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.

SUNDAY,  MAY 2,  2010

SMEARING THE TEA PARTY – AT 7:50 P.M. ET:  Dennis Prager, always a thoughtful writer and broadcaster, has analyzed the smears against the tea party, and makes some excellent points that should be made more frequently by soldiers of the MSM, but they don't dare:

Opponents of the popular expression of conservative opposition to big government, the tea parties, regularly note that tea partiers are overwhelmingly white. This is intended to disqualify the tea parties from serious moral consideration...

...The fact that the Left believes that the preponderance of whites among tea partiers invalidates the tea party movement tells us much more about the Left than it does about the tea partiers...

...One of the more dangerous features of the Left has been its replacement of moral categories of right and wrong, and good and evil with three other categories: black and white (race), male and female (gender) and rich and poor (class).

Therefore the Left pays attention to the skin color -- and gender (not just "whites" but "white males") -- of the tea partiers rather than to their ideas.

That is correct.  And the value of ideas is considered greater if they come from some "oppressed" group. 

In this morally inverted world, the virtual absence of blacks from tea party rallies cannot possibly reflect anything negative on the black and minority absence, only on the white tea partiers.

But in a more rational and morally clear world, where people judge ideas by their legitimacy rather than by the race of those who held them, people would be as likely to ask why blacks and ethnic minorities are virtually absent at tea parties just as they now ask why whites predominate. They would want to know if this racial imbalance said anything about black and minority views or necessarily reflected negatively on the whites attending those rallies.

The leftist mentality has made real conversation on these issues impossible:

Unfortunately, however, no real exploration of almost any important issue in American life is possible as long as the Left focuses on the race, gender and class of those who hold differing positions. And that will not happen. For when the Left stops attacking people and starts arguing positions, we will see what the Left most fears: blacks and Hispanics at tea parties.

COMMENT:  That is also correct.  The left does not feel any need to argue issues.  Its fundamental belief is that it is so morally superior, and that this superiority is so obvious, that debate is a waste of time.  It believes that there is something fundamentally, even biologically wrong, with conservatives.  Indeed, that's why leftists so often describe conservatives as stupid. They are defective, and that explains their ideas.

It's a lazy way to see the world.  But intellectual rigor is not notable on today's political left, which is why their glass of ideas is always half empty, or less so.

May 2, 2010     Permalink

BOMBING UPDATE – AT 7:34 P.M. ET:  Police in New York are treating the attempted Times Square bombing as a major event, although they are not ready to assign responsibility. 

The vehicle holding the large but amateurish bomb was parked in one of the most densely filled tourist locations of New York, the theater section of Times Square, about a block from where the ball comes down on New Year's Eve.  From the Washington Post:

Police said Sunday that they were reviewing surveillance video that may have captured a suspect in Saturday's failed car bombing in Times Square, describing him as a white man in his 40s who repeatedly looked back at the rigged SUV in a furtive manner and exhibited other suspicious behavior.

New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly told reporters at an afternoon press conference that the man was spotted near a Nissan Pathfinder packed with fireworks, propane and other materials. The vehicle aroused suspicion when it began smoking around 6:30 p.m. Saturday, prompting authorities to evacuate Midtown Manhattan for most of the night.

The man, whose involvement in the incident is unclear, was caught on video near the sport-utility vehicle removing a dark shirt and slipping it into a bag before walking away. Detectives, Kelly said, were in route to an unnamed town in Pennsylvania where a tourist who was in Times Square Saturday night "believes he may have captured the suspect's image on this video camera."

And...

"There is a high likelihood it would have been lethal," New York Police spokesman Paul Browne told reporters. "We just don't know to what degree how catastrophic it would have been."

A Taliban group took responsibility for the attempted bombing, but investigators quickly dismissed the claim as unlikely. Terik-i Taliban Pakistan, or TTP, is one of the major Taliban groups battling U.S. and Pakistani forces along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. A statement released by the group said the attempted bombing was revenge for the killings of "Muslim martyrs," especially two senior leaders of al-Qaeda in Iraq who were killed by U.S. and Iraqi forces last month.

It is common for multiple terrorist groups to seek credit for high-visibility terrorist incidents, and some terrorism experts on Sunday were skeptical that TTP could have organized a bombing attempt in Times Square to avenge deaths that occurred less than two weeks earlier.

COMMENT:  Television coverage of the event has been quite serious and responsible.  We came very close to an explosion. 

The police appear to have a great deal of physical evidence, some of which they're probably holding back from the public.

In general, attempts against New York have been made by Muslim extremists.  The militia types tend to concentrate on other parts of the country. 

