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.

TUESDAY,  JULY 13,  2010

APPALLING, ABSOLUTELY APPALLING – AT 7:44 P.M. ET:  Now the left wants to politicize baseball, having politicized almost everything else.  From Fox:

The campaign to move the 2011 All-Star Game out of Phoenix to protest Arizona's immigration law heated up this week, with some of baseball's superstars threatening to sit it out and demonstrators trying to deliver thousands of petitions to Commissioner Bud Selig.

The increased pressure coincided with this year's All-Star Game, which was to be played Tuesday night in Anaheim.

Selig has given no indication that he plans to consent to demands to change the 2011 game's location. But with Arizona's law just weeks from going into effect, protesters are using this year's game as the prime venue for pressing their case.

Roberto Lovato, whose group Presente.org launched the MoveTheGame.org website, said activists were kicked out by security when they tried to deliver 110,000 petitions to Selig at the Anaheim Marriott on Monday.

COMMENT:  This is a moment for presidential leadership, which we will not get.  Mr. Obama, a sportrs fan, should make it clear that politics has no place in sports, just as racism has no place in sports. 

What's next?  Will World Series participants have to have the approval of ethnic groups?  Will someone count the number of left-handed Muslim pitchers of Indonesian origin on the Yankees before the team is permitted to go for another world championship?

Selig should stand firm, and threaten to fine any player who doesn't show up. 

July 13, 2010      Permalink

CALIFORNIA, HERE I COME – AT 7:22 P.M. ET:  Polls in California, as of the moment, give reason to believe that Ronald Reagan's state may come to its senses and return to the true faith.  From RealClearPolitics.

In the gubernatorial race, GOP candidate Meg Whitman leads former Governor (and almost every other office) Jerry Brown, 46-39%.

In the Senate race, Carly Fiorina leads incumbent Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer, 47-45%.

The polling was done by Survey USA.

A cautionary note:  California has become a generally reliable Democratic state.  While these numbers show a turnaround for Republicans, they can change dramatically by election day.  The California Democratic Party is fierce, radical, and vicious.  Watch for the race card, and for the most vulgar scare tactics to be used to frighten black and Hispanic voters to the polls. 

I think Whitman has a reasonable chance to win the governorship.  It will be more difficult for Fiorina in the Senate race, as Boxer has an effective organization and has been a strong vote getter.  Maybe her reputation as one of the dimmer bulbs, or burned-out bulbs, in the Senate is catching up with her.  But this will be a fight.  Nothing is in the bag here.

July 13, 2010      Permalink

I THOUGHT THIS MOVIE WAS OVER – AT 9:29 A.M. ET:  The Obamans don't take no for an answer, even when it's a federal court that says it.  For them, "Drill baby drill" becomes "Cease and desist, equal person, cease and desist!"  From Fox:

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration issued a new moratorium Monday on deep-water offshore drilling that is no longer based on water depth and stresses new evidence of safety problems, hoping the revised ban will pass muster with the courts after the initial one was rejected.

"More than 80 days into the BP oil spill, a pause on deep-water drilling is essential and appropriate to protect communities, coasts, and wildlife from the risks that deep-water drilling currently pose," Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said in announcing the new moratorium. "I am basing my decision on evidence that grows every day of the industry's inability in the deep-water to contain a catastrophic blowout, respond to an oil spill, and to operate safely."

The new moratorium was panned by industry groups and supported by environmentalists.

Last week, a federal appeals court rejected the government's effort to restore its initial offshore deep-water drilling moratorium, which was issued after the catastrophic Gulf oil spill in April. The moratorium was blocked first last month by U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman.

The Justice Department said Monday that it will file a motion with the U.S. District Court seeking a dismissal of that case, because the old moratorium is no longer operative, making the challenge moot. The department also will ask the appeals court to set aside Feldman's order of last month.

COMMENT:  There doesn't appear to be much science or engineering behind the administration's obsession with a ban.  The ban appears designed more to pacify a political constituency than to meet a need.  What else is new with this crowd? 

