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.

MAY 9,  2011

ECONOMY LIMITING OBAMA'S BIN LADEN BUMP – AT 9:47 P.M. ET:  The polls we've seen show that the president did get a post-raid bump, but that economic reality is limiting the bump's size and tenure.  From MSNBC:

WASHINGTON — In the days after Barack Obama ordered the successful mission to kill Osama bin Laden, the president’s approval rating on foreign policy issues reached an all-time high, even as public opinion regarding his handling of the economy sunk to the lowest point of his administration, according to a new NBC News poll.

The survey shows a mixed picture for Obama, whose overall job-approval rating was bumped higher by a modest three points after the al-Qaida leader’s death was announced late Sunday.

What has changed for the president since the raid at bin Laden’s compound: The number of respondents seeing Obama as a strong leader and a good commander in chief has spiked, and public opion for his handling of the war in Afghanistan jumped to an all-time high.

But here’s what hasn’t changed: Just a third of Americans believe the country is headed in the right direction; less than four in 10 approve of Obama’s handling of the U.S. economy; and nearly 70 percent think the economy will get worse or stay the same in the next year.

COMMENT:  The problem for the president is that there aren't any other targets of bin Laden's stature out there, whereas there are plenty of chances for the economy to go into a number of ditches.  (A report today, for example, said that housing values are continuing their dive, and that almost 30% of American homeowners are underwater – that is, their homes are worth less than what they must pay out on their mortgages.) 

The election, if current trends continue, will be fought mainly about the economy, unless a huge foreign crisis intervenes.  The president is vulnerable on the economy, but the GOP isn't off the hook.  It is often seen as too cozy with big business and obsessed with keeping down tax rates on the comfortable.  The Republicans must come up with an imaginative plan to rescue the economy, and it must be a fair plan.  Otherwise, they will squander the opportunity they're being given.

May 9, 2011       Permalink

ARAB-AMERICAN CHRISTIANS DISTANCING THEMSELVES FROM MUSLIMS – AT 9:30 P.M. ET:  This is a remarkable, if somewhat sad, story about internal tensions within the Arab-American population.  Christians are starting to assert their identity and are moving away from identification with Muslims.  From The Washington Times: 

STERLING HEIGHTS, Mich. — Arab Christians here are trying to separate themselves from a boisterous Muslim community that has served as a punching bag for “terrorism” stereotypes since Sept. 11.

Many have moved to Detroit’s northern suburbs — Sterling Heights, Madison Heights, Farmington Hills and the Bloomfield areas — to get away from the high concentration of Muslims in Dearborn, said Pastor Haytham Abi Haydar of Arabic Fellowship Alliance Church. Other Christians, he said, have turned their backs on their Arab heritage and integrated with American culture.

But just like Middle Easterners often assume America is a Christian nation, many Americans assume all Arabs are Muslims. That’s made life in a post-9/11 world difficult for a group of people who is proving religion has no borders.

“On many, many, many occasions, if you’re an Arab, you might as well be a Muslim to many people here,” Mr. Abi Haydar said. “Unfortunately, the majority don’t see the dynamic that Christianity came from the Middle East, that Jesus was from the Middle East.”

Mr. Abi Haydar said some Americans know the difference and do not stereotype. “You can’t label all Americans as ignorant,” he said.

And...

Many of these problems were brought on by al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, when he started drawing attention to the Arab community after he masterminded the 9/11 attacks. Arab Christians hope the tension dies now that he’s dead, so they can move on.

COMMENT:  The problems faced by Christian Arab-Americans preceded 9-11.  They always felt they were lumped in with the Muslim majority, and America's problems with Islamic extremism didn't begin with the 9-11 attacks.

I saw this firsthand when a member of my family was operated on by a Lebanese-American surgeon.  He introduced himself to us by saying, "I'm Lebanese.  I'm a Christian."  He wore a cross.  I always thought it odd that a man would introduce himself by religion, but I later learned that the Arab-American Christians want to be seen as a distinct religious culture, and not lumped in.  I suspect we'll be seeing much more of this in the years to come.

