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,  JULY 1,  2010

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 8:27 P.M. ET:  Reader Brian Kuhn alerts us to an excellent column by Victor Davis Hanson, examining the appeasement policies of the Obama administration and the history of appeasement and where it leads.  The column contains this quote:

Even little words and gestures still matter in high-stakes international relations. Bad actors look hard for even the smallest sign that they might get away with aggression without consequences.

A deferential and apologetic President Obama may think he is making those abroad like us --and he may be right in some cases. But if history is any guide, aggressive powers are paying close attention to these seemingly insignificant signs. Soon, they may turn their wild ideas into concrete aggression -- once they convince themselves that America neither wants to nor is able to stop them.

COMMENT:  The Obama foreign policy is getting nowhere.  Far from being more respected in the world, we're increasingly seen as weak, pathetic and ineffective.  History shows where all this will lead.  We wish we had a press that was sufficiently alarmed, but we don't.

July 1, 2010     Permalink

ALL FOR MOTHER RUSSIA – AT 7:52 P.M. ET:  It's perfectly clear that some of the more chic members of the media would like to shove the new Russian spy scandal under the rug – it's so Cold War, dearies – but the sordid facts keep getting in the way.  In days when movies told stories, rather than featured special effects, this would be a natural:

A former City University of New York professor accused of spying for Russia told federal authorities right after his arrest that he had a fake name and that "he would not violate his loyalty to the" Russian secret "service even for his son," federal prosecutors said today.

Given the politics at the City University of New York, a professor who spies for Russia might wind up with an honorary doctorate.  Okay, I shouldn't have said it.

The ex-prof, who lived in Yonkers under the fake name "Juan Lazaro," also told investigators on Sunday that his wife, El Diario columnist Vicky Pelaez, had delivered letters to their spymasters on his behalf, and that their Yonkers home "had been paid for by the 'Service,'" according to a filing by federal prosecutors.

Pelaez is being held without bond along with "Lazaro" -- who is refusing to provide his real name -- on charges that they acted as agents for Russia. The filing indicated that federal authorities were monitoring their conversations by "microphones" in the Yonkers home "for years."

That filing also revealed that two other people accused of participating in the same spy ring -- Richard and Cynthia Murphy of Montclair, NJ -- had a safe-deposit box containing $80,000 in cash.

COMMENT:  Frugal spies.  That's what we like to see.

This is a serious scandal.  I would like to see the response of the institutions for whom these people worked. 

July 1, 2010     Permalink

DID SOMEONE SING, "HAPPY DAYS ARE HERE AGAIN"? – AT 7:31 P.M. ET:  Well, not recently.   That used to be the Democratic Party's theme song, starting in the FDR era.  Haven't heard it in a long time.

The economic situation is one reason why.  The latest reports are deadly grim:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Fears that the economic recovery is fizzling grew Thursday after the government and private sector issued weak reports on a number of fronts.

Unemployment claims are up, home sales are plunging without government incentives and manufacturing growth is slowing.

Meanwhile, 1.3 million people are without federal jobless benefits now that Congress adjourned for a weeklong Independence Day recess without passing an extension. That number could grow to 3.3 million by the end of the month if lawmakers can't resolve the issue when they return.

All of this worries economists.

You think?

As jobless claims grow and benefits shrink, Americans have less money to spend and the economy can't grow fast enough to create new jobs. Some are revising their forecasts for growth in the third quarter. Others are afraid the country is on the verge of falling back into a recession.

"We find the level and direction in jobless claims somewhat troubling and the increase is likely to feed double-dip fears," said John Ryding, an economist at RDQ Economics in a note to clients.
New claims for benefits jumped by 13,000 to a seasonally adjusted 472,000, the Labor Department said Thursday. The four-week average, which smooths fluctuations, rose to 466,500, its highest level since March.

COMMENT:  A double-dip recession, right before an election?   Well, we know who to blame, don't we?  It's CHENEY (!!!!), and his daughter, Liz (!!!!!!).  They're the ones.  Pass it on.

Given conditions in this country, and a foreign policy without a single success, if Republicans mess up this election they don't deserve to be a party.

July 1,  2010     Permalink

UPDATE TO AN OUTRAGE – AT 10:15 A.M. ET:  We reported yesterday on the crusade of a Massachusetts high-school student to get the Pledge of Allegiance back in his school.  Local politically correct "educators" had banned it, in part because they thought it would offend some of the teachers.  I'm not making this up.

Well, here's an update.  We can claim partial victory:

Student Sean Harrington appears to have won his fight to bring the Pledge of Allegiance back into his Massachusetts high school -- except the principal's proposed solution leaves the daily honor to the nation's flag literally hanging in the hall.

