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.

A number of readers have e-mailed me asking for my comments on the president's speech.  I didn't watch it.  There is a limit to suffering.

However, I did read the released text and may have some comments in the morning.  First impression:  Like all Obama speeches, this one was clear, workmanlike, and eminently forgettable.  I think Obama would be very good at writing user manuals for hair dryers. 

Whoever wrote the speech must have read WAR SPEECHES FOR DUMMIES.  Nothing there, nothing to remember.

TUESDAY, AUGUST 31, 2010

NO, WE HAVE A RIGHT TO ASK QUESTIONS – AT 8:52 P.M. ET:  Mayor Mike Bloomberg of New York may have to be sent to a home for the terminally weird.  This is a serious situation requiring medical intervention.

The mayor, who has a tendency to lecture anyone who's earned less than a billion, now is warning against any state investigation of the Ground Zero mosque builders, even though reporting has turned up some, well, oddities.  Like a criminal record.  Like one of the chaps owing about a quarter mil in back taxes.  Little things like that.  WaPo reports:

NEW YORK -- New York's mayor says an investigation by the state attorney general into the finances of a proposed Islamic center and mosque near ground zero would set "a terrible precedent."

Mayor Michael Bloomberg says there's no reason for the government to investigate donations to religious organizations.

Hey, now wait, Mayor.  We give great leeway to religious groups, but they are not above the law.  They must file appropriate tax forms, they must cooperate in legal requirements like autopsies of members, even though the particular religion may bar autopsies, and they must be responsible citizens. 

Congressman Peter King disagrees. The ranking minority leader of the Homeland Security Committee says "a number" of terrorist plots have "emanated from mosques." He cites the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center as an example.

The mayor made the remarks Tuesday after he was asked about a Quinnipiac University poll showing a majority of New Yorkers want the attorney general to investigate funding sources.

An investigation is in order if it can be demonstrated that there might be legal improprieties in the building of the mosque or the raising of funds. 

By the way, the state attorney general in New York is the Democratic candidate for governor.  He's feeling the heat now to look a little more closely at those behind the mosque.  Obviously, he must remain within the law and avoid a witchhunt.  But some of the stuff coming out now requires some lookin'.

August 31, 2010     Permalink

MORE AGONY FOR DEMS – AT 7:30 P.M. ET:  Several new polls confirm that the Democratic Party has seen better days. 

One poll, by AP, measured opinion on the most divisive issues:

WASHINGTON — Americans with the strongest opinions about the country's most divisive issues are largely unhappy with how President Barack Obama is handling them, an ominous sign for Democrats hoping to retain control of Congress in the fall elections.

In nine of 15 issues examined in an Associated Press-GfK Poll this month, more Americans who expressed intense interest in a problem voiced strong opposition to Obama's work on it, including the economy, unemployment, federal deficits and terrorism. They were about evenly split over the president's efforts on five issues and strongly approved of his direction on just one: U.S. relationships with other countries.

That last one is strange, given the repeated failures of Obama foreign policies.  I wonder how the question was phrased.

In another danger sign for Democrats, most Americans extremely concerned about 10 of the issues say they will vote for the Republican candidate in their local House race. Only those highly interested in the environment lean toward the Democrats.

Yeah.  The words "global warming" generally don't pass through Republican lips.

And then there's Ohio, which often reflects national trends.  The PPP polling organization did some work there:

We'll start rolling out our Ohio poll results tomorrow but there's one finding on the poll that pretty much sums it up: by a 50-42 margin voters there say they'd rather have George W. Bush in the White House right now than Barack Obama.

Independents hold that view by a 44-37 margin and there are more Democrats who would take Bush back (11%) than there are Republicans who think Obama's preferable (3%.)

A couple months ago I thought the Pennsylvanias and Missouris and Ohios of the world were the biggest battlegrounds for 2010 but when you see numbers like this it makes you think it's probably actually the Californias and the Wisconsins and the Washingtons.

Yikes.  Those last three are Dem strongholds.  If they're in play, we might be able to dream big dreams. 

