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.

DECEMBER 20,  2010

THOUGHTFUL WORK – AT 8:20 P.M. ET:  There is an attempt underway by the hack left to smear Sen. John McCain because he dared raise questions about the wisdom of repealing "don't ask, don't tell."  Like the true McCarthyites that they are, the hackish lefters try to destroy anyone who disagrees with them.  You know their limited vocabulary:  racist, sexist, homophobe, militarist, fascist, and the ever-popular "stupid."

Thus, the borderline Maureen Dowd of the less-than-borderline New York Times refers to Sen. McCain in her latest column as "ossified," the same column in which she exalts Jimmah Carter, who humbly announced recently that he's been the best ex-president ever.  Ms. Dowd, whose own ossification began in the 1960s, is not known for wisdom.

Sen. McCain's response is some very good work in the Senate.  From The Politico:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) filed an amendment on the resolution of ratification to the START treaty Monday that non-proliferation experts suggested could clear the way for a swift deal.

McCain's amendment, co-sponsored with Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), would seek to address Republican concerns that the U.S.-Russian arms control pact not limit U.S. missile defenses. At the same time, it doesn’t demand changes to the treaty language itself that would have effectively killed the deal with Russia, as several Republican-proposed amendments defeated over the weekend would have done.

Arms-control advocates were cautiously optimistic Monday reviewing McCain's amendment that it was acceptable for START advocates if it could deliver the Republican votes the administration needs for treaty ratification.

"While in my view these amendments to the resolution of advice and consent are unnecessary, their appearance would suggest that there are ways to address the missile defense-related concerns of a number of New START skeptics short of treaty-killing amendments to the treaty," the Arms Control Association's Daryl Kimball told POLITICO Monday.

COMMENT:  We are not opposed to arms-control treaties here.  Reagan was an arms controller who negotiated agreements with the old Soviet Union.  His mantra was "trust but verify."  There are some Republicans – McCain, Kyl, Lindsey Graham, McConnell – who have problems with the new START treaty, and are addressing their concerns through thoughtful suggestions. 

This is what members of a deliberative body should be doing.  Naturally, they are being ridiculed by the John Kerry crowd, who are lofty and above us all, but they are right.  We might also point out that a lame-duck session of Congress is not the time to be considering a treaty of this importance, but the Dems insist.

Praise especially to McCain and Kyl, who have already gotten the administration to add funds to modernize our nuclear deterrent.  Maureen Dowd may laugh at them, but history won't.

December 20, 2010      Permalink

WHAT OUR OPPRESSED FRIENDS ARE UP TO – AT 7:52 P.M. ET:  We reported earlier that Rep. Peter King, Republican of New York, plans to hold hearings on Islamic radicalization when he becomes a committee chairman in January.

Already the usual suspects have charged out of the gate, denouncing King.  The suspect chorus is led by Mayor Mike (I'm so PC) Bloomberg of New York, who calls the hearings "inappropriate."  That's like saying it would have been "inappropriate" in the late 1930s to investigate Nazi infiltration into the United States.  In fact, the House Committee on Un-American Activities, which enjoyed a fine reputation in the thirties, did in fact probe domestic Nazi activities, and was highly praised for its efforts.

The record will show that investigations into right-wing extremism receive praise, whereas probes into left-wing extremism, or extremism approved by the left, are condemned.  Check it out.

Oh, by the way, for those interested in the topic of Islamic extremism, you might consider this, from CBS News:

In this exclusive story, CBS News chief investigative correspondent Armen Keteyian reports the latest terror threat to America involves the possible use of poisons - simultaneous attacks targeting hotels and restaurants at many locations over a single weekend.

A key Intelligence source has confirmed the threat as "credible." Department of Homeland Security officials, along with members of the Department of Agriculture and the FDA, have briefed a small group of corporate security officers from the hotel and restaurant industries about it.

"We operate under the premise that individuals prepared to carry out terrorist acts are in this country," said Dec. of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano on Dec. 6, 2010.

The plot uncovered earlier this year is said to involve the use of two poisons - ricin and cyanide - slipped into salad bars and buffets.

Of particular concern: The plotters are believed to be tied to the same terror group that attempted to blow up cargo planes over the east coast in October, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

In online propaganda al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has praised the cargo attack, part of what it called "Operation Hemorrhage."

