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.

WEDNESDAY,  JUNE 30,  2010

POLITICS IN THE GULF – AT 8:06 P.M. ET:  I was listening to Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana on the radio today.  He's a remarkable man.  While he talks a mile a minute, he always has plenty to say, and it's worth hearing.

Jindal was laying out an indictment of the federal government's role in handling the Gulf oil spill.  It was a staggering list of stalls, failures, non-decisions and evasions.  The governor provided details and evidence.

If Jindal's indictment is true, and I personally believe his case is solid and convincing, one must almost inevitably come to the conclusion that Washington is trying to slow and damage relief efforts, in the service of a fanatical environmental agenda.  We alluded to that possibility in comments about the spill yesterday.  Remember, to the religiously committed leftists, bad news is good news, because it affirms their critique of society.  In their minds, bad news will lead to better policies, and thus good news.  In the meantime, they are indifferent to the suffering and economic losses of our Southern states.

This isn't surprising.  For almost half a century we watched the left show a marked indifference to the carnage in our big cities.  Bring up crime and you were either called a racist, or subjected to a tirade about the "socio-economic" causes of mass murder.  The human beings were of no significance.  They were useful bodies in a social crusade.

I'm afraid we got, in the 2008 election, exactly what we of our persuasion feared – a true leftist president, not a liberal, for the first time in our history.  And he may make enough people dependent on him and his schemes to change the course of American history for decades.  Let us hope not.

June 30, 2010     Permalink 

OBAMA STABILIZES IN RASMUSSEN POLL – AT 7:59 P.M. ET:  It's hard to know if anything actually caused this, like his handling of the McChrystal affair, but President Obama's poll numbers have solidified, after some days of threatening to go Bush.  Scott Rasmussen reports:

Overall, 45% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. Fifty-four percent (54%) disapprove.

While individual daily tracking results occasionally display the appearance of volatility, the long-term trend for the president’s numbers is remarkably stable. Over the past five months, with more than 150 updates, the president’s overall approval rating has been within four points of today’s result on every day but one. It has been within three points on every day but five. Keep in mind that those five months included the passage of health care, the Gulf Oil Spill, and a significant stock market decline. For the moment, nothing appears able to shift public perceptions of the president.

COMMENT:  If the president stays at about 45%, we have our work cut out for us.  While that's not a great number, it's not terrible either.  If Rasmussen's observations hold up, it may mean that Mr. Obama has a base that cannot be penetrated to any great degree, in part because of ethnic bloc voting. 

That also means that defeating Mr. Obama in 2012 may be much more difficult than many Republicans imagine.  The Democratic Party is a coalition of interest groups, whose only concern is whether they get their cut.  If they do, the votes come.  It's been that way, especially in big cities, for more than a century.

June 30, 2010     Permalink

YOU MUST READ THIS – AT 7:44 A.M. ET:  Hate to have a negative effect on your breakfast, but...  From Fox News:

When Sean Harrington entered his freshman year at Arlington (Massachusetts) High School, he noticed something peculiar: There were no American flags in the classrooms, and no one recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

So Harrington enlisted the aid of his fellow students, and now, three years later, they have succeeded in getting flags installed in the classrooms. But the pledge still will not be recited.

The Arlington, Mass., school committee has rejected the 17-year-old's request to allow students to voluntarily recite the Pledge of Allegiance, because some educators are concerned that it would be hard to find teachers willing to recite it, according to a report in the Arlington Patch.

Harrington had presented school officials with a petition signed by 700 people, along with letters of support from lawmakers including Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn.

But the request to have the pledge recited failed when the committee's vote ended in a 3-3 tie.

COMMENT:  The story notes that a number of teachers did sign Sean's petition.  However, it's apparent that there's a problem with many others.  Clearly, those are teachers who are in school to indoctrinate, not to educate.  They get their material from the schools of education, many of which have become hotbeds of radical leftism.

We used to think of politically correct indoctrination as being essentially a college-level problem, but it's found its way into high schools and even elementary schools.  It will have its effect on some young minds, year after year.

Do you know what your child is being taught?

June 30, 2010     Permalink

GOP LOOKS SOLID TO JOHN FUND – AT 7:17 A.M. ET:  John Fund of the Wall Street Journal, is one of the best election analysts around.  Yesterday we ran a Rasmussen poll indicating that the GOP is scoring better in congressional races than it has in decades.   Fund agrees, and sees strength in new places and groups:

Nothing has done more to rattle Democratic incumbents than a National Public Radio poll earlier this month on the outlook in the 70 most competitive races in the House -- 60 of which involve seats now held by Democrats and 10 by Republicans.

The numbers revealed in the poll have eye-popping implications. The NPR poll showed that Republicans lead the generic ballot test in these 70 districts by 49% to 41%, and have a five-point lead in districts with a Democratic incumbent. At the same time, Republicans have a solid 16-point lead in those competitive districts they currently hold. These numbers indicate the anti-incumbent political winds are blowing in one direction -- against the Democrats.