May 9, 2011      Permalink

KNOWLEDGEABLE COMMENT – AT 11:20 A.M. ET:  There have been so many talking heads and writing heads in action since the death of bin Laden, that it's gratifying to find some knowledgeable people who are actually contributing something to the discussion.  Max Boot is one of them, and he warns that the death of bin Laden actually changes very little.  From RealClearWorld:

Those who claim that we can disengage from Afghanistan now that the "emir" of al Qaeda is dead seem to assume the whole organization will disappear with him. It might, but it might not. Other terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah have survived the loss of their leaders.

Opponents of the war effort also argue that the Navy SEAL raid should be a model for the kind of counterterrorist approach we should adopt more generally, relying on pinpoint strikes rather than dispatching 100,000 ground troops to carry out a grueling counterinsurgency campaign.

President Obama has repeatedly provided superficial support for this view by claiming that our "core goal" in Afghanistan is limited to "disrupting, dismantling and defeating al Qaeda." No doubt he put the emphasize on al Qaeda because it is the terrorist group that most Americans worry about the most. But since 2001 it has never had more than a few dozen fighters at a time inside Afghanistan.

Of greater immediate concern are al Qaeda's allies: the Quetta Shura Taliban, the Haqqani network and Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin (HiG), which among them deploy thousands of hardened terrorists. These groups, in turn, are part of a larger conglomeration of extremists based in Pakistan including the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (the Pakistani Taliban), Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed.

All of these organizations share an eagerness to slaughter civilians and a desire to create a totalitarian regime modeled on Taliban-era Afghanistan. All are rabidly hostile to Westerners, Jews, Hindus, Shiites and anyone else who does not share their hard-core Salafist beliefs.

COMMENT:  We are facing an ideology, not merely an organization.  Many people don't want to accept that.  Drilled in the multicultural dribble of the universities, they believe we're just having a problem with some rotten apples. 

Churchill warned of militant Islam a century ago.  As usual, he wasn't taken seriously.  Now we have those who, with every turn of events, argue that the fight is over and that we can go home.  There is speculation that Obama may use the death of bin Laden to argue that our mission in Afghanistan is nearly complete, and that we can start withdrawing a large contingent of troops.  Maybe we can.  I'm not an expert on Afghanistan.  But those who think this battle is over are underestimating the power of ideas, especially when those ideas are spread through the influence of mass media. 

This is the long war, or what President Kennedy called a "twilight struggle," most of it waged without large land battles.  Our victory is far from guaranteed.  Our defeat would change civilization very much for the worse.

May 9, 2011       Permalink

IT IS HARD TO MAKE THIS UP – AT 10:51 A.M. ET:   Maybe Britain should stick to royal weddings.  They do it so well.  When it comes to legal decisions...uh, there is room for improvement.  From London's Daily Mail:

Rules to prevent religious discrimination can now also be used to protect a belief in the BBC’s ethos of public service broadcasting, a tribunal has ruled.

Its extraordinary decision elevates the BBC’s core principle to a place in the law equivalent to Christianity.
And the move leaves the way clear for long-serving employee Devan Maistry to sue the Corporation for wrongful dismissal.

South African-born Mr Maistry, who worked for the BBC Asian Network, says he suffered discrimination for six years until he was dismissed last year.

He has filed a claim for ‘religious or belief discrimination’, which allegedly took place against his philosophical view that ‘public service broadcasting has the higher purpose of promoting cultural interchange and social cohesion’.

Birmingham employment tribunal chairman Pam Hughes decided Mr Maistry has a worthy case, and gave him the right to a full hearing later this year.

COMMENT:  Oh dear, oh dear.  What will come next?  Our Lady of CNN?  The Church of NPR?  Temple Beth Fox?  True, the BBC has long been more a religious experience than a news operation, but this carries things to an absurd level.

Just a second.  I want to turn on the morning service at CNBC. 

May 9, 2011       Permalink

WATCH THE JOBS REPORT STATE BY STATE – AT 9:55 A.M. ET:  The national unemployment picture is muddled, with contradictory reports confusing an already tough situation.  But it's important to see unemployment not only nationally, but state by state.  The political implications are heavy.  We vote by state in presidential elections, and unemployment in key states can have a large impact on President Obama's reelection chances.  From The Hill:

The April jobs numbers offered tentative hope for President Obama’s reelection bid, but a potentially more telling indicator will come later this month -- the latest state-by-state unemployment data.

Despite a slight uptick in the national unemployment rate -- now at 9 percent -- the economy added more private-sector jobs last month than economists predicted, allowing Obama to claim Friday that there had been further "progress" toward a full economic recovery.

