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.

I appeared on Silvio Canto Jr.'s radio show from Dallas yesterday.  It's here.

APRIL 12,  2011

A CRITICAL STATE – AT 10:50 P.M. ET:  A new poll shows President Obama lagging in the key state of Florida.  From CNN:

Washington (CNN) - Dogged by a 34 percent approval rating among independents in Florida, a new poll out Monday indicates President Barack Obama would have a tough time beating either Republicans Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee in that crucial campaign state.

According to the new survey from Sachs/Mason Dixon, Obama trails both past and potential presidential 2012 candidates in head-to-head matchups in the Sunshine State, losing to Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, by a 48-43 percent margin and lagging behind Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, by a 49-44 percent spread.

Among all voters, Obama's approval rating in the Sunshine State stands at 43 percent, with 56 percent saying they are unhappy with his performance as commander-in-chief. That's consistent with a Quinnipiac University survey released last week that placed Obama's approval rating at 44 percent in the Sunshine state. The Quinnipiac survey also indicates that just over half of Florida voters don't think the president deserves re-election.

The new Florida poll may save its worst findings for former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who loses to the president by a sizable 51-39 margin. That's a worse showing than business mogul Donald Trump, who lags 8 points behind Obama with a 48-40 percent spread.

COMMENT:  What this poll tells us simply is that Obama is beatable.  And I like the fact that the survey names actual Republican opponents.  It is going to be a tough, even brutal campaign, with racial overtones.  The Republicans will need a candidate who can take Obama on, yet keep cool in the process. 

The Palin numbers represent a downward trend for the former Alaska governor.  I get the sense from her movements and statements that she doesn't intend to run, which would be a good thing.  I've always believed she made a terrible decision in resigning as governor.  As a sitting governor she has a certain status.  As a resigned governor who served only a few years she looks like an opportunist going out for the big cash kill.  She's a great fundraiser and motivator, but I think the public has passed her by.  The attention is shifting to Michele Bachmann.

April 12, 2011       Permalink

THOSE PESKY ELECTIONS – AT 10:27 P.M. ET:  Democracy is such a bore, especially when one loses.  The embarrassment.  The inconvenience.  Why even bother?  That great philosopher Nancy Pelosi contemplates the nature of the human race.  From The Weekly Standard:

Perhaps it's sour grapes, or perhaps it's a recent reawakening, but in a speech by Nancy Pelosi at Tufts University earlier this week, the former speaker of the House had some advice for her Republican colleagues in particular and some reflections on elections in general:

"To my Republican friends: take back your party. So that it doesn’t matter so much who wins the election, because we have shared values about the education of our children, the growth of our economy, how we defend our country, our security and civil liberties, how we respect our seniors. Because there are so many things at risk right now -- perhaps in another question I'll go into them, if you want. But the fact is that elections shouldn't matter as much as they do...But when it comes to a place where there doesn't seem to be shared values then that can be problematic for the country, as I think you can see right now. "

This seems like a bit of change for Pelosi, who in 2009 suggested that the results of a special election in the 23rd Congressional District of New York were a big win for health care.

COMMENT:  There are people who only believe in democracy if they win.  If they lose it must be because of some sinister force, like a fraudulent count in Florida or faulty voting machines in Ohio.  These are people who believe they have found all truth, all goodness, all decency, and all of it resides within them.  They are fools.

April 12, 2011      Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY - AT 11:49 A.M. ET:

From Sunshine State News:  If you know anything about the White House Correspondents Associaton Dinner, then you know that the networks vie to claim the nation's brightest stars as their own -- and bring those stars with them to the Saturday, April 30 dinner.  This year ABC will put Florida Sen. Marco Rubio on its arm and show him off at one of Washington's biggest social events of the year...Said one Washington-based ABC official, "Everybody in the city these days wants to be around Marco Rubio. I guess we do, too."

Sign of things to come?