August 31, 2010      Permalink

INCREDIBLE – AT 9:59 A.M. ET:  The Obama administration's war on Arizona continues.  I wish they'd have this much passion about fighting the Taliban or Al Qaeda.  From the Washington Post:

The Justice Department filed another lawsuit against immigration practices by Arizona authorities, saying Monday that a network of community colleges acted illegally in requiring noncitizens to provide their green cards before they could be hired for jobs.

The suit against the Phoenix-area Maricopa Community Colleges was filed less than two months after the Justice Department sued Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer (R) over the state's new immigration law. It also comes as the department is investigating Joe Arpaio, the sheriff in Maricopa County, who is known for tough immigration enforcement.

In Monday's lawsuit, Justice officials said the colleges discriminated against nearly 250 noncitizen job applicants by mandating that they fill out more documents than required by law to prove their eligibility to work. That violated the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, the department said.

The law's antidiscrimination provision "makes it unlawful to treat authorized workers differently during the hiring process based on their citizenship status," said Thomas E. Perez, assistant attorney general for Justice's Civil Rights Division. He said the government "is acting now to remedy this pattern or practice of discrimination."

COMMENT:  Perez is rapidly gaining a reputation as a certified nutbag.  He's a left-wing political activist who seems to be on a mission to restore the 1960s, flower jeans and all.  He recently went after Kindle because he didn't feel it was designed well enough for those without sight.  How an electronic reader can be designed for the unsighted is a mystery to me, but Perez knows.  He is all-knowing.

The assaults on Arizona will simply create more Republicans.  Perez will then sue Arizona for being unfriendly.

August 31, 2010     Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 9:24 A.M. ET:

SAO PAULO (Reuters) – Brazil's election is a laughing matter again, at least for now.
Carlos Ayres Britto, vice president of the country's Supreme Court, late Thursday suspended a rule banning TV and radio programs from poking fun at candidates in the country's October 3 elections. 

These backward countries.  We don't have to poke fun at candidates here.  They do it to themselves.  That's progress.

August 31, 2010      Permalink

WELL, WE ALL MAKE MISTAKES, DON'T WE? – AT 8:53 A.M. ET:  The sound you hear is another trendy trend starting to bite the dust.  It seems that an outside panel is questioning the Holy Writ of the climate "scientists."  Haven't seen much about this on the mainstream media.  From Fox:

Acknowledging flaws in its reports and growing public skepticism toward the theory of manmade global warming, the United Nations hired an independent review panel in March to audit its climate-science arm. The group found plenty of problems.

The InterAcademy Council, an independent group of scientists representing agencies from around the world, presented the findings of its five-month investigation Monday morning at the United Nations. The group took issue with the structure, methods and leadership of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- the group responsible for a 2007 report that erroneously forecast the imminent melting of Himalayan glaciers, the rate of melt of polar ice caps and dwindling Amazon rainforests.

"The IPCC has raised public awareness of climate change, and driven policymakers," said Harold Shapiro, chair of the IAC Committee to Review IPCC and former president of Princeton University. But the controversies that have erupted, and revelations of errors, have put the group under the microscope. "We recommend some significant reforms," he told the U.N.

"The IPCC has yet to review the IAC's findings, so I am not able to comment on its findings," said longstanding chair Rajendra Pachauri in a press conference following the presentation. But he did note that none of the seven reviews of the IPCC to date had found flaws in the U.N. group.

Yeah, but this one did, pal. 

"The scientific community agrees that climate change is real," Pachauri said.

Right.  Some of it is about warming, some of it about cooling.  But the issue is the degree to which humans contribute to the changes.  The public isn't buying the glib arguments, which often seem more political science than real science. 

I doubt if this report will influence the true believers, for whom climate change is a religion. But I'd be curious to see if journalists change their tune at all.  Remember, it wasn't very long ago that skeptics were equated with Holocaust deniers. 

