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.

DECEMBER 17,  2010

CHICKENS COME HOME TO ROOST – AT 8:37 P.M. ET:  Do you remember the Duke lacrosse case?  An African American woman, working as an "exotic dancer" (one of the great euphemisms) charged three Duke University lacrosse players with rape.

The case became a cause celebre, despite not a shred of evidence against the boys.  Radical feminists pounced.  The race industry went into full production.

And then the truth started to come out...about a corrupt prosecutor seeking black votes in an upcoming election, and a nutbag fringe of the Duke faculty, 88 members, whoi signed a statement essentially calling for a legal lynching of the innocent boys charged. 

Eventually, the boys were exonerated, and the prosecutor disbarred by courageous action of the North Carolina bar.  The faculty members, screaming "academic freedom," never bothered to apologize.  Duke offered a vague apology, published on page 265 of leading newspapers.

Now, the clearly disturbed woman at the center of the case has seen justice come 'round.  From WaPo, which has the courage to publish the story, and not from The New York Times, which doesn't:

DURHAM, N.C. -- A woman who authorities said falsely accused three Duke University lacrosse players of rape four years ago has been found guilty by a North Carolina jury of misdemeanor child abuse and damaging property.

A Durham County jury on Friday convicted 32-year-old Crystal Mangum of contributing to child abuse or neglect, injury to personal property, and resisting a public officer stemming from a February confrontation with her live-in boyfriend. Mangum was sentenced to time already served before she was released on bail earlier this year.

COMMENT:  How sad, how sad.  Nothing to cheer about here.  The Duke case was a setback for justice, and for the many true victims of sexual assault whose credibility is eroded every time there is a false charge, especially one that garners the publicity of the lacrosse episode.

We still have yet to hear an apology from the Duke faculty fringe, or any reflection at all.  I think it will take generational change to rid ourselves of adolescent college professors whose thinking never got beyond the 1960s. 

December 17, 2010      Permalink

NOT VALERIE PLAME – AT 8:02 P.M. ET:  The smug "sophisticates" who are raising toasts to the wicked Wiki guy, might consider what happens when real secrets are revealed.  From AP:

The CIA has pulled its top spy out of Pakistan after threats were made against his life, current and former U.S. officials said, an unusual move for the U.S. and a complication on the front lines of the fight against Al Qaeda.

The CIA station chief was in transit Thursday after a Pakistani lawsuit earlier this month accused him by name of killing civilians in missile strikes. The Associated Press is not publishing the station chief's name because he remains undercover and his name is classified.

Good for AP.  Some maturity, at last.

CIA airstrikes from unmanned aircraft have successfully killed terrorist leaders but have led to accusations in Pakistan that the strikes have killed innocent people. The U.S. does not acknowledge the missile strikes, but there have been more than 100 such attacks this year -- more than double the amount in 2009.

The lawsuit blew the American spy's cover, leading to threats against him and forcing the U.S. to call him home, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

CIA officials' "serious concerns" for the station chief's safety led to the decision to bring him home, a U.S. official said. A spokeswoman for the spy agency, Jennifer Youngblood, declined to comment.

COMMENT:  Let's see if the fraudulent left shows as much concern about this real breach of security as it did over the phony Valerie Plame case, which has now been made into a minor motion picture that has drawn an audience of six.

The Pakistan CIA saga is just a taste of things to come as the Wikis release more and more classified information.  There are real people out there, suffering real consequences.  Mr. Assange, the king of the Wikis, is now living under "house detention" in a mansion of England, being feted by his wealthy, trendy friends.  Others are sweating because of his leaks, and some might die. 

Mr. Assange complains that he is being mistreated.

December 17, 2010      Permalink

GOOD FELLER – AT 10:05 A.M. ET:  Bob Feller has died.  For those of us of a certain age, he was one of the most memorable baseball players of the century, the great pitcher of the Cleveland Indians.  The word "great" is overused these days, as is the word "star."  But Bob Feller was a great and a star.

