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,  JUNE 29,  2010

BOY, IS THIS WEIRD – AT 11:45 P.M. ET:  Who said that Muslim immigrants to Europe don't want to be European?  Maybe we should ask whether the Europeans want to be European.  From Spiegel online:

With Germany celebrating as its football team advances through the World Cup, the flag is flying everywhere in the country. But as one German of Lebanese descent has found out, not everyone in the country is a fan of the patriotic display. His giant German flag keeps getting torn down -- apparently by left-wing activists.

He will not stand for any ridicule. "I will defend the German flag," says Ibrahim Bassal resolutely, hitting the glass counter three times to make his point. Over the past few days he has been through a lot and what he has experienced has only strengthened his resolve. "I won't let anyone get at it," he adds.

Bassal is the proprietor of Bassal's Elektroshop, a store selling mobile phones and other electrical goods, in the working-class district of Neukölln in Berlin. No other neighborhood in the German capital offers such a diversity of cultures. Left-wing students rub shoulders with Turkish immigrants, while local businesses include the "Al-Hara" snack bar and the "Sultan" bakery. There are more than 160 nationalities recorded as living in Neukölln and around 35 percent of the district's population are foreigners.

And...

Over the past few weeks, ever since the start of the football World Cup, the neighborhood has been the scene of what local media are calling the "Neukölln flag fight." Left-wing activists have called on sympathizers to destroy the German flags which can be seen everywhere, arguing that they are a symbol of German nationalism.

Of course, they have no problem with Russian nationalism, or Iranian. 

"We won't let them take away our beautiful Germany, the one we have in our hearts," Bassal explains and bangs on the glass counter again. He was born here, he has always lived here and he feels like a proper German, he says.

COMMENT:  As the philosopher Red Buttons used to say, "Strange things are happening."

June 29, 2010     Permalink

TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY – AT 7:59 P.M. ET:  There have been a number of credible reports of Islamic extremists operating in Latin America.  It's entirely logical, especially considering the growing bond between Hugo Chavez's Venezuela and the mullahs of Iran. 

Further, our southern border is more than vulnerable.  If you were a terror group that wanted to infiltrate, especially carrying equipment, that would be the route to take.  One GOP congresswoman is asking questions of the Obama administration.  From the Charlotte Observer:

U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick has asked Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano to step up investigations of terrorists who might be operating on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Myrick, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, wants Napolitano to convene a task force on the presence of Hezbollah in Mexico.

“I believe Hezbollah and the drug cartels may be operating as partners on our border,” wrote Myrick to Napolitano, who is secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, in a letter last week. “I believe we need to do more intelligence gathering on Hezbollah’s presence on our border.”

The Obamans say that they see nothing:

Homeland Security spokesman Matt Chandler said Tuesday in a prepared statement that the agency will respond directly to Myrick about her request.

“At this time, DHS does not have any credible information on terrorist groups operating along the Southwest border,” he said.

But the congresswoman has some goods:

As evidence of Hezbollah’s connection to the Latino Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13 gang, Myrick’s letter includes photographs of two prisoners’ tattoos – one of which reads Hezbollah, the other of which, she wrote, is a Farsi translation of MS-13.

“We have typically seen tattoos in Arabic, but Farsi implies a Persian influence that can likely be traced back to Iran and its proxy army, Hezbollah,” Myrick writes. “These tattoos in Farsi are almost always seen in connection with gang or drug cartel tattoos.”

COMMENT:  The great fear, of course, is that a weapon of mass destruction could be smuggled across our southern border, probably in parts.  This is worth examining very closely.  We have a historic tendency to be surprised.

June 29, 2010      Permalink

OH, WELL THANK YOU – AT 7:19 P.M. ET:  On the 70th day of the Gulf oil spill, the United States has announced that it will accept international help.  Well, that was easy.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The United States is accepting help from 12 countries and international organizations in dealing with the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

The State Department said in a statement Tuesday that the U.S. is working out the particulars of the help that's been accepted.

