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.

JULY 24,  2015

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:55 P.M. ET: 

WHO NEEDS INTEGRITY?  The Dems are already working to convince America that Hillary Clinton may be a crook, but she's a competent crook.  From IBD:   Lawyer Lanny Davis, the longtime professional on-air surrogate for the Clintons, has reached so far down into the barrel to excuse Hillary's low trustworthiness ratings, he may end up with a charley horse.  On MSNBC, interviewer Ed Schultz asked Davis about Quinnipiac poll numbers that show trust of Hillary Clinton is between 33% and 39% in important swing states. And these numbers came before the latest revelation that the former secretary of state, contrary to her claims, did indeed send classified emails on her personal Freedom of Information Act-proof computer server. So expect those numbers to drop lower.  Davis conceded, "It's certainly a worry," but added, "All of the polls show that she has strong leadership numbers."  Who cares if we lost the war, Mein Fuhrer.  You haven't lost your leadership qualities.

SICKENING – A further example of how low liberalism is sinking.  From the Sacramento Bee:   California Attorney General Kamala Harris will review whether the nonprofit organization behind controversial Planned Parenthood videos violated state law, her office said in a letter Friday.  Four Democratic congresswomen on Thursday asked Harris and U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch to determine if officials from the Irvine-based Center for Medical Progress broke any laws when they posed as workers for a biotech company while recording Planned Parenthood physicians without their consent.  Reps. Jan Schakowsky, Zoe Lofgren, Jerry Nadler and Yvette Clarke cited reports that founder David Daleiden filed paperwork to create a phony entity. They also asked the state’s top law enforcement official to look into possible violations of the Invasion of Privacy Act, which bars recording people without their permission.  “We will carefully review the allegations raised in your letter to determine whether there were any violations of California law,” Harris, a Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate, wrote in a reply Friday.  “This office will also review any materials filed by the Center for Medical Progress with the Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts to determine whether the organization violated laws including, but not limited to, our registration and reporting requirements.”  Harris will probably be the next senator from California, succeeding the retiring Barbara Boxer.  This episode tells us what we have to know about Harris.  She's another doctrinaire leftist, more concerned about the propriety of the video than with what it revealed about the selling of fetal body parts.  It's also hilarious that the story identifies "four Democratic congresswomen."  Last time I looked, Jerry Nadler was a male, but I'm not up on the latest sex-change announcements.

LOWER STILL – John Kerry is starting to make threats to get his Iran nuclear deal accepted.  From The Times of Israel:   WASHINGTON — US Secretary of State John Kerry warned Friday that should Congress vote against the Iranian nuclear deal signed last week in Vienna, Israel could find itself more isolated in the international arena and “more blamed.”  “I fear that what could happen is that, if Congress were to overturn it, our friends in Israel could actually wind up being more isolated. And more blamed. And we would lose Europe and China and Russia with respect to whatever military action we might have to take. Because we will have turned our backs on a very legitimate program that allows us to put their program to the test over the next few years,” Kerry told an audience at the Council of Foreign Relations in New York on Friday.  It's an implied threat against Israel, and it is based in part on the fantasy that Europe, China, or Russia would ever join us in military action.  Our foreign policy is in the hands of people who have a certain contempt for their own country.

July 24, 2015       Permalink

AND HILLARY CAVES – AT 11:52 A.M. ET:  It's no secret that Hillary Clinton, despite her general awfulness, actually has some (I stress some) moderate, even reasonable views, especially on military policy.  But those views won't get her the nomination of a party that increasingly views Karl Marx as Uncle Karl.  So Hillary is doing what she always does...caving to the left to increase her chances.  From AP:

GREENVILLE, S.C. (AP) — In her second bid for the presidency, Hillary Rodham Clinton is discussing "systemic racism" and making the issue a hallmark of her campaign as she looks to connect with the black voters who supported rival Barack Obama in 2008.

At multiple stops in South Carolina, Clinton on Thursday bemoaned "mass incarceration," an uneven economy, increasingly segregated public schools and poisoned relations between law enforcement and the black community. She praised South Carolina leaders, including Republican Gov. Nikki Haley, for removing the Confederate battle flag from statehouse grounds after a white gunman's massacre of nine people at a historic black church in Charleston, but she warned that the act is only symbolic.