The propaganda says in part, "...attacking the enemy with smaller but more frequent operations" to "add a heavy economic burden to an already faltering economy."

Manuals and videos on jihadist websites explain how to easy it is to make both poisons.

COMMENT:  Now, remember students, the proper response to this is not to ask, "How do we stop it?" but to ask, "Why do they hate us?  What did we do?"

Extra credit will be given by elite universities and news organizations to those who write e-mails to Peter King and the congressional leadership demanding that King's planned hearings be cancelled.  Please warn that offense will be taken.

And watch what you eat.

December 20, 2010      Permalink

STICKY WIKI – AT 9:30 A.M. ET:  The Brits have done vastly better reporting on WikiLeaks and its sleazy spiritual leader, Julian Assange, than has the American press.  For example, Iain Dale in London's Daily Mail, asks the following: 

He preaches openness but demands privacy. He reveals 'secrets' but 99% are prurient gossip. He's accused of rape but won't face his accusers. Why do the Left worship the WikiLeaks 'God'?

Well put, don't you think?  When the Brit writers get going, they really get going.

Far from being a 21st Century hero, I have come to regard Assange as a dictatorial charlatan whose real agenda is not the furtherance of greater transparency, but the furtherance of Julian Assange and his anti-American agenda.

His ego seems to be without equal and he’s now reached the dangerous point of believing his own publicity. So much so that some of his staunchest supporters, such as the Guardian journalist Nick Davies, have cut off contact with him.

Dale makes the reasonable point that whistleblowing and exposure can have honorable motives.  But he doesn't attribute honor to the wicked Wikis:

...its ethics and operations are now coming under serious scrutiny, and rightly so.

Whenever anyone – journalist, or otherwise – reveals confidential information there has to be a point to it. By releasing three million random documents, illegally obtained from U.S. government computers, WikiLeaks put paid to its reputation in one fell swoop.

Had Assange and his cohorts sorted through the documents and filtered out those with a genuine public interest, he could have been seen as a modern-day hero.

But he released everything in the name of so-called transparency. He did it because he could – the prerogative of every dictator in history.

Read the whole piece.  Well worth it.  Try to find that kind of commentary on this side of the pond, in the mainstream media.  You'll be looking a long time.

And, while you're at it, read this companion piece in the Mail: 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339859/Wikileaks-Julian-Assanges-promiscuous-lifestyle-revealed-Jemima-Khan-look-away-now.html

Good reporting, juicily served.  Assange is major sleaze, and some of the beautiful people supporting him are going to seem far less beautiful when all the facts come out. 

But the most important facts are those still not explored:  Who leaked these documents?  As we've said, they certainly weren't all leaked by one little Army private now in custody.  As Americans, we have a right to know who violated their public trust, and why.   True journalists should be Woodwarding and Bernsteining all over the place, but they are not.  There is no career advancement to be had in exposing corruption in a liberal administration, except maybe at Fox News or The Wall Street Journal.  We hope they have reporters on the case.

December 20, 2010       Permalink

BIDEN ANNOUNCES, AND WE WAIT FOR THE RETRACTION – AT 8:33 A.M. ET:  The White House is keenly aware that the nation's remaining liberals, all 12 of them, are seriously disappointed in the Obama administration.  One source of their disappointment – we are still in Afghanistan. 

The decadent Democratic left, whose members haven't bought a calendar since the early 1970s, dreams of another Vietnam, and an ignominious American collapse.  Now Joe Biden is trying to soften their anger, as Fox reports:

WASHINGTON -- Despite uneven progress in Afghanistan, Vice President Joe Biden said next summer's planned withdrawal would be more than a token reduction and that the U.S. would be out of the country by 2014 "come hell or high water."

And we can hear the cheering from the lovely caves of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Biden's prediction appeared to go further than statements by his boss, President Barack Obama, who just last month said there would be a reduced U.S. footprint in Afghanistan by 2014 but that the number of troops that would remain was still in question.

Obama has discussed maintaining a counterterrorism capability in Afghanistan after 2014. As recently as Dec. 16, he said the U.S. and its NATO allies would have an enduring presence there after 2014, although the details of that were unclear.

