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.

SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2010

Y'KNOW, THIS MAY NOT BE A BAD IDEA – AT 8:05 P.M. ET:  Governor Rick Perry of Texas speaks bluntly, as demonstrated by this.  From Gateway Pundit:

Governor Rick Perry told FOX Business Network that the federal government ought to take the TSA gropers and put them on the border with Mexico instead.
The Hill reported:

The incoming chairman of the Republican Governors Association suggested Friday that TSA screeners would be more help securing the nation’s border with Mexico.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry said Friday on Fox Business Network that states need to “push Washington back into that box that we call the United States Constitution,” but said the federal government needs to follow through on its responsibility of securing the U.S. border.

COMMENT:  We noted this week that the politically correct media won't deal with the delicate question of the kind of people who get hired for those TSA jobs.  Some appear to be very rough indeed, and probably have backgrounds to match.

Perry might be onto something:  Have them do some serious groping on the border.

November 20, 2010      Permalink

SPEAKER-TO-BE JOHN BOEHNER – NOW IT CAN BE TOLD! – AT 7:27 P.M. ET:  Well, the truth comes out, doesn't it?  And if it comes from Nancy Pelosi, so what?  I've always wanted to know the real truth about our incoming speaker of the house.  Now we have it:

Outgoing Speaker Nancy Pelosi may be giving up the gavel to Rep. John Boehner in the next Congress but she hinted this week that she still wears the pants in the House.

In an interview with The New York Times on Thursday, Pelosi highlighted her successor's softer side when asked if she saw him tear up on election night as he addressed his supporters after Republicans captured the House.

"You know what? He is known to cry. He cries sometimes when we're having a debate on bills," she told the newspaper. "If I cry, it's about the personal loss of a friend or something like that. But when it comes to politics – no I don't cry. I would never think of crying about any loss of an office, because that’s always a possibility, and if you're professional, then you deal with it professionally."

Boehner's office declined to respond to Pelosi's remarks.

COMMENT:  So, Boehner is a softie.  And Pelosi is a...well, you fill in the blank.  But anyone who tells you she's never cried over a political loss isn't someone I'd depend upon for the straight story on anything.

November 20, 2010       Permalink

OH, I'M JUST SO ASHAMED, AREN'T YOU? – AT 10:47 A.M. ET:  The Politico informs us of the dismay expressed by an American diplomat over things his embarrassing countrymen have said:

GLOBAL HEAD SCRATCHING – Congress’s growing ranks of climate skeptics have the rest of the world a little confused, the top U.S. climate negotiator told reporters yesterday in Crystal City. “People from around the world look at some of the things that some of the people running for the Senate and House have said, some of the positions that are taken,” and “there is puzzlement,” Todd Stern said at the end of a two-day meeting on climate for the world’s largest economic powers.

COMMENT:  Well whoop-dee-do.  I'm so distressed that there's puzzlement.  Maybe some of the "puzzled" should look beyond their left-wing, politically correct newspapers and realize there's a real debate going on, and that serious scientists are expressing skepticism over "global warming" – excuse me, I meant to use the more stylish "climate change."  We want to be fashionable here.

The issue is not whether there is climate change.  The climate is always changing a bit.  The issue is whether we should commit trillions of dollars to strategies based on unproved assumptions, projections and doomsday scenarios.  That is a discussion we must have, with or without the permission of our diplomats or their overseas constituencies.

Stern's patronizing observation reminds me of the story, which we've told here before, of our great former secretary of state, George Shultz.  When a new ambassador was appointed, Shultz would call him or her in, take the appointee to a map, and ask, "What is your country?"  The appointee would inevitably point to some nation overseas.  "No," Shultz would reply, pointing to the United States, "that is your country." 

We will have our debate here.

November 20, 2010      Permalink

BULLETIN – AT 10:40 A.M. ET:  Headline just in:

Fox finally moves 'American Idol' to Thursdays

Now we can all rest.  Our national nightmare is over.

