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 20,  2010

THE EYES AND EARS OF THEMSELVES – AT 8:48 P.M. ET:  Journalists like to call themselves the eyes and ears of the public.  In fact, they're the eyes and ears of themselves, and no one else.  A major journalistic scandal was revealed yesterday by Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller.  Naturally, the response of the big media guys is silence.  But the documented report is stunning:

It was the moment of greatest peril for then-Sen. Barack Obama’s political career. In the heat of the presidential campaign, videos surfaced of Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, angrily denouncing whites, the U.S. government and America itself. Obama had once bragged of his closeness to Wright. Now the black nationalist preacher’s rhetoric was threatening to torpedo Obama’s campaign.

The crisis reached a howling pitch in mid-April, 2008, at an ABC News debate moderated by Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. Gibson asked Obama why it had taken him so long – nearly a year since Wright’s remarks became public – to dissociate himself from them. Stephanopoulos asked, “Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?”

Watching this all at home were members of Journolist, a listserv comprised of several hundred liberal journalists, as well as like-minded professors and activists. The tough questioning from the ABC anchors left many of them outraged. “George [Stephanopoulos],” fumed Richard Kim of the Nation, is “being a disgusting little rat snake.”

Others went further. According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.

In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

COMMENT:  Ah yes, call them racists.  It's the way the leftist game is played, and we're seeing it right now in the outlandish attacks on tea partiers.  Just call them racists.

Of course, if you dare criticize these "journalists" you may expect to be accused of 1) McCarthyism, 2) destroying their freedom of speech, 3) being under the thumb of the Israel lobby, and 4) fascism.

To me, this report, well documented, is a smoking gun.  It reveals, using actual documents, disgraceful behavior in journalism.  But will anything be done about it?  Are you serious?

To many on the left, they have a right to lie, a right to deceive.  They are "victims," after all, and they must deceive to survive.  Why, Joe McCarthy is coming from the grave to get them. 

I've seen this all my adult life.  I saw it in the leftist groups in college.  I saw it in the film and television industries.  "The truth," a leftist leader of the sixties said, "is what supports progressive causes."  And the left believes that.

July 20, 2010      Permalink

MY GAWD, IS THIS RACIAL PROFILING?  CALL OUT THE FBI, THE CIA, THE CAMPFIRE GIRLS – AT 8:16 P.M. ET:  This is an absolutely intriguing story about things happening down Mexico way.  But remember, we are all brothers.  From Fox:

A loose network of Mexican-American women, some of whom may be illegal immigrants, have been responsible for helping numerous Afghan military deserters go AWOL from an Air Force Base in Texas, FoxNews.com has learned.

Many of the Afghans, with the women's assistance, have made their way to Canada; the whereabouts of others remain unknown. Some of the men have been schooled by the women in how to move around the U.S. without any documentation.

Critical question:  Why would Mexican-American women, if that's who they are, want to help Afghans?  I want that question answered.

The Afghan deserters refer to the women as "BMWs" — Big Mexican Women — and they often are the first step in the Afghans' journey from Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas, to Canada, a diplomatic official told FoxNews.com. He requested anonymity because he is not authorized to speak publicly during an ongoing investigation by U.S. and international authorities into who helped the Afghans leave the Defense Language Institute’s English Language Center at Lackland.

The official's account was supported by a source at the Defense Language Institute (DLI), who also requested anonymity. Foreign soldiers attend DLI to learn English before they receive specialized military training at various installations in the U.S.

COMMENT:  I label this speculation, but there have been reports of Islamic extremist activity in Latin America.  Could these women be part of a network, a coalition?  There'll be more to this story.

July 20, 2010      Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 7:24 A.M. ET:  Mr. Obama, set to meet Britain's prime minister (see post just below) brings with him a wealth of foreign policy wisdom and experience...not.  From Rick Richman at Contentions:

In the July/August issue of Foreign Affairs, Walter Russell Mead reviews David Remnick’s biography of Barack Obama and notes that “students of foreign policy will be bemused and somewhat alarmed by the near-total absence of evidence in Remnick’s book that Obama ever showed any interest in foreign policy before running for president.” Mead writes that “to judge from this book, Obama spent little time dealing with foreign policy until he failed to get the Senate committee assignment he really wanted and was forced to make the best of an appointment to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.”

That's certainly reassuring in the nuclear age.  And...