But in several key 2012 battleground states, where economic progress will likely be critical to Obama's reelection hopes, the unemployment rate remains above the national average.

New data is set for release May 20, but the current numbers hover near or over double digits.

Unemployment in Florida, Nevada, Colorado and North Carolina is above the 9 percent mark, with Nevada claiming the highest unemployment rate in the nation at 13.2 percent.

Florida's rate is the nation's third highest, coming in at 11 percent. North Carolina's unemployment rate stands at 9.7 percent with Colorado at 9.2 percent.

Florida is considered a must win for Obama if he wants a second term, while North Carolina is among the states the president would like to keep in the purple column.

COMMENT:   This may be the deciding issue, and the 2012 election looks, at least from this distant point, to be potentially very close.  One or two states with high unemployment (or low) could make the difference. 

We will be looking at unemployment figures in the battleground states – the ones actually in contention.  Some states are solid for either party.  California will vote Democratic until an earthquake sends it out to sea.  And then it will demand recognition as a multicultural island republic.  Other states are more reasonable in their ambitions.

May 9, 2011      Permalink

BRAVE NEW SENATORS – AT 8:46 A.M. ET:   While I haven't seen definitive proof, there is a substantial belief that much of the Tea Party movement wants America to scale back its international actions, resorting to a kind of isolationism.  We recall just where that got us in the 1930s.

There are some gutsy new Republican senators who aren't buying it, and are sticking up for the McCainian and Bushian view of the world, and they're drawing a line in the Capitol Hill cement separating themselves from the new isolationists.  From The Politico:

Political uprisings in the Muslim world, and now the death of Osama bin Laden, are giving rise to a new generation of foreign policy hawks in the Senate who are breaking with the tea party when it comes to America’s role in the world.

Three Republican freshmen — Marco Rubio, Mark Kirk and Kelly Ayotte — share the tea party’s goal of slashing domestic spending but have rejected the movement’s isolationist inclinations and called for greater military action and tougher sanctions overseas in places such as Libya and Syria.

The senators have appeared on cable news programs, written op-eds and introduced bills pushing for more U.S. involvement abroad, and they’re building their national security credentials by taking every chance to travel to conflict zones.

It’s a route that has helped build the careers of prominent senators like Republicans John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who have long driven the foreign policy debate in Washington. For the freshmen, taking the establishment path on foreign policy could help raise their profiles and even lay the groundwork for a presidential bid, which many observers expect of Rubio in 2016.

COMMENT:  Isolationism, which is being pushed by the Ron Paul faction of the party, is a disaster.  It never works, and never has.  I don't usually quote Marxists here, but Leon Trotsky did say one wise thing when he noted that "you may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you." 

Isolationism may delay conflict, but it never avoids it.  We're watching Marco Rubio very carefully, and we like the fact that he is taking a wise, principled stand on foreign policy.  I think the great majority of conservatives will be with him, as most don't yearn for the 1930s.

May 9, 2011       Permalink

DIVORCE COMING? – AT 8:21 A.M. ET:  If this were a legal marriage, the lawyers and counselors would already be in the room.  The U.S. and Pakistan "enjoy" a relationship that seems to be going downhill fast.  We are not popular among the Pakistani people, who are informed by Islamists and an anti-American press.  This is not good, for Pakistan has a nuclear arsenal.  From the Wall Street Journal:

Pakistani media aired the name of a man they said is the Central Intelligence Agency's station chief, prompting questions about whether the Pakistani government tried to out a CIA operative in the wake of the killing of Osama bin Laden.

The U.S. is looking into the matter. There are no plans at this time to withdraw the station chief. If the government had attempted to publicize the name, that would be the second such outing in the past six months, a sign of how deeply U.S.-Pakistan relations have soured.

The CIA declined to comment. Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency didn't respond to a request for comment.

Tensions, which have been building between the two countries for months, exploded after the bin Laden strike, which sharply embarrassed the Pakistani government. In another source of strain, the U.S. is pressing the Pakistanis for access to bin Laden's three wives, who are being held in Pakistani custody. The Pakistani government isn't complying with the request, a U.S. official said.

COMMENT:  Another source of friction is the U.S. drone strikes into Pakistan, which harbors a string of terrorist groups along its border with Afghanistan.  And still another source is America's generally good relationship with India, Pakistan's arch-enemy.