When I was a kid, I rooted for the Brooklyn Dodgers.  For Dodger fans, no other team warranted respect, let alone warmth.  There was another New York team, the Yankees – you may have read about them – whom we held in complete contempt.  Rooting for the Yankees, as the baseball writer, Roger Kahn, pointed out, was like rooting for U.S. Steel.  We of the working people, while acknowledging individual Yanks like Ruth, Gehrig and Dimagg, despised them.  Only people who shopped at Brooks Brothers rooted for the Yankees.

Oh yes, there existed the New York Giants, another local club that attempted baseball.  They played in a place called the Polo Grounds, which which Dodger fans would visit if the Giants were playing our boys.  Sometimes you had to go slumming.

There was no regard for the foreign teams, the ones outside New York.  But there was a grudging sense of awe about a tiny number of their players – Ted Williams, Stan Musial...and Bob Feller.

Of course we hated Feller because he could strike out Duke Snider, a sainted Dodger.  But you had to respect his skill.  I read, back in my early years, that Feller's fast ball was clocked at 98 miles an hour, a phenomenal speed in those days.  And he did this after taking years off to serve on battleships during World War II. 

To win the respect of Dodger fans was high praise, especially among Dodger fans.  This was an age, after all, when our high school, during the last period of the day, would let us listen to World Series games if a local team was involved.  Baseball was big.  Bigger than the Sony PlayStation.

So we remember Bob Feller and the game he played.  The Brooklyn Dodgers are long gone, victims of the great treason of 1957.  The good Feller survived them by 53 years.  Both will be remembered with affection.

December 17, 2010      Permalink 

I GUESS HE COULD GO LIVE IN ENGLAND – AT 9:20 A.M. ET:  With Patrick Kennedy leaving Washington, our thoughts turn to others who might soon need the services of the van lines.  A new poll guides our thinking:

Most voters don’t believe President Barack Obama will win reelection, or that he deserves to, according to a new poll released Thursday.

Just 29 percent of the registered voters surveyed by Fox News and Opinion Dynamics said they believed Obama would win in 2012; 64 percent said they expected him to lose.

Views of Obama’s ability to get reelected broke down along party lines, with 49 percent of Democrats and 10 percent of Republicans saying Obama would win.

Only 49% of Dems think Obama will be reelected?  That's not a vote of confidence from the home team.

In a similar poll a year ago, 44 percent of the voters said Obama would win.

In a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released earlier this week, Obama led a generic Republican presidential candidate, 43 to 39 percent, and specific candidates by even larger margins.

Views of whether Obama deserves a second term also broke down along partisan lines.

Overall, 35 percent of those surveyed said he deserves reelection. Among Democrats, it was 67 percent and among Republicans just 7 percent.

Among independents, 32 percent said Obama deserves reelection.

COMMENT:  The president's loss of the indies must be particularly upsetting to the White House, for elections are won in the great middle. 

And yet, look at the results of the WSJ/NBC poll:  Obama would still win against any listed Republican candidate.  He may be unpopular, but the GOP is less than loved.  Republicans must realize what the polls are telling them:  They need a first-class candidate in 2012, not simply the anti-Obama. 

Will the GOP listen?  In 1996, two years after a stunning GOP victory in the midterms, the party had a golden chance to defeat incumbent President Bill Clinton.  But Republicans put up the hapless Bob Dole, a man with a personality even a mother might reject.  It has been the Republican tradition to nominate the next in line.  That won't do in 2012.  Get it, guys?

December 17, 2010       Permalink 

END OF AN ERA – AT 8:48 A.M. ET:  The New York Times runs a poignant story about the end of the Kennedy era in Washington, as Patrick Kennedy prepares to return home:

WASHINGTON — Nightfall on the Kennedy era in Washington looks like this: Representative Patrick J. Kennedy’s office space surrendered to a Republican, his family memorabilia in boxes, and Mr. Kennedy yearning for a role away from the public eye.

When the lame-duck session of Congress wraps up, Mr. Kennedy, 43, will return to Rhode Island, settling into his recently renovated farmhouse in Portsmouth. When his eighth term ends early next month, it will be the first time since 1947 — when John F. Kennedy became a congressman from Massachusetts — that no member of his family will hold a federal office.