The identities of all 12 countries and international organizations were not immediately announced. One country was cited in the State Department statement -- Japan, which is providing two high-speed skimmers and fire containment boom.

More than 30 countries and international organizations have offered to help with the spill. The State Department hasn't indicated why some offers have been accepted and others have not.

One of the great mysteries of this disaster is the unbelievable slowness of the Obama administration's response and its snubbing of foreign nations willing to help.  You would think, having seen what Katrina did to Bush, that Obama would have hustled.  But hustling isn't in his nature.  Golf is, after all, a slow game.

There have been any number of theories as to why Obama went slo-mo on the spill.  Some think he's just incompetent.  Others theorize that pressure from labor unions is keeping some foreign help out.  Still others wonder whether a possible resentment of the deep South is at the core of the response.  And then there's another idea out there – that Obama and the people around him would like to see a bit more damage to the coastline before moving in bigtime...because that damage would play into the hands of administration environmentalists.

It's that last possibility that really grips me.  This is, after all, an administration that came to office with the idea that no crisis should be wasted.  It seems to like crisis, just as radicals always have.

Is it possible?  Are we being paranoid?  Or are we figuring out, if slowly, who the president really is?

June 29, 2010     Permalink

SPY THRILLER LATEST – AT 10:02 A.M. ET:  The new Russian spy scandal is growing, and reminding Americans that Obama can't just wave his magic wand and "reset" relations with Moscow.  From Fox:

Federal prosecutors alleged 11 people were spies living secret lives in American communities, from Seattle to Washington D.C., sent years ago to infiltrate U.S. society and glean its secrets.

In an extensive and bizarre affidavit whose details echoed Cold War spy thrillers, the Federal Bureau of Investigation claimed the alleged spies were sent here by the Russian overseas intelligence service known as the SVR — the successor to the Soviet KGB — as early as the mid-1990s, and were provided with training in language as well as the use of codes and ciphers.

Their mission, according to the FBI, was contained in an encrypted 2009 message from Russian handlers in Moscow to one of the defendants that read in part: "You were sent to USA for long-term service trip. Your education, bank accounts, car, house etc. — all these serve as one goal: fulfill your main mission, i.e. to search and develop ties in policy-making circles in U.S. and send Intels [intelligence reports] to" Moscow.

Hmm.  The year 2009.  Isn't that the year a certain demigod was inauguarated as president?

And what do our new Russian friends say about this?

Russia's Foreign Ministry said Tuesday the U.S. actions are unfounded and pursued "unseemly" goals. It voiced regret that the arrests came even though President Barack Obama has moved to "reset" U.S. relations with Russia.

The U.S. and Russia have sent spies to each other's countries for decades, even in the 20 years since the Cold War ended. Still, the latest allegations come at a time when relations between the U.S. and Russia have been warming; last week, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev visited Mr. Obama in Washington.

The warming appears to be from one side only.

The FBI alleged that the group communicated with Russian handlers using sophisticated techniques. Some operating in New York used encrypted computers linked via private computer networks to communicate only with specific computers with which they were paired, the FBI said. Others living in New Jersey and Boston used a technique called steganography, in which SVR handlers embedded messages into images on publicly available websites, the FBI said.

Others allegedly posted in Seattle and Boston used radiograms, or coded bursts of data sent by radio transmitters, to communicate, according to the FBI.

COMMENT:  We await defense of the Russian spying in The Nation and other "progressive" journals. 

June 29, 2010      Permalink

GOP STAYS STRONG IN CONGRESSIONAL RACE – AT 9:41 A.M. ET:  Rasmussen reports a solid lead for Republicans in the generic polling on congressional choices:

Republican candidates now hold a six-point lead over Democrats on the Generic Congressional Ballot for the week ending Sunday, June 27.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 44% of Likely U.S. Voters would vote for their district's Republican congressional candidate, while 38% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent. Support for GOP candidates held steady from last week while support for Democrats inched up two points.

