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.

TUESDAY,  JULY 27,  2010

WELCOME TO THE RECOVERY – AT 8:01 P.M. ET:  We're constantly told by the administration, channelling one Herbert Hoover, that prosperity is right around the corner.  The American people apparently don't think so, and they see the real economy operating every day:

U.S. consumer confidence sank in July to its lowest since February on job market worries, underscoring the slow path to economic recovery, and home prices rose in May but without signs of a sustained rebound, reports released Tuesday showed.

The Conference Board, an industry group, said consumer attitudes worsened this month as did their expectations about jobs being hard to get.

The group's index of consumer attitudes fell to 50.4 in July from an upwardly revised 54.3 in June, below the median forecast of 51 in a Reuters poll.

"There have been quite a few headwinds — the fiscal stimulus is fading, the European situation certainly did have an impact on consumer confidence and inventories are being brought more into line," said David Sloan, economist at 4Cast in New York. "But clearly the big problem for consumers is jobs."

And this:

About 18.9 million homes in the U.S. stood empty during the second quarter as surging foreclosures helped push ownership to the lowest level in a decade.

The number of vacant properties, including foreclosures, residences for sale and vacation homes, rose from 18.6 million in the year-earlier quarter, the U.S. Census Bureau said in a report today. The ownership rate, meaning households that own their own residence, was 66.9 percent, the lowest since 1999.

Lenders are accelerating foreclosures as borrowers fall behind in mortgage payments after the worst housing crash since the Great Depression. A record 269,962 U.S. homes were seized in the second quarter, according to RealtyTrac Inc. Foreclosures probably will top 1 million this year, the Irvine, California- based data company said in a July 15 report.

“There are a lot of people losing their homes and either moving in with family or renting places to live,” said Patrick Newport, an economist with IHS Global Insight in Lexington, Massachusetts. “Foreclosures are still going up.”

And the Congressional Budget Office is warning today that our national debt is at unsustainable levels, meaning we won't have the funds to pay it back and run the government in a manner Americans expect.

Happy days are here again.

July 27, 2010     Permalink

IRAN LATEST – AT 7:38 P.M. ET:  There's been a great deal of chatter today over that bizarre prediction by Iranian President Ahmadinejad, reported in our first post this morning, that the U.S. will attack at least two countries in the Mideast within the next three months.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, in an interview with Fox News, asked, "What's the second country?"  And that's what's intriguing people. 

Charles Krauthammer came up with the most persuasive answer.  He suggested that Iran, through its clients Syria and Hezbollah, would provoke a military action with Israel, leading to an Israeli response and American assistance to Israel.  The Iranian purpose would be to take pressure off Iran and allow Tehran to demonstrate its power to disrupt the entire region.

Well, that's a good a theory as any I've heard.  But the specific nature of Ahmadinejad's prediction – war within three months – has given people a bit of the jitters.  If Iran is going to provoke something, the period right before an election in the U.S. could, in Iranian eyes, be opportune.  The Iranians may not understand the American tradition of rallying 'round the flag, and may think American politicians will capitulate so as not to rouse "anti-war" opposition during their campaigns.  The Japanese misread the American spirit in their attack on Pearl Harbor, even though the planner of that attack, Admiral Yamamoto, had warned his government that this country would strike back fiercely.

July 27, 2010     Permalink

WHAT?  YOU MEAN THAT THE REPUBLICANS STOLE IT AND GAVE IT TO THEIR CORPORATE FRIENDS?  I KNEW THIS WOULD HAPPEN – AT 10:14 A.M. ET: 

A funny thing happened to most of the spilled oil in the Gulf.  It disappeared.  Now there is much to-do over this.  Where is it?  What will CNN do without oil pictures, now that Shirley Sherrod has had her 15 minutes?  Was the oil stolen by the GOP?  By Fox News?  ABC has the painful story:

For 86 days, oil spewed into the Gulf of Mexico from BP's damaged well, dumping some 200 million gallons of crude into sensitive ecosystems. BP and the federal government have amassed an army to clean the oil up, but there's one problem -- they're having trouble finding it.

