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.

SUNDAY,  FEBRUARY 7,  2010

BULLETIN – AT 10:01 P.M. ET:  The New Orleans Saints have won the Super Bowl, 31-17.  The White House is reassuring all Muslim nations that a victory by saints does not imply disrespect for Islam.

February 7, 2010   Permalink

BRIT ATTITUDES ON GLOBAL WARMING START TO CHANGE – AT 5:11 P.M. ET:  From the notoriously leftist BBC.  The scandals are having their effect:

The number of British people who are sceptical about climate change is rising, a poll for BBC News suggests.

The Populus poll of 1,001 adults found 25% did not think global warming was happening, an increase of 10% since a similar poll was conducted in November.

The percentage of respondents who said climate change was a reality had fallen from 83% in November to 75% this month.

And only 26% of those asked believed climate change was happening and "now established as largely man-made."

COMMENT:  The number of believers is still higher in the UK than in the US, where many people caught on to the "science" of global warming much earlier.  But at least Britain is moving.

February 7, 2010   Permalink

ARRESTS IN HAITI – AT 4:41 P.M. ET:  I saw something disturbing last night.  P.J. Crowley, the assistant secretary of state for public affairs, was interviewed by Geraldo Rivera.

Rivera asked Crowley about the American missionaries arrested in Haiti recently, and now charged with trying to smuggle Haitian orphans out of the country illegally after the earthquake.  The missionaries claimed they were just trying to give the kids a new home.

I don't have any direct knowledge of the facts.  The missionaries may have knowingly broken the law.  Or, more likely, they could have been naive about procedures for adopting orphans from Haiti.  But they are American citizens under arrest in a chaotic, corruption-strewn country where law and order have largely broken down.  They deserve some expression of concern by their own government.

They didn't get it.  Crowley's cold remarks – even Rivera seemed taken aback – simply reiterated the State Department's position, that this is a matter for the Haitian judicial system.  Not a single word of compassion, no description of what State might be doing to insure that these Americans are given the full rights, and defense, to which they're entitled.

Rivera made the point that thousands of dangerous Haitians escaped from the country's jails in the aftermath of the earthquake – murderers, rapists, drug dealers – and yet the Haitian "government" seems far more determined to pursue these American missionaries.  Crowley had virtually no reaction, and this after the United States poured in aid and troops to keep people alive. 

Rivera revealed that Haiti is now asking $20,000 for every child adopted from the country, and wondered out loud where all that money would go.  Crowley mumbled something about America being committed to honest accounting, or something like that. 

It was a disgrace.  Once again we find that this administration cannot bring itself to defend Americans. 

Geraldo conceded at the end that Crowley had to speak carefully.  True, but he could have come off as an American official, not an international civil servant.  The State Department is ours, isn't it?

February 7, 2010   Permalink

SEX AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY – AT 4:18 P.M. ET:  What is it about the Democrats and hormones?

There was Bill Clinton and his Monica.  There was John Edwards and his, whatever her name is.  There was Governor of New York Eliot Spitzer and his paid-for harem.  And we have the newly nominated Dem lieutenant governor candidate in Illinois and his former girl friend/hooker, who claims he held a knife to her throat.

And now, newly unveiled, with skillful backing, is the latest candidate for governor of New York, Kristin Davis:

The race for governor just got a whole lot sexier.

"Manhattan Madam" Kristin Davis is tossing her lacy brassiere into the political ring - with the help of one of the GOP's most fearsome strategists.

Though he's often labeled a "trickster," former Nixon, Reagan and Bushes operative Roger Stone tells us he's dead serious about getting Davis on the ballot.

"This is not a hoax, a prank or a publicity stunt," said Stone, who has been quietly huddling with Davis for months. "I want to get her a half-million votes."

Davis has spoken in the past about running against former Gov. (and alleged former client) Eliot Spitzer - to draw attention to the fact that she served nearly four months on Rikers Island while Client 9 escaped indictment.

Client 9 was Spitzer, while he was governor.

Kristin Davis won't be elected.  On the other hand, she may end up as the most honest candidate running.  A woman with nothing to hide.

February 7,  2010   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 11:35 A.M. ET:  From Jennifer Rubin at Contentions:

The chattering class was entranced with candidate Barack Obama. So literate. So polished. So cool. We were assured that his lack of executive experience was irrelevant. After all, he ran a campaign. And then there were his years as a community organizer and Harvard Law Review editor, which showed… well… it showed something about his magnificent intellectual skills. But it turns out he lacks some key abilities — executive leadership, decisiveness, deal-making prowess, flexibility, and basic people skills — that are essential to a successful presidency.

