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.

JUNE 29,  2011

SNIPPET – AT 10:23 P.M. ET: 

From the Toronto Sun:  John Lennon was a closet Republican, who felt a little embarrassed by his former radicalism, at the time of his death - according to the tragic Beatles star's last personal assistant.  Fred Seaman worked alongside the music legend from 1979 to Lennon's death at the end of 1980 and he reveals the star was a Ronald Reagan fan who enjoyed arguing with left-wing radicals who reminded him of his former self.  In new documentary Beatles Stories, Seaman tells filmmaker Seth Swirsky Lennon wasn't the peace-loving militant fans thought he was while he was his assistant.  He says, "John, basically, made it very clear that if he were an American he would vote for Reagan because he was really sour on (Democrat) Jimmy Carter.

The sound you hear is a lot of sixties-generation journalists jumping off bridges. 

BE PREPARED TO BE SICK – AT 10:12 P.M. ET:  Is there any action too disgraceful for the United Nations?  From the Daily Caller:

In the latest ‘you’ve got to be kidding’ news from the United Nations, North Korea assumed the presidency of the Conference on Disarmament Tuesday.

“Bare months after the U.N. finally suspended Libya’s Col. Muammar Qaddafi from its Human Rights Council, North Korea wins the propaganda coup of heading the world’s disarmament agency,” the executive director of UN Watch Hillel Neuer said in a statement protesting the move. “It’s asking the fox to guard the chickens, and damages the U.N.’s credibility.”

Damages the U.N.'s credibility?  What credibility is that?  It's like damaging Paris Hilton's virginity.

According to the U.N. summary of the meeting, North Korea’s So Se Pyong addressed the 65-member arms control forum, saying that “he was very much committed to the Conference and during his presidency he welcomed any sort of constructive proposals that strengthened the work and credibility of the body.”

Neuer said that though North Korea’s new role as head of the conference, which reports to the U.N. General Assembly, would likely be justified by the U.N. by saying it was the result of a an “automatic rotation,” such an excuse was not sufficient.

“While the U.N. will likely defend North Korea’s appointment as simply an automatic rotation,” he said, “no system should tolerate such a fundamental conflict of interests. It’s common sense that a disarmament body should not be headed by the world’s arch-villain on illegal weapons and nuclear proliferation, notorious for exporting missiles and nuclear know-how to fellow rogue regimes around the globe.”

COMMENT:  Sorry, Mr. Neuer, but the ordinary rules of civilized behavior don't apply to the North Koreans.  And please notice the silence of the "third world" and of "human rights" groups. 

Also, please notice the lack of reaction by the White House.  You know, we're "committed" to the U.N.  Those who are committed, in my view, should be committed.

June 29, 2011      Permalink

NEW HAMPSHIRE POLL GOES TO ROMNEY, BUT BACHMANN GAINS – AT 10:36 A.M. ET:  The New Hampshire primary will be, as usual, highly publicized.  It's one of those political staples in any election year.

As expected, Mitt Romney is well ahead in New Hampshire polls at the moment.  He's a local boy, having been governor of neighboring Massachusetts.  Boston TV stations beam into New Hampshire.  But Romney's lead still places him well under 50%, something that could begin to worry his handlers as the campaign progresses.  And Michele Bachmann is rising faster than any other candidate, even in New Hampshire.  From The Politico:

Mitt Romney is holding steady in the state of New Hampshire, but Michele Bachmann is on the rise.

Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, is drawing 36 percent of the vote in the Granite State, according to a poll released tonight by Suffolk University and WHDH-TV. That's one percentage point more than Romney pulled in Suffolk's last poll, some two months ago.

The biggest mover in Suffolk's polling, however, is Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann ,who has jumped from 3 percent of the vote in May to 11 percent now. With voters who said they watched the June 13 presidential debate in Manchester, Bachmann and Romney split the win: 33 percent of respondents chose Romney as the winner, while 31 percent chose Bachmann.

The other, lower-level movers in the poll: Jon Huntsman, who debuted at 4 percent, and Tim Pawlenty, who lost three points and fell to 2 percent. Also in the low single digits were Sarah Palin (4 percent), Newt Gingrich (2 percent) and Rick Santorum (1 percent).

All told, the poll shows Romney in a commanding position in the early primary state where he's placed his strongest emphasis, so far, with Bachmann sucking up much of the remaining oxygen. Bolstering Romney's position is the fact that nearly half of Republican primary voters — 46 percent — said that jobs and the economy were the top issues in the campaign.