"America's long struggle with racism is far from finished," the former secretary of state said before a mostly white audience at a Greenville technical college. Hours earlier, with a majority black audience at a West Columbia church, she declared, "Anybody who says we don't have more progress to make is blind."

At both stops, she added some symbolism of her own, trumpeting the mantra "Black Lives Matter," which has become a rallying cry of and name for the activists who have organized protests in several cities amid several high-profile cases of black citizens being killed during encounters with police.

"This is not just a slogan," Clinton said. "This should be a guiding principle."

The bold approach is a contrast to her 2008 campaign. That year, she didn't talk so directly about race as she faced off against Obama, who would go on to become the nation's first black president. Instead, she ran as the battle-tested, experienced counter to the first-term U.S. senator from Illinois.

COMMENT:  It's pathetic.  All this pandering.  There is certainly racism.  But there are also terrible cultural problems in black America that must be addressed if the black community is to make progress. 

Hillary is merely shoring up the Democratic base.  But that will not be enough to win a general election.

July 24, 2015       Permalink

JUST A LITTLE HELP FROM FRIENDS – AT 10:31 A.M. ET:  The New York Times, always striving for accuracy and kindness, gave Hillary Clinton a helping hand last night.  I'm sure the paper would do the same for, say, Marco Rubio or Scott Walker.  From The Politico: 

The New York Times made small but significant changes to an exclusive report about a potential criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton's State Department email account late Thursday night, but provided no notification of or explanation for of the changes.

The paper initially reported that two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation "into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state."

That clause, which cast Clinton as the target of the potential criminal probe, was later changed: the inspectors general now were asking for an inquiry "into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state."

The Times also changed the headline of the story, from "Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email" to "Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Email Account," reflecting a similar recasting of Clinton's possible role. The article's URL was also changed to reflect the new headline.

As of early Friday morning, the Times article contained no update, notification, clarification or correction regarding the changes made to the article.

One of the reporters of the story, Michael Schmidt, explained early Friday that the Clinton campaign had complained about the story to the Times.

“It was a response to complaints we received from the Clinton camp that we thought were reasonable, and we made them,” Schmidt said.

COMMENT:  We all know that any mishandling of sensitive government information on Hillary's personal e-mail account was done by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.  Pass it on.

July 24, 2015       Permalink

A NOBEL FOR KERRY?  REALLY? – AT 9:53 A.M. ET:  The drums are already being beaten on behalf of a Nobel Peace Prize for John Kerry and his Iranian counterpart.  Kerry wants one desperately, maybe a kind of consolation prize for not being elected president. 

The Nobel Peace Prize is, of course, a joke.  It is not like the real Nobel prizes, in categories like physics, chemistry and medicine.  It is given in Oslo by a bunch of leftist Norwegian parliamentarians.  It has never advanced peace.  Indeed, it has often been given to those whose "peacemaking" actually led to war.  Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe nails it:

On Wednesday, a director of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, an influential think tank with ties to the Nobel organization, recommended that the 2016 prize be awarded to Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.

The Vienna deal is a capitulation to one of the worst regimes on earth. Far from requiring the Iranians to dismantle their illicit nuclear program, the accord leaves almost all of it intact. In exchange for little more than a promise to delay its development of nuclear warheads, Tehran is rewarded with $150 billion in sanctions relief and, within a few years, the lifting of the UN embargo on conventional weapons and missile sales. The Islamic Republic is the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism, yet nothing in the agreement requires any change in its notorious behavior. And despite the regime’s long record of treaty violations and deceit, the deal enables it to stall for almost a month before complying with a demand for access by inspectors — hardly the “anytime, anywhere, 24/7” inspections that the Obama administration had claimed it would insist on.

The White House wanted to sign a deal; Iran’s rulers wanted to ensure their path to the bomb and nuclear legitimacy. Both got what they wanted. The consequences will be a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, more Iranian terrorism and subversion, and a greater likelihood of war.

A Nobel Peace Prize — for that?

COMMENT:  Jacoby goes on to note the past failures of the "peace prize."  I would not be shocked if John Kerry gets his prize, and the cash that goes with it.  After all, Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize within a few days of taking office.  Standards are low.