While solid majorities of Democrats and Republicans support the candidates of their respective party, voters not affiliated with either major party prefer the Republican candidate by a 44% to 24% margin.

Republicans have led in the Generic Ballot since mid-June 2009, and their lead hasn’t dipped below five points since the beginning of December 2009. However, the results were much different during the last two election cycles. Democrats regularly had large advantages in both 2006 and 2008.

COMMENT:  That news is good.  Democrats continue on a reckless course, determined to pass radical energy legislation, among other measures, despite widespread public skepticism.  They appear to feel that they must get as much of their program through Congress before the electoral carnage of November diminishes their power.

There is nothing on the horizon that seems likely to improve the Democrats' chances.  But the GOP can still mess it up, if hit by internal conflict or scandal.  The party will need enormous discipline and focus in the four months remaining before the election.

June 29, 2010      Permalink

SECOND GUY THIS WEEK – AT 9:23 A.M. ET:  Earlier this week, CIA director Leon Panetta warned that sanctions would not work against Iran, and that the Iranians were moving ahead with their nuclear program.  Now, Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen adds his voice to those issuing warnings:

ASPEN, Colo. — Adm. Mike Mullen said Monday he believes Iran will continue to pursue nuclear weapons, even if sanctions against the country are increased.

Speaking at the Aspen Security Forum, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said it would be "incredibly dangerous" for Iran to achieve nuclear weapons, and that there's "no reason to trust" Iran's assurances that it is only pursuing a peaceful nuclear program, especially after the discovery of the secret nuclear facility in Qom.

But he said a military strike against Iran would be "incredibly destabilizing" to the region, and that he believed U.S. ally Israel understands that. The admiral was responding to questions about whether he shared the assessment of CIA Director Leon Panetta, who said on Sunday that Iran likely has enough nuclear material to make two weapons, but is at least a year away from being able to carry that out.

That is the problem.  A nuclear Iran would be disastrous, but an attack on Iran would be destabilizing.  Of course, all attacks are destabilizing.   The fact is, we really have no realistic policy to deal with Iran, and the president of the United States seems indifferent.  (When does he not seem indifferent?)

Mullen said there was no reason to expect Iran to conform to international norms, given its past behavior, but he declined to describe what measures the U.S. was considering. He has often said that all options remain on the table.

With this president?  I doubt it.

When asked whether he thought Israel would give the United States time to see whether tougher sanctions or talks would produce more cooperation from Iran, he would only say that he believes the U.S. and Israel are "in synch" with their current policies.

I'm not sure of that.  The Israelis are not known to be suicidal.

June 29, 2010      Permalink

INTEGRITY OF JUSTICES – AT 8:37 A.M. ET:  The Washington Times reminds us this morning of why we regard these Supreme Court confirmation hearings with some skepticism.  Consider yesterday's Supreme Court ruling extending the protections of the Second Amendment to all 50 states, meaning no state can violate those protections:

It is worth noting that Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined in the dissent penned by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, which explained that they "can find nothing in the Second Amendment's text, history or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as 'fundamental,' insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes." Compare that to Justice Sotomayor's claims before the Senate Judiciary Committee during the confirmation process. Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, asked if she agreed that "the Supreme Court decided in Heller that the personal right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution against federal law restrictions." Ms. Sotomayor answered: "It is."

Of course, the way judges and others weasel out of this is to say that they answered honestly, but that they didn't agree with the way the Court had decided.  Of course, they never volunteer that disagreement during confirmation hearings.

As they did back in 2008, the gun grabbers are warning once again that striking down gun-control laws will result in blood on our streets. They have no evidence to back up the claim. Murders in the District fell after the 2008 ruling, both in absolute terms and relative to other cities. There were 43 percent fewer murders in D.C. in the first five months of 2010, compared with the same five months in 2008. By contrast, Chicago's murders fell by just over 5 percent during that period, despite having strict gun-control measures.