COMMENT:  If Bachmann can cut into Romney's lead in New Hampshire, well outside her home base in the Midwest, that would be news.  It also might seriously hobble Romney's quest for the nomination.  We do not hear any great yearning for Mitt.

But Bachmann is now under a relentless assault by the media crowd.  In part it's because of their pathological obsession with demonizing conservative women.  "Palinizing" will be a word that will enter the political vocabulary.  But, in part, it's because of her own constant gaffes and her evasiveness in answering legitimate questions.  Bachmann must finally realize that complaining about press bias and insults is not enough.  That's the field we're on.  Republicans will be judged by a higher standard, and must meet that standard, fair or not.  Bachmann did well in the New Hampshire debate.  Since then she has been only so-so in press interviews.  We'll follow her closely.  Like her or not, she's a fascinating political story.

June 29, 2011       Permalink 

PRAISE FOR TIM – AT 9:29 A.M. ET:   Tim Pawlenty, former governor of Minnesota, is becoming the forgotten man in this campaign, which is sad, for he has just given the most thougtful speech of the campaign thus far, and a gutsy one at that.  At a time – see story just below – when many Republicans are making foreign policy by battery-powered calculator, Pawlenty spoke forcefully for traditional Republican views, views that formed the foundation of the modern Republican Party.  From the Washington Times:

A growing schism within Republican ranks over U.S. intervention abroad spilled over into the 2012 presidential campaign Tuesday, with former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty urging elected leaders to resist what he called “isolationist sentiments.”

The comments were aimed at a slice of the GOP presidential field that has called for a reassessment of President Obama’s strategy for Afghanistan and a re-examination of the overall U.S. military posture around the globe.

“America already has one political party devoted to decline, retrenchment and withdrawal,” Mr. Pawlenty said in staking out the hawkish position in a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York on Tuesday. “It does not need a second one.”

While the GOP in recent years has been seen as the party more in favor of a robust military presence throughout the world, that calculation has been changed under Mr. Obama, who expanded the war in Afghanistan and this year committed U.S. forces to lead and then aid NATO in maintaining a no-fly zone over Libya.

Meanwhile, tight budgets at home have some Republicans worried that the country cannot afford those ongoing engagements on top of the existing costs of U.S. troops stationed throughout the world.

Pawlenty showed himself to be the statesman of the race, far more so than the jelly-spined Jon Huntsman, who's become the favorite of the chattering classes. 

“It is a fight for the soul of the Republican Party,” said Max Boot, a Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow who suggested that part of what is going on is political jockeying as the candidates try to stake out positions that distinguish them from one another. “There’s always a danger that a Republican president might succumb to the siren song of isolationism and that’s why I think it is good Pawlenty is making a clear argument against it.”

And...

In his foreign policy speech, Mr. Pawlenty warned that some Republicans are trying to “outbid the Democrats in appealing to isolationist sentiments” and that history has shown how over the long run that “weakness in foreign policy costs us and our children much more than we’ll save in a budget line item.”

“Our enemies in the war on terror, just like our opponents in the Cold War, respect and respond to strength. Sometimes strength means military intervention. Sometimes it means diplomatic pressure. It always means moral clarity in word and deed,” he said. “That is the legacy of Republican foreign policy at its best and the banner our next Republican president must carry around the world.”

COMMENT:  Cheers for Tim.  I don't think he has much chance for the Republican nomination as he lacks a certain fire, and an appeal to the GOP primary base, which is sad.  His speech, though, was the speech of a president, not a groveling candidate, and he is to be commended. 

It's pathetic, though, that a Republican candidate had to give a speech to remind his party of what it stands for.  Next time one of the "we can't afford it" crowd invokes the name of Ronald Reagan, let's all laugh together, very loudly.

June 29, 2011       Permalink

UK CONFIRMS IRAN MISSILE TESTS – AT 8:56 A.M. ET:  While our own government debates the pace of withdrawal from the region, Britain confirms Iranian tests of missiles capable of reaching American bases, southern Europe, and Israel.  From WaPo:

LONDON — Britain’s foreign secretary says Iran has conducted covert tests of ballistic missiles alongside a 10-day program of public military maneuvers.

William Hague told the House of Commons on Wednesday that there had been secret experiments with missiles and rocket launchers.

Iran is conducting 10 days of war games in an apparent show of strength to the West and on Tuesday fired 14 missiles in public tests.

Britain believes Tehran has conducted at least three secret tests of medium-range ballistic missiles since October.