July 24, 2015       Permalink

THE VOICE OF HISTORY – QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 9:12 A.M. ET:  The debate over the Iran deal is on, with Republican members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee tearing into the agrement in the presence of the secretary of state, while Democrats offered half-hearted defenses.

But perhaps the best statement against the deal was a very practical one offered by the former district attorney for Manhattan, Robert Morgenthau, speaking at the Stop Iran Now rally several days ago in New York.  His words, from The Wall Street Journal: 

The proposal would give Iran access to $150 billion in frozen assets. That provision is particularly galling. Over the years, survivors of Americans murdered in Iran’s terrorist acts have sued Iran, and often won large judgments. The problem is, Iran refused to pay. I fail to see the logic in returning those embargoed funds without first requiring Iran to make good on the debts it owes to those survivors.

Although the proposal was negotiated in good faith, even the administration worries that some of those billions would go toward sponsoring terrorism—what the State Department euphemistically calls “destabilizing actions.” This is not only a strategic issue, but a moral one. We simply cannot give terrorists the means to destroy innocent lives. Until Iran renounces terrorism, we cannot release those funds. And make no mistake: Neither side to this deal predicts that it will reduce Iranian terrorism. An Iranian newspaper that serves as a mouthpiece for the Iranian supreme leader put it this way: “In spite of various pretensions and fantasies, this agreement will not lead to cooperation between Iran and America on regional issues.” And even President Obama, at his recent press conference, conceded that try as we might to curb Iran’s destructive policies, he’s “not betting on it.”

With respect to Iran, an effective international sanctions regime is the only real alternative the world has to war. We must not dismantle those sanctions until we are assured that Iran’s hostile intentions have been thwarted.

As district attorney, some of my most important cases were those in which we ensured that the sanctions against Iran were obeyed. I took on those cases because I believed the sanctions were crucial to prevent Iran from spreading even wider mayhem. We should keep those sanctions in place so long as Iran threatens the survival of its neighbors, and sponsors terror around the world. Near the end of his life, President John Kennedy delivered a speech in which he told Americans of the peace he hoped to bring to the world. He called it “genuine peace . . . not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women, not merely peace in our time, but peace in all time.”

This proposal does just the opposite.

COMMENT:  Morgenthau is 95, and his words are ironic.  His father, Henry Morgenthau Jr., was FDR's secretary of the treasury.  It was Henry Morgenthau Jr., a close friend of Roosevelt, who confronted the president with this country's inaction in regard to the Holocaust.  Robert Morgenthau has a historic sense, through his father, of what the failure to confront evil can ultimately mean.   His words should be taken seriously.

July 24,  2015     Permalink 

JULY 23,  2015

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:53 P.M. ET: 

NUTS – From the Connecticut Post:   Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson are history in Connecticut.  Under pressure from the NAACP, the state Democratic Party will scrub the names of the two presidents from its annual fundraising dinner because of their ties to slavery.  Party leaders voted unanimously Wednesday night in Hartford to rename the Jefferson Jackson Bailey dinner in the aftermath of last month’s fatal shooting of nine worshipers at a historic black church in Charleston, S.C.  The decision is believed to be unprecedented and could prompt Democrats in other states with similarly named events to follow suit.  How childish and silly.  Neither Jefferson nor Jackson was perfect, but they lived 200 years ago, and to judge them by today's standards is absurd.  Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom.  He was father to many of the ideals that the NAACP presumably holds dear.  It's time for black organizations to stop engaging in symbolism and start dealing with the real problems that are destroying the dreams of black America.

CHILLING – From Fox:   Donald Trump made a splashy visit Thursday to the U.S.-Mexico border in a bid to draw attention to illegal immigration. But on the sidelines, he was making news for other reasons -- his threat to mount an independent run for the White House if the Republican Party won't welcome him.  The warning, made in an interview with The Hill, comes as Trump faces some of the toughest criticism yet from fellow Republican candidates. Trump said the Republican National Committee "has not been supportive," and suggested if he does not clinch the nomination and is not "treated" well by Republicans, he'd consider an independent bid.  This is utterly frightening.  Frank Luntz makes the point, which I think is accurate, that a Republican candidate for president cannot possibly win if there is a strong, conservative candidate running as an independent.  That's what we'd have if Trump runs his own campaign, which he can privately finance.  This must be prevented at all costs.

