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.

I was very pleased once again to appear last night on Silvio Canto Jr.'s excellent internet talk show.  For those interested in listening, it's here.

MONDAY,  JULY 26,  2010

ONCE A JERK, ALWAYS A JERK – AT 6:27 P.M. ET:  Director Oliver Stone, one of the most irresponsible people in Hollywood, and a far-left political hack, carries his madness to a new level, apparently jealous of the recent rhetorical success of Mel Gibson.  From NewsBusters:

Director Oliver Stone belittled the Holocaust during a shocking interview with the Sunday Times today, claiming that America's focus on the Jewish massacre was a product of the "Jewish domination of the media."

The director also defended Hitler and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and railed against the "powerful lobby" of Jews in America.

Stone said that his upcoming Showtime documentary series "Secret History of America," seeks to put Hitler and Communist dictator Joseph Stalin "in context."

Yes, if only we understood them.

"Hitler was a Frankenstein but there was also a Dr Frankenstein. German industrialists, the Americans and the British. He had a lot of support," Stone told reporter Camilla Long during the interview, which can be found behind the paywall on the Sunday Times' website.

Stone said that, "Hitler did far more damage to the Russians than the Jewish people, 25 or 30 [million killed]."

The Sunday Times interviewer then asked why there was such a focus on the Holocaust.

"The Jewish domination of the media," responded Stone. "There's a major lobby in the United States. They are hard workers. They stay on top of every comment, the most powerful lobby in Washington. Israel has f***** up United States foreign policy for years."

The director, who recently met with Iranian President Ahmadinejad, also slammed the U.S. policy toward Iran as "horrible."

COMMENT:  This man is given tens of millions of dollars by Hollywood to make films that disparage America, exalt leftist thugs like Chavez, and now he engages in a rant worthy of the worst of the Nazis.  The tragedy is that young kids, who go to Stone's stoned films, will believe some of this stuff.

Hollywood has now pretty much rid itself of Mel Gibson.  Will it have the courage to take on this anti-American slimebag?  Showtime, which has a contract with Stone, should either cancel it and can his "series," or, at minimum, demand that Stone's work be cleared by a panel of eminent historians of unquestioned integrity.  It won't happen.  Showtime probably thinks this controversy will just attract more viewers. 

July 26, 2010      Permalink

WHITE HOUSE TRAVEL NEWS – AT 5:58 P.M. ET:  In another inspiring move to inform the American people, President Obama will appear on national TV this week for what will undoubtedly be an intellectually heady experience with the media:

(CNN) -- President Barack Obama will appear on the daytime talk show "The View" Thursday.

The interview, scheduled to be taped on Wednesday, will touch on topics including his administration's accomplishments, jobs, the economy, the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster and family life inside the White House.

Obama last appeared on the ABC program in March 2008, while he was a U.S. senator. He also was a featured guest in November 2004, when promoting his book, "Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance." His wife, Michelle Obama, was a featured guest co-host in June 2008.

Obama's appearance is part of the show's continuing "Red, White & View" campaign, which features political guests and discussions. Barbara Walters, creator/executive producer and co-host of "The View," will make an in-studio appearance to speak with Obama. Walters underwent heart valve replacement surgery in May.

Barbara's return.  That's what it's about.

Obama is the first sitting president to appear on a daytime talk show, according to ABC. He also became the first incumbent president to appear on a late-night comedy show, NBC has said, when he visited "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno."

What accomplishments!  Kind of like winning World War II.

Vice President Joe Biden appeared on the "The View" in April.

And more White House travel news:

Washington (CNN) - White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday President Obama will not attend the wedding of Chelsea Clinton scheduled for this weekend.

The appearance on "The View" will probably leave the president so mentally exhausted that he won't have enough stamina for a wedding.

The location and invite list have been guarded like state secrets, but when asked at the end of the Monday White House press briefing whether the president would attend, Gibbs said "no." Previously, Gibbs had said he was not aware of plans, but this is the first time he'd directly indicated the president will not be in attendance. No word on whether the president had actually been invited.

Hmm.  Could the invitation have been lost in the mail?  No, I don't think so.  Protocol required that the Obamas be invited.  But it's odd that the White House isn't giving an explanation for the presidential absence.  I wonder why.  Start dishing.

