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.

SUNDAY,  JULY 25,  2010

THIS HAS POTENTIAL – AT 6:15 P.M. ET:  I don't know how far this will go, but it's quite a disturbing story.  The claim is that President Obama deceived the nation when he said we were surprised and disappointed by Scotland's release, to Libya, of the Lockerbie bomber.  It now appears that we were not only well aware of it, but involved in negotiations on the subject:

THE US government secretly advised Scottish ministers it would be "far preferable" to free the Lockerbie bomber than jail him in Libya.

Correspondence obtained by The Sunday Times reveals the Obama administration considered compassionate release more palatable than locking up Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in a Libyan prison.

The intervention, which has angered US relatives of those who died in the attack, was made by Richard LeBaron, deputy head of the US embassy in London, a week before Megrahi was freed in August last year on grounds that he had terminal cancer.

The document, acquired by a well-placed US source, threatens to undermine US President Barack Obama's claim last week that all Americans were "surprised, disappointed and angry" to learn of Megrahi's release.

Scottish ministers viewed the level of US resistance to compassionate release as "half-hearted" and a sign it would be accepted.

The US has tried to keep the letter secret, refusing to give permission to the Scottish authorities to publish it on the grounds it would prevent future "frank and open communications" with other governments.

In the letter, sent on August 12 last year to Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond and justice officials, Mr LeBaron wrote that the US wanted Megrahi to remain imprisoned in view of the nature of the crime.

The note added: "Nevertheless, if Scottish authorities come to the conclusion that Megrahi must be released from Scottish custody, the US position is that conditional release on compassionate grounds would be a far preferable alternative to prisoner transfer, which we strongly oppose."

COMMENT:  The prisoner transfer was made anyway, which shows just how much clout this administration has with some of our allies. 

If these are the facts, and we will wait for further confirmation, then President Obama did indeed mislead the American people, and the media should demand a detailed explanation.  (Some chance.)  More than 200 Americans died in the bombing of PanAm 103 in the skies over Lockerbie, Scotland.  I don't think Americans will be amused by this.

July 25, 2010      Permalink

HMM, INTERESTING – AT 5:21 A.M. ET:  Former CIA Director Michael Hayden is apparently thinking the unthinkable about Iran.  From The Jerusalem Post:

A US military strike on Iran has become more likely and could be justifiable in the future, former CIA chief Michael Hayden said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union."

“My personal view is that Iran left to its own devices will get itself to that step right below a nuclear weapon," said Hayden, "and frankly that will be as destabilizing as their actually having a weapon.”

The former CIA director stated that an attack on Iran had not originally been a serious option, but in light of Iran's intensified pursuit of nuclear materials, the military option "may not be the worst of all possible outcomes.”

The UN, US and EU all recently passed sanctions against Iran in an attempt to deter the Islamic Republic from continuing to enrich uranium. The Western powers fear Teheran will use the enriched uranium to develop nuclear weapons, while Iran insists that the program's aims are peaceful.

US officials have said military action remains an option if sanctions fail to deter Iran.

It's hard to know whether this is just a personal opinion, or part of an orchestrated campaign of hints, possibly with the intent of putting additional pressure on Iran.  There have been a number of newspaper articles recently suggesting that the administration's thinking about Iran was changing, and was becoming more hard-line.  I cannot independently verify if that's true.  We would certainly favor a harder, clearer line

At the same time, as the Jerusalem Post reported a few days ago, one of our "allies" is undercutting the sanctions policy:

BERLIN – Germany is facing escalating criticism from local anti-nuclear activists and a sanctions expert in the United States for blocking tough EU sanctions against Iran, and specifically for not acting against the Hamburg-based Iranian EIH bank, which allegedly supplied Teheran with over a billion dollars for its nuclear and missile program.

The German chapter of the nonpartisan organization Stop the Bomb issued a statement in advance of Monday’s EU conference to finalize the new round of sanctions, saying, “The German negotiators are trying to enforce terms that would rob the sanctions of their penetrating power.