ABOUT TIME – From the Daily Signal:   Representatives from Coca-Cola, Ford Motor Co. and Xerox say they’ve asked Planned Parenthood to remove their names as corporate donors to the embattled organization.  The move follows a Daily Signal report revealing the names of 41 companies that Planned Parenthood listed as donors. That list, which was featured on Planned Parenthood’s website, has since been removed.  This latest development comes in the wake of two undercover videos that showed Planned Parenthood executives talking about the sale of fetal body parts. Planned Parenthood is facing both federal and state investigations—and the possibility of losing taxpayer funding.  It's about time that Planned Parenthood was called to account.  The alleged selling of fetal parts is the exact opposite of "planned parenthood."  It rejects and shows contempt for parenthood.  The organization should not be receiving public funds unless it makes substantial reforms.  Even then there's plenty of room for doubt.

July 23, 2015       Permalink

THUMP – AT 11:47 A.M. ET:  The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has opened hearings on the Iran agreement.  Chairman Bob Corker, who's become highly respected in his position, wasted no time in being kind.  From Fox:

A top Senate Republican accused the Obama administration on Thursday of cutting a deal with Iran that paves its path to a nuclear weapon, telling Secretary of State John Kerry: "You've been fleeced."

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker tore into the nuclear agreement at the start of a hearing before his committee, where Kerry and other top officials were testifying. He said he walked away from a briefing with the secretary a day earlier "depressed," and claimed Iran could eventually build a bomb by simply waiting out the clock and "abiding by this agreement."

"From my perspective, Mr. Secretary, I'm sorry ... I believe you've been fleeced," Corker said.

Kerry, though, vigorously defended the agreement, calling it "fantasy, plain and simple," to think the United States failed to hold out for a better deal at the bargaining table.

"Let me underscore, the alternative to the deal we've reached isn't what we're seeing ads for on TV," he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the first public hearing on the controversial deal to lift economic and other sanctions in exchange for concessions of the Islamic state's nuclear program.

"It isn't a better deal, some sort of unicorn arrangement involving Iran's complete capitulation," Kerry said.

Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz also said the deal is not "built on trust."

The hearing comes as lawmakers raise new concerns about alleged secret "side deals" struck with Tehran over its nuclear program.

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., first brought attention to them Tuesday, saying they learned from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that there were two "side deals" between Iran and the IAEA.

COMMENT:  Please note that no one in Congress, to the best of my knowledge, is championing this agreement, although Nancy Pelosi has said she'd strongly support it.  You don't hear any major figure rushing to CNN to say how wonderful the agreement is. 

Oh, wait, there is one person who said that – Katrina Vanden Heuvel, editor of the hard-left Nation magazine.  If she's for the deal, all grown-ups should be against it. 

July 23, 2015       Permalink

FBI TERROR WARNING – AT 10:21 A.M. ET:  ISIS is now judged to be more dangerous than Al Qaeda.  From Fox:   

The Islamic State terror group’s effort to inspire troubled Americans to extremism is a greater threat to the U.S. than an external attack from Al Qaeda, the FBI director said Wednesday.

FBI Director James Comey told an audience at the Aspen Security Forum that the group, commonly known as ISIS, has influenced a significant number of Americans through a year-long campaign on social media urging Muslims who can’t travel to the Middle East to “kill where you are.”

Twitter handles affiliated with the group have more than 21,000 English-language followers worldwide, Comey said, adding that thousands of those could be U.S. residents.

The FBI has arrested a significant number of people over the last handful of weeks who had been radicalized, Comey said. He also repeated his previous disclosure, without elaborating, that several people were arrested who were planning attacks related to the July Fourth holiday.

Comey said it was too soon to say how Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, the Chattanooga gunman who killed five U.S. troops last week, became radicalized.

Abdulazeez's relatives have said he had a history of drug use and depression. Comey noted that "the people the Islamic State is trying to reach are people that Al Qaeda would never use as an operative, because they are often unstable, troubled drug users."

