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.

SATURDAY,  MAY 15,  2010

WAIT.  ARE WE READING THIS RIGHT? – AT 7:20 P.M. ET:  Wait 'til Al Gore hears about this: 

The Space and Science Research Center (SSRC), the leading independent research organization in the United States on the subject of the next climate change, issues today the following warning of imminent crop damage expected to produce food and ethanol shortages for the US and Canada:

Over the next 30 months, global temperatures are expected to make another dramatic drop even greater than that seen during the 2007-2008 period. As the Earth’s current El Nino dissipates, the planet will return to the long term temperature decline brought on by the Sun’s historic reduction in output, the on-going “solar hibernation.” In follow-up to the specific global temperature forecast posted in SSRC Press Release 4-2009, the SSRC advises that in order to return to the long term decline slope from the current El Nino induced high temperatures, a significant global cold weather re-direction must occur.

According to SSRC Director John Casey, “The Earth typically makes adjustments in major temperature spikes within two to three years. In this case as we cool down from El Nino, we are dealing with the combined effects of this planetary thermodynamic normalization and the influence of the more powerful underlying global temperature downturn brought on by the solar hibernation. Both forces will present the first opportunity since the period of Sun-caused global warming period ended to witness obvious harmful agricultural impacts of the new cold climate.

COMMENT:  We are not scientists at Urgent Agenda.  I make no claim to specific scientific expertise.  But isn't it time for a major, and neutral, journalistic inquiry into the competing claims about global warming? 

The Space and Science Research Center is a new body, and appears to be serious.  We'll examine their prediction over the next 30 months.  If it's accurate, it throws into serious question the whole "science" of global warming.  Maybe we should buy overcoats instead.

May 14, 2010     Permalink

JUST TRAVELIN' GUYS – AT 6:49 P.M. ET:  You know, it's reached the point with these American imperialist warmongers and Islamophobes, that five decent guys can't take a rafting trip to Pakistan, which, as we all know, is a favorite vacation ground for Americans, and soon to be a hot honeymoon destination.  From AP:

ISLAMABAD -- The prosecution concluded its case Saturday against five Americans on trial in a Pakistani court facing life sentences after being charged with planning terrorist attacks in the South Asian country.

The men - all Muslims in their late teens or early 20s from the Washington suburb of Alexandria, Virginia - have pleaded not guilty to five charges.

The accused were given a last chance to respond to the prosecution before the defense presents its side on June 9, prosecutor Nadeem Akram said.

In a written statement, the men said the charges against them were trumped up and police planted discriminating evidence. "We just wanted to go to Afghanistan to help our Muslim brothers on humanitarian grounds," they said.

Heartbreaking, just heartbreaking.  I suspect they just wanted to show the Afghan brothers how to open a Burger King. 

The five men were arrested in Pakistan in December after being reported missing by their families. One had left behind a farewell video showing scenes of war and casualties and saying Muslims must be defended.

Pakistani police have publicly made several accusations against the young men, claiming the suspects contacted Pakistani-based jihadi groups. They accused the five of using the social networking site Facebook and video-sharing site YouTube while they were in the U.S. to try to connect with extremist groups in Pakistan.

COMMENT:  Just rollicking American kids, and look what we do to them.  You just can't visit the old country anymore without Sarah Palin pointing fingers.

But Barack Obama will end all this.  Yeah, that's what we're afraid of.

May 14, 2010    Permalink

VOTING ON TUESDAY – AT 12:47 P.M. ET:  There are major primaries on Tuesday, as well as a special election in Pennsylvania's 12th C.D. to replace the still-dead John Murtha.  The Politico asks some very good questions about Tuesday's voting, and how it will go down:

SPECIAL REPORT -- UNSOLVED MYSTERIES: With voting four days away, there are still a few big X factors in Tuesday's marquee Senate and House races. Here are our top questions that could determine what kind of day it will be: (1) Can Joe Sestak match the machine on Election Day? Arlen Specter has the support of Pennsylvania's Democratic turnout operation, which could give him an edge not shown in the polls.