November 20, 2010      Permalink

AND IN THE REAL WORLD – AT 10:16 A.M. ET:  I have no independent corroboration of this, but I think it's worth passing on.  From The Jerusalem Post:

Al-Qaida and associated groups were believed to be planning an attack on the German parliament's seat - the Reichstag in Berlin, Der Spiegel reported on Saturday.

Ah yes, we remember the Reichstag well, from a previous bit of bother.

According to the report, the groups planned to take hostages and "perpetrate a bloodbath" using firearms. The cell planning the attack was supposedly comprised of one German, a Turk, a man from North Africa and an unknown suspect.

The attack was planned to take place in February or March. Authorities said that intelligence about the plot was behind Wednesday's announcement by the German Interior Ministry of an imminent attack, Spiegel reported.

The warning came from a jihaidst who wanted to leave his terrorist group. The man contacted a German law enforcement agency several times last week, according to the report.

Another warning came to the Germans via the FBI in the United States. The FBI allegedly told the Germans that a Shi'ite group from India has entered into a pact with al-Qaida and has sent two men to carry out an attack in Germany, Spiegel reported.

The domestic intelligence services in both Germany and the US (the BKA and FBI, respectively) were said to be very concerned by the reports, but the foreign intelligence services of the two powers (the BND and CIA) were said to be skeptical, according to the report.

COMMENT:  The report sounds logical.  Even if this report doesn't pan out, attacks of that kind would make sense for any terrorist group. 

As readers probably know, a member of the U.S. cabinet, one who is in the line of succession to the presidency, is always away from Washington the night the president delivers his State of the Union message – to protect against a total destruction of the government if the Capitol is attacked.

Puerto Rican terrorists attacked the House of Representatives during the Truman administration. 

Expect more reports like this in the future.

November 20, 2010      Permalink

ON THIS THE PEOPLE ARE WRONG – AT 9:50 A.M. ET:  Rasmussen reports that a good chunk of the American people doesn't have much faith in the future of the country:

A plurality of voters nationwide believes America’s best days have come and gone, but that number has remained fairly consistent since the beginning of the year.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that just over one-third (37%) of Likely U.S. Voters believe America’s best days are in the future. Forty-seven percent (47%) say the nation’s best days are in the past, while 16% are undecided...

...Just before President Obama was inaugurated in January 2009, 48% said the country’s best days were still ahead, and 35% said they had come and gone.

Only 26% of voters now think the country is heading in the right direction.

COMMENT:  And, of course, we have a president who does nothing to change the grim perception about our future, probably because he shares it – he and the pseudo-intellectual crowd he hangs with.

What a contrast to Ronald Reagan, who always said, "It's morning in America."  And it is.  This country is endlessly resourceful, and its greatest resource is its people.  And the only way that resource can be damaged is if people start to believe the propaganda in our schools and in the media that this is an inferior country filled with sin.

We need a change in leadership.  We need a leader who sees the morning, not the night.

November 20, 2010    Permalink

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 19,  2010

REFLECTION – AT 8:35 P.M. ET:  Andrew Malcolm, of the L.A. Times's Top of the Ticket blog, reminds us that November 19th is an important anniversary.  He also reminds us what a great speech really is:

Few people are aware that possibly the greatest speech in American political history was an afterthought.

The big attraction for the dedication of the newest federal cemetery in Pennsylvania on Nov. 19, 1863, was Edward Everett, a famous orator of the day. Shortly before the dedication someone thought to invite the 16th president, Abraham Lincoln. He arrived the day before.

Contrary to popular myth, Lincoln did not jot down his remarks on an envelope. He had....

... written a draft on Executive Mansion stationery in Washington, perhaps in the Lincoln Bedroom, where the original now resides. Lincoln fiddled with the last two paragraphs the night before in pencil...

...Given the dearth of video games in those days, public speeches were a major entertainment. And no loudspeakers either. As the main event, Everett spoke for two solid hours.

Lincoln, as the afterthought, spoke for only a few minutes (see top photo center right in top hat). Lincoln was said to have not thought much of his remarks.

He gave two autographed copies to his secretaries. And later penned three more for charity auctions.