May 2, 2010     Permalink

REPUBLICAN GAINS, FOR NOW – AT 11:32 A.M. ET:  Expert political reporter Charlie Cook observes that the Republicans are still gaining, despite Dem efforts to stem the conservative tide.

The Dems are trying, but attempting to counter the tea party with a Vitamin D party just doesn't cut it in the heartland.  From the National Journal:

With the midterm elections now just six months away, are Democrats' prospects improving? Not really. For every hopeful sign they get, several others -- usually the more telling ones -- point the other way.

The most recent, and quite compelling, bad omen surfaced in an April 27 Gallup report. The polling organization found that, based on interviews with more than 5,000 registered voters from April 1-25, Democrats had a 4-point lead in the generic congressional ballot test among those "not enthusiastic about voting" this year, 46 percent to 42 percent; they had a 14-point lead, 52 percent to 38 percent, among those "somewhat enthusiastic about voting." Among the all-important "very enthusiastic" crowd, aka the folks most likely to vote, Democrats trailed by a whopping 20 points, 57 percent to 37 percent.

Across all registered voters in the Gallup Poll, Republicans held a 1-point lead, 46 percent to 45 percent, a result that's not out of line with other national surveys of registered voters. Because voter turnout in midterm elections is generally a third below that of presidential elections, measuring the intensity of voters' interest in participating provides an important tip-off. And, this year, the passion for voting is almost all Republican.

COMMENT:  Well, we can hope.  But we must also be cautious, rather than giddy.  Giddiness is so, so liberal.  Scott Rasmussen's latest reports emphasize the need for wariness:

In April, the number of adults not affiliated with either major party increased by 1.6 percentage points, while the number identifying themselves as Republicans decreased 1.3 percentage points. This marks the lowest level for Republicans since July 2008.

The Republican Party remains unpopular.  The gains it is showing represent a backlash against the age of Obama, not a national crush on Mitch McConnell.  As we've said here before, the GOP must come up with a positive program of its own.  The party is hungry, and I assume it will do it.

May 2, 2010     Permalink

GOP SMELLS BLOOD – AT 11:19 A.M. ET:  The Gulf of Mexico oil slick is providing Republicans with an opportunity for revenge that comes once in a decade.  Let the salivating begin.  From The Politico:

Even before the spilled oil reaches shore, the political game of assigning credit and blame is in full swing.

The White House Saturday stepped up its efforts to respond to the Gulf Coast oil slick now within days of making landfall in Mississippi and Alabama – designating a new incident commander, introducing a new website detailing their efforts and announcing President Barack Obama himself would visit the Gulf Coast on Sunday.

But it's already too late.  As Ira Gershwin asked, "How long has this been going on?"  It went on for days before Washington took much notice.  Now, Bush-like, Obama will fly out...but attended the White House Correspondents Association dinner first.

Republicans have tried to brand the oil spill “Obama’s Katrina,” as talker Rush Limbaugh put it Friday – a label they also tried to attach to the U.S. rescue efforts after the Haiti earthquake – and the administration has stepped up its efforts in recent days to demonstrate its command of the situation.

“The way we play politics right now, anytime something like this comes up the opposition is going to run it up the flagpole to see if anyone salutes,” said Bruce Buchanan, a professor of government at the University of Texas, Austin. “And if they don’t, everyone moves on and if they do, well, then the administration has got a problem.”

A few Republicans did salute Friday. Fox News host Sean Hannity said the slow response to the spill came from “the very same people who were so fast to criticize George W. Bush.” Former Ark. Gov. Mike Huckabee, appearing on Hannity’s show, said that "If Katrina was George Bush's responsibility, this is Barack Obama's responsibility."

The White House pushed back hard on that line of attack Saturday, and so far anyway, the spill is far less serious than Katrina — not least because of the hurricane's massive death toll and its devastation of New Orleans. And the storm, unlike the leak, came with advance warning.

Gee, thanks for that last biased paragraph, filled with misinformation.  The deal toll in Katrina wasn't massive, but a tenth of that predicted.  There were a few days of warning about the storm, but the possibility of an oil spill is always with us, and so there is built-in advance warning.  And New Orleans wasn't devastated.  It was damaged, and is back in business.

What you're seeing here is MSM spin to protect the president.  Expect more as the campaign progresses.

May 2, 2010     Permalink

BRITAIN TO VOTE – AT 10:48 A.M. ET:  Britain votes Thursday, with probable major changes in the aftermath of the election.  Again, The Telegraph reports:

The ICM survey for The Sunday Telegraph suggests David Cameron, who today promises to hand power “to the people” if he becomes prime minister, will lead the largest party in a hung parliament.

