Please note that you can leave a comment on any of our posts at our Facebook page.  Subscribers can also comment at length at our Angel's Corner Forum.

OUR DAILY SNIPPETS ARE HERE.

THURSDAY,  JULY 29,  2010

SHIRLEY, YOUR 15 MINUTES ARE UP – AT 7:41 P.M. ET:  Some people just don't know when to get off the stage.  From The Politico:

Former Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod said Thursday that she would “definitely” sue conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart over the video that prompted her firing last week.

“Andrew Breitbart ... had to know that he was targeting me,” Sherrod said. “Now, whether he was also trying to target the NAACP ... he had to know that he was targeting me.”

“At this point, he hasn’t apologized — I don’t want it at this point. And he’ll definitely hear from me,” she said.

Sherrod was asked to resign last week when Breitbart’s site, Big Government, posted an edited version of her comments at an NAACP event, in which she said that she had considered not giving a white farmer her “full force” to help him avoid foreclosure. In the full video, it was clear that she related the 23-year-old incident to make the point that “it was about poor, versus those who have” and that she ultimately steered the farmer to a lawyer who helped him save his land.

Sherrod received a public and private apology from Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, who admitted that he and his staff acted too hastily in asking for her resignation last week and offered her a new job at the Agriculture Department. President Barack Obama later called Sherrod to apologize.

COMMENT:  The woman was somewhat wronged, but got justice in 24 hours and a call from the president.  How many of you, if you've been wronged, got that kind of response? 

Shirley, it's over.  You're not going to be the next Oprah, or the next Michelle, and Halle Berry isn't begging to play you in the movie.   A Rosa Parks you're not.  Publishers are not knocking down the doors for your life story.

Now please go back to work. 

July 29, 2010      Permalink

NEW POLL CONFIRMS GOP LEAD – AT 7:33 P.M. ET:  We've been cautious about accepting the findings of a late Rasmussen poll showing Republicans 10 points ahead in the generic congressional preference race.  Now, though, A Fox Dynamics poll is saying the same thing:

With less than 100 days until the midterm elections, American voters would give the edge to Republicans by an 11 percentage-point margin if the Congressional election were today. Yet a majority doesn't think a Republican takeover of Congress would lead to positive change.

A Fox News poll released Thursday finds that if Americans were heading to the voting booth today, they would back the Republican candidate in their district over the Democrat by 47-36 percent. Two weeks ago the Republicans had a slimmer 4-point advantage (41-37 percent).

As has been the case all year, Republicans continue to be more interested in the upcoming election. Thirty-six percent of Republicans are "extremely" interested compared to 23 percent of Democrats.

COMMENT:  That enthusiasm gap is also important, and also helps Republicans.  As to the finding that most respondents don't think a Republican takeover will lead to positive change, that's a matter of real concern.  As we've reported here before, Republicans are gaining from poor Democratic performance.  The GOP isn't all that popular.  The party has got to work on that problem, and actually govern well (surprise) if elected.  The worst thing would be for Republicans to take over Congress, mess things up, and hand Obama a victory in 2012.

July 29, 2010      Permalink

TALES OF THE BRITISH HEALTH SYSTEM – AT 9:09 A.M. ET:  President Obama has just given a recess appointment to Harvard Professor Donald Berwick, to head the Medicare system.  Under a recess appointment, Berwick will serve for a year, but will not have to be confirmed by the Senate...or answer any congressional questions.  Berwick is known as a great fan of the British health system, which he thinks we should adopt.

Consider this, from London's Telegraph:

Four babies died at a National Health Service heart unit where managers were trying to raise the number of patients being treated in order to avoid closure, according to a damning report.

The infants died within three months of each other after being operated on by a relatively junior surgeon who was appointed to raise patient numbers at the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford, an external review has found.

Caner Salih, who was left alone on his second day in the post, complained about the age of the equipment and poor working practices at the children’s cardiac unit. He blew the whistle to bosses after four of his patients died within three months and asked to stop operating.

At least the physician had some decency.  But I doubt if stories like this, and there are many of them, will stop the American left from worshipping the socialized health system of other countries.  I just fear that, with Obamacare about to make its debut, we will take the best overall health-care system in the world, and the fastest, and trash it to make way for the equality of mediocrity.

