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.

THURSDAY,  AUGUST 19, 2010

ON THE MOSQUE – AT 7:55 P.M. ET:  A few thoughts about the controversy over the mosque at Ground Zero.

As readers know, I have to do a great deal of reading every day to put Urgent Agenda together.  Some of the things I've read in the last week have been among the most disheartening of my career.  If people wish to be in favor of the mosque, that's fine.  Make your argument.  But the viciousness and arrogance of the attacks on those who oppose the structure are reminiscent of the tactics that we used to call McCarthyism.  Our friends on the left have discovered the Constitution, a document they often prefer that their favorite judges ignore.  They now cite our "core values as expressed in the Constitution," they wave the flag that they've insulted a good part of their lives, and they denounce anyone who disagrees as a racist and a bigot, or, remarkably, as "un-American."   It is perfectly plain that they regard themselves as our betters, lecturing to the unruly masses.

What our friends on the left lack is humanity.

Ulysses S. Grant could have been entirely legalistic when he met Lee at Appomattox, but Lee later commented on how moved he was by Grant's feeling for the Southern soldiers, and how he appreciated the respect that Grant displayed, and the generosity of the surrender terms. 

The United States could have been legalistic, and cite legal precedents, when the surrender of Japan was signed aboard the USS Missouri on September 2, 1945.  But a young Japanese diplomat, present for the signing, later wrote how touched he was by the respect the Americans showed for the Japanese delegation.  It was a respect that continued during Douglas MacArthur's enlightened occupation of Japan.

John Paul II removed a group of Carmelite nuns who'd set up a convent at Auschwitz, in Poland.  The pope was Polish.  Had he insisted that the nuns remain, he would have had Poland behind him.  But he understood the sensitivities of others, and the convent was closed. 

I happen to know the family of a fire lieutenant who died in the 9-11 attacks.  He always taught his children, "If you want respect, give some."  But there has been little respect shown for the families of those whose lives were cut short on September 11, 2001.  A little lip service, maybe, but little more.  We're told that we must uphold our Constitutional traditions, even though there is absolutely no Constitutional right to build a structure at a particular place.

About ten years ago a radical college invited an African-American radical, imprisoned for the murder of a police officer in Philadelphia, to deliver its commencement address by tape.  When the widow of the officer wrote a letter to the college protesting, she received a patronizing note from the college president, reminding her of the First Amendment.  There was absolutely no compassion shown for her suffering, for what she and her children had lost.  It was all cut-and-dried legalism.

There are many stories like that, and they go to something I've learned over the years:  The left is cold.  Leftists are not the "caring" people they claim to be.  They live their lives by their college board scores, their degrees and their ideologies.  People mean very little.  It is hardly a secret that both Betty Friedan, the founder of modern feminism, and Bella Abzug, the leading champion of feminism in the U.S. Congress, both treated women terribly.  All that counted to them was some abstract "cause."  Human beings were simply pegs on a board.

In the mosque debate we are seeing that left-wing coldness played out.  We saw it in the indifference of the left toward the Cambodian genocide, and to the mass murder in our own cities during the past half century. 

And so I think we are living through a defining moment, a moment that splits America between those who understand what it is to be human, and those who live entirely by their presumed intellects.  Many thought President Obama "cool" when he was elected.  Now they see him as ice.  There is a difference.

Liberalism is an honorably philosophy, but liberals, in my youth, were very different from what they are today.  They need, more than anything else, a period of introspection and self-examination, to contemplate what has happened to them, and why Americans are rejecting them in such massive numbers.

Two years ago this country elected an African-American president with a Muslim background.  The humanity and generosity the American people showed was stunning.  I only wish that the president we elected, those around him, and the political and journalistic class that supports him, would show some of that same humanity and generosity.

August 19, 2010     Permalink 

ECONOMIC STUNNER – AT 9:36 A.M. ET:  If this election campaign is fought over the economy, the Dems may be in even worse trouble than current polls show.  Get this:

New U.S. claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly climbed to a nine-month high last week, yet another setback to the frail economic recovery.

Initial claims for state unemployment benefits increased 12,000 to a seasonally adjusted 500,000 in the week ended August 14, the highest since mid-November, the Labor Department said on Thursday.