April 12, 2011      Permalink

THE THIRD RAIL – AT 10:27 A.M. ET:  Social Security is sometimes called the third rail of American politics.  Touch it and you die.  Well, part of that third rail, maybe on a siding at the end of the railroad yard, is Medicare.  Bottom line, Medicare is a popular program that actually works reasonably well.  And let's be blunt about it:  Even conservatives use it, and make it part of their financial plan. Touch it and you may not die, but you'll remember the jolt.

The costs of Medicare, though, are spinning out of control, and must be addressed.  I have some problem with the term "entitlement program" to describe it because we do pay Medicare premiums.  Like Social Security, it is an insurance program that is rapidly running out of money.

How we address Medicare is crucial to any reform.  The Dems probably won't do anything, acting as the hero to the elderly, and letting Republicans do the dirty work.  Medicare was established by the Democrats in the early sixties and was made part of the Social Security system, using an existing and functioning system.  That was a wise administrative decision, and is one of the reasons why the Medicare program functioned fairly well and was popular from the start.

Last week Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin issued a Republican budget that addressed Medicare by proposing drastic changes in the system.  Ryan would change Medicare from a reimbursement-for-service system to a voucher program where each beneficiary would receive a voucher each year to buy medical insurance from private insurers.

I have enormous admiration for Ryan and his courage in even taking on the issue of Medicare reform.  However, I must dissent from his proposal.  Politically, it's just a non-starter.  Americans like Medicare in part because it's a simple system and has actually paid the bills over the years.  To ask elderly people to start looking around for private health insurance, using a voucher that most experts now say would not cover what Medicare covers, is just not going to get much support.  And remember, insurance companies, especially health-insurance companies, are not beloved institutions.  I haven't seen too many "I love Aetna" buttons recently.

What's interesting here is that Republicans, while giving Paul Ryan high marks for his effort, aren't exactly flocking to support the Medicare part of it.  This is one that has to go back to the drawing board.  It is impractical, and goes against the grain.  I think Republicans can do better in reining in Medicare costs without starting a war with beneficiaries.  It will be tough, but no program has any value unless it can pass Congress, and we're not there yet.

April 12, 2011       Permalink

REMEMBER LIBYA? – AT 9:20 A.M. ET:  Is there some kind of war going on in Libya?  You'd never know it from the way it's dropped out of the news.  Once dear leader pulled American planes from the effort, many (but not all) American journalists lost interest. 

But combat is ongoing in that oil-producing country, with France now moving into a leadership role and asking for more firepower.  Qaddafi remains in power, with little indication that he plans a permanent trip abroad.  From Fox:

AJDABIYA, Libya -- Muammar Qaddafi's forces shelled the only major city in the western half of Libya that remains under partial rebel control Tuesday as France said NATO should be doing more to take out heavy weaponry targeting civilians.

Weeks of fierce government bombardment of Misrata have terrorized the city's residents, killing dozens of people and leaving food and medical supplies scarce, according to residents, doctors and rights groups.

"Unfortunately, with the long-range war machines of Qaddafi forces, no place is safe in Misrata," a medical official in Misrata told The Associated Press. Six people were killed Monday and another corpse was brought in Tuesday, he said.

French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said NATO's actions are "not enough" and that the alliance should be firing on the weapons being used by Qaddafi's troops to target civilians in Misrata.

Juppe spoke on France-Info radio, the day after Libyan rebels rejected a cease-fire proposal by African mediators because it did not insist that Qaddafi relinquish power.

"NATO has to play its role in full. NATO wanted to take the military command of the operations," Juppe said. He also urged the EU to do more to get humanitarian aid to Misrata.

COMMENT:  It's pathetic, absolutely pathetic.  Last night, as I reported here, I listened to a former (and prominent) British jihadist describe how Obama's weakness is encouraging jihadism and stiffening its morale.  Obama's listless, yawning behavior regarding Libya will only lead to the perception that he is a soft, indecisive president who lacks the heart of a leader.

Obama has said that Qaddafi must go.  Qaddafi has stayed.  If he continues to stay, we lose, and that's the way it will be seen.  If I were Osama bin Laden, or all the other worthies in the violent jihad clubhouse, I'd be laughing my head off.