It can be stopped, and that will depend on the next two major elections.

July 29, 2010      Permalink

DIDN'T WE USED TO CALL IT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?  WELL, I GUESS TRENDS CHANGE – AT 8:33 A.M. ET:  The Massachusetts legislature, in an act of profound arrogance and ignorance, has voted to get its state out of the electoral college:

The Massachusetts Legislature has approved a new law intended to bypass the Electoral College system and ensure that the winner of the presidential election is determined by the national popular vote.

"What we are submitting is the idea that the president should be selected by the majority of people in the United States of America," Senator James B. Eldridge, an Acton Democrat, said before the Senate voted to enact the bill.

Under the new bill, he said, "Every vote will be of the same weight across the country."...

...The bill, which passed on a 28-to-9 vote, now heads to Democratic Governor Deval Patrick's desk. The governor has said in the past that he supports the bill, said his spokeswoman Kim Haberlin.

Under the law, which was enacted by the House last week, all 12 of the state's electoral votes would be awarded to the candidate who receives the most votes nationally.

In other words, the people of the state are effectively disenfranchised.  It's people elsewhere in America who will decide who gets the state's electoral votes.

This is another attempt by the hard left, very present in Massachusetts, to scrap the state system and nationalize everything that can be picked up.

Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland, and Washington have already approved the legislation, according to the National Popular Vote campaign's website. The new system would only go into effect once a sufficient number of states have passed laws that would make it work.

Who do these people think they are?  Was there any groundswell of support for this?

The states on the list so far are traditional Democratic states, although New Jersey is tottering. 

The current Electoral College system is confusing and causes presidential candidates to focus unduly on a handful of battleground states, supporters say. They also say that the popular vote winner has lost in four of the nation's 56 elections.

I love it, I love it.  Something is always too "confusing" for the people.

As far as concentrating on a handful of battleground states, that's nonsense.  We've been running widespread campaigns, and some candidates actually ignore some large states if they think they're lost. 

We know from 2000 that even a small state can be decisive.  If Al Gore had won his own state of Tennessee, a medium-sized state, he would have been president, and without Florida. 

The electoral college system should only be changed by constitutional amendment, not by these silly "opt-out" laws that effectively surrender state sovereignty.  We are the United States, not a mob. 

July 29, 2010      Permalink

BACK TO THE NASTY REAL WORLD AGAIN – AT 8:17 A.M. ET:  There is no more important issue than the spread of nuclear weapons.  The nuclear weapon does exactly what it's supposed to do.  Technicians can even predict its effects in particular cities.  It may be hard to get, but it's easy to use.  Any good customer can follow the instructions.

Therefore, this story by the outstanding Eli Lake of The Washington Times, needs examining, and requires concern:

Scientists, engineers and financiers involved in the A.Q. Khan nuclear-smuggling network are being contacted by several governments in an effort to lure these specialists out of retirement.

The development is raising concerns among U.S. intelligence agencies about the revival of the proliferation network that was thought to have been shut down years ago.

Two U.S. intelligence officials and other U.S. officials with access to intelligence reports said information compiled over the past seven months showed that agents from several foreign governments — including Brazil, Burma, Iran, Nigeria, North Korea, Sudan and Syria — pursued members of the network named after Abdul Qadeer Khan, the scientist considered to be the father of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program.

"They have propositioned them to get them to come out of retirement," one senior U.S. intelligence officer said.

Not everyone agrees with the assessment:

Earlier this month, a classified analysis was distributed on the Defense Intelligence Daily — a compendium of intelligence products shared with senior executives in the military and the Pentagon — on evidence that elements of the Khan network may be reactivating. It did not answer that question conclusively. The report, however, did confirm the existence of new intelligence on the recruiting efforts.

I hope this is being taken very seriously inside the intelligence establishment.  We've seen too many cases before when officials, pushing their own agenda, have produced distorted reports.  The most infamous is the report that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003, a conclusion picked up and amplified by the thankful left-wing media.  TIME slapped the conclusion on its cover with the blurb, "Now they tell us."  The report turned out to be pathetically optimistic, but reflected the views of those trying to bring down the Bush foreign policy. 