No one denies the horror of the Gulf oil spill, and BP will be paying big time.  But we need petroleum.  The administration has been trying to sell us on "new energy sources," and that's fine.  But those new sources won't be doing the job for decades, and many will probably never pan out. 

The drilling moratorium will make us even more dependent on foreign oil, a dependence the Obamans say they're trying to lessen.  Drilling policy should be determined by hard calculations and engineering studies, not by political favoritism and ideological zeal. 

Oh wait, this is the Obama administration, isn't it?

July 13, 2010      Permalink

WHAT $42,000 A YEAR BUYS YOU – AT 8:48 A.M. ET:  I believe that the next great issue to surface in American life will be the condition, and behavior, of our colleges and universities.

The market does work.  And, increasingly, parents are starting to question what $42,000 a year or more buys them at institutions of "higher learning."  Higher, of course, if you're on the political left. 

Traditionally, colleges, with the help of mighty alumni associations, have been able to deflect many criticisms by screaming "academic freedom," invoking the always useful image of "McCarthyism," and declaring themselves sacred ground, lofty and above us mere humans.  Too important and pure to be answering questions.  That is changing.

Where does $42,000 go?  The New York Times provided some of the answers:

American colleges are spending a declining share of their budgets on instruction and more on administration and recreational facilities for students, according to a study of college costs released Friday...

....the trend toward increased spending on nonacademic areas prevailed across the higher education spectrum, with public and private, elite and community colleges increasing expenditures more for student services than for instruction, the report said.

The student services category can include spending on career counseling and financial aid offices, but also on intramural athletics and student centers.

Why should we be shocked?  Our young generations are increasingly adolescent.  In the 1930s, American kids danced to the music of George Gershwin, and loved it.  And today?  The music is basically just for kids.  Very young kids with very young tastes.

“This is the country-clubization of the American university,” said Richard K. Vedder, a professor at Ohio University who studies the economics of higher education. “A lot of it is for great athletic centers and spectacular student union buildings. In the zeal to get students, they are going after them on the basis of recreational amenities.”

Not really that new a story.  But this trend, combined with lower academic standards in many places and the turning of colleges into propaganda centers of the political left, may finally be raising the eyebrows of those who write the checks.

The next big blow can come if a Republican president, in the mold of Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, made it clear, once and for all, that there is no right to a federal grant, and that the endless demands by colleges for federal money will be looked at more carefully, and with two eyes.  Colleges may actually have to defend the way they spend our dollars.  What a shock.

July 13, 2010      Permalink

OBAMA'S POLL DANCE – AT 8:31 A.M. ET:  A new poll shows confidence in President Obama has sunk to its lowest level.  From WaPo:

Public confidence in President Obama has hit a new low, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll. Four months before midterm elections that will define the second half of his term, nearly six in 10 voters say they lack faith in the president to make the right decisions for the country, and a clear majority once again disapproves of how he is dealing with the economy.

Regard for Obama is still higher than it is for members of Congress, but the gap has narrowed. About seven in 10 registered voters say they lack confidence in Democratic lawmakers and a similar proportion say so of Republican lawmakers.

Overall, more than a third of voters polled -- 36 percent -- say they have no confidence or only some confidence in the president, congressional Democrats and congressional Republicans. Among independents, this disillusionment is higher still. About two-thirds of all voters say they are dissatisfied with or angry about the way the federal government is working.

And...

Those most likely to vote in the midterms prefer the GOP over continued Democratic rule by a sizable margin of 56 percent to 41 percent.

COMMENT:  We can see little ahead to change the basic political equation.  Democratic governors are already warning the White House that the Justice Department's suit against Arizona is political poison, but the Obamans still forge ahead with the suit. 

However, the unexpected could still happen between now and November to rescue Mr. Obama.  The unexpected happened in 2008 – the financial meltdown.  So the election is anything but in the bag.  Right now, trends are going our way.