It doesn't matter.  To the gun grabbers, this is a matter of the most profound ideology, an ideology that begins with this thought:  "We don't like you.  You're not a member of our culture.  Our culture is superior, and we have a right to impose it on you."  Ruth Bader Ginsburg, probably the most liberal member of the Court, has pretty much implied just that. 

The story is the same throughout the country, and the explanation is all too simple: Law-abiding citizens are much more likely to obey gun-control laws and be disarmed than criminals. Instead of making potential victims safer, gun control makes the criminals safer. To the extent that this ruling discourages state and local governments from infringing on the rights of Americans, the country will be safer as a result.

COMMENT:  Cities like Chicago will respond to the ruling by imposing new "procedures" for obtaining a gun, procedures that will make it virtually impossible.  Then they'll resist court challenges for years.

We are one vote away from losing basic Second Amendment rights.  Yesterday's decision was 5-4.  Overturning basic rights will be one step away from confiscation, which has happened in other countries.  Then, only a Constitutional amendment might save us from those who would disarm the citizenry and arm the criminals.

June 29, 2010     Permalink

WE AWAIT – AT 8:11 A.M. ET:  We await the second day of confirmation hearings into the nomination of Elena Kagan, A-student, to the United States Supreme Court.  The conflict, the drama, Eleana's fashion sense!  Who could ask for anything more? 

Based on the first day's excitement, movie rights to the hearings have been sold for $9.95.  Elena wants to play herself, but the word out of Creative Artists Agency is that Hollywood wants someone who can tap dance.  Actually, it's pretty clear from the first day that Elena can tap dance around anything.

She's the Barack Obama of judicial nominees.  We don't know much about her, but she'll get the job anyway.

June 29, 2010     Permalink

MONDAY,  JUNE 28,  2010

KAGAN, THE PREMIERE – AT 9:45 P.M. ET:  I was able to watch some of the first day of Elena Kagan's confirmation hearing.  I'd had trouble sleeping the night before, and the hearing solved the problem.

I didn't particularly care about the senators' speeches.  They were entirely predictable, and allowed the ladies and gents to have their moment on the screen.  I wanted to hear Kagan.

I was surprised by how weak her voice was.  I'd expected a bit more resonance.  But she was entirely polite, and thoroughly non-controversial.  Like an Oscar winner, she thanked her parents, her country, God, demi-god, and she even put in a good word for the late Robert Byrd.  By the end of her statement I thought she was ready to sing "You Made Me Love You" to a picture of Ronald Reagan.

The fact is, nothing happened.  The only news to come out of the hearing is that Elena Kagan wears a Movado museum watch.  You know, that's the one with no numbers.  I gave my wife the same watch for an important birthday, but I gave her a better model.

June 28, 2010     Permalink

IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD.  QUOTE THAT – AT 7:32 P.M. ET:  At least that's what you would think, listening to some liberals vent over today's Supreme Court decision extending rights under the Second Amendment – the right to keep and bear arms, expressed as an individual right – to all 50 states.

Some 44 states also have their own equivalent of the Second Amendment, and it's pretty clear that each of us is protected under that amendment.  But you'd never know it from some of the hysterical reaction to the high court's decision.  Mayor Daley of Chicago, who's been unhinged recently, still can't get the hinges back in place.  The Supreme Court decision was specifically aimed at a Chicago gun-ban ordinance.

As expected, Mayor Daley and Chicago's City Council are circling the wagons to defend against an unfavorable decision by the Supreme Court concerning the city's gun ban.

Daley said the city would have in place a new ordinance aimed at making it difficult to purchase and own a gun in Chicago.

"We'll publicly propose a new ordinance very soon," Daley said at an afternoon press conference concerning the gun ban.

"As a city we must continue to stand up ..and fight for a ban on assault weapons .. as well as a crackdown on gun shops," Daley said. "We are a country of laws not a nation of guns."

COMMENT:  Chicago is one of the most violent cities in the United States, and a great deal of the violence occurs in President Obama's old neighborhood.  You'd think the mayor would be more concerned about that, and not about preventing law-abiding gun owners from defending themselves in their own homes.