You know, it's really very important that Joe Biden get a copy of every Obama statement, with the key points underlined.  Or, maybe a reader can be sent to Joe every morning to read him the latest news.  He seems a bit out of the loop.

The Obama administration has said repeatedly that July would mark the beginning of the troop withdrawals and that their size would depend on military conditions.

"We're starting it in July of 2011, and we're going to be totally out of there, come hell or high water, by 2014," Biden told NBC's "Meet the Press" in an interview broadcast Sunday.

Biden will probably pull a Clinton and now say that it depends on the definition of "hell" and maybe "high water" as well.  Reasonable people can differ.

Maybe the Obamans should get smart and realize the next election will not be decided by how Michael Moore or Code Pink vote. 

December 20, 2010      Permalink

IT'S ABOUT TIME – AT 7:49 A.M. ET:  One refreshing aspect of the new GOP majority in the House will be the willingness to name our enemies, something that, gosh darn, countries involved in conflicts have traditionally done.   It makes it so much easier to understand the trouble, you know.

In World War II we didn't refer to the Japanese as "deeply offended subjects," and we didn't call the Nazis "racially motivated extremists."  But in the new land of Oz, Obamaland, terrorist attacks became "man-made disasters," without naming the man himself.  Wouldn't want to get Christiane Amanpour too upset.  And, of course, we "reached out" (that awful phrase) to those committing the acts and those who sympathized with them.  As Johnny Carson used to say, notice the difference?

Now, an incoming GOP committee chairman, Peter King of New York, is determined to change the conversation.  Watch the usual suspects come out of the woodwork to assail him.  From the New York Daily News:

Rep. Peter King said Sunday he'll hold hearings on the "radicalization of the American Muslim community" - but some critics fear an anti-Islamic witchhunt.

Already the standard vocabulary of the McCarthy era is being readied for Pete.

King (R-L.I.) said a Congressional probe is needed because Al Qaeda has increasingly targeted Muslims living legally in the United States as potential terror recruits.

Despite the threat to their own community, King said, some Islamic clerics resist cooperating with investigators.

"We want to assess the extent of the radicalization of the Muslim community," he said. "It's clear to me there has not been sufficient cooperation."

"With Al Qaeda trying to recruit from within their community, it's important that they cooperate," said King, who will be chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security in the new Republican-controlled Congress. King's call drew fire from Muslim groups, who said they fear the hearings will only fuel bigotry and hatred.

"We're concerned that it'll become a new McCarthy-type hearing," said Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Told you, told you.  Joe McCarthy is the gift that keeps on giving to the political left and its allies.  Trouble is, the name is wearing thin.  Joe died more than half a century ago, and we've had higher quality villains since – like the misunderstood guys who plunged planes into buildings on 9-11. 

King said he's already been accused of being a bigot and worse - but insists he won't change course.

Good for Pete.  He's one of the good guys, and he's a rarity - a conservative with a New York accent.  He will persist in this, but will be targeted by the left immediately.  And I almost can't wait to see The New York Times at work. 

We look forward to the hearings, if they're ever allowed to get off the ground. 

December 20, 2010     Permalink

THE ENEMY SEES CHRISTMAS A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY – AT 7:35 A.M. ET:  We forget the debt free nations owe to military and police forces, who are on special alert during the holiday season:

British anti-terrorism police said Monday they arrested 12 men in early morning raids on three cities to protect the public amid fears of a holiday season terrorism plot.

Assistant Commissioner John Yates, the U.K. 's lead police officer for counterterrorism, said the suspects were detained in London, in the central English city of Stoke-on-Trent and in Cardiff, Wales.

The arrests follow several weeks of surveillance and are not believed to be linked to other recent plots against Europe or the recent bombing in Sweden.

"The operation is in its early stages so we are unable to go into detail at this time about the suspected offenses," Yates said in a statement. "However, I believe it was necessary at this time to take action in order to ensure public safety."

Police said 11 of the suspects were arrested at or close to their homes at around 5 a.m., while the remaining man was detained at a property in the central England city of Birmingham.

COMMENT:  I wonder what "grievance" the alleged plotters were intent on dealing with. 

This will be an especially tense week for the anti-terror forces.  Remember that Christmas Day, 2009, was marked by an attempt to bring down an airliner over Detroit.