The “ill-conceived war” was effectively won by virtue of the surge that Obama opposed. His “diplomacy, and strategy, and foresight” produced an outstretched hand to Iran and sanctions no one thinks will work, a “peace process” that cannot even get direct talks to start, and a Nobel Peace Prize he had insufficient modesty to reject. And it is all Bush’s fault, or the Republicans’, or the public’s expectations.

Students of foreign policy may be bemused and somewhat alarmed. But the American public, if the current polls are accurate, does not appear to be amused.

COMMENT:  Oh dear, oh dear, we do hope the visiting British PM doesn't read this.  We American hicks do want to make a good impression. 

The hilarity here is that Obama was presented to us by his sales department as a consummate whiz in foreign policy, a man who would reshape America's image in the world and usher in an age of everyone singing together while holding up Coke bottles.

Hasn't happened, has it?

July 20, 2010      Permalink

"WHAT!" EXCLAIMED BARACK, "ANOTHER ENGLISHMAN?" – AT 6:12 A.M. ET:  The president of the United States is about to host the new prime minister of a country for which Mr. Obama has a certain contempt – Great Britain.  Oh yes, it's America's most reliable ally, but what's that compared to a good, solid, left-wing grudge?  Look, it's the colonialism thing.  We'll never understand.

Britain's Evening Standard believes that David Cameron, the new PM, is in for some rough handling:

David Cameron distanced himself from BP today as he prepared to face American anger over the firm's oil leak disaster and its role in the release of the Locker bomber.

I hardly think the British prime minister can be blamed for the leak, but Obama may just try.  After all, Obama is the guy who waited four days to mosey up to a microphone to give some vague endorsement of democracy as Iranian demonstrators were being shot in the streets of Tehran.  He's got to show firmness with someone, so why not a someone who won't shoot back? 

With the Prime Minister flying out to Washington for his first White House meeting with Barack Obama, pressure grew for BP to clarify its involvement in the decision to free Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.

Megrahi, who was convicted for the murder of 270 people on Pan Am 103 in December 1988, was released last year after a prisoner transfer deal with Libya was signed by former justice secretary Jack Straw.

But with BP under fire in the US, senators have also seized on claims that the prisoner deal was done in return for lucrative drilling rights handed to the oil giant by Tripoli.

Mr Straw, who could be forced to testify in front of a US investigation, has admitted that the BP deal “played a very big part” in his decision to agree the prisoner transfer plan in 2007.

That is an outrage, and it's entirely proper for Obama to bring it up.  But Cameron was not responsible, and it's critical that Obama try to repair the relationship with Britain, which he strained with his insulting treatment of former Prime Minister Brown, when he visited the White House. 

Mr Straw denies that Megrahi was discussed in the phone call, but critics believe there was no need for any explicit reference to the Libyan because he was the most important prisoner involved.

Today, Mr Cameron pointed out that the deals were done under Labour and that Megrahi was released by the SNP-led Scottish government last year.

Asked on BBC Breakfast whether the oil giant had lobbied for Megrahi's release, Mr Cameron said: “I have no idea what BP did, I am not responsible for BP. All I know is as leader of opposition I couldn't have been more clear that I thought the decision to release al-Megrahi was completely and utterly wrong.

“I'm interested in having a good, productive relationship with America. Yes, there will be lots of things we will be talking about, Afghanistan, BP, I'm sure the issue of al-Megrahi will be raised as well.”

COMMENT:  We will watch carefully to see whether Mr. Obama handles this visit with some style.  He recently played kissy-face with Prime Minister Netanyahu of another staunch ally, Israel, months after the president had insulted Netanyahu at the White House.  It's extraordinary to have to watch an American president patch up relations with our allies. I wish he'd been as tough on our enemies.

July 20, 2010      Permalink

KAGAN TO ADVANCE TODAY – AT 5:31 A.M. ET:  Elena Kagan, whose nomination to the Supreme Court is at best troubling, is expected to clear the Senate Judiciary Committee today, which will send her nomination on to the full Senate. 

As usual, the GOP is asleep, except for Sen. Pete Sessions.  Kagan is a poor choice.  Essentially an academic and political activist with very little real-world legal experience, she can be expected to toe the liberal party line.  She comes from my old neighborhood in Manhattan, and, believe me, I know the atmosphere.  Many wonderful people there, but some of them, and I fear Kagan is one of them, would put their college board scores on their tombstones. 

Byron York, in the Washington Examiner, explores a troubling episode in Kagan's past, when she literally rewrote the statement of medical doctors in order to advance her argument in favor of a presidential veto of  a bill banning partial-birth abortion.  It's part of her "we walk on water" syndrome.