We'd rather see Specter win the Dem primary for the Senate.  He'll be easier for GOP candidate Pat Toomey to beat in November than Sestak, who has a kind of surface charm.

(2) Who actually votes in Kentucky's Republican primary? It's a closed election in a state where plenty of conservatives are still registered Democrats, fogging the picture a bit.

Polls show that Republicans are about to commit suicide by nominating Rand Paul, nutbag son of super-nutbag Ron Paul, a fringe operator if there every was one.  Kentucky's senior senator, Mitch McConnell, is the Senate minority leader, and Rand Paul regularly attacks him.  Just what we need.

(3) How close does D.C. Morrison get to 10 percent in Arkansas? The higher the conservative Democrat's vote total, the likelier it is that Blanche Lincoln and Bill Halter head to a runoff.

I suspect this is irrelevant.  The GOP, if it plays its cards right, should take over Lincoln's U.S. Senate seat in November.

(4) Who's a more potent symbol in Johnstown, Bill Clinton or Nancy Pelosi? Each party is hoping one of those figures will turn out its base to vote in the PA-12 special.

It would be great if the GOP won Murtha's district, and it has a very good shot.

May 14, 2010    Permalink

BUYER'S REMORSE – AT 11:16 A.M. ET:  Reader Tom Wharton refers us to a superb piece, from the excellent American Thinker site, by Robert Weissberg, professor of political science, emeritus, at the University of Illinois.

Weissberg reflects on the buyer's remorse felt toward Barack Obama:

In a nutshell, the American public was lead astray by conflating outward appearances -- "he seems so smart" -- with underlying substance -- "he is so smart." What we saw wasn't what we got.

Having spent four decades in top research universities, I questioned Obama's alleged stellar intellectual abilities from the beginning; he is smart, I said, but not that smart. Let me explain. These forty years of teaching and research has taught me that outward appearances do not necessarily signify exceptional intellectual talent. An "A" should never be given to students who just seem smart and faculty accomplishment is certified only by original research defended before knowledgeable peers. These are tough standards and professors regularly encounter seemingly promising students and job candidates who just can't get beyond clever glibness. Happily for over-matched students, however, tutoring or professorial kindness can push them toward a diploma, and when combined with their fine rhetorical skills, the diploma easily impresses non-expert outsiders.

Very well said.

...being a "brilliant speaker" is only one talent of many, and not necessarily critical. It is also a gift that is one of the easiest to acquire via repeated practice, skilled video editing, relying on Teleprompters plus Hollywood-style props. Accomplishment, however, is more difficult to produce. I fondly recall Casey Stengel, "da Old Professa" who between 1949 and 1960 managed the Yankees to seven world championships plus two American League pennants and was famous for 30 minute press conference often consisting of a single rambling incoherent sentence. But try creating that baseball reputation with a Teleprompter.

Ah, Case, we remember him well.  Results, results.

Perhaps the most important lesson about America's buyer's remorse is to recognize the ease of seduction. This is the secret of successful con men: find out what the target craves, and supply it. Obama, or perhaps his advisors, grasped that the American people were tired of George W. Bush's awkward cadences and hungered after a spellbinder bedecked with elite credentials. In a sense, this resembles how Americans rushed to replace Tricky "I am not a crook" Dick Nixon with simple-but-honest Jimmy Carter. As is so often the case in consumer choices, this on-the-rebound emotion-driven embrace of opposites guarantees remorse. Next time, we can hope, the American public will look a little deeper.

COMMENT:  Exellent article, highly recommended, and the best analysis of Barack Obama's superficial appeal that I've read.  Thanks to reader Wharton.

May 14, 2010     Permalink

THE PANTHER CASE – AT 10:51 A.M. ET:  Remember the outrageous dismissal, by Eric Holder's Injustice Department, of the slam-dunk case against the Philadelphia Black Panthers for obstructing the right to vote on election day, 2008?  The Panthers stood outside polling places and intimidated people. 

