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.

I appeared on Silvio Canto Jr's talk show from Dallas last night.  Here.

JUNE 20,  2011

ANOTHER PATHETIC COUNTRY – AT 10:01 P.M. ET:  First lady Michelle Obama has just arrived in South Africa with her two daughters. 

Now, I can well understand the emotional attachment of an African-American to South Africa, considering the country's apartheid past.  What I cannot understand is the silence of the mainstream media about conditions in that country today.  Simply stated, South Africa is a disgrace.  Its government is a gang of old creeps, Marxists and racial hustlers who never met a dictatorship they didn't like.  Indeed, in a report by Freedom House about the extent to which human rights plays a role in the foreign policies of a number of democracies, South Africa came out dead last. 

Internally, the country is a horror story.  It has one of the highest crime rates in the world, and one of the highest rates of sexual violence against women.  Not much talk about that in the trendy Western press.  South Africa, to too many journalists, is all about the battle over apartheid.  What has happened since apartheid is of no great interest.

From AFP:

Relations between the United States and South Africa have suffered a number of diplomatic strains this year.  In March, South Africa allowed exiled Haitian ex-president Jean-Bertrand Aristide to return home, despite a personal appeal from President Obama to keep him in South Africa until after a presidential run-off election that Washington feared he would destabilise.

President Zuma has also lashed out at the NATO-led bombing campaign in Libya, which Washington supports.

South Africa has been close to Gadaffi.  In fact, the only government in the Mideast it seems to find problematical is the government of Israel.

Obama has a packed schedule that includes a safari in Botswana, a visit with Nobel Peace Prize laureate Desmond Tutu in Cape Town and a trip to the memorial for Hector Pieterson -- a 12-year-old student killed during the anti-apartheid Soweto uprising in 1976.

Tutu was active in the fight against apartheid, but that was more than a quarter of a century ago.  What's he done since to improve his country?  The world wonders.

COMMENT:  I hope the first lady has a good time, but we really must get beyond discussions on South Africa that begin and end with apartheid.  There's a country there today, and it's sinking.  People are living behind gated walls just to survive.  Anyone interested?

June 20, 2011       Permalink

IT'S ABOUT TIME – AT 9:48 P.M. ET:  Afghan President Hamid Karzai presides over a corrupt regime in a mess of a country.

(CNSNews.com) – The outgoing U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan warned Sunday that the American people are growing weary of being viewed as “occupiers” by the leaders of a country where so much American blood has been spilled.

Karl Eikenberry’s candid and impassioned remarks came a day after President Hamid Karzai in a televised speech accused U.S.-led foreign troops of being in the country “for their own national interests.”

On Sunday, Karzai met with Iranian Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi – on the first ever official visit by Iran’s top defense official – and the two discussed problems arising from “the presence of foreign forces” in Afghanistan, according to reports in Iranian state media. Last week Karzai held talks with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the sidelines of a Eurasian summit in Kazakhstan, and similar sentiments were expressed.

And...

Without mentioning Karzai by name, Eikenberry took aim Sunday at the increasingly harsh anti-coalition rhetoric emanating from the president, calling it “hurtful and inappropriate.” The ambassador, who will leave his post over the summer, made the remarks at the end of a speech on the future of U.S.-Afghan relations, delivered to several hundred students at Herat University.

“When Americans, who are serving in your country at great cost in terms of lives and treasure, when they hear themselves compared with occupiers, told that they’re only here to advance their own interest, and likened to the brutal enemies of the Afghan people, my people in turn are filled with confusion and they grow weary of our effort here,” Eikenberry said.

COMMENT:  It's about time an American official took on Karzai, an absolute ingrate and egotist.  Early in the war on terror he was a darling of the college commencement-address circuit in the U.S.  He basked in the glow.  Now he meets with reps of the Iranian thug regime, which murders its own people in the streets, and lectures us.

President Obama will announce this week preliminary plans for troop withdrawals from Afghanistan.  Our effort there still requires important levels of forces, but no one can expect the American people to be very enthusiastic if the president of the nation we're helping behaves the way Karzai has.

June 20, 2011       Permalink

TERRIFIC – AT 9:30 A.M. ET:  Speaking of symbolism – see our post on the Pledge of Allegiance just below – some Arab women are now asking help for a symbolic right...the right to drive a car.  I think this is terrific, using a small issue to illustrate a larger purpose, the drive for human rights in the very freedom-starved Arab and Muslim worlds.   And these women are, very appropriately, putting the heat on Western women, who should be doing much more:

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — A coalition of Saudi activists is urging the West's top women diplomats to publicly support a campaign by women in Saudi Arabia to win the right to drive.