This is not simply the conclusion of conservatives. The entire country witnessed his agonizing decision-making process on the Afghanistan war strategy. Now on health-care reform, his own party is frustrated and dismayed with the non-governing president.

His floundering is not surprising, considering that Obama never ran a state, a city, or a business, and during his brief time in the U.S. Senate, he was never front-and-center in any significant legislative undertaking. Yes, he’s touted as an author, and he won the presidency (beating two flawed candidates who ran awful campaigns). But it turns out that all this was insufficient preparation to be chief executive and commander in chief.

In 2012, Republicans will look for a standard-bearer to retake the White House. And while a grounding in conservative principles will be essential to winning the nomination, Republican voters might do well to consider what experience and what talents are essential for a successful presidency. They might look for candidates who have done something – other than graduating from Ivy League schools, writing memoirs, and giving frothy speeches. By 2012, the country might be ready for someone who knows how to get something done.

COMMENT:  Well said.  I will add that the role of the media in Obama's election remains the second-greatest journalistic scandal of a generation.  (The first was the misreporting of the Tet offensive in Vietnam, which misled the nation at a critical moment in history.)  The American people are turning away from the traditional media.  That turn will be even sharper if Mr. Obama continues to flop.

February 7, 2010   Permalink

THE BOTTOM LINE – AT 11:21 A.M. ET:  Is there really any doubt left as to what Iran is up to?   From The New York Times:

CAIRO — Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, ordered the nation’s atomic energy agency on Sunday to begin producing a special form of uranium that can be used to power a medical reactor in Tehran, but that could also move the country much closer to possessing fuel usable in nuclear weapons.

The announcement Sunday came after several days of conflicting signals from Mr. Ahmadinejad and other Iranian officials about whether they were ready to reopen negotiations about giving up much of their country’s fuel in exchange for enriched uranium from another country. The exchange would allow Iran to meet some of its energy needs, but would ease fears in the West because the fuel sent to Tehran would be in a form that would be very difficult to use in a bomb.

There are legitimate questions as to whether Iran could actually do, technically, what its president has now ordered, but we have no reason to be relaxed about it.  They've surprised us before.

Mr. Ahmadinejad is betting that the threat itself may force the United States, Europe and Russia to provide fuel on his terms; American officials have said the move would only speed the effort to impose sanctions. It may also affect Israel’s calculation about how far it is willing to allow Iran to get to a weapons capability before launching an attack on Iran’s nuclear or missile facilities.

COMMENT:  What is clear is that President Obama's "outreach" to Iran has been a complete failure.  The question is now whether Mr. Obama's tarnished tongue can convince other major nations to join in crippling sanctions.  The odds are against it.  So, Mr. Obama may have to start thinking about the unthinkable – a military strike, or series of strikes, to stall the Iranian program.  Very risky, very uncertain.  But there may be no other way.

Douglas MacArthur once said that all military failures begin with two words:  "Too late."  We're seeing that with Iran.  We have waited, and waited, and waited.

February 7, 2010   Permalink

NEW ORLEANS PLAYS, AND VOTES – AT 10:41 A.M. ET:  Lost in all the Super Bowl glitter – it's the New Orleans Saints versus the Indianapolis Colts – is the fact that New Orleans elected a new mayor yesterday, replacing the unspeakable Ray Nagin, whose performance during Hurricane Katrina remains a legend.  (Yes, I am laughing and choking at the same time.)

Nagin, whose greatest pronouncement was that New Orleans would remain a "chocolate city," completely fell apart during the hurricane.  He could be found in a luxury hotel.  But the PC army in the nation's media covered for him, as it did for the equally unspeakable governor of Louisiana, Kathleen Blanco.  All the blame for problems was placed on BUSH (!!).  Keith Olbermann, the unstable commentator at MSNBC, did manage to spread the blame a bit, also pointing the finger at Secretary of State Condi Rice.  As we all know, secretaries of state are responsible for hurricanes. 

But now a new era begins, with a family name familiar to Louisiana politics:

NEW ORLEANS - Frustrated by term-limited Mayor Ray Nagin’s leadership of New Orleans since Hurricane Katrina, voters elected Louisiana Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu to succeed him Saturday, turning to a political scion to speed up the city’s recovery.

Landrieu, 49, became the majority-black city’s first white mayor since 1979, the year his father Moon left the office. The mayor-elect, a moderate Democrat, won in a landslide over a field of 10 opponents in a campaign that concluded as Carnival celebrations and preparations for the New Orleans Saints’ appearance in the Super Bowl took place.