At its peak last month, the oil slick was the size of Kansas, but it has been rapidly shrinking, now down to the size of New Hampshire.

Today, ABC News surveyed a marsh area and found none, and even on a flight out to the rig site Sunday with the Coast Guard, there was no oil to be seen...

...Even the federal government admits that locating the oil has become a problem.

"It is becoming a very elusive bunch of oil for us to find," said National Incident Cmdr. Thad Allen.

What's a liberal to do? 

Well, for starters, some of the libs who salivated over the oil spill might read some science.  Former Astronaut Harrison Schmitt, a trained geologist, wrote just after the spill started that the oil on the water was not the problem.  It would disappear through the ocean's natural processes.

Schmitt's column was largely ignored.  Didn't fit the approved narrative.  But apparently he was right.  The oil at sea will be taken care of by nature.  The oil that reached shore is a more complicated problem.

We hate to break it to the liberals, but the world may actually survive.

July 27, 2010      Permalink

OBAMA LOSING SOME HISPANIC SUPPORT – AT 9:37 A.M. ET:  The Obamans have gone all out to defeat the Arizona illegal-immigration law, and gaining Hispanic support has certainly been one of the motives behind that maneuver.  But, alas, Mr. Obama's support among Hispanics appears actually to be slipping:

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's once solid support among Hispanics is showing a few cracks, a troubling sign for Democrats desperate to get this critical constituency excited about helping the party hold onto Congress this fall.

Hispanics still overwhelmingly favor the Democratic Party over the GOP, and a majority still think Obama is doing a good job, according to an Associated Press-Univision poll of more than 1,500 Hispanics.

But the survey, also sponsored by The Nielsen Company and Stanford University, shows Obama gets only lukewarm ratings on issues important to Hispanics — and that could bode poorly for the president and his party.

For a group that supported Obama so heavily in 2008 and in his first year in office, only 43 percent of Hispanics surveyed said Obama is adequately addressing their needs, with the economy a major concern. Another 32 percent were on the fence, while 21 percent said he'd done a poor job.

COMMENT:  You know, when you act in a patronizing manner toward minority groups, they often come to resent it.  Our Hispanic population is diverse and hard-working.  It is not a monolith marching in lock-step.  A recent poll of Hispanics in Colorado, for example, showed that most are in favor of the Arizona law. 

We've seen recent attempts to whip up the African-American population and get it to the polls on election day, by injecting racial fears into the political discussion.  And we see the same attempt with Hispanics.  Maybe some folks have caught on to the game, and maybe they don't like it.

July 27, 2010     Permalink

ALL THE RAGE – AT 9:09 A.M. ET:  Wasn't it a time, wasn't it a time?  Ah yes, members of the sixties generation, now very much in the saddle in Washington – even John Kerry still has a pulse – are always looking for a new gimmick to bring them back to the feathers and flower-jeans days.

And nothing does it better than a good dose of "anti-war" goo.

So they're in Heaven today.  A little wormy left-wing group called Wikileaks, led by an Australian chap who has an Obamagod complex, has gotten hold of thousands of pages of classified documents related to our effort in Afghanistan, and released them.   Frankly, there's not much there, but, to the sixties crowd, it's going home again.

Some of you will remember that there was this chap named Daniel Ellsberg who released a packet called "The Pentagon Papers," setting off an uproar in the early 1970s over the limits of press freedom.  The papers really didn't change anything, but Ellsberg became a hero on the left for doing his thing to reduce popular support for the Vietnam War.

And who should turn up on Larry King last night?  Why, Ellsberg himself, looking almost as old as Larry.  And of course, his voice hadn't changed.  He still had that grim I-am-a-wonderful-person demeanor, and yes, of course, Wikileakers reminded him of what he'd done to save humanity way back then, before home computers and airbags. 