July 26, 2010      Permalink

AH HILLARY, THERE'LL BE TIME AFTER THE WEDDING TO PLAN – AT 9:37 A.M. ET:  Chelsea gets married this weekend, so maybe Bill and Hil will take a few days off from politics, after giving out pieces of wedding cake for the family to take home.  But after that, when the loving couple jets off on their honeymoon, the plot will thicken once more. 

Rowan Scarborough reports on murmurings that Hil may challenge Barack in 2012: 

Clinton loyalists are telling reporters Obama is a Socialist in the eyes of Americans and he is powerless to turn things around.

The President has plenty of critics for his handling of the BP oil gusher. But it is noteworthy that former Clinton people are as nasty as the rest.

"President Obama's address to the nation from the Oval Office was, to be frank, vapid," blogged former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich on Salon.com. "If you watched with the sound off, you might have thought he was giving a lecture on the history of the Interstate Highway System. He didn't have to be angry but he had at least to show passion and conviction. It is, after all, the worst environmental crisis in the history of the nation."

Oh dear, such loyalty.  Clinton loyalists are so good with knives. 

It would be naive to think that the 2008 bitter Obama-Clinton primary battles, ones that had her red-faced husband lecturing reporters, have not left sour feelings. Obama dealt with it by bringing her onboard. Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.

Recently, pundits have noted some daylight between the President and the secretary. She talked in an interview of the importance of good fiscal policy to keep America strong—a perceived shot at the President and the burgeoning debt. While the White House sniped at Gen. Stanley McChrystal in Afghanistan, the secretary of State stood by him.

And...

Mark Larson, a popular conservative talk show host in San Diego, has been watching the Clintons for years.

"I think she knows very well what is happening and could happen," he told HUMAN EVENTS. "Still being the 'good soldier' as secretary of State, but she has to know that if Obama continues down this disaster path that even her biggest detractors would welcome her back, giving fresh consideration to a candidacy. So much of what conservatives feared about Clinton is nothing in comparison to the actions, behavior and spin in this administration."

COMMENT:  Well, maybe.  But a few words of caution:  It is very difficult to deny a sitting president the nomination for his office.  Recall that Ted Kennedy, a vastly popular figure in the Democratic Party, challenged President Jimmah Carter in 1980, and lost badly, despite the fact that Carter was less than beloved, especially by northeast Dems. 

Note also that Lyndon Johnson withdrew his candidacy for reelection in 1968.  He was not forced out by any primaries, and it's far from certain that he would have been denied renomination had he stayed in.

Then there is the huge issue of race.  Would Hillary Clinton really challenge the first black president, almost certainly creating fury among African-Americans?  I don't think so.  It would almost doom her election chances.  Without the black vote, no Democrat can be elected president.

The key is getting Obama to do a Johnson.  That would require a combination of circumstances, including a terrible economy, poll numbers in the sub-basement, and a friendly visit by party elders to remind Mr. Obama of the virtues of presidential retirement, with its book deals and free stamps. 

So the question is:  Would Obama ever withdraw?  Many would reply that his ego would not allow it.  Some might suggest that, as the first black president, he would demand his right to run again and would not let his community down.  I have absolutely no idea what's true here.  He may be defiant, regardless of circumstances.  Or, he may simply not want the job again.

Deals could be made.  Obama could be enticed by the prospect of a Supreme Court appointment, with an eye to becoming chief justice.  One former president, William Howard Taft, did indeed become chief justice. 

Look, it's speculation.  I think we could say with scientific certainty that Hillary still wants the top job.  But she knows that in 2016 she'd be only 68.  Will she wait?  Or does she want it now, now, now?

I don't think we'll know for quite a while.  But if she resigns, especially in the midst of leaks that she fundamentally differs with Obama on foreign policy, watch out.  She will not be denied.

July 26, 2010      Permalink

OKAY GUYS, LET'S GO – AT 9:14 A.M. ET:  Republicans are responding to the complaint that they've become the party of no.  An agenda, clear and understandable, is apparently on the way, according to The Politico:

In a reprise of a long-ago clash between Democratic presidential candidates, House Republicans contend that they can answer the mocking challenge “Where’s the beef?”

The GOP response: Create incentives for new jobs, cut federal spending and clean up Congress. Although the specifics remain a work in progress, Republican leaders are inching toward a substantive campaign agenda after a behind-the-scenes battle over how specific the policy proposals should be.