Analysts polled by Reuters had forecast claims slipping to 476,000 from the previously reported 484,000 the prior week, which was revised up to 488,000 in Thursday's report.

A Labor Department official said there was nothing unusual in the state level data. The data covered the survey week for the government's closely watched employment report for August, scheduled for release early next month.

"There are some technical factors out there and the seasonal factors seem to be pushing it up a little bit. But given the trend of claims it looks like the economy ran into a wall in August," said Chris Rupkey, chief financial economist at Bank of Tokyo-MitsubishI UFJ in New York.

COMMENT:  Compare please with our first post this morning, announcing that President Obama starts a ten-day vacation after lunch today.  How do you think that will go down when juxtaposed with these employment figures?  Think mosque at Ground Zero. 

Are we slipping into a double-dip recession?  I am not an economist and don't know.  But if we are, the implications can be catastrophic.  When the current crisis hit in 2008, conveniently for Obama right before the election, the country had some money to fight it.  We don't have much in the bank right now.  And the public is clearly losing confidence in this administration. 

Obama should cancel his vacation, send his family away and stay in the White House, working on the economy.  Appearances count.  But he won't.  And Americans will notice.

August 19, 2010      Permalink

MOSQUE MADNESS – AT 8:53 A.M. ET:  The mosque controversy continues.  The president made this into a national issue Friday night in one of the biggest political blunders I've seen a president make. 

Yesterday, the people behind the mosque rejected an invitation to meet with Governor David Paterson of New York to discuss ways of easing the tension.  This is outrageous behavior.  These people claim they want the mosque at Ground Zero as a means of "healing."  Healing whom?  They won't even meet with the governor of the state.  And one of these worthies also refused to rule out funding from Saudi Arabia and Iran.  Maybe we'll have stonings at Ground Zero just to celebrate "diversity."

Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York has entered the picture with a thoughtful suggestion:

Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in New York, said Wednesday that he would gladly help mediate between the proponents and critics of an Islamic center and mosque planned for a site two blocks from ground zero.

The archbishop said that it was his “major prayer” that a compromise could be reached, and that while he had no strong feelings about the project, he might support finding a new location for the center.

Speaking during an impromptu news conference at Covenant House, a Catholic shelter in Manhattan for homeless youth, Archbishop Dolan invoked the example of Pope John Paul II, who in 1993 ordered Catholic nuns to move from their convent at the former Auschwitz death camp after protests from Jewish leaders.

“He’s the one who said, ‘Let’s keep the idea, and maybe move the address,’ ” the archbishop said. “It worked there; might work here.”

COMMENT:  The archbishop is a good guy.  All sides should accept his good offices.  If the people behind the mosque turn down the archbishop, as they turned down the governor, they will prove their ill intent, and show that this isn't about healing, but about Muslim triumphalism. 

One really weird idea to emerge yesterday, and it came from Maureen Dowd and from a surprisingly inept editorial in the Washington Post, was for former President Bush (43) to intervene and throw his support for the mosque.  The logic apparently is that Bush showed respect for Islam right after the attacks of 9-11.

Huh?  I thought it was liberal doctrine that Bush ruined, for four or five hundred years, our relationship with the Islamic world.  Now the cry seems to be, "Bring him on!"

Bad idea.  A better idea would be for Bush and former President Clinton to join Archbishop Dolan in offering to mediate.  Even Obama could send a representative, but we hope it isn't the professor who got into trouble with the Cambridge police.

August 19, 2010       Permalink

KEEPING US MISINFORMED – AT 8:16 A.M. ET:  I happen to think that self-punishment is an important part of building character, so I tuned in to CNN last night.

You know, I have no idea what those boys have in mind.  Their ratings are through the basement, with no improvement in sight, and they seem to have little idea how to fix things.  A few weeks ago they put Shirley Sherrod, Agriculture Department official, on Mount Rushmore.  Last week they did the same to the airline attendant who abandoned his passengers and slid down the chute.