COMMENT:  What we are seeing is a replay of the late 1930s, when Germany was rapidly building its arsenal, and those who warned about it were called warmongers.  The free nations, especially the United States, fell well behind in war preparations.  (When World War II broke out, the United States Army ranked 15th in the world.)

It is hard to accept today, but Winston Churchill was kept off the BBC in the late thirties by a director who thought him an extremist for his warnings about Germany. 

There are those who argue that Iran is a diversion, that we should really be worrying about China, which is also rapidly building its arsenal.  We should be worrying about both, but we don't have the leadership in Washington to explain the importance of China and Iran to the American people.  We are now preoccupied with economic matters, as we were in the thirties.  A price was paid then, and a price will be paid by our children.  The price this time may be fatal, but say that and "sophisticates" laugh.

What is so sad is to watch the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan deteriorating into, once again, a party of eccentrics and green eyeshades, perfectly prepared to put national defense on the chopping block to maintain its precious position against any tax increases.  True, there is waste in the defense budget.  There always has been, and it must be rooted out.  Eisenhower wasn't entirely wrong about the industrial-military complex, although his famous warning was taken out of context.  But there are also many unmet needs – especially the need to replace aging ships and planes.  We are told that we can no longer "afford" a strong national defense.  That's like saying you can't "afford" a life-saving operation.  You find a way, and people do find it. 

Defense is today presented to the American people by too many "journalists" as a kind of choice thing.  You know, we all know we don't need it, but some people just want it.  Can't afford it any longer.  That is a crazy, wicked and historically corrupt argument. 

Our enemies watch.  We can hear the laughter.

June 29, 2011      Permalink

THERE'S DUMB AND THEN THERE'S "GUINNESS BOOK OF WORLD RECORDS" DUMB – AT 8:44 A.M. ET:  From The Politico:

Rep. Dennis Kucinich showed up in Syria this week and held a press conference in which he appeared to praise embattled Syrian President Bashar al-Assad - who is ruthlessly crushing opposition to his government - as “highly loved and appreciated by the Syrians.”

The Ohio Democrat released a statement on Tuesday saying that he had been misquoted by Syrian media.

Kucinich was originally spotted in Damascus by CNN correspondent Hala Gorani, who tweeted on Monday that she had bumped into the eight-term congressman. “Ran into Dennis Kucinich in another hotel,” she wrote, also noting that Kucinich had met with Assad for three hours.

State Department spokeswoman Megan Mattson said Kucinich visited Syria at the invitation of its government, and was not there as an an official U.S. government representative. Kucinich’s press spokesman did not respond to inquiries on what Kucinich discussed with Assad or who financed Kucinich’s visit.

Syrian state media quoted Kucinich as saying during the press conference, “President Bashar al-Assad cares so much about what is taking place in Syria, which is evident in his effort towards a new Syria and everybody who meets him can be certain of this.”

COMMENT:  Anyone naive enough to visit Damascus and take seriously a meeting with the butcher of Damascus deserves to be immediately retired from political life and sent to the nearest rest home, whether licensed or not. 

Kucinich is a fool and always has been, a leader of the leftist fringe of the Democratic Party.  In a way, he's a modern Henry Wallace, the vice president of the United States, under FDR, during most of World War II, and a man sympathetic to "progressive" (read that Marxist) causes. Wallace was replaced on the Democratic ticket in 1944 by Harry S. Truman, when it was thought by the wise Democratic leadership that President Roosevelt was dying, and that Wallace's leftist views made him unacceptable as president.  Wallace later ran against Truman in 1948 as the candidate of the Progressive Party, but had the decency to leave that party in 1950 after it refused to condemn the Communist invasion of South Korea.

Kucinich has none of Wallace's decency.  He blunders from one extremist position to another, never supporting his country in time of crisis.  I cannot understand how Ohio voters can continue to send him back to Congress. 

June 29, 2011     Permalink

JUNE 28,  2011

REMINDER OF REALITY – AT 11:01 P.M. ET:  A major terror attack in Kabul, Afghanistan, clearly patterned after the attack in Mumbai, India, in 2008 was largely thwarted today, with the help of NATO forces.  All six terrorists who conducted the attack were killed.  In addition, seven others lost their lives.  In the Mumbai attack, some 164 people were killed. 

KABUL, Afghanistan — Several heavily armed attackers stormed one of the capital’s fortified premier hotels on Tuesday night, and sporadic shooting and at least two loud explosions were heard as Afghan security forces battled insurgents for hours afterward.