The poll also shows that three voters out of four believe immigration is a significant problem for Britain. After Gordon Brown’s description of a voter who raised concerns about immigration from eastern Europe as “bigoted”, the issue is seen as the second most important in the campaign behind the economy.

Which means the Brits have caught on to the difference between legitimate and dangerous forms of immigration.  In the former, people migrate to Britain to become British.  In the latter, they have no intention of becoming British, but wish to undermine British society.  There is a difference.

The survey puts the Conservatives up three points from last Tuesday on 36 per cent, with Labour up one point to 29 per cent and reclaiming second place from the Lib Dems.

Mr Clegg’s party is down three points to 27 per cent – the same level it was on in an ICM poll at the time of the first televised debate.

Assuming a uniform national swing, analysis by John Curtice, professor of politics at Strathclyde University, shows that the figures – if repeated on Thursday – would give the Conservatives 279 seats, Labour 261 and the Lib Dems 78.

The Tories would still be 47 seats short of an overall majority and could be defeated in any Commons vote by an alliance of Labour and Lib Dem MPs.

But most reports say that the conservatives would try to govern as a minority government, hardly a dreamed-of prospect.  This demonstrates the inherent instability of a three-party system.  Our two-party affair, often ridiculed in Europe, provides stability because one party normally must get a majority, or awfully close to it, to govern.

May 2, 2010    Permalink

CROSSHAIRS OF THE WORLD – AT 10:35 A.M. ET:  Times Square in New York is called the crossroads of the world.  Yesterday it was the crosshairs of the world.  Someone planted a large but crudely made bomb there.  London's Telegraph has an interesting take on possible motive:

Police in New York are investigating whether a car bomb in Times Square was targeted on the makers of South Park over a controversial depiction of the Prophet Muhammad.

The device, which failed to detonate, was left near the offices of Viacom, which owns the irreverent cartoon series.

Last month postings on an Islamic website warned the creators of South Park - Matt Stone and Trey Parker - that they could face violent reprisals after an episode of the show featured Muhammad in a bear suit.

A posting on the website of a US-based group called Revolution Muslim warned Stone and Parker that they would “probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh”, the Dutch film-maker who was murdered in 2004 by a Muslim angered by his film about Muslim women.

Images of the Prophet are strictly forbidden in Islam, and Comedy Central, which broadcasts South Park, has banned Stone and Parker from depicting Muhammad in the past. In 2006 the network stopped them from featuring Muhammad in an episode which followed worldwide protests over a caricature of the Prophet by a Danish cartoonist.

Detectives are also understood to be investigating striking similarities between the New York bomb and two car bombs planted by Islamic terrorists outside the Tiger Tiger nightclub in London in 2007.

COMMENT:  Once again we were lucky.  But our luck will run out one day, as it did on 9-11. 

Other stories report that the police have good forensic evidence.  We have to nail this down, and steel ourselves for a battle against political correctness if the usual suspects turn out to be guilty.

May 2, 2010    Permalink

SATURDAY,  MAY 1,  2010

DEALING THOUGHTFULLY WITH THE GREEK FINANCIAL CRISIS - AT 9:07 P.M. ET:  Greece is near financial collapse, and, this being May Day, the downtrodden citizenry has engaged in reflective activity to solve their nation's problem.  From The Times of London: 

MAY DAY protests in Greece turned violent yesterday as youths in gas masks and hoods set fire to vehicles, smashed shop fronts and threw molotov cocktails and rocks at police in an explosion of fury over austerity measures they claim will hurt only the poor.

Tourists were cut off from their hotels as thousands of communists, civil servants and private-sector workers converged on a main square in Athens to vent their rage at the European Union and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

“No to the IMF’s junta,” they chanted as a youth in a black hood produced a hammer to try to smash windows of the luxury Grande Bretagne hotel.

Another painted anti-capitalist slogans on the facade, and demonstrators intervened to prevent him from spraying an Australian woman with paint as she tried to get back into the hotel. Japanese tourists stood taking photographs of the mayhem with mobile phones before being forced to retreat, coughing and sneezing, under a cloud of tear gas

COMMENT:  You know, next time the Europeans start lecturing us, please remember scenes like this.  I, for one, am getting damned tired of constantly being patronized by people who can't solve their problems, won't solve their problems, depend on America for their defense, have no respect for their own cultures, and simply sit around, waiting to be taken care of.

And it can happen here.

May 1, 2010    Permalink

KATRINA II? – AT 7:22 P.M. ET:  Shock.  Some news outlets covering the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico have been caught committing journalism.  This is a felony punishable by being banned from the best parties in the finer sections of town, where people mount their degrees on their living-room walls. 