With Mr. Kennedy’s father, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, dead for more than a year now and no one else in the family voicing plans to run for office, Capitol Hill will be left with ghosts and memories. The only politician left among them is Bobby Shriver, whose mayoral term in Santa Monica, Calif., just ended but who still sits on the City Council there.

COMMENT:  It does, for me, bring back memories of the iconic 1960 campaign, when, on the other side, I worked for the election of John F. Kennedy.

But, sad to say, Jack wouldn't recognize today's left-wing, anti-defense Democratic Party.  Over the years, the spirit of Kennedy's New Frontier, which did inspire young people and did put a premium on national service, gave way to the cynical, arrogant liberalism that we see today. 

We recall that Kennedy actually ran to the right of Nixon on national defense in 1960.  It was national defense Democrats who built the body of policies, including the creation of NATO, that allowed us to fight the Cold War and eventually, under Ronald Reagan, win.

Would the Democrats do that today?  Is that a serious question?

One of the continuing sadnesses is that Robert Kennedy's bitterness toward Lyndon Johnson did much to destroy the fabric of the party in the mid-sixties, and helped lead to its domination by the nutbag wing. 

The Democrats had Henry Jackson of the state of Washington in the United States Senate during the Jack Kennedy years.  Today they have Patty Murray.  That's not a comedown.  That's a crash.

An era now ends, and a party fades.

December 17, 2010      Permalink

DEVASTATING SOCIAL NEWS.  WHAT DO WE TELL THE NEIGHBORS? – AT 8:25 A.M. ET:  Rarely has such humiliation been visited upon us.  From Andrew Malcolm at the L.A. Times's Top of the Ticket blog:

Oh, the humiliation. Once not so long ago one of the world's top celebrities in his own right, Barack Obama and his wife Michelle did not make the cut for invitations to the royal wedding in London next spring.

On April 29 in Westminster Abbey with all the grace and pageantry sure to capture international imaginations, commoner Kate Middleton will marry Prince William, son of Princess Diana. And don't forget the horsedrawn carriage perhaps.

But the current residents of the White House will not be there, according to the Daily Mail.

The official excuse provided to the British paper by royal sources is that the royal couple wants to share their special nuptial moment with ordinary citizens. Anyway, it is not an official state event, they said. And, you know, Westminster only seats 2,000.

Nice try.

So then how to explain the invites to French president Nicolas Sarkozy and his wife Carla Bruni?

And how to explain the invitations to England-loving President and Mrs. Reagan for the wedding of Diana and Prince Charles back in 1981? And the subsequent invitations to the American first family for the wedding of Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson five years later?

COMMENT:  Do you remember that one of Obama's first presidential acts was to send the bust of Winston Churchill, which had an honored place in the Oval Office, back to Britain, even though it had never been requested?

Apparently, the bust fought back.  This is its finest hour.

Oh, I can't, can't, can't wait to hear Press Secretary Robert Gibbs's explanation for why the president of the United States, and first lady, couldn't scare up an invitation to the wedding.  Well, uh, maybe Obama had scheduled a pick-up basketball game for that day.  Or maybe the first lady didn't approve of the sweets on the menu.  There's gotta be a reason.

We've seen snubs.  This is the prize.

Oh, by the way, please note that the Obamas weren't invited to Chelsea Clinton's wedding either.  Hillary must be laughing her head off.  "You know, Bill, if we were back in the White House, we'd be invited.  Even your girl friend would be invited."

A protocol question:   Do the Obamas still have to send a gift?  What should it be?

December 17, 2010     Permalink 

DECEMBER 16,  2010

HAS HOLDER COME ALIVE? – AT 9:55 A.M. ET:  Wiki kingpin Julian Assange, who believes he is full of goodness and grace, was on TV earlier this evening, saying that he's been told he may be indicted in the United States under our espionage laws.

Good, good, good.  That's what he deserves.  If he thinks he's on the side of the angels, fine.  But others who've thought the same thing, but had a higher regard for their fellow law-abiding citizens, have broken the law, then, in the spirit of civil disobedience, presented themselves for arrest.