Landrieu’s victory party was a nod to both: the ballroom of a the Roosevelt hotel — recently reopened after a post-Katrina restoration — was festooned with Saints-themed black and gold balloons. A roving brass band played Mardi Gras tunes and he prefaced his victory speech by leading the crowd in the Saints’ "Who Dat" cheer.

COMMENT:  Mitch's sister is Senator Mary Landrieu, architect of the "Louisiana Purchase," which grabbed $300-million for the state in exchange for her vote on health-care reform.  Since "reform" hasn't passed, the money may stay in Washington anyway.

So a new era begins in The Big Easy.  But if there's another hurricane, they'll still blame Bush.

February 7, 2010   Permalink

THE CONTINUING COLLAPSE – AT 10:33 A.M. ET:  Rasmussen's daily tracker continues to record the remarkable collapse of the president's poll numbers, following a brief bounce after the State of the Union message.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-three percent (43%) Strongly Disapprove which gives Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -17.

And...

Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That matches the lowest level of overall approval yet measured for this president. Fifty-six percent (56%) now disapprove.

COMMENT:  The president followed the State of the Union message with a series of campaign-style appearances around the country.  We can only speculate as to why his bounce un-bounced so quickly, but maybe the American people are tired of the endless campaign, and would prefer some governing.

Also, Eric Holder's continued, and rather pompous, defense of his anti-terrorism policies at the Justice Department cannot be helping Mr. Obama, except in that vast voting block known as the ACLU.

February 7,  2010   Permalink

SATURDAY,  FEBRUARY 6,  2010

SARAH – AT 10:58 P.M. ET:  Sarah Palin has addressed the Tea Party convention in Nashville.

I watched and listened.  It was pretty much a standard Sarah speech – lots of red meat, many conservative applause lines.  In my view she has never equalled the speech she gave at the Republican National Convention following her selection as John McCain's running mate.  This was strictly a cheers-and-applause speech.

Sarah Palin is clearly a force within the Republican Party and among conservatives.  But I have yet to see her solve, convincingly, the "Sarah problem," the perception among many that she lacks detailed knowledge of major issues.  She seems comfortable only with generalities, as important as those are.  If she has any intention of running for president, the knowledge gap will have to be filled.  Otherwise, she will not inspire the confidence that she must inspire to run successfully. 

People will argue that it doesn't matter, that she's a crowd favorite.  Well, if you want to see how quickly a crowd favorite can fall from grace, I give you the president of the United States.  He also wowed 'em.

One of the great myths about Ronald Reagan was that he was a crowd pleaser who didn't know much.  He was certainly a crowd pleaser, but he was very well read, very well informed, and had a working understanding of the major issues.  His intellect was disparaged because he was a conservative.  If he'd been a liberal, they would have called him a charming genius.

Sarah, an effective speaker, must now fill in the vague areas.  I think she can do it.

February 6, 2010   Permalink

YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS UP – AT 6:38 P.M. ET.  From AFP:

TWO burqa-wearing bank robbers have held up a post office near Paris, using a handgun concealed beneath an Islamic-style full veil, court officials said.

Staff let the pair through the security double doors of the banking branch of the postal office overnight, believing them to be veil-wearing Muslim women, before they flipped back their head coverings and pulled out a gun, officials said.

And...

France is seeking to restrict use of the head-to-toe Islamic veil on the grounds it is incompatible with French values, after a parliament report called for a ban in schools, hospitals, government offices and public transport.

COMMENT:  The French government is correct.  It is not an insult to Islam, and none is intended, to ban a garment that masks the face.  Traditionally, free societies reject masking.  If it's argued that it's a religious practice, we point out that a democratic society is not required to approve every religious demand.

Let me tell you a story.  I was once interviewing Dr. Milton Helperin, the legendary medical examiner of the city of New York, in his office.  In the middle of our talk he received a phone call from an Orthodox rabbi.  It turned out that one of the rabbi's parishioners had died at home, but not in the presence of a physician.  Under law, an autopsy had to be performed to determine cause of death, and rule out foul play.  But Orthodox Judaism frowns on autopsies as an insult to God's creation, the human body, and the rabbi was asking that the autopsy be waived.

Dr. Helperin replied very respectfully, "Rabbi, you know that I can't do that.  The law requires an autopsy, and I must follow the law."  The rabbi backed down.  The autopsy was performed. 

Freedom of religion has never meant the right of any religious group to violate the rule of law or the standards of the society.  Masking is a wrong, violates civil order, clearly raises legitimate security issues, and should be banned. 