The group, Saudi Women for Driving, says it sent letters Monday to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton appealing for statements backing the effort to end the male-only driving rules in the Western-allied kingdom.

Right on, ladies.  It's about time some Western feminists stood up for you.

About 40 Saudi women got behind the wheel Friday, saying they were beginning a campaign to lift the restrictions in the ultraconservative Muslim country. No arrests were reported.

The Saudi activists say the Saudi campaign is inspired by the Arab uprisings and deserves high-level Western backing.

Not only should Western women get involved, but how about this:  A campaign in the West to raise money to help buy cars for Arab women who are breaking this barrier.  This small campaign can lead to larger miracles.  I want to see a Saudi woman get out on the side of the road and change a flat tire.  I want to see those old imams faint. 

Come on, Hillary.  Let's roll.  Literally.

June 20, 2011      Permalink 

ABSOLUTELY INSUFFICIENT – AT 8:58 A.M. ET:  A bizarre incident occurred on network TV over the weekend, and we should be demanding some answers.  NBC Sports opened a golf tournament with the Pledge of Allegiance, but edited out "under God."

Now, the issue before the house is not whether you think "under God" should have been inserted in the Pledge in 1954 – reasonable people can differ.  The issue is a network editing out the phrase and apparently thinking no one would notice.  NBC has apologized, but we are far from satisifed.  From Fox:

BETHESDA, Md. -- NBC issued an on-air apology Sunday for omitting the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance during its coverage of golf's U.S. Open.

The words were edited out of a clip of children reciting the oath -- a move immediately noted by viewers, who took to Twitter and various blogs to voice their anger, the Huffington Post reported.

In a statement during the broadcast, NBC commentator Dan Hicks said, "We began our coverage of this final round just about three hours ago and when we did it was our intent to begin the coverage of this U.S. Open Championship with a feature that captured the patriotism of our national championship being held in our nation's capital for the third time.

"Regrettably, a portion of the Pledge of Allegiance that was in that feature was edited out. It was not done to upset anyone and we'd like to apologize to those of you who were offended by it."

COMMENT:  Oh, come on.  I always love that phrase, "...apologize to those of you who were offended..."  Apparently, NBC isn't apologizing to anyone else, or to the nation as a whole.  NBC should have said, "We apologize to the nation, and we promise a full internal investigation to examine how this happened, why, and how such outrageous actions can be prevented in the future.  We'll give you the results."

Yes, the Pledge is only words, but it has enormous symbolism.  How in the world could anyone at a major network change it?  Why?  What does this tell us about the culture in broadcast journalism?  And why didn't anyone at NBC notice?

I hope someone, like Fox News, gets on this and demands more from NBC.  From a small incident we can learn a great deal. 

June 20, 2011       Permalink

SMART GUYS – AT 8:42 A.M. ET:  I keep stressing, and will continue to stress, the quality of President Obama's political team.  These guys do politics, and they do it well.  We see a perfect example today.  Jon Huntsman, the former governor of Utah, is about to announce his candidacy.  Although he is little known, he has loads of cash and an attractive style.  In the TV age, you can become known quickly.

But Huntsman has an oddity in his past:  He served as ambassador to China in the Obama administration.  Now he's running against the president he served, something I don't recall ever happening in my lifetime.  And the Obamans are playing Hutsman brilliantly.  From The Politico:

David Axelrod says that if Jon Huntsman disagreed with President Barack Obama's economic policy, he never voiced it during his time in the administration.

A senior strategist to the president's reelection campaign, Axelrod said in an interview aired Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union" that Huntsman's recent criticism of Obama's "failed" economic policy is "in conflict with what he communicated to us in 2009."

Axelrod recalled talking with Huntsman, then the U.S. ambassador to China, during a trip to Shanghai in late 2009. "If he had suggestions on the economy, he had an excellent opportunity to suggest them then, where we were all together in China," Axelrod said of Huntsman.

"What has changed is not his view of the economy, but his view of his own chances to, perhaps, win the [Republican presidential] nomination," Axelrod said. "I understand. That's politics. He's a politician, and he sees an opportunity."

The president's political strategist also recalled some of Huntsman's praise for Obama during that 2009 meeting.

"He was encouraging on health care. He was encouraging on the whole range of issues," Axelrod said. "He was a little quizzical about what was going on in his own party. And you got the strong sense that he was going to wait until 2016 for the storm to blow over."

COMMENT:  That is brilliant politics at work.  Axelrod is showing what will be done to Huntsman if he gets the GOP nod.  He will be completely compromised by his work for Obama.  Basically, Axelrod is calling Huntsman, in a kind of elegant way, an opportunistic two-timer who can't be trusted.