April 12, 2011      Permalink

RECALLING FDR – AT 8:37 A.M. ET:  President Roosevelt died 66 years ago today, in Warm Springs, Georgia. At his side was his companion/lover/whatever Lucy Mercer Rutherfurd, with whom he'd had a "relationship" going back decades.  Somewhat stronger terms have been used to describe this relationship.

Roosevelt, of course, was the only American president to be elected for more than two terms.  He had just started his fourth when he died.  He was succeeded by Harry S. Truman who, contrary to political myth, was not an obscure former senator from Missouri, but a prominent former senator who'd been on the cover of TIME in 1943. 

One can debate Roosevelt's policies, but he was, as Ed Murrow described him, the central pivot of 12 years of American history, leading the nation through the Depression and World War II.  He is considered by most historians one of the great American presidents, often ranked third behind Lincoln and Washington.  His policies did not end the Depression, but Roosevelt gave Americans a sense of hope and a sense that he cared, and that he understood the impact of the economic disaster on the ordinary American.

FDR invented the modern presidency, for better or worse.  He was the first to use mass media, addressing the nation frequently by radio in his fireside chats.  He was the first to fly to a political convention.  And he became an internationalist in an age of isolationism.  He was not a great intellect, nor was he impeccably honest (to put it mildly), but it is hard to think of American history without him.  He had the sense to appoint Republicans to high positions to help fight World War II, symbolic acts that established, at least for a time, a bipartisan foreign- and defense policy.  His bond with Winston Churchill during World War II was one of modern history's great partnerships.

The decision, in 1944, to replace the naive left-wing vice president, Henry Wallace, with Harry Truman on the Democratic ticket was an act of political genius, although the Congressional leadership probably had more to do with it than Roosevelt himself.  And that act, based on Truman's actual performance in the Senate, demonstrated the enormous value of listening to people who actually know a candidate for high office.  It was a far cry from today's "democratic" primary system, where people vote for candidates who may have little actual experience, and who have not been examined by those who understand the pressures of the presidency. 

It's remarkable to think that in 1944 the Democratic Party had on its ticket Roosevelt and Truman, two men later seen as great presidents.  Compare please to today.

April 12, 2011      Permalink

SETBACK – AT 8:27 A.M. ET:  The liberal Ninth Circuit strikes again.  From the Washington Times:

A federal appeals court ruled Monday that Arizona overstepped its bounds with last year’s immigration enforcement law, handing the Obama administration another victory as it tries to squelch states’ efforts on immigration enforcement.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, ruling 2-1, upheld a lower court’s decision that Congress doesn’t want states meddling in immigration. The appeals court said that nullifies Arizona’s attempt to empower local police to detain and question those they suspect are in the country illegally.

“Foreign policy is not and cannot be determined by the several states,” Judge John T. Noonan Jr. wrote in his concurring opinion. “Foreign policy is determined by the nation as the nation interacts with other nations. Whatever in any substantial degree attempts to express a policy by a single state or by several states toward other nations enters an exclusively federal field.”

COMMENT:  We are in never-never land on policy involving illegal immigrants.  Our southern border is unsealed.  The violence of Mexico's drug cartels is spreading to the United States.  Americans legitimately fear that weapons, including WMD's, can be carried across our border, and not much is being done.  Arizona's noble attempt to bring some reasonable enforcement mechanism to the issue is being shot down.

April 12, 2011     Permalink

APRIL 11,  2011

OH, REMEMBER IRAN? – AT 10:25 P.M. ET:  Do you?  Do you remember that thing about their nuclear program?  Kind of big news occasionally, and off the front burner recently.  Well, as the girl in that horror movie said, "They're baaack!"  From Reuters:

TEHRAN - Iran plans to build "four to five" nuclear research reactors and will continue to enrich uranium to provide their fuel, a nuclear official said on Monday despite Western pressure on Tehran to curb atomic work.

Yeah, we've seen the effects of that pressure.

The head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation, Fereydoon Abbasi, said Tehran would build the reactors "in the next few years" to produce medical radioisotopes, according to the students news agency ISNA.

"To provide the fuel for these (new) reactors, we need to continue with the 20 percent enrichment of uranium," ISNA quoted him as saying.