When Obama came in, the case was suddenly dropped.  Many, including many non-conservatives, were appalled.  The evidence, on videotape, was clear-cut.

But it's a case that won't die.  From The Washington Times:

A member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights told The Washington Times Friday afternoon that he believes “a racist application of the voting rights laws might have been at play” in a controversial decision by the Department of Justice exactly one year ago to dismiss most charges in a voter intimidation case against affiliates of the New Black Panther Party.

The comments came in an interview several hours after a commission hearing featuring numerous testy exchanges between several commissioners and Thomas E. Perez, head of DoJ's civil rights division. Commissioners repeatedly expressed disapproval of what they obviously considered to be evasive, irrelevant or filibuster-like answers from Mr. Perez to their questions about the timing, substance, and procedures of DoJ with regard to the case. Commissioner Gail Heriot particularly showed distress at the decision to entirely drop the case against one of the two Black Panthers on site at the Philadelphia polls on Election Day of 2008, and on the injunction against the other defendant that was so limited it was “almost comical.”

But the biggest and most frequent sparks flew between Mr. Perez and commissioner Todd Gaziano when Mr. Gaziano cited several press reports to the effect that the decision to drop the case grew out of a conscious new attitude at the civil rights division to avoid enforcement of civil rights laws if the offenders, rather than the victims, are minorities. Mr. Perez denied a racial double-standard.

COMMENT:  Of course there was, and is, a racial double standard, just as there is in the universities that produced the staff of the Civil Rights Division.  When the attorney general of the United States cannot bring himself to utter the words "Islamic extremism," you know there's a double and triple standard at work.

We hope this case is kept alive until those individuals in DOJ responsible for dropping it are named and, if not disciplined, at least shamed.  And we will demand to know who gave the order.

May 14, 2010     Permalink 

APPALLING – AT 10:33 A.M. ET:  Scott Rasmussen nails it in a new poll that shows the gap between the American people and America's political class.  The issue is the UN and how we relate to it:

Seventy-one percent (71%) of U.S. voters say the United States is a more positive force for good in the world today than the United Nations, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Thirteen percent (13%) disagree and say the international organization is a more positive force for good. Sixteen percent (16%) more are undecided.

I'd love to meet that 13 percent.  Well, I probably have.  I go to Manhattan all the time, and used to hang in Hollywood.

But there’s a sharp difference of opinion between Mainstream voters and the Political Class. While 79% of Mainstream voters view America as a more positive force for good in the world today than the UN, just 45% of the Political Class agree.

Well, at least we got 45%.  That's some kind of encouragement.  But that means 55% are on the other side, which is what you'd expect of the "political class."  And get this:

Just 30% of voters see the UN as an ally of the United States while 16% regard the international organization as an enemy of the United States. Half (49%) place it somewhere in between. These figures mark little change from April 2009.

The gap between the Political Class and the nation is particularly large on this question. Eighty percent (80%) of the Political Class see the UN as America’s ally. That view is shared by just 20% of Mainstream Americans.

Huh?  Eighty percent of the "political class" see the UN as our ally?  It just shows how uninformed that class really is.

But the "political class" rules us, educates us and gives us our news.  It is an ideological fifth column, and it can ultimately destroy us.  It's done immense damage already.

Hitler once said that if society gave him the minds of youth, he would produce a successful Nazi state.  About 40 years ago we gave the new political class the minds of our youth, in schools, colleges, and the entertainment industry.  Observe the result.

May 14, 2010    Permalink

FRIDAY,  MAY 14,  2010

AND NOW THE FINE PRINT – AT 8:31 P.M. ET:  We all know that the European Union has had to bail out Greece, home of democracy, the Olympics and good salads.  But the bailout comes with stipulations, some of which might, uh, interest us here.  Investors Business Daily, in an editorial, outlines the terms:

Greece was told that if it wanted a bailout, it needed to consider privatizing its government health care system. So tell us again why the U.S. is following Europe's welfare state model.