July 13, 2010     Permalink

THE INEVITABLE CARD – AT 8:05 A.M. ET:  Maybe it was inevitable, but have you noticed the increasingly racialized tone to our politics recently?

Leading the way is Attorney General Eric Holder, who once famously said that America is a land of racial cowards.  Holder not only refused to prosecute an open-and-shut case of voter intimidation against the new Black Panthers, there is now testimony that the Justice Department will not prosecute any case brought against a minority.

And now Holder, already suing Arizona on Constitutional grounds, says that he's looking into the possibility of suing the state on racial profiling grounds, even though there hasn't been any.

Last week, when an Oakland police officer was convicted "only" of involuntary homicide in the killing of a young African-American in a confrontation, Justice immediately announced, before tempers had cooled, that it was looking into filing federal charges.  On what basis? 

Now the NAACP appears poised to declare the Tea Party at least partially a "racist" movement.  And Michelle Obama, appearing before the group, urges blacks to "increase" their "intensity."

There have been reports that the Democrats, desperate in the face of low poll numbers, are trying to excite their base and increase its turnout.  A major part of that base is black and Hispanic.  Making those groups angry and apprehensive, and making it clear that they will be strongly represented, may well be effective short-term politics.

In the long run, though, racial agendas can backfire loudly.  The last Democratic mayor of heavily Democratic New York City, David Dinkins, was also the city's first black mayor.  The dream was that he would be a mayor who happened to be black.  The reality was that Dinkins could not overcome pressures by his supporters, and became the "black" mayor, clearly favoring his own group.  He was dispatched by Rudy Giuliani, beginning a non-Democratic mayoralty that has lasted 17 years. 

I think there is a possibility of an even greater racial tone, especially if Obama runs again.  The nation will be told that it is "racist" to vote him out of office, sending an ugly message to other countries, especially those in Latin America and Africa.

What is happening may well have been inevitable, and that is the sadness.  The country will not benefit.

July 13, 2010     Permalink

MONDAY,  JULY 12,  2010

WE ARE SINNERS, WE ARE SINNERS!  LISTEN UP! – AT 10:58 P.M. ET:  Our sinfulness is clear and obvious.  Every time, and I mean EVERY time you turn on that air conditioner, to live your life of sloth and luxury, you are sinning.  You must stop.  Right now.  WaPo says so:

Washington didn't grind to a sweaty halt last week under triple-digit temperatures. People didn't even slow down. Instead, the three-day, 100-plus-degree, record-shattering heat wave prompted Washingtonians to crank up their favorite humidity-reducing, electricity-bill-busting, fluorocarbon-filled appliance: the air conditioner.

Miserable, rotten swine.

This isn't smart. In a country that's among the world's highest greenhouse-gas emitters, air conditioning is one of the worst power-guzzlers. The energy required to air-condition American homes and retail spaces has doubled since the early 1990s. Turning buildings into refrigerators burns fossil fuels, which emits greenhouse gases, which raises global temperatures, which creates a need for -- you guessed it -- more air-conditioning.

We are fools.  Fools! 

A.C.'s obvious public-health benefits during severe heat waves do not justify its lavish use in everyday life for months on end. Less than half a century ago, America thrived with only the spottiest use of air conditioning. It could again. While central air will always be needed in facilities such as hospitals, archives and cooling centers for those who are vulnerable to heat, what would an otherwise A.C.-free Washington look like?

We are talking Paradise.  Believe it!  Imagine it!  We forgive you, sinners!

In a world without air conditioning, a warmer, more flexible, more relaxed workplace helps make summer a time to slow down again. Three-digit temperatures prompt siestas. Code-orange days mean offices are closed. Shorter summer business hours and month-long closings -- common in pre-air-conditioned America -- return.

Let us go back to those wonderful days.  Drip, children.  Drip with sweat.  Love those fainting spells.

Heat stroke?  We love it, love it.