It's entirely logical that those with expertise in nuclear weapons, and a history of selling that expertise, would be contacted by atomic wannabes.  And a little knowledge goes a long way.

July 29, 2010      Permalink

THE PRESIDENT DOES A SHOW – AT 7:45 A.M. ET:  The president of the United States appeared on "The View" yesterday, a daytime TV chat show for women, featuring such intellects as Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg.   

It's hard to imagine Lincoln doing that, or FDR, or Jack Kennedy, who had a sense of style.  Even Ronald Reagan, who'd spent part of his life in show business, knew how to be president.  He would not enter the Oval Office without a jacket on.  He did not do talk shows.  He understood symbols. 

This wasn't Obama's first outing on the talk circuit.  He did Jay Leno last year, was widely criticized for lowering the stature of the presidency, but apparently wasn't listening.  When you bow to a Saudi king and grovel to America's enemies, it's hard to lower the stature of the office much further.

Mr. Obama's appearance on "The View" was inappropriate.  Yes, yes, I know, Richard Nixon did "Laugh-In" in the 1960s, uttering the line, "Sock it to me?"  But he was a lawyer at the time, not president. 

I recall picking up a paper in the early 1990s and seeing a photo of President Bill Clinton, behind his Oval Office desk, wearing a jogging suit.  I said to an associate, "This man is in trouble."  It was instinctive.  Some presidents know how to act, know what's expected of them, and some don't.   And, clearly, some don't care.

This president, Mr. Obama, is in trouble.  Americans are turning against him.  One of his great attributes, his likability, is fading.  Many don't like him any longer.  They see him as something of a fake, a make-believe president put in office by a vastly immature political base and an army of willing journalists.  They see him as a man constantly running for an office he already holds.

Is Obama finished?  No president is ever "finished" until his last day in office.  Harry Truman made the most spectacular comeback in modern presidential history in 1948.  Reagan was down for a time. 

The difference, though, is that Obama is carrying extra baggage:  He is disturbingly inexperienced.  He has proven to be an ideologist of the left.  His comments during the campaign, incredibly ignored by a gullible American public, showed that he doesn't much like his own country. 

An ABC report on the president's appearance said this:

So why sit down with "The View's" feisty and opinionated five hosts in the first place?

"I was trying to find a show that Michelle actually watched, and so I thought this is it, right here," he said. "All those new shows, she's like, eh, let me get the clicker."

On Tuesday, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the decision was made to put the president on "The View" because it provides an opportunity "to talk to people where they are."

You know, that's really pathetic stuff.

If the president recovers, it will probably be because of some significant, popular act in foreign policy.  But he will have to make the same decision that Harry Truman made when he began his fight back in 1948.  He will have to decide that some support is not worth having, and that he must start to govern a nation, not a faction.  Truman allowed some of the racial segregationists to walk out on him, maintaining his principles.  He also told the party's leftist fringe where they could go, and it wasn't Heaven.  He showed what he was made of.

Will Mr. Obama show what he's made of?  I'd like to be pleasantly surprised, but I'm afraid we've already found out.

July 29, 2010     Permalink

WEDNESDAY,  JULY 28,  2010

AND IN THE REAL WORLD – AT 7:29 P.M. ET:  We should remember that important things are happening in foreign affairs, the kinds of things that may come back to bite us later.  Today, for example, the "Palestinian Authority," in which Mr. Obama has invested such effort and high grovel, knifed him once again:

In a final thrust to persuade reluctant Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to enter direct talks with Israel, the EU coupled strong exhortations on Wednesday to Abbas to immediately begin them, with statements designed to give him confidence that once at the negotiating table, he will have strong support for a number of his key positions.

Abbas arrived in Cairo on Wednesday for a two-day visit to attend a special meeting of Arab League foreign ministers that begins on Thursday. The parley will evaluate the current proximity talks and discuss the possibility of starting direct negotiations.

Despite pressure from the US and the EU, Abbas has signaled in recent days that he does not intend to enter direct talks until Israel stops all settlement construction, as well as construction in east Jerusalem, and commits itself to the establishment of a Palestinian state based on the June 4, 1967, lines. He is expected to seek Arab League support for these positions.