Assange has a host of problems.  He's wanted in Sweden on a rape charge, and is entitled to the presumption of innocence.  But I hope he will have to answer charges in this country as well.

We've been very critical here of Eric Holder, our very political attorney general.  But if he pursues Assange vigorously, we'll be happy to give him the credit.  I'm not convinced yet.  There apparently is a secret grand jury meeting in Virginia.  Let's see if an indictment is handed down.  Stay tuned.

December 16, 2010       Permalink

THE LEFT ON THE MARCH, TO NOWHERE – AT 9:57 A.M. ET:  The left wing of the Democratic Party continues its kamikaze mission, with implied threats against President Obama, the most left-wing president in our history, for not being leftist enough.  From The Hill:

President Obama’s stark move to the middle will cost him. As in cash, and lots of it.

Democrats in Washington think President Obama is hurting his mighty fundraising prowess by repeatedly ticking off the people who helped Obama shatter fundraising records in 2007 and 2008.

The great strength behind Obama’s eye-popping quarterly reports were online contributions — about $500 million worth — and many Democrats think that area will take a hit as loyal Democrats express their disappointment with Obama by keeping their wallets shut.

To be sure, an extension of the Bush tax cuts, the failure to repeal “Don’t ask, don’t tell” and a fight with some unions and the left over a trade agreement with South Korea don’t make for sexy Democratic fundraising literature.

It will be hard for Obama to say, “Show me the money” when his allies feel like they’ve been shown the back of the president’s hand.

You know, I almost feel sympathy for the president.  And get this:

Even Hollywood, the great liberal ATM, could revolt over the president’s inability to overturn the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military, end the war in Afghanistan and close Guantánamo Bay.

Imagine not having Michael Moore on your side.  Why, the impact.  The anguish.  No more free tickets to premieres. 

COMMENT:  The Democratic Party, decades ago, was an engine of practical politics and electoral know-how.  It knew how to do things, not just say things.  Look at it today.  A group of adolescents is offended – one of their favorite words – by the need for Obama to compromise.  Whatever happened to the Soviet dream of one-party rule? 

As the story points out, some of the smarter Democratic pols believe that Obama's fight with the left will actually help him in 2012, and I'm inclined to agree.  Only 20% of Americans identify themselves as liberals.  The election will be won by appealing to the other 80%.

December 16, 2010      Permalink

DON'T COUNT OBAMA OUT – AT 8:57 A.M. ET:  A new poll supports the argument we've been advancing here that President Obama, despite setbacks, remains a potent force for 2012.  From The Politico:

President Barack Obama faces an unsure but still supportive electorate heading into the 2012 campaign, a new poll suggests.

In the Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released late Wednesday, 42 percent of Americans said they would probably vote to reelect the president, while 39 percent said they would vote for a generic Republican candidate.

Not exactly a vote of confidence for the president, who only leads by three points when matched against nobody.  But there's better news for Mr. Obama:

Matched up with specific Republican presidential hopefuls, Obama does better. If Mitt Romney were the Republican candidate, 47 percent of respondents said they would vote for Obama, while 40 percent said they would vote for the former Massachusetts governor.

Romney is one of the better known Republican candidates, and has been running since Creation.  If this is the best he can do, he has major work ahead.

Other potential 2012 candidates get less support. Pitted against former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Obama gets 55 percent of the vote while Palin gets 33 percent. And 47 percent said they would vote for Obama against Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), while 27 percent said they’d vote for Thune.

The Thune numbers are insignificant because not enough voters know him yet.  The Palin numbers, though, are pretty devastating.  Everybody knows Sarah, and has had two years now to make a judgment about her.  While her numbers may well improve, she cannot, right now, make a strong claim to the presidential nomination. 

Reader Chris Corbett relays a quote from conservative political science Professor Charles Dunn, of Regent University:  "She's not demonstrated the seriousness of purpose. [And] she's not taken the vocal training that she should," he suggests. "She comes off more like a high school cheerleader rather than a serious aspirant for the Republican presidential nomination."