December 20, 2010     Permalink

DECEMBER 19,  2010

CENSUS CONTAINS GRIM NEWS FOR DEMS – AT 7:51 P.M. ET:  We've had seemingly endless predictions in recent years that demographic trends were heading in the Democrats' direction.  Well, not so fast, you lefty statisticians!  The census will apparently contain good news for the right:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The 2010 census report coming out Tuesday will include a boatload of good political news for Republicans and grim data for Democrats hoping to re-elect President Barack Obama and rebound from last month's devastating elections.

The population continues to shift from Democratic-leaning Rust Belt states to Republican-leaning Sun Belt states, a trend the Census Bureau will detail in its once-a-decade report to the president. Political clout shifts, too, because the nation must reapportion the 435 House districts to make them roughly equal in population, based on the latest census figures.

The biggest gainer will be Texas, a GOP-dominated state expected to gain up to four new House seats, for a total of 36. The chief losers — New York and Ohio, each projected by nongovernment analysts to lose two seats — were carried by Obama in 2008 and are typical of states in the Northeast and Midwest that are declining in political influence.

Democrats' problems don't end there.

November's elections put Republicans in control of dozens of state legislatures and governorships, just as states prepare to redraw their congressional and legislative district maps. It's often a brutally partisan process, and Republicans' control in those states will enable them to create new districts to their liking.

The combination of population shifts and the recent election results could make Obama's re-election campaign more difficult. Each House seat represents an electoral vote in the presidential election process, giving more weight to states Obama probably will lose in 2012. The states he carried in 2008 are projected to lose, on balance, six electoral votes to states that his GOP challenger, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, won. That sets a higher bar for Obama before his re-election campaign even starts.

COMMENTS:  Sometimes we even get good political news. 

As a New Yorker, I can personally attest to what's happening here, at least in the areas outside Manhattan.  The state is falling apart, its taxes and cost-of-living driving out the most creative and dynamic people.  At the same time, the state faces a huge financial crisis as state employees retire to lavish, unfunded pensions.  New York's loss is the gain of many states, especially in the South and Southwest. 

Smug New Yorkers and Californians like to refer to the folks in the heartland as "the flyover people."  Well, my liberal New York and California friends, those are your people down there, in flyover country, looking for a better life.  Wave hello.

December 19, 2010      Permalink

RUBIO RATED TOP GOP COMMUNICATOR – AT 11:06 A.M. ET:   Earlier this week I suggested raising Marco Rubio, the new Republican senator from Florida, and everyone's candidate for vice president, to the presidential level, where his communications skills could give the GOP a presidential victory in 2012.  Now we have new ammunition.  From Newsmax: 

Marco Rubio, Haley Barbour, and Mike Huckabee are the Republicans most likely to defeat President Obama in 2012, according to a new analysis of their communications skills.

Former ABC and CNN journalist Brad Phillips — president of Phillips Media Relations, a media training firm — rated more than a dozen likely GOP candidates, plus Obama, on the seven traits he says all winning presidential candidates have had since 1980.

“Most pundits analyze a general election by looking at the same old measurements, such as unemployment data, consumer confidence, and early polling,” Phillips said.

“But they always miss a reliable predicator: The more gifted media spokesperson has won every presidential election since the beginning of the 24/7 media age in 1980.”

The candidates were evaluated on these seven criteria, Phillips said on his Mr. Media Training website:

The candidate with the clearest message has always won (since 1980).
The candidate who articulated the clearer vision has always won.
The sunnier candidate with the more optimistic message has always won.
The candidate whose message is best aligned with constituent concerns has always won.
The more charismatic candidate has always won.
The candidate who appeared most comfortable in his skin has always won.
The candidate who uses the most plain-spoken language has almost always won.
Based on these criteria and a review of television interviews, Phillips gives Obama an A for his communications skills in October 2008, but only a C for his skills now.

Incoming Florida Sen. Rubio gets an A, while Mississippi Gov. Barbour and former Arkansas Gov. Huckabee rate an A-minus.

COMMENT:  For the record, Phillips gave Mitt Romney, the man "next in line," a B-minus.

Rubio is a remarkable speaker.  As we wrote in our earlier post this week, he could lock up Florida and, being Hispanic himself, could cut into the traditionally Democratic Hispanic vote, which could make a decisive difference.