The requirement, part of a deal arranged by the IMF, the European Union and the European Central bank, is a tacit admission that national health care programs are unsustainable. Along with transportation and energy, the bailout group, according to the New York Times, wants the Greek government to remove "the state from the marketplace in crucial sectors."

This is not some cranky or politically motivated demand. It is a condition based on the ugly reality of government medicine. The Times reports that economists — not right-wingers opposed to health care who want to blow up Times Square — say liberalizing "the health care industry would help bring down prices in these areas, which are among the highest in Europe."

Of course most of the media have been largely silent about the health care privatization measure for Greece, as it conflicts with their universal, single-payer health care narrative.

COMMENT:  Catch the last paragraph.  This is the first I've read about the health-care recommendation applied to Greece.  If any of you read about it anywhere else, please let me know.  I think the IBD editorial is correct – the mainstream media is playing it down because it conflicts with their own agenda.

Maybe we should contemplate the Greek experience before we launch Obamacare.  If Republicans take control of Congress in the fall, that may well happen. 

May 14, 2010     Permalink

AMAZING WE NEVER THOUGHT OF THIS – AT 7:55 P.M. ET:  There is an aftermath to the recent crash that killed so many top Polish leaders.  I'm surprised no one thought of this factor earlier, but superlative defense reporter Bill Gertz is on the case:

The recent crash of a Polish military transport that killed most of Warsaw's senior civilian and military leaders was not only a human catastrophe for a key U.S. ally. NATO sources said that, in addition to the loss of nearly 100 pro-U.S. Polish leaders, the crash provided Moscow with a windfall of secrets.

The crash killed Polish President Lech Kaczynski in western Russia on April 10 and decapitated Poland's military, killing two service chiefs, key military aides and several national security officials, many of whom were carrying computers and pocket memory sticks that contained sensitive NATO data.

Perhaps the most significant compromise, according to a NATO intelligence source, is that the Russians are suspected of obtaining ultrasecret codes used by NATO militaries for secure satellite communications.

The compromise of the codes is considered what electronic spies call a "break" for Moscow code-breakers. New NATO codes almost certainly were issued to allied militaries immediately after the crash.

The new codes are a good move, but they don't solve the entire problem:

But if the Russian electronic intelligence service, known as the Federal Agency of Government Communications and Information, was able to recover and use the communication key code from the wreckage, electronic spies will be able to decode months' or perhaps years' worth of scrambled communications that are routinely gathered electronically for just such an occasion.

The coded communications, if decrypted, would reveal some of NATO's most intimate secrets, such as plans for defenses and even the identities of agents or allied eavesdropping sources.

COMMENT:  Obviously, this will increase suspicions about the cause of the crash.  Russia is not our friend.  Just in the last day it has tongue-lashed the United States and warned us about imposing sanctions on Iran, and it has made a deal to deliver advanced weapons to Syria. 

I have absolutely no evidence that Russia caused the crash, but Moscow has clearly benefited from it.

May 14, 2010     Permalink

IS HE MAD? – AT 7:39 P.M. ET:  You have to wonder if Bill Clinton is trying to sink his wife's career.  If he isn't trying, he may do it anyway.  From The Hill:

The U.S. needs more immigrants and a value-added tax to help reduce the deficit, former President Bill Clinton said Friday.

Clinton said the country was "mortgaging out a lot of our sovereignty" by using foreign creditors to pay for an "exploding" debt.

His recipe? More growth and revenue, fueled by immigrant workers and a controversial value-added tax.

How do you think that will play out in the heartland?

"I think we're going to have to have more taxpayers, which is why I favor, in a disciplined way, immigration reform and letting more immigrants come to the country," Clinton told CNBC. "I think it would make more jobs for people who are unemployed, not fewer."

Second, Clinton said, more tax revenue could be collected by imposing a value-added tax, which taxes products at each stage of the manufacturing or distribution process.

"I think they ought to look at a progressive value-added tax, just because — and I think it's important the American people understand this — most of our competitors have tax systems like this," Clinton said.