Coming within a week of President Obama’s announcement of troop withdrawals from Afghanistan, the attack underscored the still precarious nature of security, even in the capital, as the transfer of responsibility to Afghan forces is about to begin in several areas of the country, including Kabul.

In the early hours of Wednesday morning, three attackers on the roof of the Intercontinental Hotel were killed by NATO helicopters, a NATO spokesman said.

There appeared to be six insurgents in all, said a spokesman for the Interior Ministry, The Associated Press reported. In addition to the three killed on the roof, two others were killed by hotel guards at the beginning of the assault and another was killed either in the attack by the NATO helicopters or by Afghan security forces, The A.P. reported.

At least seven other people were killed in the attack and eight were wounded, said the Kabul deputy police chief, Daoud Amin, according to The A.P. The assault ended about 3 a.m.

The heavily guarded Intercontinental Hotel, which sits on a hill on the western side of Kabul, has police guards at its base and intelligence officers stationed at the top of the hill and near the entrance. It was not clear how so many attackers could have breached the building’s defenses.

COMMENT:  Imagine how easy it would be to breach the "defenses" of most hotels in the Unite States.  It was widely expected that terror groups would try to imitate Mumbai, which also involved a hotel assault, and there will be other attempts in the future, possibly here. 

We are reminded that the war on terror is far from over, and will be a long twilight struggle.  Most Americans supported the long Cold War battle against the Soviet Union.  I wonder how many are prepared to go the distance against Islamists.

We should point out that the United States has not been successfully attacked since September 11, 2001, ten years ago.  That is a remarkable accomplishment, vindicating the security policies of President Bush.  But we can't be lucky forever, especially when both political parties seem weary of the fight.

June 28, 2011       Permalink

WILL SHE OR WON'T SHE? – AT 10:54 A.M. ET:  With Michele Bachmann now in the race, attention turns to Sarah Palin.  Will she or won't she?  Her daughter, Bristol, said on TV last night that her mother has made her decision, but Bristol didn't give any hints as to what it was.

I don't think Palin has any realistic chance of winning the nomination.  Her brand has been badly damaged.  But she could complicate things for Bachmann, as both women appeal to the same constituency.  From The Hill:

Palin will also create buzz regarding her presidential plans when she travels with her husband, Todd, to Pella, Iowa, on Tuesday to attend the premiere of a documentary film that lauds her political career, titled “The Undefeated.”

“We are very excited to visit historic Pella and its opera house and look forward to seeing the finished film for the first time with fellow Americans from the heartland,” Palin said in a statement released by the film’s producer, the Victory Film Group.

The 2008 vice presidential nominee, who has been opaque about her 2012 intentions, is reportedly going to meet with some Iowa Republican activists during her stop.

COMMENT:  Look, at least the Republican race is getting interesting, in comparison to where it was a month ago, when anti-boredom pills were required.  But let us not forget that the real opponent is Barack Obama, who will be a formidable, skilled opponent doing the one thing at which he's vastly experienced – running for office. 

The president is also coming to Iowa today to discuss the economy and manufacturing.  His political future may well rest on a few points in the unemployment statistics.  If he gets the unemployment number down a few points, he may well be in.  If he doesn't, he's vulnerable.  But don't underestimate his consummate electioneering skills.

June 28, 2011      Permalink 

SNIPPET – AT 10:06 A.M. ET: 

Wonderful dietary news from Britain's Daily Mail:  The first ‘test-tube’ hamburger is only a year away, scientists claim...The scientists are currently developing a burger which will be grown from 10,000 stem cells extracted from cattle, which are then left in the lab to multiply more than a billion times to produce muscle tissue similar to beef.

I can't wait.  Can you?  Why, I'm thrilled at the thought of meandering into Five Guys, ordering my stem-cell burger, medium rare, with a side order of lab fries, and a glass of carbonated vitamin gel.  Yeah, can't wait.

AMERICANS MAKE THEIR JUDGMENTS – AT 9:20 A.M. ET:  A new Gallup Poll tells us that Americans' view of the press has improved a bit in the past year, but has essentially gone from the sub-basement to the basement:

Americans are more confident in news presented by television and newspapers than they were last year. Unfortunately for the press, that confidence is still pretty low.

Twenty-eight percent of adults have a “great deal” of confidence in newspapers and 27 percent have “quite a lot” of confidence in television news, according to a Gallup poll. Those numbers are up 6 percentage points for newspapers and 4 points for TV since 2007, when Gallup found confidence in media at its lowest point in the past 20 years.