New York has tackled violent crime quite successfully.  Maybe the mayor of Chicago can take a few lessons.

As a gun owner, I take the subject of guns seriously.  I don't think either side in the gun-control debate has all the wisdom.  And glib slogans, on either side, are no answer either.  That having been said, it's perfectly obvious that changing the culture of certain neighborhods and areas would do far more to reduce gun deaths than any law.  And I'm convinced that much of the advocacy for gun control is based more on trying to avoid tough discussion about culture than on any conviction that laws would do any good.  Politicians act like politicians.  Blame the gun, not the voter.

When I visit a well-run range, I'm always amazed at the attention paid to safety.  I know of no other sport or competititon where safety officers are actually in charge.  And then we turn around and give a driver's license to a 17-year-old, based on a ten-minute driving test at 20 miles an hour, and turn him loose on city streets.  Something of a contradiction there. 

June 28, 2010     Permalink

McCARTHYISM, IT'S McCARTHYISM, THAT'S ALL IT IS – AT 7:12 P.M. ET:  Reader Joseph J. Gallick alerts us to a bulletin from the Department of Justice, which apparently did something well: 

Eight individuals were arrested Sunday for allegedly carrying out long-term, "deep-cover" assignments in the United States on behalf of the Russian Federation, the Justice Department announced today. Two additional defendants were also arrested Sunday for allegedly participating in the same Russian intelligence program within the United States.

What?  Are these McCarthyites at it again, claiming that Mother Russia spies on the United States?  What's next?  An interrogation of Oliver Stone?  Hearings in Hollywood? 

In total, 11 defendants, including the 10 arrested, are charged in two separate criminal complaints with conspiring to act as unlawful agents of the Russian Federation within the United States. Federal law prohibits individuals from acting as agents of foreign governments within the United States without prior notification to the U.S. Attorney General. Nine of the defendants are also charged with conspiracy to commit money laundering.

The defendants known as "Richard Murphy" and "Cynthia Murphy" were arrested yesterday by FBI agents at their residence in Montclair, N.J., and are expected to appear in federal court in Manhattan today. Vicky Pelaez and the defendant known as "Juan Lazaro" were arrested yesterday at their residence in Yonkers, N.Y., and are expected to appear in federal court in Manhattan today. Anna Chapman was arrested in Manhattan yesterday and is expected to appear in federal court in Manhattan today.

COMMENT:  I guess this is another result of Obama's attempt to "reset" relations with Russia.  Maybe the reset button doesn't work.  Or maybe the president doesn't work.  Or something.

We'll follow this.  We haven't had a good Russkie spy scandal in a long time.  And to think, Medvedev was just here.  I wonder if Obama knew about the upcoming spy arrests before the visit. 

We recall that, just prior to the Cuban Missile Crisis, Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko visited President Kennedy and denied that the Soviet Union intended to put offensive weapons in Cuba.  When the crisis broke, Kennedy went public with Gromyko's remarks and charged that the Soviet Union had lied to him.  Shock.

We'll watch to see if the spy scandal has any effect on Obama's policy, or his golf game.

June 28, 2010      Permalink

WAY, WAY, OVER THE TOP – AT 9:43 A.M. ET:  Washington is a place of ridiculous rhetoric, and equally ridiculous journalism, and sometimes the two combine for an exquisite example of the truly phony and obnoxious.  From The Politico:

The death early Monday morning of Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) left his colleagues scrambling to deal with a reality none had ever experienced during their time on Capitol Hill – and many for the first time in their lives - a Senate without the iconic West Virginia Democrat.

Oh please.  The only thing they're scrambling for is his committee assignments and office space.

Senators spoke of Byrd’s love for the chamber, his staunch defense of its prerogatives and privileges against all comers, internal and external, as well as his fascination with the Constitution – he carried a copy in his pocket for decades - and the ongoing “American experiment.”

Of course, no dainty mentions of his early love for the Ku Klux Klan or his use of the "n" word a few years ago on national TV. 

