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 9,  2010

KAGAN WATCH – AT 10:48 P.M. ET:  NBC News is reporting that President Obama will nominate Solicitor General Elena Kagan, former dean of the Harvard Law School, to replace retiring Supreme Court Associate Justice John Paul Stevens.  The report is unconfirmed, but, if true, will surprise no one.  Kagan has been at the top of the speculation list for days.

UPDATE:  CNN has just confirmed the report.

May 9, 2010     Permalink

ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER ROUND OF TALKS – AT 6:43 P.M. ET:  After months of Obaman blundering in the Middle East, indirect talks between Israelis and Palestinians finally got started, as The Politico notes:

At long last, indirect peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians have gotten underway.

U.S. Middle East peace envoy George Mitchell wrapped up the first round of proximity talks with Israelis and Palestinian leaders, and is expected to return to the region next week for the next round. The State Department described the talks as "serious and wide ranging."

The fact is, it's a step back.  The two sides used to negotiate directly.  These "negotiations" could have started much sooner, but Obama wrecked the store by making demands of the Israelis that not even the Palestinians were making, reflecting his leftist background.

"Both parties are taking some steps to help create an atmosphere that is conducive to successful talks, including President Abbas’ statement that he will work against incitement of any sort and Prime Minister Netanyahu’s statement that there will be no construction at the Ramat Shlomo project for two years," State Department spokesman PJ Crowley said in a statement. "They are both trying to move forward in difficult circumstances and we commend them for that."

Crowley said the U.S. had "received commitments from both sides, and we have made assurances to both sides, that are enabling us to move forward," adding that "the full scope of these discussions will remain private."

What does "move forward" mean?  And on whose behalf are the Palestinians "negotiating"?  Half their proposed country, Gaza, doesn't even recognize the authority of the people talking with the Israelis.

"As both parties know, if either takes significant actions during the proximity talks that we judge would seriously undermine trust, we will respond to hold them accountable and ensure that negotiations continue," Crowley said.

In English:  You Israelis better not commit housing. 

The U.S. seeks to move to direct negotiations "that will result in a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," Crowley said. "Our overall goal remains a comprehensive peace in the Middle East."

COMMENT:  That's nice.  But what do you do about Hamas-controlled Gaza, which is under the thumb of Iran?  Guess that page fell out of the briefing book.

We all want peace, etc., etc.  But the anti-peace forces on the Arab side are looking at a weakened United States, with its appeasement-minded president, and are undoubtedly asking, "Why now?"  Some Israelis, of course, are asking the same thing. 

Michael Ledeen made the point in a briefing a few days ago that, historically, peace is achieved when one side wins.  It must be made clear to the Arabs that they must, now and forever, give up their dream of destroying Israel.  When they're convinced of that, we may have a shot.

May 9, 2010    Permalink

RUDY SPEAKS OUT ON TERROR – AT 6:20 P.M. ET:  Say what you wish about Rudy Giuliani, he displayed a superb ability dramatically to improve public safety during his two terms as mayor of New York.

Now he speaks out about terror, and the way we've missed signals.  He was asked by Jake Tapper whether he favors Eric Holder's decision to review the use of Miranda warnings.  From ABC News:

I do. I do. I support it, but I really at this point am
frustrated by the lack of urgency that is shown about these terrorism
matters. I mean, we've had three now where we've seen, you know, big
breakdowns: Fort Hood, Christmas Day, and now -- and now this one.

It's about time that we stopped thinking about it and we stopped
studying it. I don't know how often the attorney general said he was
studying things. How about we stop studying and we start doing things,
like we change Miranda, like we fix what appears to be a policy of
political correctness in which we missed every signal that related to
Major Hasan and promoted him in the military?

And here we missed some very big signals that Shahzad was giving us,
going back to Pakistan, remaining there for five or six months, bringing
in -- I've forgotten exactly how much cash he brought in from Pakistan,
but I think it was something like $60,000...

Rudy is correct.  It's refreshing to hear the unvarnished truth.  Our lack of urgency is pathetic.  And if anyone does show any urgency, he's immediately denounced by the ACLU as a threat to civil liberties.

Of course, if you go to the story you find the usual suspects erupting in hatred against Giuliani.  When he was mayor, and was significantly reducing crime, he was called a fascist. 