Wha?  I think they call that a smoking gun.  It's an absolute confirmation of what we suspect – that the Democratic Party is in awe of European countries.  Yeah, they have a VAT (value added tax).  And look at the shape they're in.

And if you think the receipts from a VAT would go to drawing down the debt, you're smokin' something.  It will be grabbed by politicians and be used for their favorite pork-laden programs. 

The VAT has depressed Europe.  Don't let it happen here.

May 14, 2010     Permalink

OBAMA SLIPS AGAIN IN RASMUSSEN POLL – AT 9:43 A.M. ET:  The president's position in the Rasmussen poll seemed to have stabilized recently, primarily because more Democrats are expressing greater enthusiasm for The One. 

But now we see some signs of slippage:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 29% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -13.

While this is not as bad as the -21 rating on March 20th, it caps three straight days of -13.

Overall, 46% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. Fifty-three percent (53%) disapprove.

Is the president slipping again, or are these just statistical blips.  We'll follow this for the next week to see if decline is setting in again.  But, clearly, these are not great numbers five months before an election.

May 14, 2010     Permalink

FASCINATING – AT 9:03 A.M. ET:  We make an assumption that money buys votes, and that big money buys many votes.  But there are exceptions.  Nelson Rockefeller wanted very much to be president, but all his money couldn't buy the office.  Same with Ted Kennedy. 

Now, a new study confirms direct observation – that money isn't always a guarantee of success in elections.  From the Washington Times:

...recent elections show that having big money is no clear path to electoral success, and wealthy self-funded candidates such as...California Senate hopeful Carly Fiorina and California gubernatorial hopeful Meg Whitman are finding so far that deep pockets can't even guarantee them a lead in the polls.

The winning candidate in more than 90 percent of the 2008 House and Senate races was also the candidate who spent the most money. However, the record for self-funded millionaires and billionaires is far less impressive, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Of the 51 self-funded millionaires the Washington-based group counted in 2008 races, 37 either lost or quit their races before Election Day. And roughly 41 percent of them never got past the primaries, including California developer and former Republican congressman Doug Ose, who spent $4.1 million in a failed - and expensive - comeback effort.

And...

The template for buying a race may have been set by Democrat Jon Corzine, who pumped a record-shattering $62 million of the fortune he made at Goldman Sachs into his winning Senate race in 2000, and tapped his bank account again to win the New Jersey governorship six years later. Media magnate Michael R. Bloomberg raised the bar by dropping $109 million for his re-election campaign as New York City mayor in 2009.

But the record Mr. Corzine broke was held by California multimillionaire Michael Huffington, who lost his 1994 Senate race to Democrat Dianne Feinstein. And Mr. Bloomberg limped to an unimpressive four-point win against a hopelessly outspent opponent in his latest race. Massive fortunes also did not translate into Election Day victory for presidential hopefuls such as Ross Perot and Steve Forbes.

COMMENT:  Some cautionary notes:  While it's gratifying that voters can look past the money machine, there's no doubt that personal money makes it easier for some people to gain access to the system, and get themselves on the ballot in the first place.  It also distorts the concept of representation.  The U.S. Senate is, on average, far wealthier than its constituents. 

We still have not solved the issue of money in politics:  How do you permit those of means to enter the system, and use their resources to advance their causes, while at the same time providing fairness and access to others?  Neither hard liberals or hard conservatives have provided much in the way of useful answers.

May 14, 2010     Permalink

TIMES SQUARE UPDATE – AT 8:49 A.M. ET:  The Times Square bombing case gets curioser and curioser.  Remember, this case began with our being assured by Janet Napolitano and even David Petraeus that the guy who parked the bomb car was a lone wolf.  Boy, has that "narrative" disappeared.  From The Washington Post:

The Pakistani government has arrested a suspect with connections to a Pakistani militant group who said he acted as an accomplice to the man accused of trying to bomb Times Square, U.S. officials said.