President Obama's numbers are down, and a president's numbers tend to predict how well his party will do.  Thus, a unique angle:

Mr. Obama's approval numbers may mask the real peril Democrats face because his job rating among blacks is an overwhelmingly positive 91%. As Michael Barone of "The Almanac of American Politics" points out, those readings imply that his job approval rating among whites is likely only about 39%.

That's especially significant because most of the 70 competitive House races polled by NPR (as well as most of the states with the closest Senate races) have below-average populations of black voters. Racial gerrymandering justified by dubious interpretations of the Voting Rights Act has concentrated blacks into mostly safe Democratic districts, meaning now that most competitive seats are more white than average. These districts are more likely to be hostile to President Obama's agenda, and thus more likely to be treacherous political terrain for Democrats. No wonder party strategists are so worried about this fall.

COMMENT:  Four months to the election.  There does not appear to be anything on the horizon, except for a surprise, that can reverse the Democrats' standing.  And the president's approach to his job seems half-hearted.  This could be a repeat of the great Republican victory of 1994, except that the press is determined not to let it happen.  Look for bias this year even greater, if possible, than in 2008. 

It is rumored that Christiane Amanpour will offer herself as a human sacrifice in exchange for a Democratic victory.  You know, that deal I'd take.

June 30, 2010      Permalink

AW, COME ON FELLAS, GO READ A GOOD BOOK – AT 6:47 A.M. ET:  Maybe journalism is just a little rusty about spy stories, espionage and good-old foreign intrigue.  But some stories about the Russkie agents caught a few days ago are bordering on the embarrassing.  From, yes, The New York Times:

They raised children, went to work in the city each day, talked the small talk with neighbors about yard work and overpriced contractors. In short, they could have been any family in any suburb in America.

Of course, guys, of course.  What do you think spies look like?  How do you think they act?  Do you really think they wear trenchcoats, short skirts, and wait around under lampposts?

In Montclair, N.J., a woman who lived next to the Murphy family described them as “suburbia personified.” They asked their neighbors for advice about the best middle schools to send their two young daughters. Richard Murphy mowed the lawn; Cynthia Murphy would come home from her job as a financial-services executive, daffodils and French bread in her hands.

“We would talk about gardening and dogs and kids,” said one neighbor, Corine Jones, 53.

Miles away in Yonkers, there lived another ordinary couple, Vicky Peláez and her husband, Juan Jose Lázaro Sr. They doted on their two pet schnauzers and their teenage son, Juan Jose Lázaro Jr., a classical pianist.

One could barf.  The whole idea behind deep-cover agents is to melt in with the population.  Why is this news?

Movies, books and television shows have taken to depicting suburbia as a place where not all is as it seems, where people with decent jobs and decent homes mask their secret double lives, and that seemed to be the case here: The three couples were among 11 people arrested as part of a ring that prosecutors said spied for the Russians under deep cover inside the United States.

I'm sure the guys who wrote this story are good reporters.  Sophisticated they are not.  Maybe they're dreaming of doing a book on this, and already have the James Bond theme playing in their ears.

America now realizes that not everyone who wishes us ill will get up with a gun and break into Middle Eastern chants.

June 30, 2010     Permalink

CLINTON WALKS ALONE – AT 5:45 A.M. ET:  Bill Clinton stunned the political world yesterday by endorsing the underdog in the Colorado Democratic primary for U.S. senator, rather than the incumbent, who has White House support.  There is major tongue wagging, and tea leaves are being read.   From The Politico:

Bill Clinton's stunning endorsement of an underdog insurgent running against the White House's handpicked candidate in the Colorado senatorial primary should be proof that whatever the public perception may be of a united front between President Barack Obama and the former president, Clinton remains very much his own man - and his own political force.

The email Clinton sent out urging support for Andrew Romanoff went a long way toward undoing the impression that Clinton - whose rescue mission to Arkansas on behalf of Sen. Blanche Lincoln earlier this month was thought mistakenly to be at the request of the White House - has become a reliable Obama ally willing to do the heavy lifting in support of the president’s favorite candidates.

Sen. Michael Bennet, appointed last year to the seat vacated by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, is a particular White House project, and Romanoff a particular irritant. Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina wound up in hot water after Romanoff released emails documenting what many took as an attempt to lure Romanoff away from a primary challenge with a government job.

But Clinton's endorsement, in an email Tuesday, was unstinting, suggesting that Romanoff - who supported Hillary Clinton in her losing 2008 presidential race — had both the strongest record and the best electoral prospects.

COMMENT:  Oh my, oh my.  Is there a deeper story here other than some kind of personal loyalty?  Clearly, many in the political profession are waiting for lady-in-waiting Hillary Clinton to make her move.  She exudes loyalty to Obama, but exuding is one of the easiest skills to pick up.  Everyone who's ever had a boss learns to exude. 

In the last year we've learned that John Edwards isn't a husband, Al Gore isn't a virgin, and Barack Obama isn't a president.  Could the Clintons be separating themselves from Obama, the better to be positioned for 2012 should The One retire to write another autobiography, or be forced out of the race by mathematical reality?

I'd watch every move the Clintons make, and I'd especially look for any daylight between Hillary Clinton and Obama in foreign policy.

June 30,  2010     Permalink

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