I don't think Huntsman will get the nomination, largely because he worked for Obama.  But Alexrod is showing us how good the Obamans are at defining an opponent.  Don't sell these boys short.

June 20, 2011       Permalink

THIS WEEK – AT 8:22 A.M. ET:  We enter a new week, with summer beginning tomorrow.  But there will be no summer doldrums.   I don't recall, in recent times, a summer period more filled with such serious challenges to this nation.

First, the economy.  The economy of the United States is not only statistically precarious, it's psychologically precarious, and the latter point may be the most important.  We just sense around us a discouragement, a belief that it isn't working, that we're in for it.  That is not a quality feeling.  It is not a feeling that leads consumers to consume or companies to hire.  There is a sense of a lack of leadership, stemming from Obama's aloof style.  And Obama is getting precious little enthusiasm for reelection, even from his own party.

Second, the Mideast.  It is in flames, and yet you'd never know it from the almost business-as-usual attitude in the White House.  However these revolutions turn out, they will affect us here in America, in part because the Mideast sits atop the world's largest oil supply, and in part because political change may bring, not democracy, but more fanatical and Islamist regimes than the region has now.

Third, Afghanistan.  The calls for quick withdrawal grow louder.  But how we handle a drawdown in that pathetic country will send a message to the world:  Is America oriented toward victory and success, or simply washing its hands of an unpopular problem.

Fourth, the choice of a president.  We'll be watching the GOP carefully, and don't be surprised by surprises.  You can sense, each day, a growing public awareness of the race for the nomination.  As the economy sputters, the GOP nomination is worth more.  This is going to be a serious fight because of a growing recognition that 2012 will feature one of the most important presidential elections in our recent history.  The Republican Party is clearly split into factions, and the candidate who can bring those factions together in his or her tent will be the nominee.

Fifth, the sense of history.  No doubt Obama's election was historic.  It broke a barrier.  Now Americans must painfully ask whether the experiment – putting an inexperienced, vague man in office based largely on his symbolism – has failed.  This will be a painful question for many Americans, but it's a question that must be answered, for the nation's well-being and even survival.

We'll be covering all these issues at Urgent Agenda.  It never gets dull.

June 20, 2011     Permalink 

JUNE 19,  2011

THE ENDORSEMENT FROM HELL – AT 11:51 P.M. ET:  President Obama has received a major endorsement for his reelection campaign.  I'm not so sure he wants it. 

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian President Dmitry Medvedev dismissed talk of a deepening rift with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin in remarks published Monday, strongly hinting they would not run against each other for president next year.

In a Financial Times interview, he also said he hoped Barack Obama, who has helped improve Russian-U.S. ties, would win a new term as U.S. president next year.

Improve?  Seems to me they're more belligerent than they've been in years.  Maybe they just realize they're getting away with it.

Medvedev, steered into the Kremlin by Putin in 2008 when he was barred from a third straight term, has made veiled criticism of his predecessor and emphasized the need for change, stoking speculation of growing discord ahead of the March 2012 election.

In what many investors saw as a campaign speech Friday, he warned against one-man rule and hinted that the stability Putin boasts of bringing to Russia could lead to stagnation.

COMMENT:  As an endorser, the Russian president ranks right up there with Hugo Chavez and Anthony Weiner.  I don't think you'll see Medvedev's quote on any Obama billboards.

June 19, 2011       Permalink

A WARNING FROM BRITAIN – AT 9:03 A.M. ET:  John McCain, see post just below, is warning of isolationism.  One ingredient of isolationism is the hollowing out of national defense.  Just look at what is happening in Britain, which is being run by a presumably conservative government.  From the Daily Mail:

The armed forces have had an unexpected shock as the Army braces itself for a mass exodus of officers and soldiers.

One thousand of the Army’s brightest servicemen have applied for voluntary redundancy.

Army bosses originally asked for 500 servicemen to take voluntary redundancy, but have received more than 900 applications, according to figures obtained by The Daily Telegraph.

This number includes 52 colonels, although only 25 had been expected to offer to leave.

Low morale and the pending defence cuts are cited as the reason why so many soldiers and officers want to leave.

Colonel Bob Stewart, who was commanding officer of the British battalion in Bosnia, said that the balance in Army life has changed.

‘The state of army morale is clearly not good. Exercises and the fun of being in the Army has largely been cut down.’

And...

The defence budget is set to fall by eight per cent over the next four years. The MoD is to cut its civilian personnel by 25,000 by 2015 and Army numbers will be reduced by 7,000 to 95,500.