Charles Skidmore, principal of Arlington High school in Arlington, Mass., has offered to allow students to recite the pledge before school begins -- but in the school's foyer and not in the classrooms, as 17-year-old Harrington had hoped.

Kathleen Bodie, Arlington superintendent of schools, told Fox News Radio that “The principal wanted to be very respectful about the pledge and be sensitive to the Supreme Court ruling that students are not forced to say the pledge. He wanted to be sensitive to the diverse group of students we have.”

As we said, a partial victory.  And once again the word "diversity" is trotted out to defend the indefensible – the fact that the pledge still cannot be said in class.  Might "offend" someone. 

It is true that the Supreme Court has ruled that no one is required to say the Pledge.  But it has never said that a school should ban the Pledge to avoid "offense."  This is another part of the left-wing game:  You must not offend me, but of course we can offend you because we're enlightened.

It is unclear whether Harrington, who led the fight to bring the pledge back to the school, will be satisfied with the compromise of having it recited in the foyer, and not in class. When he was a freshman, he noticed that there were no American flags in the classrooms, and he enlisted the aid of his fellow students to get them installed. He also began his fight to have students voluntarily recite the pledge.

We hope he wins his fight.  Those "offended" by the Pledge, and apparently some of their agony involves the words "under God," can remain silent.  In their silence they might contemplate the fact that nothing will happen to them for refusing to recite.  They then might reflect on why they refuse to pledge allegiance to a country that has such remarkable freedoms.

July 1, 2010      Permalink 

THEY CALL THIS LEADERSHIP – AT 9:36 A.M. ET:  The president is going to speak this morning about immigration.  You might want to choose to watch The Food Channel instead.  Delicious recipes, good desserts...not what you get from Obama.  WaPo reports:

With immigration stories dominating headlines nearly every week, President Obama is delivering a speech Thursday morning that will frame the issue on his own terms -- calling for comprehensive legislation and the importance of keeping the border secure.

But he is not expected to announce any new policy during the 10:50 a.m. address at American University's School of International Service in Northwest Washington, officials said. Nor is the Justice Department going to announce its decision on a lawsuit in Arizona, where a new law makes it easier for police to detain suspected illegal immigrants.

Obama officials have been widely critical of the law since it was passed and signed by the Arizona governor this spring. But in the Virginia suburb of Prince William County, about 40 minutes from Washington, local leaders have called for passage of a similar law.

COMMENT:  Wow, what leadership, what verve.  Why, it's a regular Abraham Lincoln.

Like Eric Holder's original decision, since delayed, to try 9-11 terrorists in Manhattan, a few blocks from Ground Zero, the Obama administration's assault on the Arizona law is proving less than popular.  So maybe Arizona won't be sued by its own country after all.  We'll see.

Some real leadership, and a thoughtful immigration policy, could ease the situation, but Obama isn't providing what's needed.  He is so good at running, so bad at governing.  Don't look for anything to come from him on immigration.  His party wants him to go left, the rest of the country wants a more moderate course.  There's an election in four months.  That dominates all.

July 1, 2010     Permalink

THERE MAY NOT ALWAYS BE AN ENGLAND – AT 9:09 A.M. ET:  For those who love England, stories like this are a depressing reminder that there are leftist forces within the country that constantly undermine traditional British values.  This is pathetic:

Five activists who caused £180,000 damage to an arms factory were acquitted after they argued they were seeking to prevent Israeli war crimes.

The five were jubilant after a jury found them not guilty of conspiring to cause criminal damage to the factory on the outskirts of Brighton.

The five admitted they had broken in and sabotaged the factory, but argued they were legally justified in doing so.

They believed that EDO MBM, the firm that owns the factory, was breaking export regulations by manufacturing and selling to the Israelis military equipment which would be used in the occupied territories. They wanted to slow down the manufacture of these components, and impede what they believed were war crimes being committed by Israel against the Palestinians.

And, get this:

They are the latest group of peace and climate-change activists to successfully use the "lawful excuse" defence – committing an offence to prevent a more serious crime – as a tactic in their campaigns.

No doubt our own left-leaning law schools, and members of the Obama administration, are looking at importing this kind of thinking, which they consider "advanced." 

It's a sad thing that's happening to Britain.  But I'm afraid it will happen here unless we can reverse what is happening in major precincts of our own society.

