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.

WEDNESDAY,  JULY 7,  2010

DIDN'T HE HAVE HIS 15 MINUTES? – AT 8:30 P.M. ET:  Our Iranian activist friend, Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi, alerts us to the latest comeback kid.  Do you remember the guy who threw the shoe at President Bush when the president was in Iraq?  His name is Muntazer Al-Zaidi, and he's
baaack:

Interviewer: In your view, Obama is not very different from Bush, even if he wraps the actions of the US in false humanitarian wrapping.

Muntazer Al-Zaidi: We have a saying in Iraqi Arabic – and I’m sure the Egyptian brothers living in Iraq know it. “Away goes a white dog, and along comes a black dog.” They are the same, except for the color. Away goes a white US president, and along comes a black president. They are no different.

COMMENT:  Real class, huh?  Apparently, this guy thinks he can become some kind of Arab hero.  He didn't get the book deal the first time around.  Maybe he dreams of being a commentator on MSNBC, and, given MSNBC's taste, he might just get hired. 

It's time for NASA to reach out to him.

July 7, 2010     Permalink

AND NOW FOR THE NEGATIVE MEDIA NEWS – AT 8:09 P.M. ET:  In the post below we reported on CNN doing something right.  But don't assume that we're entering a new age of media redemption.

Fox News reported this evening that the uproar over the statement by NASA head Charles Bolden, to the effect that Obama ordered him to make "Muslim outreach" a NASA priority, was blacked out by CBS, NBC, ABC, and the print editions of both The New York Times and the Washington Post.

One of the worst forms of media bias is not reporting the news.  It is essentially a means of lying by omission.  If the viewing or reading public doesn't know a story exists, it advances the bias the news organization is trying to promote.  There are whole areas of the news that literally don't get reported by the "respectable" mainstream media – including virtually all of President Obama's political associations as he was coming of age.  And certainly you've noticed that the political backgrounds of "anti-war" or "human rights" activists are essentially left a blank, in large measure because they are often Marxist.  A whole generation of journalists has been taught that exposing a political actor's Marxist background is "McCarthyism."  No it isn't.   

Apparently, the mainstreamers didn't think the NASA story was important.  Or, they thought it was so embarrassing that it would hurt their pet causes and pet president.  So, if you only watched the networks and read The New York Times, you would not know of the controversy surrounding the head of one of our most famous government agencies. 

Journalists love to say that they're the eyes and ears of the public.  That is rubbish.  They're the eyes and ears of themselves.  They don't represent us, and their attitude toward the NASA story shows that they don't share our concerns or sensibilities either.

July 7, 2010     Permalink 

SOMEONE IN MEDIA DID THE RIGHT THING!  PASS IT ON! – AT 7:55 P.M. ET:  We told you a few days ago about the exalted CNN editor in the Mideast, herself a member of the let's-reach-out-to-them culture, who put a post on her website mourning the passing of the guy who is accused of murdering 241 U.S. Marines in Beirut in 1982.

Well, surprise of surprises, CNN has taken action.  From the Weekly Standard:

Mediaite reports that CNN has fired senior editor of Middle East affairs Octavia Nasr. As Daniel Halper pointed out the other day, Nasr wrote on Twitter on July 4 that she was "sad" to hear of the death of Hezbollah's Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah--a man for whom she has "respect." Fadlallah had justified suicide bombings, is believed to be responsible for the Marine barracks bombing, and had said that "Zionism has inflated the number of victims in this Holocaust beyond imagination."

In a followup blog post last night, Nasr wrote that it "was an error of judgment for me to write such a simplistic comment and I'm sorry because it conveyed that I supported Fadlallah's life's work. That's not the case at all."

She explained that she knew about all the wicked aspects of Fadlallah's life--saying she even "lost family members" in the barracks bombing--and was simply referring to the fact that she respected Fadlallah for his opposition to "honor" killings and beating women. But saying you respect Fadlallah for opposing murdering and beating (Muslim) women is almost like saying you respect Osama bin Laden for building day care centers.