And they spoke of Byrd’s love of his late wife, Erma, who passed away in 2006 after nearly 69 years of marriage.

“Robert Byrd’s was one of the greatest minds the world has ever seen,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). “From his graduation as valedictorian of his high school class at the age of 16 to his chairmanship of the Senate Appropriations Committee until the age of 91, he mastered everything he touched with great thoughtfulness and skill.”

One of the greatest minds the world has ever seen?  Really?  No wonder Harry Reid is in political trouble.  Greater than Aristotle?  Homer?  Einstein?  Ed Sullivan?

We'll have to put up with this for a few more days.  Washington is like Hollywood – lavish funerals and orations, followed by a period that will prove the truth of what Johnny Carson used to say:

"How quickly they forget."

June 28, 2010      Permalink

UNDER THE RADAR – AT 8:45 A.M. ET:  One of Obama's techniques is to appoint presidential panels rigged in advance to advance a certain ideological view.  Most Americans don't realize that the president has appointed a group to recommend policy for future offshore drilling.  The Detroit News notes, in an editorial, how rigged this panel really is:

Everyone wants the mess in the Gulf of Mexico to get cleaned up, fast, and just as important, to not be repeated. So the appointment of a high-level presidential panel to help set future drilling policy is welcome -- as long as that group is basing its work on solid science and not ideology.

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a lot of technological expertise on the panel appointed by President Barack Obama. Instead, it is filled largely with members who come out of the environmental movement, many of whom have expressed opposition to offshore drilling. The panel includes no members from the oil industry, which could bring valuable expertise to the discussion as well as better insight into the economic impact of policy proposals.

It isn't realistic to think that the nation can abandon offshore drilling and still meet its energy needs. The question the panel should be concerned with is how to make such drilling as safe as possible.

Protecting the environment is a high priority, but so is making sure these valuable oil reserves can be harvested for the benefit of a nation that is still a long, long way from replacing fossil fuel with alternative energy sources.

COMMENT:  Very well stated.  The fact that the panel has no representative of the oil industry says it all.  The Obamans despise business.  They despise corporations.  I suspect many, including possibly the president, would prefer European socialism.

But the fact is that, despite its often bad image, the petroleum industry has provided this country with relatively cheap energy for a century.  Its products have allowed Americans of average or below-average means to travel as only the rich once traveled. 

Of course, that's what the current elitists hate.  Who are these vulgar proletarians to drive miles just to have a non-organic dinner?  How dare a secretary dream of visiting Japan, the way our crowd does?  Who are these people with their Fords and Chevies?  Have they not understood the wonders of Volvo?

They do want to take it away. They do want to make fuel so expensive that most Americans will cut way down, thus reducing their "carbon footprint."  I wonder how many of the energy elites have reduced theirs?  When I see Al Gore, between his social engagements, rigging windmills in the backyard of his huge mansion, I may start to be convinced.

June 28, 2010     Permalink

WHY WAS THIS SAID? – AT 8:28 A.M. ET:  Italy's boisterous leader has made a statement that deserves some serious scrutiny:

World leaders "believe absolutely" that Israel may decide to take military action against Iran to prevent the latter from acquiring nuclear weapons, Italian Prime Minister Silvia Etruscan said Saturday.

“Iran is not guaranteeing a peaceful production of nuclear power [so] the members of the G-8 are worried and believe absolutely that Israel will probably react preemptively,” Etruscan told reporters following talks with other Group of Eight leaders north of Toronto.

The leaders of the G-8, which comprises Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, Canada and the United States, devoted much of their two-day session to discussion of the contentious nuclear programs unfolding in North Korea and Iran.

COMMENT:  Was this statement made by the G-8 because 1) the members really believe it; 2) the members want to send Iran a powerful warning; 3) most members privately favor an Israeli attack but need to get around Barack Obama, whom they see as an appeaser; 4) the members want to take control of Iran policy from the directionless U.S.?  All of the above?  Some of the above?