July 1, 2010      Permalink

IS PETRAEUS TOO BIG TO FAIL? – AT 8:53 A.M. ET:  That's an intriguing question, asked this morning by The Politico.  And is raises questions about 2012:

President Barack Obama’s new Afghanistan commander was confirmed on a 99 to 0 vote Wednesday, a rare moment of bipartisan unanimity in the Senate — and a reminder of what a formidable partner Obama has brought into his most sensitive area of foreign policy.

It’s an old adage of management and politics that you shouldn’t hire anyone you can’t fire, but Obama did just that, bringing in Gen. David Petraeus, America’s most acclaimed and best-connected officer, to lead a war effort to which the White House has grown increasingly committed. And while the sacking of his predecessor, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, named “the runaway general” by Rolling Stone, provoked inevitable comparison to President Harry Truman’s dismissal of Gen. Douglas MacArthur, the comparison was to the wrong general.

McChrystal, despite his position, was an obscure special operations figure with no political profile. Petraeus, by contrast, has a deep well of personal popularity and Beltway connections. If he chose to, he could pose a genuine challenge to Obama, should they at some point differ on the course of the war.

COMMENT:  That is correct, and, unlike Douglas MacArthur, Petraeus is politically astute and comes off as modest, not arrogant and theatrical, two characteristics that did not endear MacArthur to other high-ranking officers, and certainly didn't endear him to Harry Truman.

There has been an undercurrent of buzz about Petraeus in 2012.  I think it's very much a long shot.  For him to run against a man who's been his own commander-in-chief, as George McClellan did when he ran against Lincoln in 1864, would require not only a split, but a split based on high principle.  Petraeus would pretty much have to suggest, if not say openly, that Obama was endangering the country.

As an alternative, consider that there's an old Mafia proverb: "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer."   Some speculated that Obama was invoking that wisdom when he hired Hillary Clinton to be secretary of state.  Keep her in the tent.  That could be his thinking behind the Petraeus appointment:  Keep a potential competitor in the household employ.  And...I brought this up before, don't ignore the possibility of an Obama/Petraeus ticket for 2012.  Petraeus has been called a Rockefeller Republican, but that ain't too far away from being a moderate Democrat, and Obama may need one.

You know, this could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship.  Ah, "Casablanca."

July 1, 2010     Permalink

WE ARE SHOCKED AT THIS REACTION TO OUR LOVE AND OUTREACH – AT 8:35 A.M. ET:  The foreign minister of Iran has announced his country's reaction to the latest round of UN pussycat sanctions:

The latest round of Security Council sanctions against Iran will not prevent the country from proceeding with its nuclear program, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Thursday.

In a letter addressed to the fifteen member-states of the UN Security Council and communicated by AFP, Mottaki wrote that Teheran “considers that the adoption of such resolutions [against Iran] will not affect its utterly peaceful nuclear program.”

He reportedly added that the “hasty adoption” of “unjust and illegal” new sanctions had only made the Islamic republic “more determined” to go ahead with its plans.

On Friday, the Obama administration welcomed Congressional approval of sweeping Iran sanctions, after months of reservations and negotiations over the legislation.

COMMENT:  Yeah, right.  Once they were approved, and considering that this is an election year, Obama "welcomed" our own sanctions.  His boys had been trying to undercut congressional action for months.

Look, we know where this is going.  Iran will have the bomb, but will probably not announce it, allowing our intelligence agencies to give ambiguous assessments, which would serve Obama's purpose, which is to do nothing serious.

This chicken will come home to roost.  I hope it avoids an American city.

July 1, 2010     Permalink

WEDNESDAY,  JUNE 30,  2010

POLITICS IN THE GULF – AT 8:06 P.M. ET:  I was listening to Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana on the radio today.  He's a remarkable man.  While he talks a mile a minute, he always has plenty to say, and it's worth hearing.

Jindal was laying out an indictment of the federal government's role in handling the Gulf oil spill.  It was a staggering list of stalls, failures, non-decisions and evasions.  The governor provided details and evidence.

If Jindal's indictment is true, and I personally believe his case is solid and convincing, one must almost inevitably come to the conclusion that Washington is trying to slow and damage relief efforts, in the service of a fanatical environmental agenda.  We alluded to that possibility in comments about the spill yesterday.  Remember, to the religiously committed leftists, bad news is good news, because it affirms their critique of society.  In their minds, bad news will lead to better policies, and thus good news.  In the meantime, they are indifferent to the suffering and economic losses of our Southern states.

This isn't surprising.  For almost half a century we watched the left show a marked indifference to the carnage in our big cities.  Bring up crime and you were either called a racist, or subjected to a tirade about the "socio-economic" causes of mass murder.  The human beings were of no significance.  They were useful bodies in a social crusade.