July 12, 2010     Permalink

IT'S ABOUT TIME – AT 7:47 P.M. ET:  Republicans are waking from their usual beauty sleep and are realizing that the Bush tax cuts, which expire at the end of December, are popular, and, thought, may actually be a great campaign issue.  From Fox:

With the economy still sputtering, Republicans are drawing renewed attention to the looming expiration of Bush-era tax cuts and warning that the rollback will "clobber" everyone from small business owners to middle-class families.

Though the tax cuts passed by Congress with the encouragement of former President George W. Bush are often described as a boon for the wealthy, the changes passed in 2001 and 2003 lowered taxes for every income bracket.

Democrats have pledged to shield middle-class taxpayers from the Dec. 31 expiration though no action has been taken yet. Democratic leaders reportedly have suggested holding off taking up extending the cuts until after the November election and a report released by President Obama's debt commission.

To allow the expiration would be devastating, says Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl.

"That's going to be a huge hit to the economy," Kyl, R-Ariz., told "Fox News Sunday."

And...

Asked where Congress is going to find the hundreds of billions of dollars it would take to finance a continuation of the cuts, Kyl said it's not a matter of finding more dollars for spending that hasn't occurred yet.

"You should never raise taxes in order to cut taxes," he said.

COMMENT:  This becomes a big issue when the middle class and small business owners realizes how much their taxes will rise if the Bush cuts expire.  In some cases, rates will go up 50%, from 10% to 15%. 

Republicans have to explain this, and do it in ways that the average voter can understand.  Dems will probably do something to ease the problem for the middle class, but Democratic hostility to business is such that the small business guy may be left with a huge bill. 

Major issue, winning issue, if presented well by attractive candidates.

July 12, 2010    Permalink

ALLAH-SPEED, JOHN GLENN – AT 7:21 P.M. ET:  A funny thing happened to NASA's outreach to the Muslim world.  It ran into public ridicule, and the White House finally noticed.  From Fox:

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday that NASA Administrator Charles Bolden must have misspoken when he told Al Jazeera last month that one of his top priorities is to reach out to Muslim countries.

"That was not his task and that's not the task of NASA," Gibbs said.

Bolden, though, said last month in the interview that it was President Obama who gave him that task. He made a similar claim in February.

The White House also backed up Bolden last week when his remarks first stirred controversy. A White House spokesman last Tuesday said Obama wants NASA to engage with the world's best scientists and that to meet that challenge, NASA must "partner with countries around the world like Russia and Japan, as well as collaboration with Israel and with many Muslim-majority countries."

NASA last week walked back Bolden's claim that Muslim outreach was the "perhaps foremost" plank of his mission, saying that Bolden was merely talking about his "outreach" responsibilities and that space exploration is still NASA's No. 1 job.

COMMENT:  The contradictions fly higher than the space shuttle.  I think it's clear that Bolden reported Obama's instructions accurately.  But now Houston, or Washington, has a problem, so Bolden becomes the bad guy.  After all, there's still plenty of room under that well-known bus.  Bolden has apparently been assigned a place, right next to Reverend Wright. 

The damage to the administration from this flap isn't too great...because most of the mainstream media never carried the original story in the first place.  Another great moment in journalism.

July 12, 2010      Permalink

WHY ARE WE NOT SURPRISED? – AT 8:55 A.M. ET:  The Russians, who should know, are now actually warning of a nuclear Iran:

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said Monday that Iran was approaching the point at which it would be able to make nuclear weapons, Reuters reported.

During a meeting of international ambassadors in Moscow, Medvedev said "Iran is moving closer to possessing the potential which in principle could be used for the creation of nuclear weapons."

Russia, helpful as always, is building a reactor for Iran.  It must know a great deal about the Iranian nuclear program. 

The statement was a rare public admission by the Kremlin that Iran may have the intention of building a nuclear weapon. Reuters said the statement came after an argument with Iran over Russia's support of sanctions against Iran.