“Germany is pushing for financial sector exemptions in this new sanctions package, despite resistance from other EU partners. Germany is trying to weaken British and French sanction demands, which target Iranian banks in Europe and the European banks doing transactions with them,” Stop the Bomb wrote.

COMMENT:  Sad to say, but Germany is becoming Germany again.  We're lucky to have a pro-American like Angela Merkel as chancellor of Germany right now, but the future doesn't look good.  The generation that remembers World War II, and Germany's responsibility for it, is fading away, replaced by a generation that's been given a good dose of anti-Americanism. 

We may have been better off with a divided Germany.  I hope I'm wrong. 

Stop the Bomb is a superb organization, by the way.  Its members are European heroes and heroines who keep the heat on the governments of Germany and Austria and expose their appeasement of Iran.

July 25, 2010      Permalink

COMPLETE MADNESS – AT 10:50 A.M. ET:  Former Democratic presidential contender and national party chairman Howard Dean went off his meds today in a bizarre appearance on Fox News.  And to think, the man was a physician.  Any satisfied patients?  From The Politico:

The Fox News Channel’s handling of the Shirley Sherrod controversy “was absolutely racist,” former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean charged on Sunday.

He was appearing with Newt.

“I don’t think Newt Gingrich is a racist, and I don’t think you’re a racist,” Dean told Fox News host Chris Wallace, “but Fox News did something that was absolutely racist. They took a – they had an obligation to find out what was really in the clip. They had been pushing a theme of black racism with this phony Black Panther crap and this business and this Sotomayor and all this other stuff.”

Real class.

And Dean mildly rebuked the Obama administration, as well, saying, “We’ve got to stop being afraid of Glenn Beck (a Fox News host) and the racist fringe of the Republican Party.

Nothing like whipping up the base, which is what this is about.

“The tea party called out their racist fringe and I think the Republican Party’s got to stop appealing to its racist fringe. And Fox News is what did that. You put that on,” Dean said. “Continuing to cater to this theme of minority racism and stressing comments like this – some of which are taken out of context – does not help the country knit itself together.”

COMMENT:  Well, at least he didn't get to be president.  But this is just craziness, a throwback to the worst of the 1960s, a period for which Dean and his crowd are deeply nostalgic. 

I hope a lot of people watched.  And I hope Fox runs Dean's comments all week.  I don't normally quote Dan Rather, but he once described someone as running through a fire in a gasoline suit.  Howard Dean seems to envy that act.

July 25, 2010     Permalink

DON'T TELL THE PRESIDENT, PLEASE! – AT 10:37 A.M. ET:  I don't know if new British P.M. David Cameron mentioned this to Dear Leader when he visited the White House.  This can cause gloom among the Obamans, and just before Chelsea's wedding, too.

Even as the new coalition government said it would make enormous cuts in the public sector, it initially promised to leave health care alone. But in one of its most surprising moves so far, it has done the opposite, proposing what would be the most radical reorganization of the National Health Service, as the system is called, since its inception in 1948.

Practical details of the plan are still sketchy. But its aim is clear: to shift control of England’s $160 billion annual health budget from a centralized bureaucracy to doctors at the local level. Under the plan, $100 billion to $125 billion a year would be meted out to general practitioners, who would use the money to buy services from hospitals and other health care providers.

The plan would also shrink the bureaucratic apparatus, in keeping with the government’s goal to effect $30 billion in “efficiency savings” in the health budget by 2014 and to reduce administrative costs by 45 percent. Tens of thousands of jobs would be lost because layers of bureaucracy would be abolished.

COMMENT:  What?  Increase local control?  Abolish layers of bureaucracy?  What is this, ideological treason?  Why, why, this looks like...efficiency.  What kind of people are these Brits? 

Now I understand why Obama sent the bust of Churchill back.  He knew what was coming. 

So we're nationalizing, and they're de-nationalizing?  You think we can learn from their experience?  Nah.  The guys in power here will have to make the same mistakes, and be shown the door.