"The problem for me, as a physician," wrote former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop in a letter urging senators to vote against Kagan, "is that she was willing to replace a medical statement with a political statement that was not supported by any existing medical data."

That's the troubling thing – politics above all.  Kagan is a politician.  She is not a judge.  She will find in the Constitution the language to support her political beliefs.

Kagan is not riding a wave of public support to confirmation. A recent Gallup poll found that just 44 percent of those surveyed support her nomination -- fewer than any high court candidate in recent memory. "If confirmed," Gallup concluded, "Kagan would be the first successful nominee in recent years whose nomination was backed by less than a majority of Americans in the final poll before the Senate confirmation vote."

COMMENT:  The view of the left has always been, "The public be damned."  They are not going to listen to people they consider lesser souls, people who didn't go to proper schools.

Kagan is a personable woman, very much liked by people who know her.  But her joining the Court will move this country one vote closer to a rewriting of our basic freedoms, for she seems to feel that this is both her role and the privilege accorded those of her class.

July 20, 2010      Permalink

BULL IN KABUL? – AT 5:28 A.M. ET:  What really is our policy in Afghanistan, and will divisions over it drive a wedge between Hillary "Oval Office" Clinton and Barack "I want to keep the job" Obama?  Fox News reports on Hillary's trip to Afghanistan:

KABUL — U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday vowed the United States and its allies will stand by Afghanistan even as fears are growing about the course of the nearly 9-year-old war and the Obama administration plans to begin withdrawing American troops from the country next year.

Clinton acknowledged deepening opposition to international involvement in the conflict amid the rising death toll of foreign troops in the country. But she told an international conference on Afghanistan's future that the "world is with Afghanistan" and that the planned drawdown of U.S. forces was not a sign of flagging commitment.

"The July 2011 date captures both our sense of urgency and the strength of our resolve," she said of U.S. plans to accelerate the process of turning over security to Afghanistan's police and military. "The transition process is too important to push off indefinitely."

"But this date is the start of a new phase, not the end of our involvement," Clinton told the conference, which is being attended by senior officials from about 70 countries. "We have no intention of abandoning our long-term mission of achieving a stable, secure, peaceful Afghanistan."

COMMENT:   I have absolutely no idea what any of that means.  It's diplo-talk. 

But Afghanistan a year from now, when Obama promised his leftist lemmings that he'll start withdrawing troops, will be a major crisis point. We may make some progress by then, but it's hard to believe it will be dramatic progress.  At the same moment, Iran will be a year closer to the nuclear bomb, or might even have arrived. 

What will Obama do?  Just as intriguing, what will Hillary do?  A year from now, the 2012 election campaign will almost be upon us.

July 20,  2010    Permalink

MONDAY,  JULY 19,  2010

THE WRONG WAY TO DO THINGS – AT 10:37 P.M. ET:  Cruising under the radar is a national campaign to change the electoral-college system of electing presidents by changing the voting laws in each state.  No great public discussion.  No national debate.  Just back-room politics.  Massachusetts in the next focus.  From the Boston Globe:

The state Legislature is poised to give final approval this week to a new law intended to bypass the Electoral College system and ensure that the winner of the presidential election is determined by the national popular vote.

Both the House and Senate have approved the National Popular Vote bill. Final enactment votes are needed in both chambers, however, before the bill goes to the governor's desk, the Globe reported last week.

Governor Deval Patrick's press office didn't immediately return a message this morning seeking comment on whether he would sign the bill, if it makes its way to his desk.

Under the proposed law, all 12 of the state's electoral votes would be awarded to the candidate who receives the most votes nationally.

Supporters are waging a state-by-state campaign to try to get such bills enacted. Once states possessing a majority of the electoral votes (or 270 of 538) have enacted the laws, the candidate winning the most votes nationally would be assured a majority of the Electoral College votes, no matter how the other states vote and how their electoral votes are distributed.

Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland, and Washington have already adopted the legislation, according to the National Popular Vote campaign's website.

Supporters of the change say that the current Electoral College system is confusing and causes candidates to focus unduly on a handful of battleground states.

Confusing?  We've been using it since the dawn of the republic, and Americans seem to have figured it out.  Who's confused?

And it doesn't focus only on a handful of states.  In fact, one of the strengths of the current system is that it forces candidates to run campaigns in small states.  A few of them, together, can make or break a presidential candidate.