On this anniversary of the Gettysburg Address seven score and seven years ago Lincoln had less than 17 months to live.

Andrew Malcolm makes the point that, in 2009, Barack Obama gave a speech on Afghanistan that contained 4,582 words, and that not one of them is "victory."

Go to the link.  You'll see a facsimile of the original address and a modern recording of Lincoln's words.

November 19, 2010       Permalink

NUTS – AT 8:01 P.M. ET:  In the immortal words of that great philosopher, Jerry Lewis:  "Bad looks you can change; stupid is forever."  From Fox News:

Sen. Barbara Boxer, no stranger to controversy, compared the United States to Iran, North Korea and Pakistan this week, saying America's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy puts it on a par with those three countries.

Appearing with Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman at a news conference on Thursday, Boxer, D-Calif., suggested the military's policy banning gays from openly serving in the military puts the U.S. in the same camp as countries notorious for their human rights violations. Democrats are pushing to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell during the lame duck session.

“We now stand -- with this rule -- with countries like Iran, North Korea and Pakistan in banning gays and lesbians from military service,” Boxer said as Lieberman, an independent who aligns himself with Democrats, nodded his head.

COMMENT:  I doubt if Joe was nodding his head in agreement.  He has too much sense. 

Barbara Boxer was just reelected to the Senate from the failed state of California.  Go figure.  Used to be called the golden state.  Shame on them.

November 19, 2010       Permalink

HMM.  ANALYZE THIS – AT 9:46 A.M. ET:  The intriguing issue is whether President Obama will run again.  Most people seem to think his ego will demand that he make the race.  But consider this, from The Politico:

President Obama says he’d still rather have one good term than be a “mediocre” two-term president.

Getting reelected is “not what I think of my work,” Obama told the Spanish newspaper El Pais. “The description of my work I do is to solve problems and help people. I'm not going to slacken in regard to trying to solve the major problems facing the United States.”

“I still believe it is better” to be a good one-term president than a “mediocre” two-term leader, Obama said in the interview.

Obama added: “I do not want to have to look back and tell myself that all of what worried me was my own popularity. That is not my goal. My obligation is to make sure I'm faithful to the principles, beliefs, ideas that will advance the United States and strengthen our partners around the world.”

COMMENT:  Well, look, he's a politician and maybe he said what he thought people wanted to hear.  On the other hand, most two-term presidents have a miserable time during their second term, when they've already worn out their welcome.  And Obama certainly doesn't want to be the first African-American president to be defeated for relection.

So maybe we're in for a surprise, or maybe Obama just wants to keep the guessing game going. 

Stand by.  If Obama drops out, Ms. Hillary is ready to measure the drapes.

November 19, 2010      Permalink

THIS IS AN AWFUL IDEA – AT 9:20 A.M. ET:  One of the most disappointing aspects of the civil rights movement has been the ignoring of real social pathologies within the black community.  Some African American leaders have been forthright about these problems, but most have not.  The result has been that the problems that cause other problems go unsolved...often with the enthusiastic consent of white leftists who specialize in giving terrible advice to blacks.

Now comes one of the worst ideas I've seen:

GARY, INDIANA – Black males have higher rates of incarceration and of repeat offenses that land them back in jail or prison, statistics show.

Changing that dynamic could begin with expunging their criminal records.

That was the consensus of a discussion Thursday sponsored by the Gary Commission on the Social Status of Black Males in conjunction with the East Chicago-based group Working Outside the Walls and an alliance of grassroot activists.

The panel discussion brought together activists, religious leaders, law enforcement officers and area legislators to talk about a possible Expungement Summit in Northwest Indiana. Expunging the criminal records of juveniles and adults would help them find jobs and turn their lives around, said Bennie Muhammed, GCSSBM executive director.

Dorothy Brown, clerk of the Cook County (Ill.) Circuit Court, outlined how she has organized expungement summits across the state line.

"It's important for all our communities because we all have the same problem," she said.
Brown recommended that all agencies working with ex-offenders help organize and participate in an expungement summit. That includes police departments, the courts, lawyers, the public defenders office and the prison review board, Brown said.