July 25, 2010      Permalink

OBAMA DIVES AGAIN IN RASMUSSEN POLL – AT 10:27 A.M. ET:  My, my, what can the matter be?  Oil in the water?  No jobs except government jobs?  Race creeping back to the agenda, courtesy of CNN? 

Whatever the cause, Mr. Obama has sunk once again in the Rasmussen poll, which has provided a generally reliable forecast of what other polls would show:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 25% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-five percent (45%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -20 (see trends).

The number who Strongly Disapprove is just one point below the highest level yet recorded for this president. Just over half of all men (51%) Strongly Disapprove. Just 40% of women share that view.

I'm astounded that 40% of women strongly disapprove.  The women's vote was key for Obama.

Overall, 43% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. Fifty-six percent (56%) disapprove.

That's a 13-point gap, larger than that currently shown in other polls.  We'll watch to see if there's a new trend downward.  The election is barely three months away, with the main campaign poised to start in a bit more than a month.

The question is the extent to which Obama's get-the-Zoloft numbers will impact the rest of his party.  My hunch is that the impact will be important.

July 25, 2010     Permalink

SATURDAY,  JULY 24,  2010

NO TO KAGAN – AT 8:50 P.M. ET:  My friend Scott Johnson, one of the three Power Liners, has written the best set of arguments yet on why Elena Kagan should not be confirmed as a Supreme Court justice.  While we raise Shirley Sherrod to Mount Rushmore status, the nation is forgetting that we're about to get a new justice, however charming and brilliant she may be, with a very disturbing record.  Read Scott's piece here.

It was perfectly obvious that both Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, Obama's previous choice for the Court, were heavily coached in preparing their testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, part of the confirmation process.  Both swore obeisance, for example, to the Second Amendment.  But Sotomayor, in the recent case regarding the Chicago handgun ban, did a complete 180 and contradicted her own testimony, without apology.  There is now nothing that can be done about it.

In her own testimony, Kagan was grilled about her banning of military recruiters from the Harvard Law School because of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.  She replied to a questioner by assuring him that "I revere the military."  Oh, come on, Elena.  That's a coached line.  I come from the same neighborhood in Manhattan where Kagan grew up.  No one there uses that vocabulary.

Kagan is known for her political skills.  She has so little experience as a lawyer that her legal skills are largely unknown.  Like the president who appointed her, she has virtually no paper trail. 

I fear we're getting a politician for the Court.  I hope to be pleasantly surprised.  I don't think I will be.

Read Scott Johnson's argument.

July 24, 2010     Permalink

WE NEED AN INTERVENTION – AT 7:56 P.M. ET:  We ask the question:  Is CNN committing suicide?  The network has gone completely bonkers over the Shirley Sherrod story, devoting hours each day to our newly anointed liberal saint.

CNN will do Sherrod's life story tonight.  I hope they get someone tasteful to do the music.   All Shirley, all the time.

And thrown in with the worshipful reports on the thoughts, wisdom, philosophy and choleserol level of Shirley are sharp attacks on the internet and on Andrew Breitbart.  There is major anguish over the "irresponsbility" of the internet, over the fact that stories on the web are sometimes inadequately researched.  Gee, that problem did start with the internet, didn't it?

Oh, by the way, in not a single case that I've seen, did any of CNN's rants about the internet begin with these words:  "Full disclosure:  CNN is a competitor with the internet.  We want you to be aware of our commercial interest in this."  Isn't a statement like that usually required in the self-proclaimed world of "responsible" journalism? 

CNN has always been obsessed with the holy trinity of race, gender, and ethnicity.  This week they've gone over the top.

July 24, 2010      Permalink

UNDER THE RADAR – AT 8:26 A.M. ET:  While the mainstream media is busy making Shirley Sherrod into a national icon – space is being provided on Mount Rushmore – tensions are rising with North Korea, just as the U.S. and South Korea are about to hold a major military exercise.  This story is creeping up on us:

North Korea said it would counter U.S. and South Korean joint naval exercises with “nuclear deterrence” after the Obama administration said the government in Pyongyang shouldn’t take any provocative steps.