August 31, 2010      Permalink

NOTHING TO SEE, FOLKS, NOTHING TO SEE – AT 8:12 A.M. ET:  Generally, when we put two and two together, we come out with four.  The "four" this time is that this was a dry run for a terrorist attack.  But watch it get swept under the rug:

Two men taken off a Chicago-to-Amsterdam United Airlines flight in the Netherlands have been charged by Dutch police with "preparation of a terrorist attack," U.S. law enforcement officials tell ABC News.

U.S. officials said the two appeared to be travelling with what were termed "mock bombs" in their luggage. "This was almost certainly a dry run, a test," said one senior law enforcement official...

...The two were allowed to board the flight at O'Hare airport last night despite security concerns surrounding one of them, the officials said.

And that should worry us.

The men were identified as Ahmed Mohamed Nasser al Soofi, of Detroit, MI, and Hezem al Murisi, the officials said. A neighbor of al Soofi told ABC News he is from Yemen.

Y'see, what it is, is that they were upset by the mosque controvery, and, and...

Airport security screeners in Birmingham, Alabama first stopped al Soofi and referred him to additional screening because of what officials said was his "bulky clothing."

In this heat, in Alabama. 

In addition, officials said, al Soofi was found to be carrying $7,000 in cash and a check of his luggage found a cell phone taped to a Pepto-Bismol bottle, three cell phones taped together, several watches taped together, a box cutter and three large knives. Officials said there was no indication of explosives and he and his luggage were cleared for the flight from Birmingham to Chicago O'Hare.

Huh?  No indication of explosives?  Well, no, explosives generally aren't carried on a dry run.  But I wonder how many passengers have cell phones taped to Pepto-Bismol, phones taped together, and watches taped together.  Oh, I know.  That was all so they wouldn't lose any of the items.  It's an old Yemeni custom.

Yuch.

August 31, 2010      Permalink 

THEY'RE ALL BIGOTS!  THEY'RE ALL BIGOTS! – AT 7:55 A.M. ET:  Well, now the truth comes out.  Residents of one of the most liberal states in the Union have been exposed as militant, narrow-minded Islamophobes, and should probably lose their citizenship along with their cable TV and auto insurance.  At least, that's what the left will probably say. 

Here are the hard, rotten facts:

The controversy surrounding a proposed mosque near Ground Zero leaves New York State voters with conflicting opinions about religious freedom and the sensitivities of the families of 9/11 victims, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

By a 54 - 40 percent majority, voters agree "that because of American freedom of religion, Muslims have the right to build the mosque near Ground Zero," the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds. Another 7 percent are undecided.

But these same voters agree 53 - 39 percent, with 8 percent undecided, "that because of the sensitivities of 9/11 relatives, Muslims should not be allowed to build the mosque near Ground Zero."

In other words, New Yorkers understand the difference between legal rights and the concept of right and wrong.  Who are these people to think for themselves?  Stop them before they think again!

And by a 71 - 21 percent majority, voters agree "that because of the opposition of Ground Zero relatives, the Muslim group should voluntarily build the mosque somewhere else."

They key word is "voluntarily."  New Yorkers want the mosque builders to do the sensitive thing and show the respect for others that they demand for themselves.

I'd love to see how New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, New York's leading mosque booster, will react to the survey.  I wonder if he'll blame Fox News. 

There are new reports that one of the real-estate principals behind the mosque owes a tidy sum in back taxes.  State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, the Democratic candidate for governor, and an almost sure thing to win (as of now) has said that the mosque builders have a right to build, but also said that he'd open an investigation if anything about the project didn't pass muster.

Well, muster has been flunked.  Your move, Andy.

August 31, 2010     Permalink

MONDAY, AUGUST 30, 2010

ABOUT THAT GROUND ZERO MOSQUE – AT 7:48 P.M. ET:  My Argentinian friend, and courageous blogger, Susanna Kohan, alerts us to a superb piece by Mark Helprin in The Wall Street Journal, about the World Trade Center mosque.  There are some real gems here:

Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, says of those who with heartbreaking bravery went into the towers: "We do not honor their lives by denying the very constitutional rights they died protecting."