February 6, 2010   Permalink

CREDIT WHERE IT'S DUE – AT 6:10 P.M. ET:  The Washington Post, which we cited earlier today for running a fine piece on liberal arrogance, also runs a solid editorial on what we can learn from the Fort Hood massacre.  We give credit where it's due here, and we're happy to point out good material in liberal publications:

A REPORT on the Fort Hood shootings makes two things clear: Systemic changes are needed to avert similar attacks, and systemic failures were only partly to blame for the breakdowns that allowed the alleged shooter, Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, to go on a murderous rampage.

Thank you, WaPo, for using the term "murderous rampage."  Other outlets struggle for more politically correct terms, like "frustrated outburst," or the like.

The authors found that protocols and procedures at Walter Reed for evaluating officers are "generally adequate," but that "several officers failed to comply" with them when evaluating Maj. Hasan. For example, "discrepancies exist between the alleged perpetrator's documented performance in official records and his actual performance during his training, residency and fellowship." They conclude that supervisors and colleagues should have been aware of the potential danger posed by Maj. Hasan, but that "some signs were clearly missed; others ignored."

The Post's Dana Priest has documented colleagues' unease with a lecture that Maj. Hasan delivered about the possibility of Muslim service members acting out violently in opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. National Public Radio reported that colleagues and supervisors "bent over backwards" to support Maj. Hasan -- even after he had been reprimanded for proselytizing soldiers -- for fear that they would appear to be "discriminating" against him for his religious views.

The Army must have a further inquiry, argues the Post:

It must answer without flinching whether Maj. Hasan was unjustly promoted because of the Army's desire to retain and promote Muslim service members. It must be candid about whether Maj. Hasan's supervisors gave him unearned passing marks and, if so, whether they were trying to hide problems to encourage another military unit to take the major off their hands.

Now we're getting to the heart of the matter – political correctness forced on the Army by a leftist narrative.

And no policy can succeed if political correctness trumps the truth.

Right.  But that notion is rejected in too many universities and media outlets today, and apparently by elements within the armed services.

February 6, 2010   Permalink

A CRACK IN THE ICE, OR THE HEAT SHIELD, OR SOMETHIN' – AT 11:47 A.M. ET:  Reader, and Professor, Sam Indorante, alerts us to an excellent piece that sums up the disillusion that some people are starting to feel over the global-warming craze.  We're encouraged when journalists join the ranks of those willing to inquire.  From Honolulu magazine:

I never expected the terms “green,” “sustainability” and “carbon footprint” would be hurled at us daily, secular guilt crammed into every consumer choice. But I especially never expected that some of the leading scientists who argue the case for manmade global warming would be revealed as political partisans, who hid evidence against global warming, attempted to redefine the meaning of “peer-reviewed journals” to mean “only peers who agree with us” and, worst of all, conspired to delete data in anticipation of Freedom of Information requests.

That's a delightful mea culpa.  We forgive you for "never expecting."  Neither did most of us. 

Let me back up. Because of manmade global warming, I warned in 1996, that “sea levels could rise as much as three feet by the year 2100 … warming can lead to hotter and more frequent heat waves … stronger and more frequent hurricanes to Hawai‘i … endanger native plants species [and] coral reefs.” These dire predictions came from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Researchers at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia provide much of the IPCC’s analysis and predictions. In November 2009, hackers released thousands of e-mails from the CRU, going back years, and it is these e-mails that reveal the very unscientific, unethical activities I described above.

I feel I’ve been had.

Good!  The more self-revelation like this, the better.  Now we've got to get some of the egos on the left to admit that they, too, have been had. 

This doesn’t necessarily mean manmade global warming is disproven. But it does deflate the certainty and moral righteousness of the Al Gores and the IPCCs of the world. At Copenhagen and in Congress, politicians have proposed massive disruptions to our economies and lifestyles in the name of halting global warming. It turns out they’ve been doing so, at least partly, with books that have been cooked more than the planet.

And there was an Oscar in it for Gore.

People make these kinds of mistakes all the time, and the motives are no mystery. For the researchers, grant dollars and reputations are on the line. For reporters, global warming offers the thrill of covering The Biggest Story Ever Told, an appeal I could not resist. For politicians, it has offered an endless opportunity for grandstanding and power grabs. Convinced they are saving the earth—what could be more rewarding or important?—all three groups helped each other lose their minds.

Finally...

It’s time for scientists to do what science is all about: check their work to see if the results can be reproduced. Fresh eyes need to look at the original data the CRU used, to see if they can independently find the same evidence for warming. But wait—that can’t be done. Somehow, the CRU managed to “lose” all its original data.

How’s that for an inconvenient truth?