I'm afraid we got, in the 2008 election, exactly what we of our persuasion feared – a true leftist president, not a liberal, for the first time in our history.  And he may make enough people dependent on him and his schemes to change the course of American history for decades.  Let us hope not.

June 30, 2010     Permalink 

OBAMA STABILIZES IN RASMUSSEN POLL – AT 7:59 P.M. ET:  It's hard to know if anything actually caused this, like his handling of the McChrystal affair, but President Obama's poll numbers have solidified, after some days of threatening to go Bush.  Scott Rasmussen reports:

Overall, 45% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. Fifty-four percent (54%) disapprove.

While individual daily tracking results occasionally display the appearance of volatility, the long-term trend for the president’s numbers is remarkably stable. Over the past five months, with more than 150 updates, the president’s overall approval rating has been within four points of today’s result on every day but one. It has been within three points on every day but five. Keep in mind that those five months included the passage of health care, the Gulf Oil Spill, and a significant stock market decline. For the moment, nothing appears able to shift public perceptions of the president.

COMMENT:  If the president stays at about 45%, we have our work cut out for us.  While that's not a great number, it's not terrible either.  If Rasmussen's observations hold up, it may mean that Mr. Obama has a base that cannot be penetrated to any great degree, in part because of ethnic bloc voting. 

That also means that defeating Mr. Obama in 2012 may be much more difficult than many Republicans imagine.  The Democratic Party is a coalition of interest groups, whose only concern is whether they get their cut.  If they do, the votes come.  It's been that way, especially in big cities, for more than a century.

June 30, 2010     Permalink

YOU MUST READ THIS – AT 7:44 A.M. ET:  Hate to have a negative effect on your breakfast, but...  From Fox News:

When Sean Harrington entered his freshman year at Arlington (Massachusetts) High School, he noticed something peculiar: There were no American flags in the classrooms, and no one recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

So Harrington enlisted the aid of his fellow students, and now, three years later, they have succeeded in getting flags installed in the classrooms. But the pledge still will not be recited.

The Arlington, Mass., school committee has rejected the 17-year-old's request to allow students to voluntarily recite the Pledge of Allegiance, because some educators are concerned that it would be hard to find teachers willing to recite it, according to a report in the Arlington Patch.

Harrington had presented school officials with a petition signed by 700 people, along with letters of support from lawmakers including Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn.

But the request to have the pledge recited failed when the committee's vote ended in a 3-3 tie.

COMMENT:  The story notes that a number of teachers did sign Sean's petition.  However, it's apparent that there's a problem with many others.  Clearly, those are teachers who are in school to indoctrinate, not to educate.  They get their material from the schools of education, many of which have become hotbeds of radical leftism.

We used to think of politically correct indoctrination as being essentially a college-level problem, but it's found its way into high schools and even elementary schools.  It will have its effect on some young minds, year after year.

Do you know what your child is being taught?

June 30, 2010     Permalink

GOP LOOKS SOLID TO JOHN FUND – AT 7:17 A.M. ET:  John Fund of the Wall Street Journal, is one of the best election analysts around.  Yesterday we ran a Rasmussen poll indicating that the GOP is scoring better in congressional races than it has in decades.   Fund agrees, and sees strength in new places and groups:

Nothing has done more to rattle Democratic incumbents than a National Public Radio poll earlier this month on the outlook in the 70 most competitive races in the House -- 60 of which involve seats now held by Democrats and 10 by Republicans.

The numbers revealed in the poll have eye-popping implications. The NPR poll showed that Republicans lead the generic ballot test in these 70 districts by 49% to 41%, and have a five-point lead in districts with a Democratic incumbent. At the same time, Republicans have a solid 16-point lead in those competitive districts they currently hold. These numbers indicate the anti-incumbent political winds are blowing in one direction -- against the Democrats.

President Obama's numbers are down, and a president's numbers tend to predict how well his party will do.  Thus, a unique angle:

Mr. Obama's approval numbers may mask the real peril Democrats face because his job rating among blacks is an overwhelmingly positive 91%. As Michael Barone of "The Almanac of American Politics" points out, those readings imply that his job approval rating among whites is likely only about 39%.

That's especially significant because most of the 70 competitive House races polled by NPR (as well as most of the states with the closest Senate races) have below-average populations of black voters. Racial gerrymandering justified by dubious interpretations of the Voting Rights Act has concentrated blacks into mostly safe Democratic districts, meaning now that most competitive seats are more white than average. These districts are more likely to be hostile to President Obama's agenda, and thus more likely to be treacherous political terrain for Democrats. No wonder party strategists are so worried about this fall.