It was an extraordinary statement, even taking into account Etruscan's penchant for drama and rhetoric. 

The Iranian nuclear program forges ahead.  Recent reports, denied of course, indicate that Israel has an arrangement with Saudi Arabia wherein the Saudis would allow an over flight of their territory by Israeli planes heading for Iran.

The obstacle, at least now, is Obama.  In fairness, we should point out that President Bush, in a second term heavily influenced by his father's advisers, like Condi Rice, also opposed an Israeli attack.

But if the Israelis really fear their existence is threatened, they'll do what they have to do, with or without the blessings of Christine Amanpour.

June 28, 2010     Permalink

PRESENTING ELENA KAGAN – AT 7:57 A.M. ET:  Senate Judiciary Committee hearings into the nomination of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court start today.  Tickets  are available.  Don't get too close to the orchestra.

Even The New York Times calls Kagan "one of the most enigmatic Supreme Court nominees in recent memory."  In a way, she's this year's Barack Obama.  We didn't know much about Obama either when we elected him to the presidency, and we are paying for it.

No one denies that Kagan is "impressive."  You know, the usual:  High grades, high achiever, good schools, lots of gray matter.  The trouble is, she hasn't left much of an idea trail.  We don't actually know much of what she believes.  What we do know can be troubling.  If she joins the Court, she will be one of three women justices.  No problem there...except for the fact that all three will have come from the heart of New York City.  Isn't this the crowd that's always shouting about "diversity"?  Where's the rest of the country.

The Times ran a profile on Kagan's family.  She grew up in my old neighborhood on Manhattan's West Side, which is kind of liberalism's Vatican.  Reaganites need not apply for housing, or even credit at the local deli.  One gets the impression, through all the journalistic hedging, that Elena's parents leaned socialist. 

So immediately we worry.  Advocates tell us that Elena, when dean of the Harvard Law School, was eminently fair to conservatives, and even recruited some to the faculty.  A true believer in diversity, or something exercising a good career move?  I don't know.

My hunch is that she's a doctrinaire liberal, but I can't be sure.  I look forward to the hearings, and to the manner in which she answers questions.  I hope the questions are direct and probing.  The committee chairman, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, who runs slightly to the left of Lenin, will vote to confirm Kagan no matter what.  But Republicans like Jeff Sessions, John Cornyn and Lindsey Graham can be expected to probe.  They'd better.  It's their show.

June 28, 2010      Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 7:31 A.M. ET:  We begin today with a magnificent column by Fouad Ajami in The Wall Street Journal.  You may not be able to access the whole thing unless you're a WSJ subscriber, but can find the complete text by Googling AJAMI PETRAEUS.  The column contains this gem:

Mr. Obama's is an uncertain trumpet. He had vowed to fight in Afghanistan while belittling the challenge that radical Islamism posed to American security. He had told his devotees that the anti-Americanism in the Islamic world was certain to blow over in the aftermath of his election. He had attributed much of that anti-Americanism to the Iraq war and to the ideological zeal of his predecessors. His foreign policy was to explicitly rest on a rupture with the foreign policy of the past. Like Jimmy Carter's in the 1970s, this was to be a foreign policy of contrition for America's presumed sins.

A big battle loomed at home, and this was where Mr. Obama's heart and preferences lay—a struggle between economic freedom and the marketplace on one side and an intrusive, redistributionist state on the other. In this new climate of national introversion, Afghanistan was at best a sideshow. The war was going badly, and Mr. Obama feared that this war would overwhelm his presidency.

COMMENT:  Given the course of this presidency, almost anything seems capable of overwhelming it.  Even a bad hair day might produce policy catastrophe.

Some presidents grow in office.  This president hasn't.  He is a leftist ideologist, a soldier in a left-wing army that believes it has found the one true faith.  That faith bans words like "victory," making it impossible for Barack Obama, if his route continues unchanged, to become a true commander-in-chief.  The question is whether he cares.

June 28,  2010     Permalink