Muslims for Peace, the nonprofit accepting the contributions.

At that rate they'll put the finishing touches on that mosque in about 400 years.  Put off thinking about house gifts.

August 8, 2010      Permalink

JOHNNY, WE HARDLY KNEW YE, AND THAT WAS THE PROBLEM – AT 12:58 P.M. ET:  There is the curious case of John Edwards.  Scott Rasmussen went back and polled his home state of North Caroline to see what his standing is nowadays:

North Carolina voters aren’t in too forgiving a mood when it comes to John Edwards, their one-term senator who just six years ago was the Democratic nominee for vice president.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in the Tar Heel State finds that just 11% have a favorable opinion of Edwards. Eighty-four percent (84%) view him unfavorably.

This includes five percent (5%) with a Very Favorable view and 71% who regard him Very Unfavorably.

COMMENT:  I wonder about the five percent with a very favorable view.  Relatives?  Old girl friends?

The Edwards case marks a catastrophic failure of journalistic responsibility.  There were warning signs early that this man was a fraud, an ambulance-chasing sleazeball who used junk science in law cases to get very rich, and a self-described "man of the people" who was building the largest mansion in his county.  But he peddled the liberal Democratic line, so no questions were asked by the mainstream media.  It took the National Enquirer, looked down upon by "legitimate" journalists, to expose the truth and bring Edwards down.  Not one newspaper or TV network has apologized to the public for its failure to carry out its responsibility to examine candidates for public office.  And no apology will be forthcoming.

And newspapers blame the internet for their problems.

August 8, 2010       Permalink

STRATEGIC BRILLIANCE, NOT – AT 11:13 A.M. ET:  You have to hand the Democratic Party this:  They may be terrible at governing, but they ran a great 2008 campaign.  Now their slogan seems to be, "Let's make our campaign as bad as our record."  From the Washington Post:

As they brace for difficult fall elections, dispirited Democrats hoping to get back some of that 2008 magic are turning to the president for inspiration.

President Bush, that is.

Grainy images of the former president flashed across the screen in a recent ad by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.). Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) is attacking his GOP rival in a Senate race for his "advancement of the Bush agenda."

Even President Obama has begun taking direct shots at his predecessor, something he had been careful to avoid in recent months.

"They don't have a single idea that's different from George Bush's ideas -- not one," Obama said during speeches this week at fundraisers in Atlanta and Chicago.

He attacks Bush by name, something presidents generally don't do with their predecessors.  But, as we noted last night, Obama is a no-class guy.

In interviews, mailings and television ads, Democratic candidates are again hauling out the specter of the former president to use as a foil. Nearly two years after he left office and virtually disappeared from public view, Bush -- his image, his policies, his legacy -- are being dragged back into the public arena.

Apparently, they're doing this because polling shows it works.  I wonder.

The strategy could backfire for Democrats, who risk appearing desperate by blaming Bush instead of taking responsibility. Former Bush strategist Karl Rove called it a "deadly street to go down" for Democratic candidates who have "no next act" to promote.

COMMENT:  Rove is probably right.  For decades the Democrats ran against Herbert Hoover, but the Dems of those days had real programs, like them or not.  And they had a proved record in national security. 

What do the Dems have today?  Their "accomplishments," like Obamacare, are largely unpopular with the voters. 

Also, Obama will have been president almost two years on election day, and the Dems have controlled Congress for four.  Blaming Bush really looks lame.

August 8, 2010     Permalink

WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH – AT 10:53 A.M. ET:  What is it about some religious leaders that makes them so dense, and so anti-American?  Consider this, from London's Telegraph:

Scotland's Roman Catholic leader has attacked America's ''culture of vengeance'' as he defended the release of the Lockerbie bomber.

Cardinal Keith O'Brien said despite the ''gratuitous barbarity'' of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi - who the Scottish Government freed last year on compassionate grounds - ministers were right ''to affirm our own humanity."

Yeah, right, Your Eminence.  Who cares about the broken hearts of people who lost children aboard Pan Am 103, which al-Megrahi helped bring down? 