CNN doesn't think Nasr's apology makes up for what she said. "We believe that her credibility in her position as senior editor for Middle Eastern affairs has been compromised going forward," Nasr's CNN superior Parisa Khosravi said in a statement.

COMMENT:  CNN has made the right decision...for a change.  Ms. Nasr has freedom of expression, of course, but she doesn't have an automatic right to be employed by CNN.

I doubt if this action would have been taken had Christiane Amanpour still been CNN's chief international correspondent.  Amanpour, who has jumped to ABC, was disgracefully biased in her Mideast reporting.  She would have probably protected Nasr. 

Maybe CNN is growing up.

July 7, 2010    Permalink

JUST INCREDIBLE – AT 10:01 A.M. ET:  The great Ed Lasky, of American Thinker, alerts us to this:  While the administration struts around telling us about how tough it is on Iran, its own officials are trying to undercut whatever "toughness" there is, at every turn.  From Investor's Business Daily: 

Voice of America's mission is to promote U.S. interests abroad, which includes freedom in Iran. But VOA's Persian newscast has been hijacked by pro-Tehran broadcasters.

The Obama administration's sole strategy for defanging the Ahmadinejad regime is talk and more talk. Only, the propaganda that VOA is piping into Iran is helping the regime — thanks to deep-seated bias in favor of Tehran by Persian editors and producers whose salaries are paid by American taxpayers.

They've banned stories that cast the regime in a negative light, such as last year's violent postelection crackdown on protesters in Tehran. They even refused for several days to air video footage of Neda Agha-Soltan, the young Iranian woman whose murder became an international cause celebre.

More, VOA has retaliated against broadcasters who've complained it's too soft on the Iranian regime. One popular Persian-speaking broadcaster lost her anchoring job, having been demoted by a managing editor who happens to be the son of one of the Iranian mullahs.

Are you believing that?  The son of an Iranian mullah.

Elham Sataki, former Washington-based anchor of VOA's "Straight Talk," says she was a victim of an effort to silence her pro-American, pro-democratic-reform views. She's now suing her boss — Ali Sajjadi, executive managing editor of VOA's Persian News Network — and other VOA defendants for millions.

There is some pushback:

Recent reporting flaws have prompted calls from Congress for an investigation of VOA's Persian desk. "We implore you to investigate the anti-American rhetoric reported to be coming from Voice of America — Persian," Rep. Trent Franks earlier this year wrote President Obama. The letter was signed by 68 other lawmakers.

COMMENT:  It's going to take a lot more than a letter with 68 congressional supporters.  And, of course, you may be sure that the left will counter any criticism of VOA by trotting out the old "freedom of expression" argument.  Except that we, the American people, own VOA, and the expression on that network should be ours, thank you very much.

July 7, 2010      Permalink

ANOTHER CLASS ACT BY THE DECEPTIVE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION – AT 8:56 A.M. ET:  We judge presidents, in large measure, by those they appoint to high office.  Now the Obamans are trying to sneak around the Senate confirmation process by the recess appointment of a troubling nominee.  From Fox:

President Obama intends to bypass Congress and appoint Dr. Donald Berwick to head Medicare and Medicaid, the White House announced Tuesday -- filling the job while Congress is in recess to get around Republican opposition that threatened to derail Berwick's confirmation.

Berwick's supporters say he is the right man in the right place at the right time. But his opponents have lined up against him. They say that while he may be a the highly respected doctor, he is also an outspoken proponent of the British health care system, which they say is all wrong for Americans.

"This recess appointment is an insult to the American people," Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., said Tuesday night. "Dr. Berwick is a self-professed supporter of rationing health care, and he won't even have to explain his views to the American people in a Congressional hearing."

It also turns out, according to the Washington Times, that Berwick has heavily inflated his resumé:

...Dr. Berwick hasn't seen a patient in years. And the two Harvard professor positions listed on his White House biography as well as another position as a senior scientist at the Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston are essentially "honorary professorships," which require two or three seminars or meetings a year, The Washington Times has learned.