A report is due to be published next month on how more personnel and equipment programmes could be axed.

COMMENT:  Britain's force is being reduced to the level where it will no longer be effective.  The Royal Navy has become a shadow of what it once was.  Even the RAF is in for substantial cuts.

And where will the "savings" go?  Well, Britain has become a welfare state.  Guess.

We've written here before that there are two Britains – Churchill's Britain and the other one.  I'm afraid the other one is winning.

And it can happen here.  Remember, that as the Japanese were bombing Pearl Harbor, the United States ranked 15th in the armies of the world.  As the World War II generation fades into history, we may well forget that disgrace.

June 19, 2011       Permalink

THE MAVERICK IS RIGHT – AT 8:46 A.M. ET:  Good for John McCain!  He's speaking out against the isolationist drift within some elements of his own party.  We heard hints of that in the debate Monday night.  From The Politico:

Via Playbook, John McCain raps the Republican presidential field for what he sees as an isolationist strain that's emerging as the candidates shift away from strict hawkishness on foreign policy, and which cropped up at the New Hampshire debate last Monday.

From the pre-taped interview with "This Week:"

McCAIN: “Well, I was more concerned about what the candidates in New Hampshire the other night said. This is isolationism. There's always been an … isolationist strain in the Republican Party — that Pat Buchanan wing of our party. But now it seems to have moved more center stage, so to speak. … If we had not intervened, Gadhafi was at the gates of Benghazi. He said he was going to go house to house to kill everybody. That's a city of 700,000 people. What would be saying now if we had allowed for that to happen?”

AMANPOUR: “Well, you were one of the key supports. And what you're talking is all the Republicans on the stage of that debate on Monday seeming to waver from what's a traditional Republican position on national security.”

McCAIN: “Yes, I wonder what Ronald Reagan would be saying today.”

AMANPOUR: “What would he be saying today? If he heard, for instance, Michele Bachmann or Mitt Romney?”

McCAIN: “He would be saying: That's not the Republican Party of the 20th century, and now the 21st Century. That is not the Republican Party that has been willing to stand up for freedom for people for all over the world, whether it be in Grenada — that Ronald Reagan had a quick operation about — or whether it be in our enduring commitment to countering the Soviet Union.”

McCain is correct.  One can, of course, legitimately differ about particular operations, and some may go very wrong, or take longer than we'd believed.  But isolationism was a catastrophic failure in the 1930s, and will be a failure again.  It simply allows the thugs of this world to build their power unimpeded, and eventually unleash it on us or our allies.  It is especially dangerous when dealing with an ideology-based enemy, such as militant Islam, whose goals never change.

It is active, constant American involvement, sometimes at great cost, that allowed the United States, along with some allies, to win the Cold War without a world war.  And it is the active involvement of the United States since 9-11 that has, in my view, prevented another successful attack on the United States.  Yes, it's frustrating.  Yes, it's risky, and yes, it costs a fortune.  But what would the world be without the United States, and our willingness to carry a heavy load?  Madeleine Albright, whom we usually don't quote here, was correct when she called us "the indispensable nation."

June 19, 2011      Permalink   

NOT LEFT-WING ENOUGH – AT 8:37 A.M. ET:  That is the judgment of the leftist nutbags who are complaining that President Obama, the most left-wing president in American history, isn't far enough out there.  From the Washington Times:

As President Obama shifts increasingly into reelection mode, he is feeling persistent anger and discontent from the left as well as the right.

White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer was heckled and booed Friday at the annual Netroots Nation conference in Minnesota, a gathering of liberal activists from the online political community. When Mr. Pfeiffer reminded the audience that the president championed an equal-pay law, the moderator replied, “Frankly we’re a little sick of hearing about that one.”

It's probably wrong to label this group as "liberal."  The word is overused.  They really are left-wing, much closer to the socialist crowd in Europe. 

While various liberal groups are unhappy that Mr. Obama hasn’t done more for gay rights or withdrawn troops from Afghanistan, the weak economy is at the forefront of the unrest.

COMMENT:  Although the White House may laugh off left-wing criticism, you may be sure that Mr. Obama's political team is taking it seriously.  Remember that Hubert Humphrey, "Mr. Liberal," was defeated by Richard Nixon for the presidency by a razor-thin margin in 1968 largely because part of the Democratic base stayed home, angered by Humphrey's support of the Vietnam War. 

Netroots Nation is far from the mainstream of American politics, but the nuts within Netroots do vote.  If they stay home, it could possibly have a significant effect on the 2012 election.

June 19, 2011     Permalink