Last night the leftist brigades at CNN heralded the fact that our last combat units are leaving Iraq. One CNN "journalist" breathlessly said, "We've waited seven and a half years for this moment," as if addressing parents on their daughter's wedding day.  We were informed endlessly that no WMD were found in Iraq.  We were never informed, not once, that WMD programs were indeed found in Iraq, and were ready to be restarted once the UN lifted sanctions.  Since sanctions were due to be lifted in 2003, the year we went in militarily, we can only imagine where Saddam Hussein would be in WMD development had we not acted.  No talk of that on CNN.

CNN tried to portray Iraq as either an embarrassment or a catastrophe, take your pick.  Fortunately, David Gergen provided some adult balance, but the whole tone of the reporting had that typical liberal sneer to it.  It was an echo of the past.  Many of these reporters were tutored by the Vietnam generation, which handed down the accepted "narrative" that Vietnam was a mistake and a disaster.  No, it was a disaster only when we pulled the plug on our South Vietnamese allies, but that part of the narrative gets left out.  If I closed my eyes last night, I was hearing the same clichés I heard from Vietnam reporters in the late sixties and early seventies. 

I did not watch all of the "reporting," but the fact that Iraq was saved from a sadistic madman and his equally sadistic sons got short shrift.  Iraq may not be in spectacular shape, and its government is still a mess, but it hasn't got a dagger pointed at anyone, and it isn't developing WMD. 

We will have a military presence in Iraq in the form of training and support units.  The story is not over.  We should refuse to accept the blabbering of liberal journalists who wanted that story to end last night.

August 19, 2010      Permalink 

BULLETIN:  PRESIDENT GOES ON VACATION TODAY – AT 8:05 A.M. ET:  President Obama leaves for Cape Cod after lunch today, starting a 10-day vacation with his family.

We thought you'd like to know about this, and to be assured that the president and first lady are finally getting some time off.  My goodness, there are people who actually begrudge our leader this bit of time in the sun.  Why, he works night and day, throwing out first balls, defending mosques at Ground Zero, raising money for the Democratic Party, engaging in the agonizing duty of choosing ice cream flavors.  He needs this time to unwind, to rub shoulders with all those common folk who vacation on Cape Cod.  The place where he's staying only charges $50,000 a week.  Dearies, that is a STEAL in these northeast parts.  I don't want my president staying at a Holiday Inn Express, or going to one of those vulgar places where they play country and western. 

And yes, this is sarcastic.

August 19, 2010     Permalink

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 18, 2010

NOW HERE'S A SURPRISE – AT 8:34 P.M. ET:  We usually don't think of Howard Dean, former presidential candidate and Democratic national chairman, as a voice of reason, but miracles do happen.  From the New York Post:

Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, in a surprise move Wednesday, became the second high profile Democrat to come out against the building of a cultural center and mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero.

“This is something that we ought to be able to work out with people of good faith," Dean said in an interview with WABC radio.

"We have to understand that it is a real affront to people who’ve lost their lives, including Muslims.

"That site doesn’t belong to any particular religion … So I think a good reasonable compromise could be worked out without violating the principle that people ought to be able to worship as they see fit.”

Well, okay, a moment of sanity.  Maybe sanity comes to those who read numbers correctly.  A new poll just out shows that Americans who've formed an opinion reject President Obama's endorsement of the mosque, and by a sizable margin:

Most Americans who have an opinion about President Barack Obama’s comments on the Islamic community center to be built near ground zero don’t approve of what he said, according to a new Gallup Poll.

Out of just more than 1,000 adults contacted Tuesday, 37 percent said they disapproved of the comments Obama made at a Friday night Ramadan dinner, at which he said developers had a right to build the center, which would include a mosque. Only 20 percent said they approved, and the rest didn’t have an opinion.

Maybe it would be a good idea for liberals and their allies among the American elites to stop labeling everyone who opposes the mosque as a racist or a bigot.  Might offend tens of millions of Americans, not a good idea in an election year.

August 18, 2010        Permalink

THE NEW AXIS – AT 8:05 P.M. ET:  In World War II the Axis referred to Nazi Germany, fascist Italy and imperial Japan.  Now a new axis is forming, consisting of Iran and its new allies around the world.  There is a strange airline flight coming out of Tehran that symbolizes this new axis:

WASHINGTON - Iran Air 744 is a bimonthly flight that originates in Tehran and flies directly to Caracas with periodic stops in Beirut and Damascus. The maiden flight was Feb. 2, 2007.