In all, Dr. Berwick disclosed holding more than a dozen current positions on a government ethics filing, though one full-time paying job: his 40-hours-per-week position as the president and chief executive of the nonprofit Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI), where he earned nearly $900,000 in salary, bonus and deferred compensation last year.

And...

"The yawning gap between what the White House says the nominee does, as opposed to what he actually does, should raise very serious questions to the [Senate] Finance Committee," said Dean Zerbe, former senior counsel and tax counsel on the committee for Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican.

COMMENT:  At least they don't claim he was a community organizer, the major qualification for the presidency.

But this episode, following many other appointments of ideologues, tell you what this administration is really about.

July 7, 2010      Permalink

WELL WHAT DO YOU KNOW, AN HONEST GUY – AT 8:27 A.M. ET:  Eli Lake, of the Washington Times, is one of the best national-security reporters around.   Here he reports a remarkable statement by a Mideast ambassador.  Is this a hint to Obama?

ASPEN, Colo. | The United Arab Emirates ambassador to the United States said Tuesday that the benefits of bombing Iran's nuclear program outweigh the short-term costs such an attack would impose.

In unusually blunt remarks, Ambassador Yousef al-Otaiba publicly endorsed the use of the military option for countering Iran's nuclear program, if sanctions fail to stop the country's quest for nuclear weapons.

"I think it's a cost-benefit analysis," Mr. al-Otaiba said. "I think despite the large amount of trade we do with Iran, which is close to $12 billion … there will be consequences, there will be a backlash and there will be problems with people protesting and rioting and very unhappy that there is an outside force attacking a Muslim country; that is going to happen no matter what."

"If you are asking me, 'Am I willing to live with that versus living with a nuclear Iran?,' my answer is still the same: 'We cannot live with a nuclear Iran.' I am willing to absorb what takes place at the expense of the security of the U.A.E."

Mr. al-Otaiba made his comments in response to a question after a public interview session with the Atlantic magazine at the Aspen Ideas Festival here. They echo those of some Arab diplomats who have said similar things in private to their American counterparts but never this bluntly in public.

And...

John R. Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said the comments reflect the views of many Arab states in the Persian Gulf region that "recognize the threat posed by a nuclear Iran."

"They also know — and worry — that the Obama administration's policies will not stop Iran," he told The Times in a separate interview.

Arab leaders, Mr. Bolton said, regard a pre-emptive strike as "the only alternative."

COMMENT:  Well, there are only two nations that can carry out a strike.  One is Israel, and the other is the United States.  Our capabilities are much greater, but does anyone think Obama has the spine?  Or the sense of history?

If we don't act, or approve an Israeli action, some of those Gulf states are going to distance themselves from us, the better to appease a rising Iran. 

July 7, 2010     Permalink

INDY SUPPORT FOR OBAMA AT LOWEST EBB – AT 8:05 A.M. ET:  Only a day after Scott Rasmussen reported that Mr. Obama's approval is holding steady, in the mid-40s, another survey tells us that the president's support among independents is sinking.  Go figure.  From Andrew Malcolm's Top of the Ticket blog at the Los Angeles Times:

Two new polls this morning augur ill for President Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats who control Congress.

The worst -- from Gallup -- finds that for the first time since Obama took the oath, his support among independents, a key voter segment in his decisive 2008 coalition election win, has fallen below 40%. The new tracking finds that Obama's support among all voter segments has declined in the past year, but nowhere more than among independents.

Only 38% now support him, an 18-point drop from 52 weeks ago, when polls first began showing the nation's rapidly-growing population of independent voters peeling off, as Obama relentlessly pushed his healthcare plan and ignored polls saying jobs and the economy were uppermost on voters' minds.

In that same time span, support for the Democrat has fallen 9 points among Democrats (from 90% to 81%) and 8 points among Republicans (from 20% to 12%).

Collectively, only 46% of Americans approve of the president's job performance, just 1 point above his worst approval of 45%. Obama's approval has not been above 50% since February.