With Democrats attacking them for offering nothing new or for threatening a return to the unpopular policies of President George W. Bush, Republicans want to assure voters that they will change direction if they take control of the House in November. They also are preparing reminders that they have proposed plenty of alternatives since President Barack Obama took office.

Despite some rhetorical bumps in the road, GOP leaders are slowly translating ideas from the grass-roots America Speaking Out program into a specific policy platform, to be released in September. This week, the House GOP Conference will use a Wednesday meeting to advise members on how to use the August recess to start to build their fall agenda.

All right, let's have it.  And don't be dull about it.

Yet there will be no grand agenda rollout on the Capitol steps in Washington this fall, as Republicans did with the Contract With America in 1994.

Why not?  Don't be afraid of making a splash.  Republicans can use the media as well as anyone else. 

We'll see in September how good the GOP platform really is, and how well the party can present it.  The Contract with America worked.  This has to work too, for the stakes are extremely high.  Our children won't forgive us if we get this wrong.

July 26, 2010      Permalink

SHIRL, SHIRL, YOU THERE? – AT 8:35 A.M. ET:  A commentator noted the fact that Shirley Sherrod, America's new saint, for whom a place on Mount Rushmore is assured, didn't appear on any of the Sunday talk shows.

Well, maybe Shirley's 15 minutes are up.  After a week-long journalistic orgy, dominated by CNN's all-Shirley-all-the-time coverage of the most famous firing since Truman axed MacArthur, the uproar has died down.

Maybe some editors noticed that Shirl got her job back at the Department of Agriculture, after it was determined that her allegedly racist remarks really weren't.  Maybe they noticed that most Americans don't get that kind of swift justice when they're wronged.  Maybe they noticed that some of the journalists who were puttin' on the agony about Andrew Breitbart's alleged misrepresentation of Shirley's comments had some serious credibility problems of their own. 

Or maybe the editors noticed that Americans, far smarter than the Ivy-soaked crowd in Eastern journalism thinks, realized that this was a ginned-up story designed to get race on the national agenda, and to do what those journalists were taught to do by the great visionaries of the 1960s – divide us by the holy trinity of race, gender, and ethnicity.

At any rate, Shirley was absent yesterday, for whatever reason.  Give the lady back her job, lay off Fox News, which had absolutely nothing to do with inflaming anything, and let's get on with the business of the country.  That business certainly includes racial justice, but the American people handle that better than the self-appointed eyes and ears of the standard media.

July 26, 2010       Permalink

OH, WE FEEL THEIR PAIN, WE REALLY DO – AT 8:23 A.M. ET:  The pain of leftist Democrats, that is.  We understand that they're in anguish over Barack Obama, viewing him as insufficiently passionate about the leftist agenda that they believe is being suppressed by evil forces driving black Lincoln Town Cars. 

But sometimes journalists so completely identify with this crowd that they lose all sense of reality.  Consider this little gem from The Politico.  The article is about the drive by the Dem left to name Elizabeth Warren, Harvard Law School's queen of radical financial reform, as head of the new consumer protection agency, a bureaucracy made possible by the recently passed financial reform act.  Get this:

But if Obama picks someone else, it’s likely to further erode the president’s increasingly shaky standing among liberals. Many of them are openly frustrated by a growing list of disappointments, including Obama’s unwillingness to fight for a public option in health care reform, his troop escalation in Afghanistan, his delayed promises to strengthen gay rights and his selection of two moderate nominees for a Supreme Court dominated by conservatives.

COMMENT:  Huh?  Is this an alternative universe, or what?  Leave us count the ways:  1) Obama's "unwillingness" to fight for a public option reflected strong public opinion against it; seems common sensical to me.  2)  Didn't the left notice that Obama had always called Afghanistan the good war?  Did they simply pretend not to listen to avoid making waves during the election campaign?  3) The issue of gay rights is being fought largely in the states.  "Don't ask, don't tell" is on its way out, but is far more complex than the left will admit.  I can think of more important issues right now.  4)  Moderate nominees to the Court?  MODERATE?  Are we kidding here?  Did the reporter do the research?  Sonia Sotomayor is a moderate?  Elena Kagan is a moderate?  I wonder what the scribe who wrote the story would consider "progressive"? 

Now you know why mainstream "journalism" seems so distant from your neighborhood.

July 26, 2010     Permalink

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