Asked if the threat from the Islamic State group had eclipsed that of Al Qaeda, the rival organization that attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001, Comey said, "Yes."

COMMENT:   ISIS has yet to pull off a major event in the United States, but the law of averages is with the group.  In addition, it's proved to be intelligent and resourceful. 

One question is how ISIS will see the 2016 American presidential campaign.  Its leaders certainly know that a major attack can influence the vote.  Will they try to use their influence?  Which way?  They may not be thinking the way we believe them to be thinking.

July 23, 2015       Permalink

HOUSE SPEAKER TO OPPOSE IRAN DEAL – AT 9:53 A.M. ET:  No doubt where Speaker Boehner stands on the Iran agreement.  He is opposed, and his opposition signals that his party will fight hard to sink the deal.  From Fox:

House Speaker John Boehner vowed Wednesday to do "everything possible" to stop the newly struck Iran nuclear deal, as Congress formally begins consideration of the hard-fought pact.

The warning comes just days after the U.N. Security Council endorsed the deal, over the objections of many in Congress. Republicans, and some Democrats, had wanted the administration to wait until Congress reviews it before seeking approval from the United Nations.

Congress nevertheless will have its say. Fox News has learned the administration formally sent the deal to Capitol Hill on Sunday -- this starts a 60-day clock for lawmakers to consider it, and then vote to approve or disapprove it or take no action.

The White House has launched an aggressive campaign in recent days, trying to sway wavering Democrats while publicly ripping Republicans for opposing the deal.

In an appearance on "The Daily Show" Tuesday, Obama portrayed the controversial deal as the best compromise the government could achieve. In a jab at the George W. Bush administration, he joked that his critics think if only former Vice President Dick Cheney had been on the U.S. negotiating team, "then everything would be fine."

COMMENT:  Forget Obama's sarcasm.  Reports from Washington say that the administration is genuinely worried about Congressional reaction, not that it has done anything to ease Congressional concerns.  Going to the UN before submitting the agreement to Congress was not a wise step.

As things now stand, it's a good bet that both houses of Congress will vote down the deal.  That judgment, of course, can change in the 60 days of Congressional examination. 

Obama will veto a negative bill of rejection, and the question will be whether the veto can be overridden.  Former Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut said a few days ago that he believes the votes are almost there to override.  He's the first prominent person I've heard who's said that.  I have no idea whether it's accurate.  I think some Democrats who are on the fence will be guided by public-opinion polls, which are currently against the agreement.  And the polls that count will be ones taken in their home states or districts.  Self-preservation is the key in politics, especially as we approach an election year.

July 23, 2015       Permalink

OUTRAGEOUS – AT 9:25 A.M. ET:  The more we hear about the Iran deal, the worse it gets.  But this bit takes the prize for cynicism.  From the Washington Times: 

“If Iran violates the deal, all of these sanctions will snap back into place,” President Obama said in his White House statement on the nuclear agreement. He added, “we’ve built in a snap-back provision so we don’t have to go through lengthy negotiations at the U.N. to put the sanctions right back in place.”

But any inspections at Iranian military facilities to which Iran objects, and the “snap-back” re-imposition of United Nations sanctions would require the United States government to win the unanimous support of Germany, the United Kingdom, France, and the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy—ALL of them. This would be necessary to have the five votes required under the agreement’s Dispute Resolution Mechanism to override objections from Iran, Russia, and China. (See Articles 36-37 and Annex I Article 78). And, under the Treaty of Lisbon rules controlling the EU’s “Common Foreign and Security Policy,” key decisions on the CFSP require unanimous approval by ALL 28 MEMBERS of the European Union.

It may be true that “No one country could block a snap-back of sanctions,” as Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz said, but no one country—not even the United States—could re-impose them either unless all of Europe went along.

COMMENT:  There will be no re-imposition of sanctions.  The sanctions regime is dead.  Europe, especially Germany, will have substantial commerce with Iran, and will not give it up. 

We have lost substantially in every way in our negotiations with Iran.  Americans in decades to come will likely pay a price.  But why should Obama care?  He's a man of the world.

July 23,  2015     Permalink