The suspect, whose arrest has not been previously disclosed, provided an "independent stream" of evidence that the Pakistani Taliban were behind the attempt and has admitted helping Faisal Shahzad, the main suspect, travel into Pakistan's tribal belt for bomb training.

Officials familiar with the investigation cautioned about inconsistencies in the two suspects' accounts. Federal authorities expanded their search for evidence Thursday, carrying out raids in four northeastern states, and arresting three people suspected of funneling money to Shahzad.

There are always inconsistencies.  No two people tell exactly the same story, which is why cops (and journalists) must sift through the evidence and look for connections.

Still, the U.S. determination that the Pakistani Taliban directed the attempted attack is based largely on accounts given by the two men, several U.S. officials said. Authorities have been examining phone records, e-mail and other communication to see whether they contain firmer evidence of links between Shahzad and the Pakistani Taliban.

"What they said has been corroborated by other evidence,'' said a senior law enforcement source, who would not specify that evidence, saying it is classified.

COMMENT:  There is still going to be an element in government and media that plays down any international connection, because that line favors their own point of view.  But the Times Square guy spent plenty of time in Pakistan, and there's no evidence he was weaving rugs.  And for a fella whose house was in foreclosure, he seemed to have plenty of money, some of which was used to buy the bomb car.

If there's one, there have to be others.  And, as one congressman said at a hearing yesterday, one of these days the terror groups will send a guy who knows how to make a bomb and set it off.

May 14, 2010     Permalink

OH DEAR, SHE SPEAKS AGAIN – AT 8:05 A.M. ET:  You know, there are reasons why people lose elections, even in states where they should be shoo-ins. 

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, recently defeated by Scott Brown for the U.S. Senate, was asked why so many illegal immigrants were attracted to Massachusetts.  Her answer, deep and profound:

“Technically,” she replied, “it is not illegal to be illegal in Massachusetts.”

That is probably the best expression of modern liberalism that I've heard recently.  It's right up there with being for it before being against it, and "man-caused disasters" taking the place of terrorism.

Ah, whatever happened to the Democratic Party.  Franklin, Harry and Jack must be spinning in their graves.  They should only know that many "liberals" today probably think of them as fascists.

May 14, 2010    Permalink

THE OBAMAN "OUTREACH" CONTINUES – PREPARE TO BE ILL – AT 7:58 A.M. ET:  As the president talks tough on terror in New York, and his attorney general talks less than tough on terror in Washington, his UN ambassador talks gibberish at the UN.

From the great Anne Bayefsky at NRO:

On Thursday, the General Assembly elected 14 members to its top human-rights body, the U.N. Human Rights Council. U.N. human-rights policymakers now include Libya, Angola, Malaysia, Qatar, and Uganda. On a secret ballot, a whopping 155 countries, or 80 percent of U.N. members, thought Libya would be a great addition.

Isn't it time to replace the UN with a league of democratic nations? 

Obama’s diplomats, sitting in the General Assembly Hall throughout the election, made no attempt to prevent the farce or even to object. On the contrary, Ambassador Susan Rice left the hall before the results were announced in order to hightail it to the microphone. Attempting to spin what was a foregone conclusion, she refused to divulge those states which the U.S. supported. When pressed, she said only that the Obama administration regretted some states on the ballot, but “I am not going to name names. I don’t think that it’s particularly constructive at this point.”

We must not offend.  That's a crime against humanity.

Not constructive because, Rice suggested, it was no big deal. She described the countries on the Council — which include human-rights experts Saudi Arabia, China, and Cuba in addition to the incoming freshman class — as just “countries whose orientation and perspectives we don’t agree with.” And later on she described the election as one which “yielded an outcome that we think is a good reflection on the potential of the Human Rights Council.”

COMMENT:  Apparently, this is the foreign policy that's supposed to make us proud again.  Sure, if you're a left-wing activist in the Middle East studies department at Columbia University, you'll be bursting your buttons with pride.

As for the rest of us...

May 14, 2010    Permalink