Writing in Scotland on Sunday, he accused the American justice system of being based on ''vengeance and retribution'' and said he was glad to live in a country where ''justice is tempered with mercy."

Cardinal O'Brien said: ''In Scotland over many years we have cultivated through our justice system what I hope can be described as a 'culture of compassion'.

''On the other hand, there still exists in many parts of the US, if not nationally, an attitude towards the concept of justice which can only be described as a 'culture of vengeance'.''

COMMENT:  Of course, you may be sure that his chap will get plenty of support from the American left, which regards criminals as "victims of society."

As for our "culture of vengeance," the good cardinal of course gives no examples.  There are plenty of criminals walking the streets who've been given multiple chances.  We looked the other way while Jane Fonda committed treason.  We pretend not to notice when newspapers publish national secrets, acts that would put editors behind bars in the United Kingdom. 

And we live by the principle that it is better for a hundred guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be imprisoned.  Yes, of course, we make mistakes.  We're not perfect.  But a little depth of knowledge from a foreign clergyman might be called for in this circumstance.

Of course, we're used to this.  That great "moral voice," Desmund Tutu, of the smooth-running country of South Africa, lectures us all the time while his own nation descends into crime and violence.

August 8, 2010      Permalink

DIPLOMATIC BULLETIN – AT 10:39 A.M. ET:  From Fox:

PALMA DE MALLORCA, Spain -- U.S. first lady Michelle Obama and daughter Sasha are having lunch with Spain's king and queen at the royal family's holiday retreat on the resort island of Mallorca in the Mediterranean.

Mrs. Obama and her daughter arrived at Marivent palace shortly before 1 p.m. Sunday and were greeted at the front door of the residence by King Juan Carlos, Queen Sofia and Princess Letizia.

The king, a keen yachtsman, has for decades spent August vacations at the palace with its dramatic cliff-top views of the sea on the Balearic island's southwestern coast near Palma de Mallorca.

COMMENT:  From what we hear, the king of Spain isn't exactly a powerful figure on the world stage.  His basic function is to open bodegas and send get-well cards to aging matadors. 

Does this lunch make Michelle's trip official? 

I wonder what excuse Michelle gave for Barack not being there.  "You know, he has a thing about white guys from colonial countries."  That would do it.

August 8,  2010     Permalink

SATURDAY,  AUGUST 7,  2010

TACKY IS AS TACKY DOES – AT 10:57 P.M. ET:  The Obaman crusade sold us a lemon two years ago.  Part of the sales pitch was that Barack and Michelle would bring class back to the White House, replacing that little hick, George W. Bush, and that insufferable librarian wife with the funny Texas accent.  Where did that woman go to school?  Probably the same place Sarah Palin went.  Oh, why do we let them dine with us?

My, my, what two years can do.  Now we see Michelle on a vulgar romp through the upper crustiness of Spain, and ordering a custom-made coat from her newest London designer.

And the president?  A New York Post editorial says it well: 

How's this for hubris: President Obama extolling his "new strategy" in Iraq -- even though it never would have succeeded had his original vision prevailed?

The president struck a triumphal tone this week about the Iraq mission coming to an end -- but shunned the word "success." He spoke of "ending" the war, but took pains to avoid context.

Sen. John McCain rightly called the address "small-minded" and "bizarre."

Indeed, Obama couldn't bring himself to give a shred of credit to the man who most deserves it: George W. Bush.

Bush's surge -- and Gen. David Petraeus' on-the-ground leadership -- created the conditions for Iraqis to take full control of their country, allowing Obama last year to introduce his "new strategy."

And...

Obama's lack of graciousness even barred him from noting that his speech occurred 20 years to the day after the invasion of Kuwait. He couldn't offer even a small nod to the first President George Bush, who led the liberation of Kuwait.

Finally...

He scorned the strategy that produced the outcome he's now celebrating with a straight face. And he won't say one kind word about his predecessor, no matter how warranted.

If any president has shown less class than Obama, it's hard to say who.

COMMENT:   Correct.  President George W. Bush,  often ridiculed and laughed at by self-appointed "sophisticates," shows more class in the way he conducts himself than Barack Obama and all those around him ever could. 