Abbasi's remarks are likely to deepen Western fears that Iran's atomic work is aimed at building nuclear weapons.

Oh, those fears are really deepening.  The worries we see...along with the contracts with German firms.

Tehran says its nuclear program is entirely peaceful and has dismissed international sanctions that were tightened last year as illegal.

Talks with major powers aimed at resolving the nuclear impasse stalled in January, with Tehran insisting it would not accept any attempt to curtail its nuclear enrichment activities.

Experts have previously said Tehran has stockpiled low-enriched uranium (LEU) and has enough for at least two atomic bombs if it was refined to a much higher level.

COMMENT:  We have every reason to be deeply concerned, but Barack Obama is showing little interest.  Iran will either have the bomb, or will proceed to the point where it can build one double-quick if it has to.  Israel obviously is gravely concerned.  But we should be as well.  As for Western Europe, they're concerned unless the concern interferes with economic interests or the 1930s-style diplomacy that many in Europe still favor.

The nightmare is an Iranian nuclear device being sailed into an American port in the hidden hold of a cargo ship and set off by a suicide crew.  Or, the device can be smuggled in sections across our southern border, with the journey possibly originating in Venezuela.

There are people who say that this will never happen.  And remember that it's impossible for Japanese carriers to get within a couple of hundred miles of Hawaii.

April 11, 2011      Permalink

THE WARNING – AT 10:20 P.M. ET:  I was at an off-the-record briefing tonight on radical Islam, and am now back in White Plains, which is about 22 miles north of Manhattan.

The briefing was delivered by a British citizen of Middle East origin who was sucked into radical Islam and became an influential activist, before breaking with the movement and joining a campaign against it.  He told how he got in, and how he got out.

One member of the audience said, and I agree, that this gentleman's description of his journey reminded him of how people got involved in the Communist Party in the thirties and forties, and how some of them saw the light and left, or tried to leave.  Trying to get out, of course, is much harder than getting in because you're subjected to ridicule, shunning and threats...and so is your family.  Ronald Reagan used to relate stories about how, as president of the Screen Actors Guild, he was visited by members asking for his help in getting them out of the Communist Party. It wasn't like resigning from the school board.

The most important point to come from this expert tonight was his seasoned view that homegrown radical Islam is becoming a major threat to the United States, that we are where Britain was 20 years ago.  He feels that the Obama administration projects weakness – something we've discussed here many times – and that weakness simply encourages the jihadists to organize.   He also feels that the Obamans, and many other Americans, have little idea how to deal with a fanatical ideology because they don't understand the concept of ideology at all.

I came away deeply impressed with the speaker's knowledge and history, and deeply depressed by his assessment of the age of Obama.  Britain has had a terrible time with homegrown radical Islam, a movement mightily helped by radical leftists in universities, who consider the Islamists simply "oppressed."  I'm afraid it's our turn, and we're not ready.

Sadly, there are too many "sophisticates" who don't want us to be.

April 11, 2011       Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 10:38 A.M. ET: 

From the Chicago Tribune:  At his public school, Little Village Academy on Chicago's West Side, students are not allowed to pack lunches from home. Unless they have a medical excuse, they must eat the food served in the cafeteria. Principal Elsa Carmona said her intention is to protect students from their own unhealthful food choices.

Of course, bullets will be permitted.  Small calibre only.

April 11, 2011      Permalink

YIKES – AT 9:56 A.M. ET:  We've been following President Obama's recent decline in the polls.   Rasmussen this morning reports his lowest "strong approval" number yet:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 19% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Thirty-nine percent (39%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -20.

Today’s numbers reflect the lowest level of Strong Approval yet recorded for this president. There has been a sharp decline in enthusiasm among liberal voters.

Yeah.  In their mind Obama isn't liberal enough.  You can visit some of these liberals in their four-million-dollar apartments on the West Side of Manhattan, where they anguish over the needs of the little people.

Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. Fifty-five percent (55%) disapprove.