Critics say the current system is not broken. They also point to the disturbing scenario that Candidate X wins nationally, but Candidate Y has won in Massachusetts. In that case, all of the state's 12 electoral votes would go to Candidate X, the candidate who was not supported by Massachusetts voters.

The proponents of the change don't care.  This is another attempt to weaken the state system.  Sometimes we forget that the name of the country is the United States of America.  We vote by state in presidential elections, and it's a great reminder of who we are. 

A little discussion please.  A little coverage by the mainstream media.  Is that too much to ask?

July 19, 2010      Permalink

THE DIVIDE – AT 7:31 P.M. ET:  A new Gallup poll plainly shows the divide that has developed over the Obama administration:

Where is the president's approval highest?  In the District of Columbia, at 85%, which is overwelmingly African-American.  Second highest:  Hawaii, at 68%.  (Note the dramatic difference between first and second place.)

Lowest?  Wyoming, at 29%.  Second lowest:  Utah, at 34%.  Another poll has Obama at 28% in Arizona.  I'm surprised it's that high in that state.

There's no doubt the president is in trouble. A "reelect" poll, as discussed by Democratic strategist Mark Penn, underlines that trouble:

By far, the most alarming numbers this poll presents for President Barack Obama are the reelection figures; against a generic Republican candidate, he loses by 5 points, 37-42. In general, when an incumbent’s reelect numbers fall below 50 percent, it’s a sign of trouble to come — and Obama’s inability to break even 40 percent may be the most telling indicator to come out of these data.

COMMENT:  But remember that Obama retains substantial strength in the largest states, in part because of their loyal minority populations.  Nothing is going to be easy for the Republicans. 

Midterms will soon be upon us.  Remember, there is no prize for second place in politics.

July 19, 2010     Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 9:51 A.M. ET:  From Kevin D. Williamson, at NRO:

Just as state schooling is not about education, but about the state, gun control is not about guns: It’s about control. A citizen who can fend for himself when the predators come or the schools fail is less inclined to look to the state for sustenance and oversight in other areas of life. To progressives, that’s an invitation to anarchy. To the men who wrote the Second Amendment, it was a condition of citizenship in a free republic. It’s what free men did, and do.

COMMENT:  Well said.  The obsession with state control on the part of the Obama administration has reached a level we haven't seen since the late sixties, when the American left had its last great fling.   That sure ended well, didn't it?  Our cities were awash with crime, and the American military was regularly trashed.  Ah, wasn't it a time, wasn't it a time. 

The fact is that many on the left really don't believe in individual freedom.  They have contempt for the very "masses" they claim to serve.  Thus, anything that gives power to the individual is considered a threat to "the collective," especially if that power is held by one of those dumb, uninformed, ill-bred Americans, the kind who watch Fox News and eat meat. 

I am not a gun nut.  I think there are reasonable standards that can be applied to society to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them, like criminals or the insane.  But I'm also a strong believer in the Second Amendment because it is the consummate statement in the Constitution of the supremacy of the people over their government.  In America we trust the people so much that we permit them to keep and bear arms.  Contrast that with the situation in every dictatorship I can think of.

I fear that our fundamental freedoms are in great danger, greater than at any period in my lifetime.  The danger is from within, not from without.  And it comes from the self-appointed "good people." who only want a better society, and will destroy everything we have in order to get it.

It's not the first time this has happened.

July 19, 2010      Permalink

YOU MEAN THEY'RE NOT JUST LIKE US? – AT 8:10 A.M. ET:  The Politico, which leans left, goes surprisingly straight-shooter in describing the growing gap between Barack Obama's Washington and the rest of the country.  Are they out of touch in D.C.?  Do you have to ask?

America is struggling with a sputtering economy and high unemployment — but times are booming for Washington’s governing class.

The massive expansion of government under President Barack Obama has basically guaranteed a robust job market for policy professionals, regulators and contractors for years to come. The housing market, boosted by the large number of high-income earners in the area, many working in politics and government, is easily outpacing the markets in most of the country. And there are few signs of economic distress in hotels, restaurants or stores in the D.C. metro area.

As a result, there is a yawning gap between the American people and D.C.’s powerful when it comes to their economic reality — and their economic perceptions.

A new POLITICO poll, conducted by market research and consulting firm Penn Schoen Berland, underscores the big divide: Roughly 45 percent of “Washington elites” said the country and the economy are headed in the right direction, while roughly 25 percent of the general population said they felt that way.