Barack Obama has a silver tongue.  We wish some of the silver dust had been spread around to whatever section of the brain handles decency.

August 7, 2010      Permalink

SAME OLD STORY – AT 1:30 P.M. ET:  The opportunities for Republicans this year are enormous.  Is the party ready for the fight?  Are you kidding?  From The Politico:

With $11 million on hand at the end of June — and about $2 million in reported debt — the RNC’s paid get-out-the-vote (GOTV) effort will be limited to just targeted House races, POLITICO has learned.

And the committee is only going to be able to spend money on those relatively inexpensive House races, thanks to a $10 million line of credit that was approved at the meeting here. Until then, said one incredulous Republican, there was no money available for paid GOTV activities like mailers and automated phone calls.

Even with the line of credit, though, the party can’t afford to assist their many gubernatorial and Senate candidates with any dollars for paid voter contact and will have to effectively outsource that operation.

The expectation — and it’s only that because the party is barred from coordinating with third-party groups — is that the new organizations that have sprung up amid the RNC’s woes will step in to pay for such GOTV efforts in statewide contests.

COMMENT:  Republicans have traditionally worked hard to lose elections, and with a very good record of success.  Apparently, some in the party want to continue the hallowed tradition. 

One reason for the shortage of cash is the image of the RNC as run by incompetents.  We do hope that funding elsewhere will do the job, but the lack of major financing from the national organization has got to do damage, create confusion, and disrupt the chain of command.  It's also not a great advertisement for the Republicans' ability to govern.

Same old story.  But, as Sinatra might have put it, leave us we should pray that revulsion over Democratic rule is so great that even the Republicans won't be able to mess up their victory.

August 7, 2010      Permalink

AM I READING THIS RIGHT?  ARE WE BEING RUN BY LUNATICS? – AT 11:48 A.M. ET:  The AP is reporting that Washington is making a nuclear agreement with Vietnam that does not  contain a standard safeguard.  This will make us look foolish:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has told US lawmakers that a nuclear cooperation deal with Vietnam is unlikely to include a promise by the Hanoi government not to enrich uranium, congressional aides said.

The United States had sought a no-enrichment pledge, which the State Department promotes as the "gold standard" for civilian nuclear cooperation accords.

It would have been modeled on a deal last year in which the United Arab Emirates pledged, in return for US nuclear equipment and reactors, not to enrich uranium or extract plutonium from used reactor fuel — procedures that would provide material that could be used in a nuclear weapon.

COMMENT:  What is going on here?  What really is going on?  Here we are, at a critical stage with Iran over enrichment, and we're prepared to drop a no-enrichment provision in a nuclear deal with...Hanoi?

It seems inconceivable.  We'll be ridiculed immediately.  The Iranians, and the North Koreans, will throw it in our faces.  I'd imagine that even our allies will be dismayed.

What is so important about a nuclear deal with Vietnam that would prompt us to drop that "gold standard"?  Do we trust the Vietnamese that much?  Or is this some stunt by Obama's left fringe to provide a kind of reparation for the Vietnam War?  Hmm.  Why do I suspect that I've just hit a nerve?

I believe that these nuclear accords must be ratified by the Senate.  We'll watch this.  We should oppose ratification if the no-enrichment pledge is missing.  And members of Congress should start inquriing right now, this minute, as to why we would make such a strange deal with a Communist country.

August 7, 2010       Permalink

WILL THERE ALWAYS BE AN ENGLAND? – AT 11:24 A.M. ET:  Well, Michelle may be getting a brand new, really keen coat from England, but we may not be getting much more military support from that ally if things continue the way they're going.  This is really a wrenching story:

The RAF will shrink to its smallest size since the First World War, under unprecedented cuts being proposed at the Ministry of Defence.

In the most significant changes to Britain’s defences since the post-Suez review of 1957, ministers and officials plan to scrap large parts of the Armed Forces.

The Services will lose up to 16,000 personnel, hundreds of tanks, scores of fighter jets and half a dozen ships, under detailed proposals passed to The Daily Telegraph.