Obama's overall approval rating is drifting slowly downward.  One more serious blow and he can be hovering at the 40% mark.   And that would mean comparisons with BUSH (!!).  Oh dear, that can't be.

We always stress that polls are snapshots in time.  Mr. Obama has shown a remarkable ability, on occasion, to rally the troops and get his numbers up.  And remember that this poll does not measure the strength of potential candidates in the Republican Party.   It's a long way to November, 2012.  I hope the country makes it.

April 11, 2011      Permalink

THE OUTRAGE – AT 8:34 A.M. ET:  The cost of gas at the pump is skyrocketing, severely hurting our most vulnerable citizens.  And yet, we're sitting on a huge energy supply.  Incredibly, Obama gets away with this.  From the Washington Examiner:

President Obama is a polarizing politician, but his friends and critics seem to agree on one thing: He's a canny politician.

So if the president had the ability to bring down the nation's staggering gas prices, create new American jobs and decrease the country's reliance on foreign energy sources without spending a dime of taxpayer money, wouldn't you expect him to use it?

If you answered yes, chances are that you're not working in the Obama White House.

As Americans watch skyrocketing gasoline prices (up an average of nearly 80 cents a gallon from this time last year) frustrate their hopes for economic recovery, they should be outraged by a new report on America's energy resources from the Congressional Research Service.

The report shows that the United States is sitting on the largest batch of energy resources on the planet. In fact, these vital fuel sources add up to more than the resources of energy-rich Saudi Arabia, China and Canada combined.

At every turn, the report's pages reveal a plethora of untapped resources. We have enough oil to replace our imports from the Middle East for 50 years. We have enough domestic natural gas for about 100 years.

And we have enough recoverable coal to power the nation for at least two centuries. None of those statistics factor in the increased efficiencies that could allow future generations of Americans to do more with less of these copious fuel sources.

The problem, of course, is that the Obama administration and its allies throughout the Democratic Party and the alternative energy industry deride these existing resources as remnants of a crude industrial era.

Instead, they hasten us to a future powered by faddish innovations in technologies like solar and wind power. And they attempt to sweeten the pot by invoking the revolution in "green jobs" that will accompany this economic and environmental transformation.

Unfortunately, this revolution has not been forthcoming. Despite decades of government support and billions of dollars in wasted taxpayer money, alternative energy remains a boutique pipe dream.

COMMENT:  Every American should be outraged.  I would not be shocked to see five-dollar-a-gallon gasoline a year from now.  And we'll be told we must accept it because we have been bad people, driving cars that are too big, and we must reform our ways for the greater glory of Al Gore.

If alternative energy were immediately available, I might see some logic in this administration's kamikaze energy policy.  But it isn't. 

Oh, by the way, the president is expected to unveil some economic ideas this week, and will heroically demand that loopholes in the tax system be closed so the rich pay more.  Right on, The New York Times will say.  But soaring energy prices are a severe tax on the poor and middle class, much greater than any new tax that will be imposed on the affluent, and yet the left doesn't seem to care.  High energy prices are part of their punishment for America, for those peasants out there who don't understand. 

Last week, when confronting a citizen-questioner at a meeting who dared to complain about gasoline prices, Mr. Obama suggested that the gent trade in his car for something more efficient.  Even allies of the president were appalled at his arrogance.  Most Americans are not in a position to trade in a car.  The exchange strangely disappeared quickly from news reports, the better not to embarrass dear leader, who truly loves us and thinks about us all the time.

Sarah said it best:  "Drill baby, drill."  She was laughed at.  She'd be laughed at today if she said the same thing.  But she was right.

April 11, 2011      Permalink

FASHION NEWS FROM PARIS – AT 8:14 A.M. ET:  A new law went into effect in France that is controversial, but makes a stand that, I think, is important in a democracy:

Paris - The French law banning Muslim women from wearing the burqa in public went into effect Monday, six months after France became the first Western country to institute such a ban.

Around 2,000 women are estimated to be affected by the law, which bans people from covering their faces in public but is particularly aimed at the burqa, a full-body covering, and niqab, a veil covering the face with just a slit for the eyes.