The mere existence of the flight was a significant concern for U.S. intelligence officials, but now a broader concern is who and what are aboard the flights.

"If you [a member of the public] tried to book yourself a seat on this flight and it doesn't matter whether it's a week before, a month before, six months before -- you'll never find a place to sit there," says Offer Baruch, a former Israeli Shin Bet agent.

Baruch, now vice president of operations for International Shield, a security firm in Texas, says the plane is reserved for Iranian agents, including "Hezbollah, the Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) and other intelligence personnel."

Current and former U.S. intelligence officials fear the flight is a shadowy way to move people and weapons to locations in Latin America that can be used as staging points for retaliatory attacks against the U.S. or its interests in the event Iranian nuclear sites are struck by U.S. or Israeli military forces.

And...

In addition to speculation about who is aboard, there are significant concerns that the Boeing 747SP airplane might be transporting uranium to Tehran on the return flight. The U.S. government has enacted strong sanctions against Iran because of its nuclear program and there are worries the flight might provide an opportunity to skirt the embargo against materials that might be used for the program.

The U.S. Government, under Obama, has its usual dynamic reaction:

In a statement, the State Department says, "Nations have the right to enter into cooperative relationships with other nations."

Yeah, okay boss, and people have a right to build a mosque at Ground Zero.

COMMENT:  There have, for years, been concerns about radical Islamist infiltration of Latin America, made much easier by the fact that an America-hating regime exists in Venezuela.  We now how porous our southern border is.  How difficult would it be to smuggle agents or even light equipment across that border?

And while this is happening, the Obama Justice Department is suing Arizona.

August 18, 2010     Permalink

HILLARY TO DEFENSE? – AT 9:05 A.M. ET:  This speculation was inevitable.  From Politics Daily:

Speculation is bubbling at the prospect of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton becoming Secretary of Defense upon Robert Gates's retirement in 2011.

Gates, the only Republican holdover from the Bush Administration, recently told "Foreign Policy" magazine that he planned to step down next year.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said in an e-mail to reporters, "This is not Secretary Gates announcing his retirement. This is the secretary musing about when it would make sense for him to finally bow out. He has long said he would not serve the whole term and now he has told Foreign Policy that he thinks it best to leave with enough time on the administration's clock for his successor to be effective."

Still, it was enough to set off a name game of possible replacements, including Clinton. If Clinton accepted the position, she would be the first woman to hold it – another milestone in a historic political career.

Hmm.  Interesting, and possible.  On the positive side, Clinton could see Defense as another ticket punched, another qualification for the presidency:  First lady, senator, secretary of defense, secretary of state.  She could also polish her "patriotic" credentials, not bad in an era when the country seems to be moving to the right.  There's Hillary on the carrier, in the cockpit, with the troops in Afghanistan.

Negative:  She'd be stuck holding the bag for Obama's failures, especially if he demands premature withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan.  Why go down with a sinking ship?

Clinton would certainly be preferable to some of the names thrown about, especially the unspeakable Republican turncoat Chuck Hagel.  And she'd be acceptable to both parties, avoiding a bloody confirmation battle in the Senate. 

Stand by.  I have no doubt the speculation will grow if it looks like Gates is really departing.

August 18, 2010      Permalink

THIS IS DISGRACEFUL, ABSOLUTELY DESPICABLE – AT 8:37 A.M. ET:  How low can the Democratic left go?  Well, maybe we're finding out.  Reader Brian Kuhn alerts us to this:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, called for an investigation of those who are protesting the building of the Ground Zero Mosque on Tuesday. She told San Francisco's KCBS radio: 

"There is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some. And I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded," she said. "How is this being ginned up that here we are talking about Treasure Island, something we've been working on for decades, something of great interest to our community as we go forward to an election about the future of our country and two of the first three questions are about a zoning issue in New York City."

And these are the same people who constantly shout "McCarthyism."  They, including Pelosi, are the latter-day McCarthyites.