COMMENT:  Four months to the election.  There does not appear to be anything on the horizon, except for a surprise, that can reverse the Democrats' standing.  And the president's approach to his job seems half-hearted.  This could be a repeat of the great Republican victory of 1994, except that the press is determined not to let it happen.  Look for bias this year even greater, if possible, than in 2008. 

It is rumored that Christiane Amanpour will offer herself as a human sacrifice in exchange for a Democratic victory.  You know, that deal I'd take.

June 30, 2010      Permalink

AW, COME ON FELLAS, GO READ A GOOD BOOK – AT 6:47 A.M. ET:  Maybe journalism is just a little rusty about spy stories, espionage and good-old foreign intrigue.  But some stories about the Russkie agents caught a few days ago are bordering on the embarrassing.  From, yes, The New York Times:

They raised children, went to work in the city each day, talked the small talk with neighbors about yard work and overpriced contractors. In short, they could have been any family in any suburb in America.

Of course, guys, of course.  What do you think spies look like?  How do you think they act?  Do you really think they wear trenchcoats, short skirts, and wait around under lampposts?

In Montclair, N.J., a woman who lived next to the Murphy family described them as “suburbia personified.” They asked their neighbors for advice about the best middle schools to send their two young daughters. Richard Murphy mowed the lawn; Cynthia Murphy would come home from her job as a financial-services executive, daffodils and French bread in her hands.

“We would talk about gardening and dogs and kids,” said one neighbor, Corine Jones, 53.

Miles away in Yonkers, there lived another ordinary couple, Vicky Peláez and her husband, Juan Jose Lázaro Sr. They doted on their two pet schnauzers and their teenage son, Juan Jose Lázaro Jr., a classical pianist.

One could barf.  The whole idea behind deep-cover agents is to melt in with the population.  Why is this news?

Movies, books and television shows have taken to depicting suburbia as a place where not all is as it seems, where people with decent jobs and decent homes mask their secret double lives, and that seemed to be the case here: The three couples were among 11 people arrested as part of a ring that prosecutors said spied for the Russians under deep cover inside the United States.

I'm sure the guys who wrote this story are good reporters.  Sophisticated they are not.  Maybe they're dreaming of doing a book on this, and already have the James Bond theme playing in their ears.

America now realizes that not everyone who wishes us ill will get up with a gun and break into Middle Eastern chants.

June 30, 2010     Permalink

CLINTON WALKS ALONE – AT 5:45 A.M. ET:  Bill Clinton stunned the political world yesterday by endorsing the underdog in the Colorado Democratic primary for U.S. senator, rather than the incumbent, who has White House support.  There is major tongue wagging, and tea leaves are being read.   From The Politico:

Bill Clinton's stunning endorsement of an underdog insurgent running against the White House's handpicked candidate in the Colorado senatorial primary should be proof that whatever the public perception may be of a united front between President Barack Obama and the former president, Clinton remains very much his own man - and his own political force.

The email Clinton sent out urging support for Andrew Romanoff went a long way toward undoing the impression that Clinton - whose rescue mission to Arkansas on behalf of Sen. Blanche Lincoln earlier this month was thought mistakenly to be at the request of the White House - has become a reliable Obama ally willing to do the heavy lifting in support of the president’s favorite candidates.

Sen. Michael Bennet, appointed last year to the seat vacated by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, is a particular White House project, and Romanoff a particular irritant. Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina wound up in hot water after Romanoff released emails documenting what many took as an attempt to lure Romanoff away from a primary challenge with a government job.

But Clinton's endorsement, in an email Tuesday, was unstinting, suggesting that Romanoff - who supported Hillary Clinton in her losing 2008 presidential race — had both the strongest record and the best electoral prospects.

COMMENT:  Oh my, oh my.  Is there a deeper story here other than some kind of personal loyalty?  Clearly, many in the political profession are waiting for lady-in-waiting Hillary Clinton to make her move.  She exudes loyalty to Obama, but exuding is one of the easiest skills to pick up.  Everyone who's ever had a boss learns to exude. 

In the last year we've learned that John Edwards isn't a husband, Al Gore isn't a virgin, and Barack Obama isn't a president.  Could the Clintons be separating themselves from Obama, the better to be positioned for 2012 should The One retire to write another autobiography, or be forced out of the race by mathematical reality?

I'd watch every move the Clintons make, and I'd especially look for any daylight between Hillary Clinton and Obama in foreign policy.

June 30,  2010     Permalink