And, of course, when big government lives well, you can be sure there'll be more big government.  The people who make the laws dream of a lifelong gravy train.  As we've reported before, public employees are now paid more, on average, than their civilian equivalents.  The economy is capsizing.

The economic crisis has been a job creator for those outside government, too. Many New York firms have opened new offices and created new jobs in D.C. to deal with the growing web of regulations. Northrop Grumman — one of many contractors profiting from government growth — is moving its operations from Southern California to Northern Virginia. Several other firms have moved here of late, too.

COMMENT:  Who owns this country anyway?  Didn't I once learn that the people owned the government?  When did that change?

More important, will the growing class of citizens dependent on the government want to change back?

July 19, 2010      Permalink

FOR THE OPTIMISTIC AT HEART – AT 7:51 A.M. ET:  There is some guarded discussion about the possibility that the GOP can take the Senate in November.  I think it's a stretch, but we report it.  The Senate, in my view, is more important than the House because the Senate confirms Supreme Court justices, and thus can influence their selection.  So far, Obama has given us two card-carrying liberals.  The libs need one more vote on the Court to start a legal revolution...in the wrong direction.  From Fox:

WASHINGTON—Democrats for the first time are acknowledging that Republicans could retake the Senate this November if everything falls into place for the GOP, less than two years after Democrats held a daunting 60-seat majority.

Leaders of both parties have believed for months that Republicans could win the House, where every lawmaker faces re-election. But a change of party control in the Senate, where only a third of the members are running and Republicans must capture 10 seats, seemed out of the question.

That's no longer the case. The emergence of competitive Republican candidates in Wisconsin, Washington and California—Democratic-leaning states where polls now show tight races—bring the number of seats that Republicans could seize from the Democrats to 11.

Democrats now control the Senate 59-41—after the death of Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, who was replaced by Republican Sen. Scott Brown—including two independents who usually vote with them. That means Republicans need 10 seats to take a 51-49 advantage.

COMMENT:  We really have to be careful about this.  Yes, some new possibilities for Republicans have opened up, but some earlier possibilities may be closing.  Sharron Angle, the borderline nutty candidate the GOP nominated for the Senate in Nevada, is now behind Harry Reid, who was considered dead meat just months ago.  Marco Rubio is having a tough time against newly independent Governor Charlie Crist in Florida.  And Rand Paul, no favorite of mine, is starting to slide in Kentucky, a state that should be a sure thing for sane Republican candidates...which is where the problem lies. 

I still don't see the fight in Republicans that I'd like to see, and I certainly don't see an alternative platform that they can claim as their own.  The election is three and a half months away.  The Dems are turning up the heat, and the hate, and they can be effective.

Be optimistic, but let's back that optimism by real action and solid candidates.  I'm not interested in being "close" on election day.  "Close" is for people who retire and write their memoirs.

July 19, 2010      Permalink

TO THE WOODSHED, JOE – AT 7:33 A.M. ET:  Just as the Dems turn their attention to rallying their 2008 base, which includes a sizable contingent of "anti-war" types (anti any war America has a chance of winning), Joe Biden inadvertently speaks some truths that can drive them into not voting:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. is taking a more cautious approach when it comes to next summer's planned military U.S. troop drawdown in Afghanistan.

He once predicted the drawdown next July would mean "a lot of people moving out," but he told ABC's "This Week" on Sunday that the number of U.S. troops leaving Afghanistan "could be as few as a couple of thousand troops."

President Obama ordered 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan last December, bringing the U.S. total to about 100,000.

Mr. Biden said it's too early to judge whether the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan will succeed, but he said there is progress.

A record 103 NATO troops were killed in June, the deadliest month of the nearly 9-year-old war for international forces.

COMMENT:  As Michael Barone has pointed out, the Dem base once thought of Afghanistan as possibly a good war, only because it viewed Iraq as bad, and therefore had to show a contrast with George W. Bush's priorities.   But the "goodness" has slowly faded, and the Dem left is back to its traditional role of opposing any U.S. war.

Afghanistan is going to be an enormous problem for the Obamans.  Obama can hardly deny what Gen. Petraeus says is needed for victory, but that may mean staying long after next summer's target for withdrawal. 

And if Obama succumbs to pressure from the base, the war can be lost, and he can be tagged as the man who lost it, unless he tries once again to blame BUSH (!!).  If he tries to blame Petraeus, he can wind up facing Petraeus in the 2012 election.

It looked so easy in 2008, ay Barack?

July 19,  2010     Permalink

s