But Senator Joe Lieberman, one of the great stalwarts of national defense, reminds the nation of the cost leaks like this, and the nature of the people behind them:

The disclosure of tens of thousands of classified documents on the Afghanistan war is profoundly irresponsible and harmful to our national security. The Obama administration is absolutely right to condemn these leaks.

Most of these documents add nothing to the public understanding of the war in Afghanistan. The materials – which cover the period from 2004 to 2009 – reflect the reality, recognized by everyone, that the insurgency was gaining momentum during these years while our coalition was losing ground. That is precisely why President Obama carried out a policy review in late 2009 and subsequently ordered a surge of forces to Afghanistan as part of a comprehensive civil-military counterinsurgency strategy that is now under way under the command of General Petraeus. We should give General Petraeus and our troops on the ground the time and support they need to succeed. Although we know that the path ahead is difficult, we also know that the consequences for our national security will be catastrophic if we abandon this effort and allow the Taliban and their allies to regain a safe haven in Afghanistan. That is the path back to 9/11.

It is also important to recognize that Wikileaks is not an objective news organization but an organization with an ideological agenda that is implacably hostile to our military and the most basic requirements of our national security. Americans and our allies should be wary of drawing conclusions based on materials selectively leaked by Wikileaks, as it seeks to sap support for the Afghan war among the American people and our European allies.”

COMMENT:  Superbly said.  Now I hope other members of Congress come out and support Joe. 

And yes, the Obama White House has strongly condemned the leak, for which the president should be commended.  Maybe now he's starting to understand the gross irresponsibility on the left.

As for Ellsberg, he did no good.  The collapse of the American effort in Vietnam led to ghastly events in both Vietnam and Cambodia.  And, as usual, the left has never apologized for its recklessness, its very selective "anti-war" movement, and its disgraceful treatment of returning American soldiers.

July 27, 2010        Permalink

WHERE IS HE GETTING THIS? – AT 8:57 A.M. ET:  The revered president of Iran is making a startling set of predictions:

TEHRAN (Reuters) – Iran expects the United States to launch a military strike on "at least two countries" in the Middle East in the next three months, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told state-run Press TV.

In an interview recorded on Monday, Ahmadinejad did not specify whether he thought Iran itself would be attacked nor did he say what intelligence led him to expect such a move.

The United States and Israel have refused to rule out military action against Iran's nuclear program which they fear could lead to it making a bomb, something Iran denies.

"They have decided to attack at least two countries in the region in the next three months," Ahmadinejad said in excerpts broadcast on the rolling news channel on Tuesday.

Israel, which refuses to confirm or deny the existence of its own nuclear arsenal, has a history of pre-emptive strikes against suspected nuclear targets. In 1981 it destroyed Iraq's only nuclear reactor and in 2007 bombed a suspect site in Syria.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran "the ultimate terrorist threat." His deputy, Moshe Yaalon, has said Israel had improved military capability which could be used against foes in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria or Iran.

COMMENT:  It is hard to know what is behind such a statement.  Ahmadinejad, to be sure, is not the greatest source of information.  At the same time, he's going way out on a limb in making this prediction, and obviously will be chided, even within Iran, if it doesn't come true. 

Please note the time frame of the dear leader's prediction:  It is the period up to the American midterm election.  Sinister minds might reason that nothing would save Obama faster than a massive military action, prompting Americans to rally 'round the flag and the president.  Non-sinister minds might suggest that there is new information that could hurry American military action against Iran. 

There is also the issue of David Petraeus, no shrinking violet, and the advice he may be giving.

There have been a number of stories and columns in the United States recently – we mentioned them last week – suggesting that the administration is giving up its "outreach" notions about Iran and is preparing to take a much harder line.  Also, some stories suggest that the Obamans have finally concluded that a nuclear Iran really is unacceptable.

I don't know what second country the Iranian president could be referring to.  Syria comes to mind.  So does Yemen.  But we await further information to determine whether Ahmadinejad is in fantasyland, or if this is something real.

July 27, 2010     Permalink

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