COMMENT:  Welcome to 2011, President Obama.

I don't think I recall a president heading for more trouble than this one:  an economy still in the tank, an Iranian nuclear bomb, illegal immigration out of control, and probable major losses in November.  Add to that the possibility of setbacks in Afghanistan, and you've truly got "times that try men's souls." 

Nothing Mr. Obama has done has dented Iran.  There are some reports that the newest sanctions are hurting the country, but even CIA Director Leon Panetta says that it's highly unlikely that they will stop the nuclear program.  Still, the prevailing mentality of the Obama White House is to make sure that Israel doesn't launch a preemptive strike on Iran to take out the nuclear facilities, rather than taking action that will prevent the weapons from existing in the first place.

This is starting to have the feel of the 1930s.

July 12, 2010     Permalink

WHAT IS HAPPENING TO BRITAIN? – AT 8:32 A.M. ET:  We report periodically on the descent of the British legal system into a kind of leftist never-never land, and warn that this could easily happen here.  Indeed, with Eric Holder's misguided lawsuit against Arizona, and his refusal to prosecute the New Black Panther/voter intimidation case, maybe it already is happening here.  From Britain's Telegraph:

Murders and other serious crimes committed by prisoners released early from jail may have to be “accepted” by the public as part of attempts to keep down the cost of the criminal justice system, the probation watchdog suggested.

Andrew Bridges questioned whether it was worth keeping thousands of violent and dangerous offenders locked up for longer than the minimum jail term set by a court just to stop a few of them committing new crimes.

Some reoffending — even if it involved “serious” new crimes — could be the price that society had to pay for trying to cut down on the huge cost of the country’s rising prison population, said Mr Bridges, the chief inspector of probation. While acknowledging that prison reduced crime, he described it as a “rather drastic form of crime prevention” and said it was time to consider dealing with more offenders in the community.

He claimed that the public could never be perfectly protected and that the cost of a “small amount” of reoffending could be outweighed by the “benefit” of financial savings to the public purse made from having less prisoners locked up.

COMMENT:  Can you believe that?  I wonder which part of his family Mr. Bridges is willing to sacrifice to be victims of "reoffending."

Of course, subtle threats like this are common on the left.  What Bridges is saying is this: " Cut our budget, lose your life."  It's said, however, more elegantly.  In this country they usually start with, "Don't hurt the children."

If you were an illegal immigrant coming over the Mexican border with the intention of committing crimes for profit, how fearful would you be of the Obama crowd?  Not very.

We seem to be going back to the sixties.  Didn't work out too well. 

July 12, 2010      Permalink

BARONE ANALYZES "MATTRESS ECONOMY" – AT 8:10 A.M. ET:  Michael Barone, one of the best political analysts around, calls it the "mattress economy," and it isn't working very well, meaning big trouble for the man at the top.  From The Washington Examiner:

Government policies designed to stimulate the economy seem to be having the opposite effect. Consumers aren't buying, businesses aren't hiring and those fortunate enough to have some cash on hand don't seem to be investing.

I call it the mattress economy.

People seem to be following this investment strategy. Step one: Go to Mattress Discounters and buy the biggest mattress you can find. Step two: Take it home and stuff all your money in it. Step three: Lie down and get some rest.

This hurts the economy, but it's a rational response to the Obama Democrats' public policies. And that's not just the view of their political opponents.

Consider the plaint of Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg, head of the Business Roundtable, which has been playing footsie with the Obama administration for most of the last 18 months. "By reaching into virtually every sector of economic life," Seidenberg recently wrote, "government is injecting uncertainty into the marketplace and making it harder to raise new capital and create new businesses."

And...

Instead of stimulating the economy, the Obama Democrats' policies have shocked it into immobility. People are lying on their mattresses, waiting for the next shock. At least one is definitely coming: The Bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year, which means that high earners can be sure they will very soon keep less of what they make.