Democracies, as a rule, lose their sense of urgency between crises.  Former director of Central Intelligence Jim Woolsey said a few days ago that democracies have never successfully confronted evil before a major war.  We have to defy those historical odds, or pay a price many times greater than 9/11.

May 9, 2010     Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 12:25 P.M. ET:  Mark Steyn, disgusted, as most of us are, by the claim that America is "Islamophobic," smashes the argument:

As for the idea that America has become fanatically "Islamophobic" since Sept. 11, au contraire: Were the United States even mildly "Islamophobic," it would have curtailed Muslim immigration, or at least subjected immigrants from Pakistan, Yemen and a handful of other hotbeds to an additional level of screening. Instead, Muslim immigration to the West has accelerated in the past nine years, and, as the case of Faisal Shahzad demonstrates, being investigated by terrorism task forces is no obstacle to breezing through your U.S. citizenship application. An "Islamophobic" United States might have pondered whether the more extreme elements of self-segregation were compatible with participation in a pluralist society. Instead, President Obama makes fawning speeches boasting that he supports the rights of women to be "covered" - rather than the rights of the ever-lengthening numbers of European and North American Muslim women beaten, brutalized and murdered for not wanting to be covered. The U.S. is so un-Islamophobic that a 13-story mosque is being built at ground zero - on the site of an old Burlington Coat Factory damaged by airplane debris that Tuesday morning in 2001.

So, in the ruins of a building reduced to rubble in the name of Islam, a temple to Islam will arise.

COMMENT:  I wish this were said more often.  The first thing President Bush did after the 9/11 attacks was to visit a mosque.  To his enemies, it didn't matter.

Most of the claims of Islamophobia are coming, not from Muslims, but from the hardline left.  It's the standard claim of racism.  They can't live without it.

May 9, 2010     Permalink

DISASTER IN THE SOUTHLAND – AT 10:28 A.M. ET:  And, no, I'm not talking about the oil spill, the dream story of the journalistic left.  I'm talking about the great Tennessee flood.

As one Facebook group asked, "Pardon us, but did you notice that Nashville is drowning?"  Apparently, many in the media have not.  Or, maybe they have, but don't see any political gain in emphasizing the story.  Can't blame BUSH (!!).  Can't blame the tea party.  Can't blame Sarah.  Can't praise Obama.  No obvious racial angle.  Where's the story?

The fact is, Nashville doesn't seem to care much that Katie Couric hasn't set up shop at the Grand Ole Opry:

The Christian Science Monitor reports:

Chalk up the ambivalence about the relative lack of national coverage and attention to good old country grit – and a city's determination to take care of its own. "A large part of the reason that we are being ignored is because of who we are," writes Patten Fuqua on the hockey blog Section 303. "Did you hear about crime sprees? No … you didn't. You saw a group of people trying to move two horses to higher ground. [We] weren't doing anything to draw attention to ourselves. We were handling it on our own."

What?  Handling it on your own?  What are you, some kind of right-wing nuts?  Actually doing something without calling for federal help?  Do you realize all the bureaucrats you can put out of work?

There it is, exposed, the face of the enemy.  Those self-help fanatics!

Actually, there has been some federal, by the book, help.  But mostly, Nashville is handling the crisis without the standard screaming and ranting, and the demands for an investigation into global warming.

And yet, the lack of journalistic coverage is troubling on its own level:

Dearth of media exposure?Yet many saw a troubling paradox in what was perceived as a dearth of media exposure. "It was mind-boggling to flip by CNN, MSNBC, and FOX on Sunday afternoon and see not one station even occasionally bringing their viewers footage of the flood, news of our people dying," writes Betsy Phillips of the Nashville Scene.

The gradual move by mainstream media toward opinion over hard news as budgets and circulation shrink could certainly have played a role in how the Nashville flood was perceived and covered. "Everyone is talking about BP and Faisal Shahzad 24/7, the 'thinking' goes," writes Andrew Romano in Newsweek. "So there must not be anything else that's as important to talk about. It's a horrible feedback loop."

COMMENT:  You can be sure that if the Nashville flood occurred a month after Katrina, and Brownie was sent to handle it, Nashville would be sinking even further under the weight of TV cameras and brilliant pundits.

May 9, 2010     Permalink

BRITAIN IN A MUDDLE – AT 10:02 A.M. ET:  Britain has only a caretaker government as a result of Thursday's election.  With no party getting 50 percent, a "hung Parliament" has resulted, and the parties must negotiate for a coalition.

