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.

MARCH 5,  2015

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:56 P.M. ET: 

TUFFY SPEAKS – From AFP:  "The United States is keeping an eye on Iran’s 'destabilizing' acts even as the two nations try to reach a deal on Tehran’s nuclear program, US Secretary of State John Kerry said Thursday.  'Even as we engage in these discussions with Iran around this program, we will not take our eye off Iran’s destabilizing actions in the region,' he told reporters in Saudi Arabia, mentioning Syria and Yemen."  WOW!  If I were an Iranian leader I'd be quaking in my boots.  Barack Obama and John Kerry are keeping an eye on me!  I didn't think the Americans would take off their gloves, or their mittens, or something.

HILLARY THE SILENT – From Business Insider:  "Hillary Clinton reportedly will not be taking any questions at an event honoring excellence in journalism.  Organizers of the March 23 Toner Prize Celebration, which is named after the late New York Times reporter Robin Toner, told the Center for Public Integrity the event would be open to reporters. However, the keynote speaker, Clinton, does not plan to take their inquiries."  Problem is, a lot of the reporters present want to do Obama all over again, and won't have any tough questions for the queen.

THE CLINTON GRAVY TRAIN –  The stories are now coming out almost daily.  From Breitbart: "Hillary Rodham Clinton’s brother, Tony Rodham, sat on the board of a self-described mining company that in 2012 received one of only two 'gold exploitation permits' from the Haitian government—the first issued in over 50 years.  The tiny North Carolina company, VCS Mining, also included on its board Bill Clinton’s co-chair of the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission (IHRC), former Haitian Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive.  The Rodham gold mine revelation is just one of dozens featured in a forthcoming bombshell investigative book by three-time New York Times bestselling author Peter Schweizer, according to a Thursday statement from publishing giant HarperCollins. The publisher says the book, 'Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,' is the culmination of an exhaustive one-year deep dive investigation into the nexus between the Clintons’ $100+ million personal wealth, the Clinton Foundation, and the decisions Hillary made as secretary of state that benefited foreign donors, governments, and companies."  Oh juicy, juicy, juicy, I can't wait.  I do think this can reach the point where the Clinton candidacy begins under a deep shadow.  But remember, Nixon won in 1968 with many questions hanging over him.  He got elected, but it didn't end well. 

DISCOVERY – From Britain's Guardian:  "A massive ancient ocean once covered nearly half of the northern hemisphere of Mars, making the planet a more promising place for alien life to have gained a foothold, NASA scientists say.  The huge body of water spread over a fifth of the planet’s surface, as great a portion as the Atlantic covers the Earth, and was a mile deep in places. In total, the ocean held 20 million cubic kilometres of water, or more than is found in the Arctic Ocean, the researchers found."  And in that ocean they found Hillary's e-mails and Obama's academic records.

March 5,  2015     Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – HILLARY AND HER ANTICS – AT 10:32 A.M. ET:  Ron Fournier, at National Journal, nails the Hillary problem:

A cornered Clinton is a craven Clinton, which is why we should view Hillary Rodham Clinton's latest public relations trick with practiced skepticism. "I want the public to see my email," she tweeted Wednesday night. "I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible."

If she wants us to see her email, why did she create a secret account stored on a dark server registered at her home?

If she wants us to see her email, why didn't she give State all of her email rather than a self-censored fraction of the correspondence?

If she wants us to see her email, Clinton should turn over every word written on her dark account(s) for independent vetting. Let somebody the public trusts decide which emails are truly private and which ones belong to the public.

Like everything else about the response to this controversy, Clinton's tweet is reminiscent of the 1990s, when her husband's White House overcame his wrongdoing by denying the truth, blaming Republicans, and demonizing and bullying the media. It's a shameless script, unbecoming of a historic figure who could be our next president – and jarringly inappropriate for these times.

In the 15 years since Bill Clinton left office, the internet has made almost everybody a researcher and a journalist—equipped to judge wrongdoing for themselves and insist upon accountability. We can now spot the lies ourselves, stand up to bullies, and remind our leaders that two wrongs don't make a right. The actions of Hillary Clinton and her team raise the question: Is she trapped on the wrong side of the bridge to the 21st century?

COMMENT:  Wonderfully stated.  And this is the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination.