It turns out that the federal government knew almost immediately of the catastrophic potential of the oil rig collapse.  But very little was done.

A National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration video, shot as officials coordinated response to the Deepwater Horizon disaster, shows that federal officials almost immediately worried that the oil well could leak up to 110,000 barrels per day, or 4.6 million gallons.

The video appears on a federal Web site.

It was filmed in Seattle, at NOAA's Western Regional Center, as scientists and federal officials in Seattle, Houston and New Orleans engaged in telephone conferences, according to a companion document on the Web site.

And...

"I think we need to be prepared for it to be the spill of the decade," Debbie Payton of NOAA, the meeting's coordinator, says during the NOAA video.

COMMENT:  The story appeared in the Mobile Press-Register.  Shall we take it seriously?  I mean, these aren't real journalists.  How many of them ever participated in an anti-war rally?  How many did their best for Obama during the 2008 campaign?  And I'll bet not one spent his junior year abroad.  Be careful of this scribbling rabble.

But, alas, the story may be true.  In that case, how will the Dems, who bashed Bush aplenty after Katrina, defend the sluggish response of their Action Comics president, Barack Obama?

We know, don't we?  They'll blame the whole thing on Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, a Republican and potential candidate for the national ticket.  Why not solve multiple problems at the same time. 

This is only the beginning of this story.  Let's see if the Republicans, who acted like zombie punching bags in the Katrina episode, can come up with a creative response.

May 1, 2010    Permalink 

OH HOW WONDERFUL.  AREN'T WE JUST THE NICEST? – AT 12:14 P.M. ET:  Another act of "engagement" by the Obama administration, intent on showing the world just how gosh darned civilized we've become since The One took office:

The Obama administration is likely to reveal a closely guarded secret -- the size of the U.S. nuclear stockpile -- during a critical meeting starting Monday at which Washington will try to strengthen the global treaty that curbs the spread of nuclear weapons, several officials said.

Various factions in the administration have debated for months whether to declassify the numbers, and they were left out of President Obama's recent Nuclear Posture Review because of objections from intelligence officials. Now, the administration is seeking a dramatic announcement that will further enhance its nuclear credentials as it tries to shore up the fraying nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

COMMENT:  How would you rate the maturity level of this administration?  High school?  Junior high?  Pre-adolescent? 

Apparently, the Obamans don't feel our credentials are strong enough in the nuclear nonproliferation field.  As compared with whom? 

We have a right to have our military secrets.  And the size of our arsenal is one of them.  The ambiguity makes it even more difficult for potential adversaries to plan.  Our secrecy probably helps the cause of peace, rather than hurting it. 

And, by the way, once we do reveal this secret, how do we respond when some hostile nation challenges us to "prove it."  The only way is by opening our arsenal to inspection, while rogue nations cheat.  You can be sure that's coming next.

Douglas MacArthur once said that all disasters begin with two words:  Too late.  We're finding out who it is that we elected.  Too late, too late.

May 1, 2010     Permalink

WAIT!  I'VE SEEN THIS MOVIE – AT 11:25 P.M. ET:  What was it's name?  "Katrina"?  Yeah, that was it.  Or maybe it was, "The President Fights a Storm."  It starred George W. Bush as the guy and Brownie as his best friend.

Now Obama wants to make the sequel:  "Saint Barack and the Oil Slick."  The Politico has the first exclusive, from Hollywood:

President Obama will head to the Gulf Coast Sunday morning for a trip an administration official describes as having "a very small footprint."

The trip, announced Saturday morning, comes after Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Friday “[c]ertainly not this weekend,” when asked if the president would visit the area in the wake of the oil spill there.

So, we begin with a lie.  Apparently, the White House finally realized that the oil slick could become its Katrina, and Obama doesn't have a Brownie to blame. 

The press already is in high protection mode, making sure Obama comes out of this in good shape.  From The New York Times:

As President Obama, who will visit the Gulf region on Sunday morning, has stepped up his administration’s response to the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico, ordering a moratorium on new offshore drilling leases and dispatching cabinet secretaries and cargo planes to the region, the White House is also trying to avert the kind of political damage inflicted on former President George W. Bush by his administration’s slow response to Hurricane Katrina.

Right.  Let's continue the myth.  After all, when The Times can sell the public the line that the United States "lost" the Vietnam War, it can sell an oil slick.  The Bush response to Katrina was not slow.  It was fast.  The Coast Guard rescue operation was one of the best rescue operations in history.  An expected death toll of 10,000 was reduced to 1,100.  The same FEMA, led by the same ridiculed "Brownie," had handled five hurricanes in Florida a year earlier, and handled them well.