The talks do not appear to be going well.  The largest party, in terms of Thursday's vote, the Conservatives, are negotiating with the third-largest party, the Liberal Democrats, to form some kind of arrangement.

It's really quite an absurdity, as the parties have nothing in common, and both voters and commentators are starting to notice.  The Lib Dems are a leftist group of eccentrics who favor some rather extreme policies.  Janet Daley in The Telegraph comments:

And the electorate, which was accustomed to thinking of the Lib Dems as a harmless, all-purpose vehicle for protest – a blank screen on to which they could project all their various political discontents – suddenly realised what this party really stood for: Europhilia of the most rampant variety, Britain’s retreat from the world stage as a military power, and an amnesty for illegal immigrants. And now, the realisation dawned, there was an actual risk that they could gain power and influence of a substantial kind! Good grief, what were we thinking?

And the Lib Dems want something else – "reform" of the British electoral system.  (When someone shouts "reform" your first instinct should be to put on a helmet and run in the opposition direction.)  They want a system that will strengthen "proportional representation," so third and fourth parties have more of a voice.

Talk about a formula for disaster.  The strength of our two-party system is evident in what Britain is now experiencing.

There is concern that if no coalition deal is in place by tomorrow, the financial markets can be affected.  There is also growing support within the Conservative Party to avoid coalition altogether, and try to rule as a minority government.  Could happen.  Stand by.

May 9, 2010     Permalink

HOLDER USES THE WORDS – AT 9:42 A.M.. ET:  Attorney General Eric Holder blames the Pakistani Taliban for the failed Times Square bombing.  From Fox:

The Pakistani Taliban were behind the failed Times Square bomb attempt last weekend, top administration officials said Sunday.

Attorney General Eric Holder and White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan said the investigation has led authorities to believe that suspect Faisal Shahzad trained with the Taliban in Pakistan and was funded by them.

Brennan told "Fox News Sunday" that Shahzad had "extensive interaction" with the group, which he described as virtually "indistinguishable" from Al Qaeda.

"It looks as though he was operating on behalf of the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan," he said. "This is a group that is closely aligned with Al Qaeda. It has a murderous agenda similar to Al Qaeda, they train together, they plan together, they plot together. They're almost indistinguishable."

New York law enforcement officials initially said they did not have evidence to support claims made by the Pakistani Taliban that they were responsible for the attempted attack.

COMMENT:  The administration should get its act together.  Several days ago Gen. David Petraeus said that the Times Square guy acted alone.  Maybe new information has come in.

If true we can probably expect more attempts by the Pakistani group to attack us here.  We can also expect more cries from the left to abandon our efforts in south Asia because they "create more terrorists."  They probably do, in the sense that all military action will create some additional resistance...until that resistance is broken.  It's in the nature of warfare.

May 9, 2010    Permalink

SATURDAY,  MAY 8,  2010

STAY HOME, YANKEE! – AT 7:44 P.M. ET:  Nancy Pelosi is in Afghanistan, and, strangely, there are no reports that she bought any rugs.  From The Politico: 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), along with a delegation of Congressional Democrats, is in Afghanistan Saturday, where they met with U.S. forces and were briefed by U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry and General Stanley McChrystal.

Joining the speaker on the trip are four Democratic women: Reps. Susan Davis (Calif.), Madeleine Bordallo (Guam), Niki Tsongas (Mass.) and Donna Edwards (Md.). No Republicans are in the delegation.

The group also met with President Hamid Karzai.

"We are grateful for the service of our brave men and women in Afghanistan, for their commitment to America's security, and their unwavering dedication to their mission," Pelosi said in a statement.

COMMENT:  I dunno.  I guess Pelosi, as speaker of the House, has the right to go to a battle area and waste the time of the commanders there.  But she, and members of her delegation like Donna Edwards, represent the far left of her party, which has never been friendly to the military or to our missions abroad.  What is their purpose in going?  What "report" or "concern" do they have in store for us?

Remember that Obama ran on the argument that Afghanistan is the "good" war, as opposed to the "bad" war in Iraq.  But his party's left never really bought that line, and has been growing impatient with even the Afghanistan operation.  Let's see what this little crowd of wrecking balls says when they get home.