The name of the game is "win."   There is no prize for second place.  Rubio, in my view, could defeat Obama, who will be a formidable candidate, even if conditions in the country are less than ideal.  I don't think Romney could come close.  Huckabee and Barbour are good men, but I think they'd have a tough time climbing out of their regional base.  That's unfair, but it's the reality. 

Rubio.  Make a note.

December 19, 2010      Permalink

POSSIBLE SOLUTION TO GROUND ZERO MOSQUE ISSUE – AT 10:45 A.M. ET:  An idea is being floated that could possibly end the emotionally sizzling Ground Zero mosque controversy in New York City.  As you know, a Muslim group wants to put up a Muslim cultural center, including a mosque, within a block of Ground Zero, replacing a building that had been damaged in the 9-11 attacks.  Many, including family members of attack victims, object.

A solution may be coming.  From the New York Post:

A Manhattan lawyer with ties to the Saudi royal family is sounding out officials and community leaders about a plan to move the controversial Ground Zero mosque to the West Village.

Attorney Dudley Gaffin is claiming King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia might want to buy shuttered St. Vincent's Medical Center and transfer the mosque to a new Islamic cultural center he would build on a plot at the site, say sources who have heard Gaffin's pitch.

The king, worth more than $20 billion, would also save the hospital, reopening most of the units that closed when St. Vincent's filed for bankruptcy on April 14, the sources said.

They say that Gaffin, who heads his own firm in lower Manhattan, is floating the idea to gauge what the reaction might be -- and to ready a bid to rival the Rudin Organization, which is trying to snap up St. Vincent's in bankruptcy court with an eye on tearing down six hospital buildings for luxury housing.

COMMENT:  I'm always wary of Saudi influence, but at least some good would be done.  As long as hospital operations will not be influenced, in any way, by Saudi Arabia, this might be a way out of the mosque controversy, if not an ideal solution. 

Reopening St. Vincent's would help the area a lot more than another "luxury" apartment complex. 

December 19, 2010      Permalink

UNIVERSITIES RESPOND TO END OF "DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL" – AT 10:34 A.M. ET:  We wondered yesterday how universities that had used DADT as an excuse to bar ROTC on campus would respond to the DADT repeal.  We're getting some early answers.  From The Politico:

Some top universities moved quickly Saturday to respond to the vote repealing the ban on gays in the military, and those who don't restore their ROTC programs in the wake of the vote are likely to face immediate pressure on the issue.

The ROTC programs have been absent from a number of Ivy League and other leading campuses since the Vietnam War, and many schools subsequently linked programs' return to open service for gays and lesbians. The vote, said Columbia University President Lee Bollinger, provides "the opportunity for a new era in the relationship between universities and our military services."

"This is an historic development for a nation dedicated to fulfilling its core principle of equal rights. It also effectively ends what has been a vexing problem for higher education, including at Columbia -- given our desire to be open to our military, but not wanting to violate our own core principle against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation," he said in a statement through a spokesman.

Harvard University President Drew Faust today signaled that she would move to restore ROTC to the campus.

"Because of today's action by the Senate, gay and lesbian Americans will now also have the right to pursue this honorable calling, and we as a nation will have the benefit of their service," she said in a statement through a spokesman. "I look forward to pursuing discussions with military officials and others to achieve Harvard's full and formal recognition of ROTC."

A spokesman for Yale University also suggested that change may be coming soon.

"We are aware of the vote and have plans in consideration," said Yale spokesman Thomas Mattia in an email.

COMMENT:  So far, so good.  Those are good statements.  But remember that universities are in the midst of their Christmas holidays.  Radical student groups are away, and no faculty meetings are being held.  We haven't heard from the campus left, which has great power.

Already there are rumblings with the word "delay" attached, from gay groups:

Some gay advocates, however, would prefer the schools wait until repeal has been fully implemented. Americablog's John Aravosis wrote that the schools should only let up "when the discharges stop and the ban is fully lifted."

Each university has its own set of rules, and some places may require faculty approval before ROTC is restored.  We'll see whether the positive opening statements chronicled above actually lead to action, or more obstruction.

December 19, 2010     Permalink