COMMENT:  Question:  Why should the Palestinians need persuading to sit down with the Israelis to work out an agreement?  Second question:  How can anyone say that the Palestinians "want peace" when their leaders refuse direct talks?  (And the Palestinian Authority is the more "moderate" of the two branches of the Palestinian leadership, the other being the ultra-militant Hamas, which refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist.)  Third question:  Would Abbas and his crowd be acting this way if Obama hadn't done everything in his power to humiliate the Israelis before trying a recent election-year kiss-and-make-up campaign?

Just asking.

July 28, 2010     Permalink

ARIZONA LOSES THE FIRST ROUND – AT 7:17 P.M. ET:  A federal judge has issued an injunction against certain parts of the new, controversial Arizona anti-illegal-immigration bill:

PHOENIX — A federal judge on Wednesday, weighing in on a clash between the federal government and a state over immigration policy, blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona’s immigration enforcement law from going into effect.

But Judge Bolton took aim at the parts of the law that have generated the most controversy, issuing a preliminary injunction against sections that called for police officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws and that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times.

COMMENT:  This is only the first stage.  Higher courts will rule on, for example, issues of constitutionality.  Many legal observers believe that the Arizona law will have to be tested ultimately before the U.S. Supreme Court. 

It was amusing watching some of the leftist pundits react to the ruling today.  Rick Sanchez, CNN's daytime "progressive" anchor, could barely contain his glee, surprising since he's generally so capable of restraining thought.

The hypocrisy here is that there are so-called "sanctuary cities" that refuse to enforce federal immigration law or cooperate with federal authorities in upholding that law, and yet the Obama administration has no problem with them.

Today's decision is a setback, in my view, for the millions of Hispanic-Americans who have come here legally, won their citizenship, and contribute lawfully to the country every day.  But higher courts will rule, and reason may, in the end, prevail.

Nothing that happened today does a thing toward solving the problem of illegal immigration.

July 28, 2010    Permalink

HEY, THE KAMIKAZES DID IT, THE JIHADISTS DO IT, SO WHY NOT DEMS? – AT 9:33 A.M. ET:  Are Democrats into suicide?  It sometimes appears so.  From The Hill:

House Democrats are casting doubt on one of President Obama’s top campaign promises by hedging on whether to permanently extend the tax cuts on families making less than $250,000 annually and individuals making less than $200,000.

The tax breaks — passed nearly a decade ago at the urging of President George W. Bush and Republicans in Congress — are set to expire at the end of the year.

While the White House has pushed for making the middle-class tax cuts permanent, Democrats in the House are looking at other options, including temporary extensions that would last more than a year, according to an aide to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.).
Hoyer and Democrats have said they’ll definitely extend the middle-class tax breaks through next year.

“We ought to have no increase in taxes on middle-income working Americans,” Hoyer said Friday. “Clearly, at a time of recession, we want to make sure that working people have the ability to support themselves.”

A temporary extension of the middle-class breaks would leave Obama open to Republican attacks that he broke his word on taxes if he runs for reelection in 2012.

COMMENT:  Do these people understand the phrase, "Cut spending"?  It seems to be an emotional thing with them, and I know of no medication that can cure the problem. 

If the Democrats effectively raise taxes, and the recession worsens, their 2012 – which some cultures believe is the year the world will end – will be the year their party ends.  Look, we'll take half a loaf.

July 28, 2010       Permalink

WRONG RECIPE BOOK – AT 8:32 A.M. ET:  More on the adventures of Al Qaeda (see post just below), but this should chill us.  From London's Telegraph:

An al-Qaeda cell killed by the Black Death may have been developing biological weapons when it was infected, it has been reported.

The group of 40 terrorists were reported to have been killed by the plague at a training camp in Algeria earlier this month.

It was initially believed that they could have caught the disease through fleas on rats attracted by poor living conditions in their forest hideout.

But there are now claims the cell was developing the disease as a weapon to use against Western cities.

Experts said that the group was developing chemical and biological weapons.

Dr Igor Khrupinov, a biological weapons expert at Georgia University, told The Sun: "Al-Qaeda is known to experiment with biological weapons. And this group has direct communication with other cells around the world."