And...

Other recent presidents suffered similar low ratings in their second year -- Jimmy Carter (40%), Ronald Reagan (42%) and Bill Clinton (43%).

And each of those presidents' parties lost substantial numbers of congressional seats in the ensuing midterm elections...

...Reagan and Clinton recovered in the second half of their first terms to easily win reelection; Carter did not.

That's because Carter was running against Reagan, a superb candidate.  Clinton ran against Bob Dole and Reagan against Walter Mondale, two dull chaps.  Who the opposition puts up is the key issue.

Also out this morning, a new Harris Poll of 2,227 adults finds widespread dissatisfaction and disenchantment with leading Democrats in Washington.

Republicans should gain in November, but the goal is taking control of both houses of Congress.  Close is not good enough.  Think next Supreme Court appointment, and what will happen if the Dems still control the Senate, which must confirm that appointment.

July 7,  2010     Permalink

TUESDAY,  JULY 6,  2010

OBAMA STEADY IN POLL – AT 8:13 P.M. ET:  One thing Republicans must face is the fact that President Obama's approval ratings tend to be remarkably steady.  That doesn't mean they won't erode further.  It does mean that he still retains a solid base of at least reasonable support. 

The Democratic Party is a coalition, and some of the blocs making up that coalition simply will not vote against Obama.  Scott Rasmussen reports:

Overall, 45% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. Fifty-four percent (54%) disapprove. A review of the month-by-month polling numbers shows that the president’s ratings have been remarkably stable. Despite the passage of health care, the Gulf Oil spill, economic concerns, and more, his full-month approval ratings have remained at 46% or 47% for seven straight months.

COMMENT:  And that's not bad.  True, it's not a majority, and, true, those who dislike Obama dislike him strongly, but he's not in catastrophic shape.  Republicans are perpetually overconfident, and that overconfidence can easily drip over to 2012.  So far, I have not seen a GOP candidate for president who is a truly strong campaigner, someone who excites, and that's what we'll need to defeat Obama.  The man can't govern, but he can campaign.  In an age of short attention spans and a show-business approach to almost everything, that counts...big time.

July 6, 2010     Permalink

REBUKE FOR NASA CHIEF – AT 7:58 P.M. ET:  But not from the White House.  Unbelievably, the White House today gave a statement of support to embattled NASA head Charles Bolden, whose comment that his main mission is Muslim outreach has created an uproar.

The White House could have "clarified" the remark, made to the vastly corrupt Arab news outlet, Al Jazeera, but chose not to.  As one American commentator remarked, once the groveling comment is out there, it's awfully hard to take it back. 

But a former NASA administrator has issued an appropriate public rebuke:

The former head of NASA on Tuesday described as "deeply flawed" the idea that the space exploration agency's priority should be outreach to Muslim countries, after current Administrator Charles Bolden made that assertion in an interview last month.

"NASA ... represents the best of America. Its purpose is not to inspire Muslims or any other cultural entity," Michael Griffin, who served as NASA administrator during the latter half of the Bush administration, told FoxNews.com.

Well said.

"If by doing great things, people are inspired, well then that's wonderful," Griffin said. "If you get it in the wrong order ... it becomes an empty shell."

Griffin added: "That is exactly what is in danger of happening."

He also said that while welcome, Muslim-nation cooperation is not vital for U.S. advancements in space exploration.

"There is no technology they have that we need," Griffin said.

NASA did seek to soften Bolden's comments somewhat, but the man came off as a clown, and we'd be better off without him.

Once again, another administration appointee, largely unvetted by the media, fails us.

July 6, 2010     Permalink

SUPREME BALANCE – AT 7:43 P.M.  ET:  Put away the Zoloft.  Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy of the United States Supreme Court announced today that he won't be stepping down any time soon.  That is an enormous relief.

Kennedy, who is almost 74, is the swing vote on the Court, but he usually goes conservative.  If he retired, Obama would have a third Supreme Court pick, almost certainly another strong liberal.  That would tilt the Court in the liberal direction, and probably lead the way to a sharp "reinterpretation" of our basic rights, including the individual right to bear arms, which four members of the current court do not accept.