May 8, 2010     Permalink

REPUBLICANS BAG ONE OF THEIR OWN – AT 7:24 P.M. ET:  Republican Senator Bob Bennett of Utah, a power among Senate Republicans, has failed to win his party's nomination for a fourth term.  From The New York Times:

Robert F. Bennett, an 18-year veteran Republican who had been seeking a fourth term this fall, was stripped of his party’s nomination on Saturday at the state convention, becoming one of the first Congressional victims of the surging ferment of discontent from the Tea Party-infused Republican right.

Mr. Bennett, 76, was outmatched in delegate votes by two relative newcomers despite an enthusiastic endorsement and convention speech from Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor and local Utah hero, and a political pedigree of deep Mormon roots and public service.

COMMENT:  Bennett was apparently seen as too much an accommodationist, willing to work with moderates and liberals. 

I'm not so sure this is a wise move.  True, a fourth term is a stretch for any senator, and even the best of public servants wear out their welcome.  But Bennett always struck me as a solid guy, maybe not as conservative as some in Utah might have liked, but a respected Senate presence. 

We'll withhold final judgment until we learn who Bennett's replacement on the ticket will be, and examine his record.  The Republican nomination is tantamount to election, so there is little chance the seat will change party hands in November. 

Power must be wielded carefully.  The conservative movement within the Republican Party is going strong, but it risks making the party so narrow ideologically that it can turn into the Democratic Party of the last 30 years.  Not a good role model.  Be careful.

May 8, 2010      Permalink

DOES THIS LOOK FAMILIAR TO YOU? – AT 10:11 A.M. ET:  This is the best brief analysis of what's happened to Britain that I've read recently.  If it has a familiar ring, it should.  It can happen here.  From London's Daily Mail:

It is clear after yesterday that a dangerous split runs through the heart of country. In place of unity, we are now two nations.

Vast swathes of Wales, the North of England and almost the whole of Scotland are rocksolid Labour territory, political fiefdoms where the Tory brand is regarded with a tribal hatred.

t is a remarkable fact that, as late as the 1950s, the Conservatives held the majority of seats in Scotland. But that sense of national balance has now disappeared from the electoral map. Today, there is a single Tory seat in Scotland, while there is not one in the northeastern region.

In direct contrast, most of England, particularly in the South and the Midlands, has turned blue.
There is just a sprinkling of red dots in London, Birmingham and a few other conurbations.

You could drive southwards the whole way from Lincolnshire to the Isle of Wight without leaving Conservative terrain.

And the reason for the divide:

This yawning division reflects the chasm that has developed between the two parts of our economy. The South and Midlands of England are the areas that generate the wealth on which our nation depends.

The majority of voters in these regions work in the private sector. Employment is high and welfare dependency low.

Little wonder then that these citizens, living in the real commercial world, should vote so decisively against a Labour government that has so badly mismanaged the economy, squandered their taxes and threatened their living standards.

The contrast with Labour's tribal lands could hardly be greater. Reliance on the state, be it through welfare benefits or public-sector jobs, is the central characteristic of the northern, Scottish, Welsh and inner-city constituencies that have remained firmly red.

The colors are reversed in Britain.  Red is for the leftist areas, which seems more logical than our terminology.

Throughout these areas, Labour is effectively using the wealth created in Middle England to subsidise a vast system of political patronage in its heartlands.

COMMENT:  Look at Britain, and contemplate the future of the United States under Obama and his ideological successors.

That doesn't mean that working people, laborers, don't have legitimate gripes.  They often do, both in Britain and America.  But the creation of a nanny state was never the answer.  Nor is blind worship of Wall Street.

Both Britain and America are in trouble.  It's going to take a more imaginative leadership than each country has now to get out of it.

May 8, 2010     Permalink

ALL WIND, NO THOUGHT – AT 9:55 A.M. ET:  Speaking of technology, we're going to be hearing a great deal about "new forms of energy" in the next few months, as the oil-spill story gets full traction and some in Congress try to pass an an energy bill.  Unsolicited advice:  Listen with two ears, and watch with two eyes.  There's a lot of hype passing for "science and engineering" out there.

Consider a new project in Massachusetts, home, of course, of the country's smartest people, by their own declaration.  From the Boston Herald:

The controversial Cape Wind project will cost taxpayers and ratepayers more than $2 billion to build - three times its original estimate.

That colossal cost is the driving force behind the sky-high electric rates it plans to charge Massachusetts customers in coming years.

Cape Wind, which wants to build 130 wind turbines off the coast of Cape Cod, and National Grid announced yesterday that they’ve reached an agreement to start charging customers 20.7 cents per kilowatt hour in 2013 - more than double the current rate of electricity from conventional power plants and land-based wind farms.