But the RAF will bear the brunt of the planned cuts. The Air Force will lose 7,000 airmen – almost one sixth of its total staff – and 295 aircraft. The cuts will leave the Force with fewer than 200 fighter planes for the first time since 1914. In addition, the Navy will lose two submarines, three amphibious ships and more than 100 senior officers, along with 2,000 sailors and marines.

The Army faces a 40 per cent cut to its fleet of 9,700 armoured vehicles and the loss of a 5,000-strong brigade of troops.

The Telegraph has also learnt that the “black hole” in MoD finances, caused by orders which have been made but cannot be paid for, is approaching £72  billion over the next decade – double the amount previously suggested.

COMMENT:  That is grim.  Imagine, an RAF cut down to World War I size.  There are some elderly men still alive who fought in the Battle of Britain in 1940 who are undoubtedly shaking their heads in utter dismay.

I met Liam Fox, Britain's new defense minister, in New York last year, before the British election and before he assumed his new post.  He's a terrific guy, a medical doctor by training, and he didn't sound like a man who intended to preside over fading glory.  Rather, he wants to strengthen defense.

But Fox is faced with an impossible budget situation.  Conservatives are blaming previous Labour governments, claiming they spent Britain into a deep hole, and that defense must now suffer as a result.

However, there may be a bright side.  It's being reported that these proposed cuts are part of a game of psychological warfare.  Those leaking the information know that the British public will be angered that their defense will be reduced so far, and public reaction is being counted on to reverse some of the reductions.  I hope that's so.  Britain is always a question mark.  On the one hand, the Brits are a gallant people.  On the other, they've gotten very used to nanny taking care of things.  And the rising Muslim influence in Britain, which is truly frightening, is not helping matters.

If the American president were more defense oriented, he might be able to put some pressure on the Brits to tough it out on defense.  But look who we've got.  The closest relationship the Obamans have with England may be a fashion designer.  (See story below.) 

We need some change we can believe in.

August 7, 2010      Permalink 

INSULT TO INJURY – AT 10:45 A.M. ET:  Her Michelleness is in Spain, her luxurious, multi-hundred-thousand-dollar trip becoming increasingly controversial.  But now there's even more.  From London's Evening Standard:

A young London fashion designer has been commissioned by US First Lady Michelle Obama.

Bunmi Olaye, 27, who runs Bunmi Koko with her partner Francis Udom, was given the honour after sending a prospectus of her designs to the White House.

Soon after a call came to the couple from Washington asking if a coat could be made for Mrs Obama.

Mr Udom said: “Someone said they were from the First Lady's office and she was interested in a cream coat we had featured and could we make it for her.

“We were stunned but kept calm and said we would make her a coat in September. I hope she likes it.”

Ms Olaye, whose company is based in Plaistow, first gained national exposure when former Spice Girl Melanie Brown asked her to make her a dress for this year's Brit Awards. Pictures of the singer wearing the dress alongside former bandmate Geri Halliwell featured in newspapers the following day.

COMMENT:  Huh?  Is the first lady of the United States serious?  We have a fashion industry in the United States that's hurting.  And she commissions a coat from England?  Why can't she just buy one off the rack in America?  Boost our own industry?

What has gone wrong?  First, the Obamas take a raft of vacations, one right after the other.  Then the first lady takes 40 intimate friends on a lavish trip to Spain.  Oh, she's also dropping in on the king of Spain, so the White House is trying to spin this as a semi-official trip.  Yeah, right.  Michelle and the king will solve the problems of the world.

And then Michelle orders this DARLING coat from this exciting, oh how exciting, young designer in London.  I can't wait to see her in it.

All this right before an election.

Something is off kilter here.  It sounds like the Obamas just don't care about public perception any longer.  Or maybe it's Michelle who doesn't care.  Or maybe, just maybe, the president won't run again and has nothing to lose.  Whatever it is, this is bad behavior, and Americans, especially those out of work or hurting, do notice.  I'd love to see the poll numbers.

August 7, 2010     Permalink