Mr. Mayor, the firemen, the police, the EMTs and the paramedics who rushed into those buildings, many of them knowing that they would die there, did not do so to protect constitutional rights. They went often knowingly to their deaths to protect what the Constitution itself protects: people, flesh and blood, men and women, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, sisters and brothers. Although you yourself may not know this, they did.

Hear, hear.  Have you noticed how often the left, which disparages displays of patriotism routinely, whips out the flag whenever it gets into trouble?  They're worse than the so-called "superpatriots." 

The left is trying to make the mosque at Ground Zero a Constitutional issue.  It clearly isn't.  It's an issue of taste and sensitivity.  No one is denying anyone's Constititonal rights.

This small and symbolic crisis is not a test of constitutional liberties, for in regard to the question at hand the Constitution allows discretion. It is rather a test of how far America can be pushed, and America is not at all as powerless as it has been portrayed.

That is because the street in front of the mosque that the Constitution says can be built can be filled with people who can effectively protest it because the Constitution says that they are free. Those who do not fear to do so need only go there and stand upon their convictions, their beliefs, their reason, their laws, their history, and what is in their hearts.

COMMENT:  Wonderfully stated.  Please read the whole article.  It will be one of the best things you've read on the subject.

Oh, by the way, the imam in charge of the proposed mosque said today that the teachings of Islam prevent him from moving it.  That is an utterly chilling thought.  I wasn't aware that Islam dealt with real estate issues, but apparently it does.  But I'd like to know a bit more about that teaching, and why we, as a nation, must bow down before it.

August 30, 2010      Permalink

GOOD NUMBERS – AT 7:33 P.M. ET:  The Gallup people counters now tell us that the GOP has taken an "unprecedented" lead in the congressional generic ballot:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Republicans lead by 51% to 41% among registered voters in Gallup weekly tracking of 2010 congressional voting preferences. The 10-percentage-point lead is the GOP's largest so far this year and is its largest in Gallup's history of tracking the midterm generic ballot for Congress...

...The Republican leads of 6, 7, and 10 points this month are all higher than any previous midterm Republican advantage in Gallup's history of tracking the generic ballot, which dates to 1942. Prior to this year, the highest such gap was five points, measured in June 2002 and July 1994. Elections in both of these years resulted in significant Republican gains in House seats.

COMMENT:  Bill Kristol estimates that a six-point lead would translate into a pickup of about 60 seats for the GOP.  A ten-point lead?  The results could be dazzling.

A reminder:  The election won't be held for another two months.  The Democrats haven't yet informed the American voters that the Republicans will take away their children and sell them to oil companies.

August 30, 2010      Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 11:31 A.M. ET:

NEW YORK, Aug. 29 (UPI) -- A New York City woman has been arrested for allegedly faking an injury after a light pole knocked down by a truck missed her, police said.

Sherin Brown, 23, was walking on a Brooklyn borough street Friday when an out-of-control truck hit the pole, which fell but did not hit Brown, the New York Post reported Sunday.

As police responded to the accident scene, a surveillance camera allegedly caught Brown, unharmed, lying down on the ground near the felled light fixture and telling responding officers she was injured, the newspaper said.

It's New York.  Next stop for Sherin Brown:  How does Governor Brown sound?

August 30, 2010      Permalink

OH DEAR, OH DEAR, WHAT CAN THE MATTER BE? – AT 10:58 A.M. ET:  We posit that everyone is in favor of a nice environment.  I mean, we all like clean air, right?  But environmental "groups" are something else again.  The Washington Post reports that some of these groups have woken up and realized that the public isn't buying their line any longer.  We wonder why:

On Thursday, some of the country's most respected environmental groups - in the midst of their biggest political fight in two decades - sent a group of activists to Milwaukee with a message.

We're losing.

They put on what they called a "CarnivOil" - a fake carnival with a stilt-wearing barker, free "tar balls" (chocolate doughnuts), and a suit-wearing "oil executive" punching somebody dressed like a crab. It was supposed to be satire, but there was a bitter message underneath: When we fight the oil and gas industry, they win.