If Pakistan slips behind the Islamist curtain, the security of its nuclear arsenal – said to contain more than 100 weapons – will become critical.  If even a few of those weapons fall into the hands of terrorists, the world can be changed, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of casualties. 

And this is what happens when we allow unstable countries like this to acquire nuclear weapons.  Those who minimize the nuclear threat from Iran, please notice.

May 9, 2011     Permalink

MAY 8,  2011

LOOSE LIPS – AT 11:29 P.M. ET:  During World War II we, as a nation, had a slogan:  "Loose lips sink ships."  At war plants, in military installations, Americans regularly passed posters, like the one with the woman with a finger on her lips, that stressed the need for secrecy.

Maybe we need posters like that today.  Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld believes, and I agree, that we've released entirely too much information related to the bin Laden raid.  From Fox:

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Sunday questioned why the Obama administration is releasing so much information about the operation that resulted in the death of Usama bin Laden and the intelligence behind it.

While Rumsfeld praised President Obama for overseeing and green-lighting the daring raid last weekend, he suggested the White House could be taking a risk in sharing the details it has with the public.

"The more information that goes out about intelligence, the greater the risks to our people and the less likelihood we're going to be able to capture and/or kill some of the people who would result from the intelligence take here," Rumsfeld said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

Rumsfeld noted that White House officials have had to correct the record after initially bungling the details of the raid in briefings with reporters. He said the Pentagon likely wants to keep the information private.
"I would have preferred a lot less discussion out of the White House about intelligence," Rumsfeld said.

COMMENT:  Second the motion.  We are at war, whether this administration wants to call it a war or not.  The public has no particular need, or right, to know some of the operational details that have been released.  We didn't have a full, public inquiry into the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor until after Japan was defeated, although there were secret inquiries during World War II. 

And I am appalled by the leaking of intelligence information that may have been gleaned from the documents and drives captured by the Navy Seals.  Never tell your enemy what you know or how you know it.  Let them go crazy wondering what has been captured.  Let each member of Al Qaeda wonder whether his name, address, phone number, and favorite color are now known to the United States.

The Seals are professionals.  Unfortunately, the amateurs are the ones in front of the microphones and TV cameras.

May 8, 2011       Permalink

LESSON FROM UP NORTH – AT 11:55 A.M. ET:  As we reported here last week, Canadian conservatives just won a clear-cut majority in Canada's parliament, something of a revolution in Canadian politics.  Michael Barone sees lessons for American conservatives.  One of them is that Canadian conservatives made a conscious effort to appeal to minorities and immigrant groups: 

The Conservatives’ triumph offers a couple of lessons that may be relevant to U.S. Republicans. One is that smaller-government policies, far from being political poison, are actually vote winners.

The second is that a center-right party can win immigrant votes. Conservatives won 35 of 54 seats in metro Toronto, many heavy with immigrants. One tactic that seems to have worked was to circulate videos of Indian- and Chinese-Canadian Conservative candidates appealing for votes in their native tongues.

The simple message is that this is a party that likes and respects you. Republicans could do something similar, with Sen. Marco Rubio, Govs. Susana Martinez and Brian Sandoval, and Reps. Allen West, Tim Scott and Quico Canseco, all elected in 2010.

COMMENT:  In the immortal eloquence of Gary Cooper:  "Yup."  Barone is right.  If the GOP gets off the dime and starts running a modern campaign, it has a very good shot at the White House next year, and at dominating both houses of Congress.

But tired old candidates won't do the trick.  We have advocating here for the party to skip a generation, throw the long ball, and bring forward new, young, dynamic candidates from a variety of backgrounds.  Let the Dems try to handle that.

May 8, 2011       Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 11:04 A.M. ET: 

From London's Daily Mail:   Prince Andrew’s daughters are to be stripped of their 24-hour police protection after a growing row over the £500,000 annual cost.   Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie are the biggest losers of a Scotland Yard review of security for the Royal Family.  The princesses, fifth and sixth in line to the throne, will be given protection only when they attend official events on behalf of the Royal Family.

Take a look at the picture and you'll see why Britain really wants the protection removed.