And...

It was reported last year that up to 100 potential terrorists had attempted to become postgraduate students in Britain in an attempt to use laboratories.

COMMENT:   We're constantly being told how weak and disorganized Al Qaeda is, but the group remains a deadly threat, and that threat includes mass casualties. 

A small squad of hijackers inflicted more death on Americans on September 11, 2001, than the Japanese fleet, with five carriers, did at Pearl Harbor.

Biological weapons, to be sure, are hard to use.  But that should give us no satisfaction.  The panic created by even a small, successful attack could alter the way Americans live, especially in large cities, and cost this country tens of billions in defensive measures.

July 28, 2010     Permalink

THANKS FOR CALLING IN, GUYS – AT 8:16 A.M. ET:  The second man in Al Qaeda speaks to us from the heart:

Al Qaeda's second in command Ayman Al-Zawahiri has surfaced again, this time threatening more attacks against the U.S. and the West.

"Oh American people…We offered you a peace plan, and mutual benefit; but your governments were proud and haughty, and so the attacks against you followed one after another, everywhere – from Indonesia to Times Square, by way of Madrid and London. And the attacks are ongoing, and more will come one after another," said Zawahiri, according to a transcript provided by the Middle East Media Research Institute, based in Washington, DC.

I always worry about people who begin sentences with, "Oh..."  I mean, what century is that?

However, put the guy's comments in perspective:

Former White House national security official Richard Clarke, now an ABC News consultant, said that up until this point, there haven't been any correlations between Zawahiri's past threats and any attacks actually occurring.

"U.S. government and counterterrorism officials are not going to increase their alert based on Zawahiri's statement, because of his previous track record," Clarke said. "But they're on relatively high alert already because of the increase in homegrown terrorist threats related to al Qaeda."

COMMENT:  And that is the point.  We've had several very close calls - the Christmas plane bomber and the Times Square wannabe – and a successful attack at Fort Hood.  It's only a matter of time before someone gets through, gets the technology right, and makes a statement in an American city.

July 28, 2010       Permalink

THREE MONTHS OUT, LOOKING GOOD FOR THE GOP – AT 7:59 A.M. ET:  Three months before the most important midterm elections of our era, the prospects for the Republicans in the House are looking good, according to Michael Barone, one of our best political analysts.  From the Washington Examiner:

...take a look at the generic ballot question -- which party's candidate will you vote for in elections to the House? The current realclearpolitics.com average shows Republicans ahead by 45 to 41 percent. Ten of this month's 15 opinion polls asking the question had Republicans ahead; Democrats led in four (twice by 1 percent), and one poll showed a tie.

Keep in mind that the generic ballot question historically has tended to underpredict Republican performance in off-year elections. Gallup has been asking the question since 1950 and has shown Republicans leading only in two cycles, 1994 and 2002, and then by less than the 7 and 5 points by which they won the popular vote for the House in those years.

So the Republicans' current lead in the generic ballot question suggests they may be on the brink of doing better than in any election since 1946, when they won a 245-188 margin in the House -- larger than any they've held ever since.

And...

In 1994, I wrote an article in U.S. News & World Report arguing that there was a serious chance that Republicans could capture the 40 seats that they needed then, as now, for a majority in the House. It was the first mainstream media piece suggesting that, and it appeared on newsstands on July 11.

I cited as evidence five polls showing incumbent Democratic congressmen trailing Republican challengers. None of those Democrats had scandal problems; all five lost in November.
Today a lot more Democratic incumbents seem to be trailing Republican challengers in polls. Jim Geraghty of National Review Online has compiled a list of 13 Democratic incumbents trailing in polls released over the past seven weeks...

...These metrics -- the generic ballot results and polls in individual districts -- suggest that House Democrats are headed toward historic losses.

COMMENT:  So far, so good.  But Republicans have yet to present their platform, which had better be good.  And don't ignore the possibility of an October surprise, especially in foreign policy.

Nor can we ignore the relentless Obama-booming by the mainstream media.  While I don't stay at night worrying about it, I wonder how many "news" organizations are preparing grim-faced special reports on some dark Republican secret or the prospects for the "average" American if the GOP seizes control. 

July 28, 2010     Permalink