"We killed the clean-energy bill! There's still no cap on oil spills!" yelled Heather Brutz, the barker, who was pretending to speak for the industry. "And now, for our graaaaaaand finale, we're going to pass the diiiiiirty-air act!"

A year ago, these groups seemed to be at the peak of their influence, needing only the Senate's approval for a landmark climate-change bill. But they lost that fight, done in by the sluggish economy and opposition from business and fossil-fuel interests.

Now the groups are wondering how they can keep this loss from becoming a rout as their opponents press their advantage and try to undo the Obama administration's climate efforts. At two events last week in Wisconsin, environmental groups seemed to be trying two strategies: defiance and pleading for sympathy.

Neither one drew enough people to fill a high school gym.

COMMENT:  They live in their own world.  Sure, environmental groups have done some fine work.  But in the 1970s their ranks were swelled by old leftists who were looking for a new cause after they destroyed our effort in Vietnam.  Environmentalism looked neat, but they turned a well-meaning movement into a political march.  The first "Earth Day" was held on Lenin's birthday, and no one thought it was a coincidence.

In recent years the enviros went for too many bridges that were too far.  On climate change, they have used suspicious data and unproved theories.  Too often their cry of "the sky is falling" was followed by the sky remaining firmly in place.  And so many Americans have grown skeptical.  They become especially suspicious when they're told they must abandon the life they've striven for, while some environmental "leaders" live in huge mansions and fly in private planes. 

What the environmental movement needs is greater care, more modest goals, and a decent respect for the lives that people dream of living.  If they're going to go for a hundred percent, which the left often does, and if they continue to show contempt for average people, which the left also does, they will lose more and more. 

August 30, 2010      Permalink

OBAMA'S TERROR OUTRAGE – AT 9:11 A.M. ET:  The president will address the nation this week marking the withdrawal of American combat units from Iraq.  If he follows his usual practice, he'll demonstrate a complete lack of class by failing to acknowledge the role played by former President George W. Bush in staying the course, originating the "surge," and seeing it through. 

But there's another outrage being committed – this administration's failure to bring to justice those who've committed horrible acts against us.  The distinguished historian, Arthur Herman, documents just what's happened, putting the blame squarely on the president:

Americans are learning there's one minority group President Obama is never afraid to offend: families of victims of Islamist terror.

First, Attorney General Eric Holder wanted to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of the 9/11 attack, in lower Manhattan -- which nearly everyone, even Mayor Bloomberg (eventually), realized would be a standing insult to the memory of KSM's victims.

Then came Obama's "I was for it before I was against it" stance on the Ground Zero mosque -- another slap at 9/11 victims' families.

Now, last Friday, we learned that "no charges are either pending or contemplated" against one of the deadliest and most dangerous al Qaeda operatives, Abd al Rahim al Nashiri, mastermind of the October 12, 2000, bombing of USS Cole that killed 17 sailors and officers and wounded dozens more.

And...

After 9/11 Bush and other Americans understood that we were in a war, not a "Law and Order" episode. They understood that such a war required more effective instruments than our civilian courts and the normal legal process. The time-tested, Supreme Court-approved system of military tribunals for trying enemy combatants was one such instrument.

Obama told his political allies on the left that as president he'd turn Bush's War on Terror upside down. The terrorists would now get constitutional protections; and those who fought against them would go to jail as "war criminals."

Now, Obama's popularity is in a tailspin...If he starts even one military trial of an alleged terrorist, even one who attacked a military installation, he loses whatever shred of credibility he still has with his political base.

It is incredible to think that a crowd dominated by Code Pink and modern Jane Fondas may well have more influence over the fate of captured terrorists than the families of victims.

"It seems like nobody really cares," says Gloria Clodfelter, whose 21-year-old son died in the Cole bombing. Like the KSM trial and Obama's stance on the Ground Zero mosque, the decision to suspend the al Nashiri proceedings has nothing to do with justice and a lot to do with politics. The shame is that, once again, those who suffer are the families of those killed by terror, not the terrorists themselves.

Maybe Americans will finally come to realize what we elected in 2008.  And maybe reasonable Democrats will come to realize what's happened to their once-great party.