For comparison’s sake, 78 percent of Americans reported great trust in the military, while 12 percent felt the same about Congress, according to Gallup.

Newspapers enjoyed the largest trust bump from respondents aged 30-49, with a gain of 9 points in that age group compared to 2010. Echoing the march of technology away from printed news, people aged 18-29 reported less confidence in newspapers, with a drop of 10 points from 2010.

That same age group is where television news made large inroads, with an increase of 10 percentage points among those aged 18-29 over 2010. Respondents with a high school education or less also showed a confidence increase of 12 percentage points over the 2010 numbers. The only area where confidence in TV news didn’t improve was in college graduates; 16 percent reported great confidence in TV in 2011, while 21 percent did in 2010. That same age group also showed a slight drop in confidence of newspapers.

COMMENT:  It has always amazed me that journalists show so little interest in public perception of their craft.  I think it's pretty clear that the country is now onto press bias, and I suspect many Americans sense what is true, that many "journalists" are poorly prepared, do too little research, and are often inadequately educated. 

Journalism is very hard work.  The true journalists – the ones who consider the title "reporter" a badge of honor – work extremely hard, and the reader never knows what political side they're on.  I knew some like that at The New York Times of old – the unsung heroes like Robert Alden and Peter Kihss.  There are too few of their like today.

And why is it that, as the educational level of journalism has gone up, the quality has gone down?  The same occurred in Hollywood.  Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

June 28, 2011       Permalink

REMEMBER IRAN?  – AT 8:43 A.M. ET:  It's that country right next to...well, you know.  But can you honestly say you've seen a good, front-page article on Iran's nuclear and military programs in the last few months?  The issue, one of the most frightening out there, has simply been forgotten in the orgy of "come home America" speeches and debt-crisis conferences.

The danger to America is immense.  From Fox:

TEHRAN, Iran -- A senior Iranian Revolutionary Guard commander claimed on Tuesday that his country has the ability to produce even longer range missiles than those currently in its arsenal.

But Amir Ali Hajizadeh, commander of the Guard's Aerospace Force, stressed that Iran will not manufacture such missiles because Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf are already within its reach.

The remarks came as Iran is conducting 10 days of war games, its latest show of military force amid a standoff with the West over the country's controversial nuclear program.

Hajizadeh said the Guard's arsenal already includes missiles with a range of about 1,250 miles (2,000 kilometers) -- putting Israel, U.S. bases in the Persian Gulf and parts of southeastern and eastern Europe within Iran's reach.

COMMENT:  We don't expect the Europeans to be all that interested.  Their first instinct will be appeasement, believing that after they grovel and sell equipment to the Iranians, the Americans will come in to save them. 

Think ahead to the time, not far off, when the Iranians will be able to tip those missiles with nuclear warheads.  They will become the most powerful force in the region, just as we're reducing our presence.  They will essentially control most of the world's oil supply. 

Churchill warned about people who will feed the alligator in hopes that they'll be eaten last.  I'm afraid, based on political trends in the West, including the United States, that we will be feeding the alligator.

June 28, 2011       Permalink

BYE, BYE – AT 8:23 A.M. ET:  Why not start the morning with good news?  Only a day after Chris Wallace asked Michele Bachmann, "Are you a flake?" a question for which the gracious Chris has now roundly apologized, a real flake announced that she is leaving Congress.  The skies have turned blue.  From The Hill:

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) confirmed Monday evening that she's retiring next year.

Speaking to reporters at her California home, Woolsey, 73, cited her age as one of the reasons.

"You don't have to stay there till you die," she joked, when asked why she was leaving Congress, according to the Marin Indpendent Journal.

The 10-term lawmaker noted that "after two decades of service to this district, it will be time for me to move on," adding that she doesn't have "one ounce of regret."

Her announcement has been expected.

Woolsey is one of the most liberal members of Congress and has served as co-chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Her district is heavily Democratic and should be easy for the party to retain.

COMMENT:  Woolsey's most recent prominent appearance was with a group of Code Pink hard-left activists.  One suspects Woolsey will join them more formally after she retires, while collecting her generous U.S. Government pension.   At the meeting was the woman who interrupted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech before a joint session of Congress, shouting at him as she was escorted out by the Capitol Police.  Woolsey turned to the woman and said, "You did me proud."  We're talking that kind of nut.

Bye, Lynn.  You didn't do us proud.

June 28, 2011     Permalink