North Korea will “legitimately counter with their powerful nuclear deterrence the largest-ever nuclear war exercises to be staged by the U.S. and the South Korean puppet forces,” the National Defense Commission said, according to the Korean Central News Agency.

The maneuvers, which involve 20 vessels and 200 aircraft from the U.S. and South Korea, pose a threat to the country’s sovereignty and security, Ri Tong Il, an official with North Korea’s delegation to the Asean Security Forum, told reporters in Hanoi yesterday.

Ri’s comments came after North Korean Foreign Minister Pak Ui Chun sat in the same room with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Hanoi for a security meeting of Asia’s largest powers. Clinton condemned North Korea for being “on a campaign of provocative, dangerous behavior,” urging Kim Jong Il’s regime to change.

COMMENT:  There is a growing fear, reflected in news reports, that North Korea might midjudge the United States, particularly in light of the current administration's "we are the world" foreign policy, and stage a major attack against the South, repeating the mistake North Korea made in June of 1950, which led to the full-blown Korean War. 

Secretary Clinton and Secretary Gates were in Korea this week, standing firm and saying the right things.  The problem is that no one can be sure what their boss would do if a major military confrontation erupted.  It's that kind of uncertainty that is so dangerous, and so tempting for a rogue regime.

July 24, 2010     Permalink

THERE WAS A TIME WHEN REPUBLICANS WERE RICH – AT 8:23 A.M. ET:  Republican fundraising, which used to be easy before the elite establishment went slumming on the left, is lagging behind, and that ain't good.  From the Washington Examiner:

House Democratic candidates have raised nearly twice as much in campaign contributions than their GOP opponents, according to Andrew Kreighbaum of OpenSecrets.org.

“In 29 toss-up races, Democratic candidates had more than $31 million in cash on hand at the end of the second quarter, a Center for Responsive Politics analysis indicates.The Republicans in these contests had raised $17.9 million,” Kreighbaum said. The analysis is based on FEC reports through June...

...The 29 races are rated as toss-ups by veteran political handicapper Charlie Cook.

COMMENT:  There was a time when Democrats were cash poor.  They got their contributions from laborers, the middle class, and "ordinary" citizens.  Republicans had the banks and Wall Street.

So what happened?

I think higher education happened.  Today, the old "Republican" industries are dominated by products of post-sixties universities.  And to be part of the "in" group in these universities, and among other alumni, one must show appropriate obeisance to chic, trendy, "progressive" causes.  It is a kind of respectability that business people often yearn for. 

The Democrats have responded with warmth to deep-pockets donors by adopting the most anti-business agenda since the sixties.  You see the result.

July 24, 2010      Permalink

SOCIAL NEWS – AT 8:20 A.M. ET:  You'll want to know that there is deep upset, anguish, and mental torture in certain circles over the Clinton wedding next weekend.  The New York Times has the whole rotten story:

So, just what does it take to score an invitation to the hottest — not to mention most secretive — political wedding of the summer?

More than a cross-country ride on a private jet, apparently.

“I’m good enough to borrow a plane from, but not good enough to be invited to the wedding?” complained one Clinton friend, who remembered the times he handed over his jet and his pilot to take Bill Clinton around the country but had not landed a coveted invitation to Chelsea Clinton’s nuptials.

Next Saturday, Ms. Clinton, 30, and her fiancé, Marc Mezvinsky, 32, are expected to marry in Rhinebeck, N.Y. But not everyone these days is feeling the love.

While most friends and acquaintances of the former president and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton say they understand that the wedding is a private affair of 400 or so guests, each with a direct connection to the bride or bridegroom, some are privately grumbling about who made the cut.

COMMENT:  I want to inform our readers that I have not been invited to the wedding, but that I'm okay with it.  Yes, there were a couple of bad days.  You wonder what you did wrong.  I yelled at the mail guy a few times, thinking he may have delivered the invite to the wrong address, but he was cleared. 

I guess the five-dollar check my cousin wrote to the Clinton campaign in 1992 didn't get us on the list.  But I refuse to buy myself through life.

I'll just put on a tuxedo and pretend.

July 24, 2010     Permalink