Wonderful, wonderful.  But there has been no penetration of the White House, or the left wing of the Democratic Party, which continue as if no questions have been asked.  The reason they do is that, for them, global warming isn't a scientific issue, but a political excuse.  It's an excuse for them to change the way we live, the way society is organized.  That is their dream, part of their totalitarian temptation to control.  Facts mean very little in the face of a grandiose scheme like that...all designed for our improvement, of course.

February 6, 2010    Permalink

RECOMMENDED READING – AT 10:52 A.M. ET:  Occasionally I see a piece of journalism that I must recommend to readers.  Tomorrow's Washington Post has just such an article.

It's called "Why Are Liberals so Condescending?" by Gerard Alexander, associate professor of politics at the University of Virginia.  It is the best analysis of liberal psychology and feelings of superiority that I have ever read in a journalistic piece.  The Washington Post, a liberal paper after all, is to be commended for running it.  You must read it.  There'll be a quiz on Monday.  This is the way it starts:

Every political community includes some members who insist that their side has all the answers and that their adversaries are idiots. But American liberals, to a degree far surpassing conservatives, appear committed to the proposition that their views are correct, self-evident, and based on fact and reason, while conservative positions are not just wrong but illegitimate, ideological and unworthy of serious consideration. Indeed, all the appeals to bipartisanship notwithstanding, President Obama and other leading liberal voices have joined in a chorus of intellectual condescension.

And...

This condescension is part of a liberal tradition that for generations has impoverished American debates over the economy, society and the functions of government -- and threatens to do so again today, when dialogue would be more valuable than ever.

And this is the way it ends:

Even liberals should think twice about the prospect of decisions on innovative surgeries, light bulbs and carbon quotas being directed by legislators grandstanding for the cameras. Of course, thinking twice would be easier if more of them were listening to conservatives at all.

Read, read, read.  There is a rising voice in the academic world.  Send him the body armor.

February 6, 2010   Permalink

SOBRIETY – AT 10:12 A.M. ET:  It's a bit under the radar at the moment, but the Iranian government is running a major campaign to convince governments that it is close to a deal with the West on uranium enrichment.

Not so fast, creeps, says Secretary of Defense Bob Gates, one of the few real grownups in the Obama administration.  Realizing the danger of the Iranian fast hustle, Gates brings us back to reality:

ANKARA (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Saturday he saw no sign a deal was close between Iran and Western powers on exchanging some of its low-enriched uranium (LEU) for higher-grade fuel, suggesting it was time to move forward with sanctions.

"I don't have the sense that we're close to an agreement," Gates told reporters in Ankara where he met Turkish leaders.

His comments stood in contrast to those by Iran's foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, who said on Friday he saw good prospects for clinching a deal with world powers on exchanging LEU for higher-grade fuel it can use in a reactor producing medical isotopes.

"If they are prepared to take up the original proposal of the P-5 plus one of delivering 1,200 kilograms of their low enriched uranium, all at once to an agreed party, I think there would be a response to that," he added, referring to the five permanent U.N. Security Council members plus Germany.

Gates said President Obama had taken unprecedented steps to engage with Iran, describing the response so far as "disappointing."

Hillary Clinton has said the same thing.  Disappointing.  So far the White House has stayed the negotiations course.  Also disappointing.

"But the reality is they have done nothing to reassure the international community that they are prepared to comply with the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) or stop their progress toward a nuclear weapon, and therefore I think various nations need to think about whether the time has come for a different tack," Gates added, in an apparent reference to sanctions.

But China, just yesterday, reaffirmed that it is opposed to new sanctions.  China has a veto at the Security Council, making UN action all but impossible.  The question now is whether major nations, acting outside the UN, can make sanctions happen.  That may be the diplomatic question of the year.

February 6, 2010   Permalink

CONFIRMATION – AT 9:56 A.M. ET:  Rasmussen's tracker for today confirms the trend of the last week – that the bounce President Obama received from his State of the Union address is fading away:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that 26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove which Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -15. That matches the President’s ratings just before the State-of-the-Union Address. While Obama received a modest bounce in his ratings following the speech, today’s results suggest that the bounce is over.

The president could have bounced further had he followed the speech with some good governance, but he got mired in the sinking health-care bill, and further mired in the debate over how his Holderized Justice Department handles terrorism.  No great second act.

Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That matches the lowest level of overall approval yet measured for this president. Fifty-five percent (55%) now disapprove.

COMMENT:  It is hard to believe how this president has fallen.  He seems unable to slow the slide, except to go on the campaign trail and deliver a speech that has no more lasting effect than cough medicine.

February 6,  2010   Permalink