COMMENT:  Huh?  Where do I begin?  First, the majority of black males don't commit crimes.  So what are these characters saying to them?  You're suckers?  You're fools?  Commit a crime and the record will be expunged, so have a good time like the others. When the record of the criminal looks exactly like the record of the law-abiding man, the good guy loses.

Second, society has a right to be warned before it employs someone with a bad past.  Now, true, that certainly holds an offender back.  But he should have thought of that before committing the crime.

Third, procedures can be put in place for expunging the records of many offenders who've gone straight for a certain period of time.  In fairness, even those advocating expungement agree that certain crimes, like murder, must never be expunged.

But casual expungement teaches no moral lesson and sends the message that crime pays, which, unfortunately, it often does.

Watch this "expungement" movement carefully.  The "excuse society" produces nothing.

November 19, 2010      Permalink

CRUNCH TIME – AT 8:53 P.M. ET:  There's a trend in a number of articles running on the internet this morning, after the terror trial fiasco in New York.  Basically, they ask the question, "How much longer can Eric Holder last as attorney general?"  Michael Gerson lays out the case in WaPo:

Under Holder's influence, American detainee policy is a botched, hypocritical, politicized mess.

The case of embassy bomber Ahmed Ghailani - the only Guantanamo Bay detainee the Obama administration has brought to trial in the United States - was intended to increase public faith in civilian prosecutions. But a terrorist hugging his lawyers in victory can't be considered a confidence builder.

Wonderfully said.

A recent profile by Wil Hylton in GQ magazine attempts to put his tenure in the best possible light - the lonely, naive man of principle undone by politics. But the portrait is unintentionally devastating. Holder clearly views the war on terrorism as a distraction. "The biggest surprise I've had in this job," he told Hylton, "is how much time the national security issues take."

Oh dear, oh dear.  Did he really say that?  Why, that little inconvenience?

Civilian courts were not designed for high-profile enemy combatants...who would use a New York trial to embrace martyrdom and encourage violence. The use of military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay is fully constitutional, approved by Congress and consistent with wartime precedent.

Obama seems to be realizing - gradually, reluctantly - that applying the rules of war in the midst of a war does not destroy the credibility of the rule of law or encourage terrorist recruitment. But his public inability to admit this shift seems to be leading to the worst of possible outcomes.

Finally...

How does Obama back down and accept a tribunal? He could begin by appointing an attorney general who understands the requirements of national security. Some on the left believe Holder should resign out of principle. Some on the right believe he should leave because he is out of his depth. Such bipartisanship should not go to waste.

COMMENT:  Yes, I'm afraid it's true.  Holder must go.  He's doing far more harm than good, and revelations about the politicization of the Justice Department aren't helping him.

Nominations please?

November 19, 2010      Permalink

THE UNSPOKEN ISSUE – AT 8:29 A.M. ET:  As readers know, there's a big to-do over invasive airport screening, and appropriately so.  There have been too many stories of inappropriate or intimidating behavior by TSA personnel.

But please note which part of this story isn't being covered.  Who, precisely, are these people hired by the TSA?  What are their qualifications?  What is their training?  How many, if any, have criminal backgrounds? 

And why won't the mainstream media ask any questions about the people involved in these screenings?  Are reporters afraid of what they might find?  Or are they totally intimidated by a journalistic and academic culture that holds that people at a certain level are always victims?

Other countries do not seem to have run into these problems of intimacy.  And now that enemies know exactly what full-body scanners will reveal, and not reveal, they will adjust accordingly, making the scanners somewhat less useful. 

Of course we want to be careful.  Under certain circumstances, even patting down young children is appropriate because we know that our enemy would not hesitate to strap a bomb to a child. But I must believe that part of our problem is an obsessive political correctness.  We're subjecting everyone to humiliating procedures because we won't do what Israel and other nations do routinely – target the terrorist and not the weapon.  Reasonable profiling, which, despite denials, law enforcement does every day, would ease the current situation substantially.  But it will not be done.

If anyone ever tells you that political correctness is just a minor nuisance, think again.

November 19, 2010     Permalink