May 8, 2011      Permalink

THE LUNATIC FRINGE – AT 10:51 A.M. ET:  Whatever happened to San Francisco?  It used to be such a pleasant place, and a great Navy town.  Now it has become one of the centers of blind political correctness, flying the flag of gross irresponsibility whenever it can.  From Fox:

San Francisco, one of the first sanctuary cities in the nation, plans to end its cooperation with federal immigration officials and start releasing illegal immigrants arrested for minor offenses before they can be picked up for deportation.

We learned the hard way in New York that perpetrators of minor offenses eventually become murderers and rapists if the minor crimes are not prosecuted.  I guess the victims of those potential murders and rapes are of no consequence to the San Francisco philosophers.

The city's decision is the latest development in a tug of war between several communities and the federal government over its controversial national program that automatically checks the immigration status of arrestees.

Officials in jurisdictions including Providence, R.I., and Chicago have also challenged the program, which they say undermines trust that it has taken local law enforcement years to build in immigrant communities.

California and Illinois lawmakers are considering measures to let communities retreat from the so-called "Secure Communities" program, which links up the FBI's criminal database and the Department of Homeland Security's records so that every time someone is arrested their immigration status is automatically, electronically checked.

Washington state has deferred to local governments on whether they want to join program overseen by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

But their efforts could be thwarted as federal officials argue that states have no control over what information is shared among federal agencies.

COMMENT:  I'd love to see the reaction on the political left to what San Francisco is doing.  Remember how the left roared in opposition to Arizona's law to check the immigration status of those stopped by the police?  Why, that was a federal matter, the leftists said.  I'll bet these same people remain awfully silent over this latest San Francisco treat.

May 8, 2011      Permalink

TRAUMA IN EGYPT – AT 10:23 A.M. ET:  We have a tendency, as we've pointed out here, to take our eye off a major story when another one comes along.  Thus, we dropped everything when Navy Seals dropped bin Laden.  And we had  our week of the raid.

But there are other things happening, and they may have a profound effect on us and the war against Islamic extremism.  Consider:

Cairo (CNN) -- Egypt's prime minister called for an emergency Cabinet meeting Sunday, a day after officials reported at least 12 people were killed in sectarian clashes outside a Cairo church.

Officials said the violence began over rumors that a Christian woman who converted to Islam was being held at the church against her will.

Prime Minister Essam Sharaf postponed a trip to Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates to discuss the church attack, according to EgyNews, Egypt's official news agency. Egyptian state TV said 10 people died and 232 were wounded in the violence Saturday. At least 190 were arrested.

Tensions between Egypt's Muslim majority and its Coptic Christian minority have been on the rise in recent months, with a number of violent clashes reported between the two groups.

During clashes on Saturday, witnesses said an armed group of Muslims marched on Saint Mena Coptic Orthodox Church, one of the oldest churches in Egypt.

Witnesses said Muslims and Christians exchanged gunfire, sending people running for cover.

"With my own eyes I saw three people killed and dozens injured," said Mina Adel, a Christian resident. "There's no security here. There's a big problem. People attacked us, and we have to protect ourselves."

This comes only weeks after Muslim extremists in one of Egypt's states demanded the removal of Christian officeholders.  And it comes amidst almost daily reports of the growing power of the extremist Muslim Brotherhood.

The United States is desperately trying to hold onto its relationship with Egypt, which was fine under ousted President Hosni Mubarak, who now appears mild compared to some of those who might replace him:

The Obama administration has decided to provide about $1 billion in debt relief for Egypt, a senior official said Saturday, in the boldest U.S. effort yet to shore up a key Middle East ally as it attempts a democratic transition.

The aid would be part of a major economic aid package that also includes trade and investment incentives, officials said. It is intended to help stabilize Egypt after demonstrations forced out longtime President Hosni Mubarak on Feb. 11.

While the Obama administration has been preoccupied of late with the war in Libya and protests in Syria, it sees Egypt as even more critical for U.S. interests. Washington has long regarded Egypt as a moderating influence in the Middle East. With one-quarter of the world’s Arabs, Egypt could emerge as a democratic model in the region — or, if its revolution fails, a locus of instability or extremism.

If it fails?  I'm afraid it's already failing.   The Arab world tends toward extremism.  Its population has been propagandized for decades, its educational system geared toward conspiracy theories and a warped, medieval view of history.  Egypt is already moving closer to Iran, another country which experienced a failed revolution, leading to the current thug regime.

We will have our hands full in the Mideast.  And the Navy Seals may not be able to save Obama this time.

May 8, 2011    Permalink