Katrina was a press assault on a president.  It was a conscious distortion of facts to protect an African-American mayor of New Orleans – a monumental incompetent – and a female governor of Louisiana, equally clueless. 

Some of the "reporting" was wildly inaccurate.  CNN was the worst offender, spinning myths of racism and indifference to suffering.  Bush was made the villain. 

Now it's Obama's turn to tackle the Louisiana coast.  See the brave president fly over.  See his concern for afflicted, oppressed populations.  See his super-competent agencies.  Hear his eloquent words.  See the contrast with Bush, who'd only been governor of Texas and naturally had no knowledge of the region.

Get out the seasickness pills.  It's going to be a bumpy night. 

May 1, 2010    Permalink

FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU, FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME – AT 11:01 A.M. ET:  Is there no end to the dishonesty and arrogance of this administration?

In the last few weeks the Obamans have been on a charm offensive, similar to the Soviet charm offensives of old, to convince the great majority of Americans who are pro-Israel that there really are no serious problems in our relationship with that nation, our only real ally in the Mideast.  Now comes this:

Washington and Cairo are negotiating an agreement which would see the Middle East become a nuclear-free zone, the Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday.

According to the report, which comes two days ahead of a UN-hosted conference to prevent nuclear proliferation, the agreement is aimed at making the treatment of nuclear weapons in the Middle East more balanced.

The US has been criticized in the past for expressing concern over the suspected nuclear ambitions of countries such as Syria and Iran with nary a mention of Israel's reported nuclear arsenal.

The Wall Street Journal quoted senior Obama administration officials as saying that the US officials would meet with their Egyptian counterparts in New York in efforts to promote the idea of a nuke-free Middle East which would encompass Arab countries as well as Israel, Iran and Turkey.

"We've made a proposal to them that goes beyond what the US has been willing to do before," one official reportedly said. Others added that progress would have to be made on the Israeli-Palestinian track before such an agreement could be made.

COMMENT:  Fascinating, isn't it?  We're negotiating with Egypt, and leaving Israel out of it.  What a friend we are!  How loyal!  Even in the midst of a charm offensive, the Obama leftists can't control their hostility to democratic allies.

The whole idea of a nuclear-free zone is a joke, but it will have surface appeal to the chattering classes.  Can you imagine Israel, or any other rational state, trusting Iran or Syria to live up to an agreement to ban nuclear weapons?

The only countries that can be helped by this will be those two, Iran and Syria.  They'll sign some vague non-proliferation agreement – after all, Iran has already pledged that its nuke program is only about powering hair dryers – and then go about developing nuclear weapons.  Meanwhile, Israel will be expected to open itself to full inspection.  If Israel refuses, as it must, it will be sanctioned, and a second Obama administration, with nothing to lose politically, will go along.

We never thought Obama would get so bad so fast.  But we underestimated him.

May 1, 2010    Permalink

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE? – AT 10:14 A.M. ET:  It sometimes appears that a Democratic candidate in Illinois could commit mass murder, and he'd still have a good chance at winning. 

Scandal surrounds the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate heat once held by Barack Obama.  No scandal surrounds the Republican candidate, the outstanding Mark Kirk.  And yet, Kirk's lead over the Dem is modest, and Kirk can't break 50 percent.  Scott Rasmussen has the numbers:

Republican Congressman Mark Kirk has earned a modest pick-up in support, while his Democratic opponent, Alexi Giannoulias, appears stalled in the first Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in the state following the government's seizure of the failed Broadway Bank, the institution owned by Giannoulias' family.

Kirk now attracts 46% support in Illinois' race for the U.S. Senate, up from 41% in early April. Support for Giannoulias is at 38%, virtually unchanged from the previous survey but down from March, when he earned 44% of the vote. Five percent (5%) currently support some other candidate, and 12% are undecided.

Kirk picked up 46% to Giannoulias' 40% in the first survey after the two won their party primaries in February. But the race was a virtual toss-up by March. Still, despite the Broadway Bank controversy, Kirk has been unable to push past his previous high.

COMMENT:  Illinois is quirky.  Obama's approval ratings in his home state are higher than they are nationally.  Besides, corruption is almost taken in stride.

And Giannoulias has an appropriately ethnic name.  Kirk is a Republican congressman from a white-bread suburb.  He has been an excellent critic of Obama's foreign policy, but this is a bread-and-butter state, and that may not mean much. 

The odds favor a Kirk victory, but they're not strong odds.  If there's a Dem bounceback, Kirk could be in trouble.  Illinois is, for our side, still a problem.

May 1, 2010    Permalink