Kennedy is needed.  Needed just as much is a Republican Senate, which could filibuster another Sotomayor or Kagan.  Sadly, some Republicans would probably vote to confirm almost any liberal as long as the candidate's records are in order.  But a GOP majority, supplemented by a few votes from moderate Dems, might be enough to block another doctrinaire liberal.

Most Americans don't realize how close we are to an Obama court, a court that could change the entire direction of American history to fit the leftist leanings of the man in the White House.

We hope Justice Kennedy can hang on until 2016.  Hey, he'd only be 80.  A young guy.  Come on, Judge, redecorate your office.

July 6, 2010     Permalink

NASA STORY LIFTS OFF – AT 8:57 A.M. ET:  Yesterday we brought you the exciting news that part of NASA's new mission in the age of Barack Hussein Obama Jr. will be outreach to the Muslim world.  I know, I know.  Think of John Glenn.  Think of going to the moon.  Think of...Muslim outreach.

The story of this policy, announced by Obama's hand-picked chief of NASA, Charles Bolden, is going viral.  It's all over the place, and is being met by appropriate shock, dismay and large servings of revulsion.  Byron York at the Washington Examiner extends the story:

"When I became the NASA administrator, [Obama] charged me with three things," NASA head Charles Bolden said in a recent interview with the Middle Eastern news network al-Jazeera. "One, he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering."

From moon landings to promoting self-esteem: It would be difficult to imagine a more dramatic shift in focus for an agency famous for reaching the heavens. Bolden's words left supporters of space exploration astonished. "Everyone had the same impression: Is this what he is spending his time on?" says a Republican Hill aide who tracks the space program. "A lot of people are very upset about it."

And...

Bolden's words, together with the president's decision to scrap much of NASA's mission and include the agency in the "Cairo Initiative" -- that is, the White House outreach program outlined in Obama's June 4, 2009, Cairo speech to the Muslim world -- show that the NASA of the future will be little like the past.

And get this gem:

"NASA is not only a space exploration agency," Bolden concluded, "but also an Earth improvement agency."

Oh how moving.  I'm close to tears.  Let me get my Kleenex.   Sure, NASA is an Earth improvement agency, and it's improved the Earth through good science, technical innovation, and exploration.  I don't think Muslim outreach makes the list.

At the same time, Bolden gave a bleak assessment of the space part of NASA's mission. More than 40 years after the first moon landing, he told al-Jazeera, the U.S. can no longer reach beyond Earth's orbit without assistance from abroad. "We're not going to go anywhere beyond low Earth orbit as a single entity," Bolden said. "The United States can't do it."

And the hard left, of which Obama is a part, loves that.  Just loves that.

Its space initiatives junked, its administrator rhapsodizing about helping Muslims "feel good" about themselves: That is the new NASA.

COMMENT:  And, of course, Republicans have been their usual articulate selves in opposing this obscenity.  This can grow into a major issue for them, if they center it properly.  Come on, fellas.

July 6, 2010      Permalink

SYMPATHY VOTE – AT 8:36 A.M. ET:  There is grief this morning, overwhelming grief.  While we don't exactly share it, rest assured that a key member of CNN's "reporting" team does indeed.  We bring you her pain:

How did CNN senior editor of Middle East affairs Octavia Nasr celebrate July 4? By mourning the passing of Hezbollah's Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah. Here's what the CNN editor posted on her Twitter account:

Sad to hear of the passing of Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah.. One of Hezbollah's giants I respect a lot..

Fadlallah "famously justified suicide bombings," as the New York Times recalls in its obituary for him:

In a 2002 interview with the British newspaper The Telegraph, he was quoted as saying of the Palestinians: “They have had their land stolen, their families killed, their homes destroyed, and the Israelis are using weapons, such as the F16 aircraft, which are meant only for major wars. There is no other way for the Palestinians to push back those mountains, apart from martyrdom operations.”