There will be an enormous fight over the expiring Bush tax cuts.  Democrats, as a matter of religious faith, cannot renew them.  Republicans will demand that the Dems commit heresy and agree to renewing.  A good time will not be had by all.

The grimness for this administration has only begun.

America has seen this kind of thing before. In the late 1930s, when Franklin Roosevelt raised taxes on high earners, encouraged lawless sit-in strikes by labor unions and took over utility businesses, the response was a "capital strike."

Instead of creating jobs, businesses and investors put their money in mattresses. The result was a stagnant economy and double-digit unemployment-and a 75-seat Republican gain in the 1938 off-year elections.

COMMENT:  As Sarah asks, "How's that hopey changey stuff workin' out for you?"

Unless Obama can turn things around, or appear to, I think there's a realistic chance he will be a one-term president, either through defeat at the polls or his own decision to retire from the field rather than risk a humiliating defeat.

But Obama is an ideologist.  I don't think there's much chance he'll change any basic policies. 

Liberals were in political Heaven in November of 2008.  Now they're heading south, for the hotter sectors of the religious universe.  They will need Obamacare just to treat their psychiatric turmoil.

July 12,  2010     Permalink

OBAMA AND PETRAEUS – CLASH COMING? – AT 7:45 A.M. ET:  We've written here that the most fascinating relationship in modern politics may be the one developing between President Obama and General David Petraeus.

Did Obama pick Petraeus to run the Afghanistan war in order to win, or is he setting Petraeus up to blame him for failure and sidetrack him as a presidential candidate?  Is Petraeus in the Afghan fight for the duration, or will he resign in protest as his plans are thwarted, and then enter the presidential arena?

Hey, now that's a movie.  With potential sequels.  Get me an agent.

Now, in a superb piece of traditional reporting, Rowan Scarborough of the Washington Times reveals that the Petraeus war-fighting doctrine is in direct contradiction to President Obama's approach to the threat of terrorism.  A clash almost seems inevitable:

The White House's official policy of banning the word "Islam" in describing America's terrorist enemies is in direct conflict with the U.S. military's war-fighting doctrine now guiding commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan.

John O. Brennan, President Obama's chief national security adviser for counterterrorism, delivered a major policy address on defining the enemy. He laid out the White House policy of detaching any reference to Islam when referring to terrorists, be it al Qaeda, the Taliban or any other group.

But Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the man tapped by Mr. Obama as the new top commander in Afghanistan, led the production of an extensive counterinsurgency manual in December 2006 that does, in fact, tell commanders of a link between Islam and extremists.

The Petraeus doctrine refers to "Islamic insurgents," "Islamic extremists" and "Islamic subversives." It details ties between Muslim support groups and terrorists. His co-author was Gen. James F. Amos, whom Mr. Obama has picked as the next Marine Corps commandant and Joint Chiefs of Staff member.

Do you see problems ahead?  Petraeus is from Mars, Obama is from Kenya.

The Petraeus counterinsurgency manual takes the position that, to understand the enemy, commanders must recognize terrorist links to Islam — its leaders in some cases, its fundraising and its infrastructure. Forces must fight "Islamic extremists," it says, differently from the Viet Cong or followers of Saddam Hussein.

"Islamic extremists use perceived threats to their religion by outsiders to mobilize support for their insurgency and justify terrorist tactics," the manual states.

COMMENT:  Where does this clear split lead?  Petraeus is a superb politician, and it's possible he can paper over the differences.  Or, he can insist that his doctrine prevail, and hint at resignation if it doesn't, something that would deeply embarrass the Obamans. 

Petraeus is more popular than Obama, but still must be careful how he maneuvers.  A general must still show proper deference to civil authority, as Douglas MacArthur found out the hard way.

But the philosophical split is deep and real.  This is not Lincoln and Grant.  Those two agreed.  And it's not Roosevelt and Eisenhower.  They also agreed.  Both Grant and Eisenhower became president.

July 12, 2010       Permalink