Practically, it means that women are barred from appearing in public in such garments, whether they do so of their own accord or under pressure from relatives. The ban includes public parks, restaurants, cinemas and beaches. It does not include private homes, places of worship or cars.

COMMENT:  We in America show special sensitivity toward religion expression.  It's part of our tradition, and we go out of our way to accommodate the faithful.

And yet, the French law is on solid ground.  Masking, for whatever purpose, has a special place in history, and it's not a positive place.  Masking in America brings back images of ugly groups and criminal elements.  We insist that people show their faces, in part so they can be identified if they commit a forbidden act.  It is part of our ethic as a society, and we have a right to insist on it.

Religious accommodation has its limits.  I believe masking exceeds those limits.  In my view, Muslim women applying for, say, a driver's license, should be photographed as would be any other applicant.  Muslim religious leaders should give religious dispensation for those women.

France is the first country to take a stand against religious garb that amounts to masking.  The usual suspects will come out of the woodwork to cry foul, but I hope the French law stands. 

April 11, 2011     Permalink

BUT IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN, REMEMBER THAT – AT 7:50 A.M. ET:  The standard line about education is that we must spend more.  It is also a myth.  We probably spend too much on education in America, but we get too little for it.  The notion of facing that painful fact is anathema to politicians, who love to present a new school to constituents to show that we are helping "the children."

When I was a student at the University of Chicago, we liked to say that the university could have been based in a grocery store, and it still would have been a great university.  Sadly, that kind of thinking – grounded in results and quality – doesn't carry much weight today.  And...here we go again:

By most measures, America's education system ranks among the best. Our classrooms, computer labs, athletic fields and 'enrichment programs' for under-achieving and special education students are the envy of the world.

In fact, the U.S. spends more on education than defense. On a per pupil basis, we rank only behind Switzerland and Norway.

And that's not likely to change under President Obama. His 2012 budget increases federal education spending by 21 percent to $77 billion dollars.

Yet critics say that's a mistake, since there is no link between spending and student performance.

"There really is no correlation between spending per pupil and achievement per pupil," argues Neal McClusky with the Cato Institute Center for Educational Freedom. "Both parties have done this for many decades - they talk about spending money on schools as if that is synonymous with actually educating people but it isn't. What we've seen that money go to is just bigger and bigger staff, better paid teachers or other employees but nothing in terms of outcomes."

Since 1985, federal education spending tripled, yet studies by the National Assessment of Educational Progress show reading, math and science scores remained flat. Internationally, our 8th graders rank 14th in reading, 17th in science and 25th in math. Almost 30 percent of our teenagers don't finish high school, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, and half who enter college drop out, even though per pupil spending nationally averages more than $10,000 a year. America has fallen to 9th in the proportion of young people with a college degree.

Despite those numbers, most educators say American schools are under-funded.

"American students right now are getting less, not more, at a time when President Obama has said we have this race to the future -- that we need to invest more in public education," says John Rogers with the UCLA Graduate School of Education. "I think we need to invest in public education in ways that are wise. President Obama talked about the importance of teachers and he talked about the need to bring new teachers into science and technology, engineering and math."

COMMENT:  The education industry always demands more, yet serious questions about how the money is spent are met with cries of "anti-intellectualism" or "violations of academic freedom."  And, of course, there's the greatest cry of all:  "You're hurting the children."

Good schools are built by good families.  They are built by communities that, culturally, value education.  Imagine if all the students in an American college were Asian-Americans.  I'll bet you could cut the budget in half and still have a great college.

One of the most powerful experiments in American education was the great City College of New York (known as "City" to all New Yorkers).  Between the 1930s and 1960s, when it was wrecked by radicalism, City existed to serve students who couldn't afford the Ivy League, or who couldn't get in because of ethnic quotas.  City became a magnet for top students who demanded the best.  It graduated some of America's most accomplished leaders and scientists, and it did so on minimal budgets.

But we will throw more billions away today, and get few results, confident that we're doing it for "the children."  As the longshoreman philosopher Eric Hoffer once wrote, all causes become businesses, and then they become rackets.

April 11, 2011     Permalink