But so what, darlings.  The better people can afford it, and do something for the Earth at the same time.  As for the peasants – and we do respect them – we can have subsidies from the government. 

“I’m glad it’s your electric bills and not mine,” said Robert McCullough, president of McCullough Research, an Oregon energy consulting firm, referring to Cape Wind’s prices.

He said Massachusetts would have been better off going with less costly land-based wind farms.

“Why are you spending billions (on offshore wind) when you can pay half that with traditional wind?” he asked.

Must we answer those silly questions?  We're Massachusetts, home of Harvard, MIT and Martha Coakley.  It's so unseemly to be talking about money, when there's a planet to save.  Oh, must run.  Going to my Boston-will-soon-be-underwater meeting.  Noam Chomsky promised to come.

Yuch.

May 8, 2010     Permalink

ANOTHER TERROR WARNING – AT 9:38 A.M. ET:  Terror is on our minds again, especially after the Christmas-day and Times Square attempts, even though we're regularly assured that the next attack could come from someone angry over his Obamacare deductible.

But are we prepared for something really catastrophic?  From The Telegraph:

The US must prepare itself for a full-scale cyber attack which could cause death and destruction across the country in less than 15 minutes, the former anti-terrorism Tsar to Bill Clinton and George W Bush has warned.

Richard Clarke claims that America's lack of preparation for the annexing of its computer system by terrorists could lead to an "electronic Pearl Harbor".

And this doesn't require anywhere near the effort needed to acquire nuclear weapons.

In his warning, Mr Clarke paints a doomsday scenario in which the problems start with the collapse of one of the Pentagon's computer networks.

Soon internet service providers are in meltdown. Reports come in of large refinery fires and explosions in Philadelphia and Houston. Chemical plants malfunction, releasing lethal clouds of chlorine.

Air traffic controllers report several mid-air collisions, while subway trains crash in New York, Washington and Los Angeles. More than 150 cities are suddenly blacked out. Tens of thousands of Americans die in an attack comparable to a nuclear bomb in its devastation.

Yet it would take no more than 15 minutes and involve not a single terrorist or soldier setting foot in the United States.

The scenario is contained the pages of his book, Cyber War: The Next National Security Threat, written with Robert Knake.

And Mr Clarke has been right before.

As anti-terrorism tsar under Mr Clinton and then Mr Bush, he issued dire warnings of the need for better defences against al-Qaeda, and wrote about his futile campaign in the 2004 book Against All Enemies.

COMMENT:  In fairness, this isn't the first warning we've received.  But Americans, being human, tend to concentrate on threats that have the immediate "bang" factor, like an explosion in Times Square.  And, being human, we prepare for the last war. 

In addition to a cyber attack, we must be prepared for an EMP (electro-magnetic pulse) attack, in which a nuclear device would be exploded high over the United States, and the electronic shock from it would wipe out much of our elecronic infrastructure.

Welcome to tomorrow.  But remember – the real threat comes from tea parties.

May 8, 2010    Permalink

FIRST POST-PRIMARY POLLS – AT 9:27 A.M. ET:  We're starting to see the first general-election polls, reflecting the matchups that grew out of Tuesday's primaries. 

Scott Rasmussen reports the following:

Newly chosen Republican nominee Dan Coats earns 51% support while his Democratic rival Brad Ellsworth’s attracts 36% in the first Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of the Indiana Senate race following Tuesday’s GOP Primary.

Six percent (6%) of likely voters in the state favor some other candidate. Eight percent (8%) remain undecided.

Looks solid.  The winner will replace retiring Democratic Senator Evan Bayh.

Lieutenant Governor Lee Fisher emerged as the victor from Tuesday’s Democratic Primary, and now he and Republican nominee Rob Portman are in a virtual tie as Ohio’s U.S. Senate race begins in earnest.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in Ohio, taken on Wednesday, shows Fisher with 43% support and Portman with 42% of the vote. Four percent (4%) prefer some other candidate, and 11% remain undecided.

The survey also found that most Ohio voters favor repeal of the recently passed health care law. Most also favor a law dealing with immigration similar to the recently passed law in Arizona.

Disappointing.  Portman is a fine leader.  The seat is currently held by Republican George Voinovich, who is retiring.  I'd hate to see it lost.

May 8, 2010    Permalink