The Times also reports in its obit that Fadlallah is believed to be responsible for the killing of 241 U.S. Marines during the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings...

...in 2008, Fadlallah said on Palestinian TV that "Zionism has inflated the number of victims in this Holocaust beyond imagination."

COMMENT:  CNN has some fine reporters, but there's an element at CNN, especially in its international operations, that is beyond the pale.  These people, like Octavia Nasr, reflect the left-wing views of CNN"s founder, Ted Turner, and the intensely pro-Arab views of its former chief international correspondent, Christiane Amanpour, the single most overrated person in journalism.  Amanpour will now sully David Brinkley's old seat at ABC.

To praise a man who justified the bombings of restaurants and buses, and who may well have been responsible for the murder of 241 Marines, is beyond all decency.  Nasr should be let go, but it won't happen.  Amanpour built a team that will support her.

July 6, 2010      Permalink

DIRE DOW – AT 8:19 A.M. ET:  We are getting a number of new stories cropping up comparing our current economic situation to that just before the Great Depression.  The one bright spot in the economy over the last year has been the stock market, but it is starting to soften.  From CNBC:

The Dow Jones Industrial Average is repeating a pattern that appeared just before markets fell during the Great Depression, Daryl Guppy, CEO at Guppytraders.com, told CNBC Monday.

“Those who don’t remember history are doomed to repeat it…there was a head and shoulders pattern that developed before the Depression in 1929, then with the recovery in 1930 we had another head and shoulders pattern that preceded a fall in the market, and in the current Dow situation we see an exact repeat of that environment,” Guppy said.

The Dow retreated 457.33 points, or 4.5 percent last week, to close at 9,686 Friday. Guppy said a Dow fall below 9,800 confirmed the head and shoulders pattern.

The Shanghai Composite is seeing a very rapid collapse, falling below 2,500, which suggests the major fall in the Dow, he added.

I've never believed that history repeats itself.  I do believe that the psychology of history repeats itself, and indeed there are some chilling similarities in the psychology of today and the psychology of the early thirties – especially the growth of fear.  You hear it and sense it everywhere. 

If the stock market tanks again, the effect could be far worse than 2008 because the nation has nothing to fall back on.  The federal government is deeply in debt, and the states are out of money.  Indeed, if the Dow heads south, tax revenues to New York State, which is already in deep trouble, will be sharply reduced, and the state can essentially collapse, joining good buddies California and Illinois. 

Ah, that Obama leadership.  Aren't you inspired?

July 6, 2010      Permalink

THE WAR AGAINST ARIZONA – AT 7:59 A.M. ET:  Since the administration can't do much about Iran, and isn't willing to name our enemy in the war on terror, how about going to war against...Arizona?  Now, why didn't I think of that?

According to WaPo, that's exactly what the Obama administration is doing.  It's so much more fun than solving the illegal immigration problems that have made Phoenix the kidnaping capital of the United States:

The Justice Department has decided to file suit against Arizona on the grounds that the state's new immigration law illegally intrudes on federal prerogatives, law enforcement sources said Monday.

The lawsuit, which three sources said could be filed as early as Tuesday, will invoke for its main argument the legal doctrine of "preemption," which is based on the Constitution's supremacy clause and says that federal law trumps state statutes. Justice Department officials believe that enforcing immigration laws is a federal responsibility, the sources said.

Uh, hey wait.  Aren't there these left-wing "sanctuary" cities that have given sanctuary to illegals, and have barred their police from asking any questions about documentation?  Why aren't those cities being sued for preempting the federal government?

Oh, I see.  They're on the politically correct side of the issue.

The filing is expected to include declarations from other U.S. agencies saying that the Arizona law would place a undue burden on their ability to enforce immigration laws nationwide, because Arizona police are expected to refer so many illegal immigrants to federal authorities.

In other words, Arizona will actually be doing the job the feds refuse to do, and will be prosecuted for it.  What an interpretation of the word "justice."

July 6,  2010     Permalink