I'm afraid there's some truth to that.  And there' some truth to the notion, which you hear constantly, that the GOP doesn't have a real star to run against Obama in 2012.  I'm not sure I agree.  The new senator from Florida, Marco Rubio, is a star.  He's everybody's choice for vice president.  I'm willing to speculate that, sometime before the 2012 election, Rubio might look in the mirror and ask, "Vice president?"  After all, he's the former speaker of the Florida House, and will have had more experience by the 2012 election than Barack Obama had before the 2008 election.  If a star is needed, one is available.  Rubio could sew up critical Florida, and, as a Hispanic, could make a dent in the traditionally Democratic Hispanic vote.

December 16, 2010      Permalink

THE THREAT – AT 8:31 A.M. ET:  Eternal vigilance, my friends, practice eternal vigilance:

(AP) Iraqi authorities have obtained confessions from captured insurgents who claim al Qaeda is planning suicide attacks in the United States and Europe during the Christmas season, two senior officials said Wednesday.

Iraqi Interior Minister Jawad al-Bolani told The Associated Press that the botched bombing in central Stockholm last weekend was among the alleged plots the insurgents revealed. Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, in a telephone interview from New York, called the claims "a critical threat."

Both al-Bolani and Zebari said Iraq has informed Interpol of the alleged plots, and alerted authorities in the U.S. and European countries of the possible danger. Neither official specified which country or countries in Europe are alleged targets.

There was no way to verify the insurgents' claims. But Western counterterrorism officials generally are on high alert during the holiday season, especially since last year's failed attack by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the so-called underwear bomber, who tried to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day.

COMMENT:  The report seems logical.  Recent attempts at terror attacks in the West have been thoroughly incompetent, but incompetence doesn't have to last forever.  The 9-11 attacks were extremely competent. 

It is simply a matter of time before al Qaeda succeeds at something.  They have clearly not given up their assault on airliners, which is why security procedures at our airports now include some pretty intrusive techniques. 

We wait, and hope that many eyes are open.

December 16, 2010      Permalink

OUTRAGEOUS EXAMPLE OF JOURNALISTS PRACTICING JOURNALISM – AT 8:15 A.M. ET:  What are they thinking at Fox News?  Those silly right-wing, fascistic pigs:  Always asking questions and worrying about facts.  Take them off your invitation list, would you?  From the Washington Examiner:

You think the most essential purpose of journalism and the reason the Founders included freedom of the press in the First Amendment was to insure independent reporting about government, politicians, and public policy issues, right?

Well, you must be wrong because Fox News Washington Bureau Chief Bill Sammon is getting a raft of garbage from liberal activists masquerading as journalists at Media Matters, some liberal bloggers and a scattering of real journalists who ought to know better.

Why? Politico’s headline captures the controversy perfectly: “Fox editor urged climate skepticism.”

Stunning.

For the record, here’s what Sammon said in a Dec. 8, 2009, memo to his reporting staff shortly after the Climategate global warming email scandal erupted:

“Given the controversy over the veracity of climate change data, we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.”

COMMENT:  Whaddaya mean?  Hasn't Sammon ever heard of the 1960s?  Hey Bill, things have changed.   Your job isn't to report the news without fear or favor, it's to make a difference.  Haven't you heard?  Don't you read The Nation?  And the difference you make had better be the difference that the beautiful people want made.  You want to be invited somewhere in Washington, don't you, Bill?

Soon these retrogrades will ask for researchers and fact checkers.  Stop them before they demand that universities explain how federal aid is spent!

December 16, 2010        Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 8:09 A.M. ET:  This just in, from The Scotsman:

A TEAM of scientists claims to have positively identified an embalmed head, presumed lost in the chaos of the French Revolution, as that of King Henri IV of France who was assassinated in 1610.  The head was apparently lost after revolutionaries desecrated the graves of French kings in the royal basilica of Saint-Denis near Paris in 1793.

I was beginning to fear that we'd never find out.  This should put at ease the thousands of you who've written to us about this every day.

December 16, 2010     Permalink