August 30, 2010      Permalink

PROGRESS – AT 8:36 A.M. ET:  I want once again to thank the many readers who've asked me about my medical situation, and also asked me to write about my adventure.

Well, I'm not going to do that.  I've never particularly admired people who, if you ask, "How are you?" give their entire medical histories, and provide X-rays.  We've all met them.  I have a rule at my house:  You can have any disease you wish, but please don't talk about it.

For those just joining us, I had shoulder surgery a month ago today.  To be brief, things are coming along, some activity is returning, and I can start driving a bit this week, pitting me against a lot of teenaged girls in Corvettes.  But it's more important to think of people who are seriously ill, including one of our readers who had a near-death experience during this time.  And it's important to think of our men and women in the military, whose medical situation dwarfs mine.  That, by the way, includes those injured in training accidents, something we too often forget.  Military service is hazardous by nature.

However, having had this experience, I was reminded of the stakes involved in Obamacare.  I was lucky to have choices.  And I was lucky that my surgeon also had a choice of medical teams with which to work.  Physical therapy is critical to my recovery, and I was given a list of perhaps 20 physical therapy centers from which to choose.   By asking for recommendations, I found the one best suited to my needs.  Only in a largely private system, where facilities compete with each other for patient loyalty, is that possible, and I fear we may well lose that advantage if the socialized medicine battalions have their way.

I'm not naive enough to believe that all government service is poor and all private service wonderful.  Only a fool believes anything that simplistic.  But the sheer variety and flexibility of our system is at the core of its excellence. 

I'm insured with two separate plans, one of which is private, the other being Medicare.  I'm happy to report that my experience with Medicare has been good, and the people we speak with when we have questions have been competent and courteous.  (We give credit here where it's due.)  But the private plan has the need to compete, and there is an extra edge.  That doesn't mean all private plans are wonderful or fair.  They are not, and reform is clearly needed.  But I dread thinking of what life would be like with only one system, with no choice, and no one to whom to appeal.

One of the gimmicks socialists push is "simplicity."  Why, the single payer system is so "simple."  Don't buy it.  Simplicity is also the basis for the appeal of dictatorships.  Why think when others are willing to do it for you?  Sometimes the complexity, even the noise, of a competitive system serves us far better in the end.  Don't be afraid of a little messiness.

The first "benefits" of Obamacare kick in this month.  The senator who guided the program through his committee in the Senate admitted last week that he'd never read the bill.  I'm apprehensive about what's in store for us, which makes this midterm election even more important.  Take it from a guy whose right arm is in a sling:  This election affects all of us personally.

August 30, 2010      Permalink 

DRAGGIN' – AT 8:04 A.M. ET:   Welcome to the last week of August, the slowest news week of the year, with the possible exception of Christmas week. 

It is a week filled with anticipation.  In Hollywood, stars, producers and agents anticipate their psychiatrists' return from vacations.  This is a major event requiring parties, wine, and petitions to save various species. 

For us, we anticipate what will start next week – the most important midterm election campaign of our lifetime.  America has a stark choice between the alarming death rattle of our drift toward European socialism, and slamming on the brakes and saying to President Obama, "No you won't."  We hope for victory.  We're encouraged by the trends.  But we also worry about overconfidence, arrogance, and a few inadequate candidates who can do more harm than good.  We must run scared, and run as if we're 20 points behind.  We must also finally recognize the enormous impact that a biased media will have.  You may be certain that, in some newsrooms, the "I'm in journalism to make a difference" crowd is already opening probes of conservative candidates, the better to smear them with the usual, one-size-fits-all charge of, check one, 1) racism, 2) sexism, 3) Islamophobia, 4) homophobia, 5) or that old, sentimental favorite, they'll-take-away-your-Social-Securityism.

Starting next Tuesday, Urgent Agenda will devote a special section every day to the election, as we count down to November 2nd.  So stay with us.  As the great Bette said in "All About Eve," it's going to be a bumpy night.

August 30, 2010     Permalink