Calls to investigate the funding for those proposing the $100 million "Cordoba House" have fallen on deaf ears, though, as New York's Mayor Mike Bloomberg has described such an investigation as "un-American."

So let me get this straight:  It is wrong, even un-American, to investigate the funding of the mosque, even though that funding may come from questionable sources linked to terrorism, but the speaker of the House wants to investigate the funding of those who are simply asking for sensitivity to the victims of 9-11? 

What has become of the Democratic Party?

August 18, 2010      Permalink

OH.  MAYBE BLAGO SHOULD HAVE WAITED FOR THE FACTS – AT 8:25 A.M. ET:  There was heavy gloating in former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's circles yesterday when a jury convicted him of only one count after his corruption trial in Chicago.  But now the facts are out, and it's evident that one holdout juror prevented justice from being done:

One juror.

That was all it took to keep a jury from convicting former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich of trying to sell the Senate seat formerly held by President Obama, according to another juror in Blagojevich's federal corruption trial.

Instead, Blagojevich was found guilty Tuesday of just one lesser count of lying to federal agents, as jurors deadlocked on the 23 other counts against him, prompting the judge to declare a mistrial on those charges.

Blagojevich showed no emotion as the verdict was read, neither smiling nor grimacing. But afterward, he cast the outcome as a victory and vowed to appeal the one guilty verdict.

"I want the people of Illinois to know I did not lie to the FBI," Blagojevich told reporters. "I told the truth from the very beginning. This is a persecution."

After Judge James B. Zagel said he plans to call a mistrial on the remaining counts, federal prosecutors said they would retry Blagojevich "as quickly as possible."

Zagel set a hearing for Aug. 26 to decide the manner and timing of the retrial. He also said Blagojevich's bond will stay the same.

News broke later Tuesday that there was just one holdout juror blocking a conviction on the charge of trying to sell the Senate seat. The jury deadlocked 11-1 on that charge, according to another juror, Erik Sarnello of Itasca, Ill.

Sarnello, 21, said the holdout, a woman, "just didn't see what we all saw." He said the counts around the Senate seat were "the most obvious."

COMMENT:  We can't speculate on what was going through the mind of the holdout.  Was she just stubborn?  Wasn't she listening?  Did she feel sympathy for Blago?  Was she an Obama supporter trying to protect the party?  We don't know.

Things like this have happened many times before.  Richard Nixon's attorney general, John Mitchell, went on trial for corruption in the early 70s, and got sprung not because of a holdout juror, but because one member of the jury, a partisan of Mitchell's, was able to mount an articulate defense of Mitchell in the jury room, persuading easily persuaded jurors.

Sometimes the one holdout juror is right.  In this case, I doubt it.

August 18, 2010     Permalink

GRIMNESS AMONG THE DEMS – AT 8:18 A.M. ET:  Michael Barone analyzes some recent numbers and, after a word of caution about the size of the sample, comes up with a grim medical diagnosis for the congressional Democrats.

The pro-Republican group American Action Forum has conducted polls, as Jim Geraghty reports in National Review Online, in 12 East Coast House districts (East Coast in this case includes Virginia, West Virginia and Florida) currently held by Democrats. The sample size for each district is only 400, so I don’t think it’s wise to read too much into the percentages in each race. On average, voters prefer Republican candidates to Democratic candidates by a 38%-31% margin—somewhat startling, considering that every one of these districts elected a Democrat in 2008. This seems consistent with Gallup’s most recent numbers on the generic House vote, which show Democrats doing worse than at any other time since 1950, when Gallup started asking voters which party’s candidate they would vote for in House elections. Gallup shows Republicans leading 50%-43%, which is very similar to Real Clear Politics’s average of recent polls, which is 47%-41% Republican...

...It’s beginning to look like see-saw politics. Barack Obama got a higher percentage of the vote in 2008 than any other Democratic nominees in history except Andrew Jackson, Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. Now Democrats seem to be on the brink of doing worse in House elections than they have in any cycle since 1946.

COMMENT:  And they would deserve it.  But the votes haven't been counted, so all we can do now is fight and hope, with the emphasis on the fight.

August 18, 2010       Permalink