March 5, 2015       Permalink

OUR HILLARY, BADGERED BY THE PATRIARCHY AGAIN – AT 9:48 A.M. ET:   It's so unfair.  Our Hillary, treated so badly.  And all she wants to do is make a measly $200,000 a speech and maintain a bit of privacy.  Why is life so unfair?  From the Washington Post: 

A congressional committee issued subpoenas Wednesday seeking information about Hillary Rodham Clinton’s use of a private e-mail account for official business while she was secretary of state, setting up a potential legal clash with the presumptive Democratic front-runner for president.

The move followed the revelation that Clinton had installed a private server at her New York home that allowed her, and not the State Department, to store her e-mail correspondence and later decide which ones to turn over as public records.

The subpoenas, sent by the special House committee probing the fatal 2012 terrorist attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, reflected the angry response more broadly from Republican lawmakers and conservative watchdogs who said Clinton’s private e-mail system allowed her to evade scrutiny from investigations and legal proceedings.

Late Wednesday, Clinton responded to the issue for the first time tweeting, “I want the public to see my e-mail. I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible.”

COMMENT:  What a joke.  It's Hillary Clinton who has those e-mails, and she will decide which ones to give to the State Department for "review."  Kind of the way things are done in a dictatorship. 

This story is growing.  Every time you turn around, Hillary or Bill is involved in a scandal.  This one is particularly serious because the private storage of e-mails by a high government officials raises questions of national security and suppression of information that must be available to legal and Congressional inquiries.

There's a lot of talk on the internet that Hillary may be sinking politically.  But it's only talk.  She's still way ahead for her party's nomination, and the modern Democratic Party hasn't been too sensitive about corruption.  Slick Willy didn't get his nickname because he was honest.

March 5, 2015       Permalink

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT CLEARS FERGUSON OFFICER – 9:17 A.M. ET:  The Justice Department, under Eric Holder, is declining to prosecute the Ferguson, Missouri, police officer who shot and killed Michael Brown.  From Fox: 

The Justice Department announced Wednesday that it will not prosecute former Ferguson, Mo., police officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of an unarmed black 18-year-old, while also releasing a report faulting the city and its law enforcement for racial bias.

In the criminal investigation, federal officials concluded Wilson's actions "do not constitute prosecutable violations under the applicable federal criminal rights statute."

Specifically, the DOJ said there was "no evidence" to disprove Wilson's testimony that he feared for his safety, nor was there reliable evidence that Michael Brown had his hands up when he was shot.

The report said: "Although there are several individuals who have stated that Brown held his hands up in an unambiguous sign of surrender prior to Wilson shooting him dead, their accounts do not support a prosecution of Wilson.‎ As detailed throughout this report, some of those accounts are inaccurate because they are inconsistent with the physical and forensic evidence; some of those accounts are materially inconsistent with that witness's own prior statements with no explanation, credible or otherwise, as to why those accounts changed over time."

The decision in the Aug. 9 shooting had been expected, in part because of the high legal standard needed for a federal civil rights prosecution. Wilson, who has said Brown struck him in the face and reached for his gun during a tussle, also had been cleared by a Missouri grand jury in November and later resigned from the department.

COMMENT:  While one must praise the impartiality that the Justice Department showed in investigating this racially charged case, we must note that Eric Holder recently asked that the standard for prosecution in civil rights cases be lowered, apparently because he didn't get the result he wanted.  That would be frightening, leading to all kinds of political prosecutions (and persecutions). 

We are also struck by the contrast between the Justice Department exoneration of the officer and the early, wild reporting of the shooting, especially by CNN, which described young Brown as "a gentle giant."  A giant he was, gentle he wasn't.

At the same time, we take note of the Justice Department's finding of a pattern of racial discrimination in the Ferguson Police Department.  These are serious charges and appear to be documented.  They should be dealt with thoughtfully and carefully.  If there is a problem, it must be rooted out.  We do law enforcement no good when we pretend that it's perfect, or that the system always operates well.  Most police officers are terrific, and risk their lives every day.  Others, sadly, fall short, as do some judicial systems.  Get to the truth, solve the problem, and protect the great police officers who do it right.

March 5,  2015     Permalink

AMERICANS GET IT – AT 8:55 A.M. ET:  A new Fox News poll on Obama's foreign policy will not be welcome inside the White House bubble. 

A 57-percent majority feels the U.S. has not been aggressive enough in trying to get Iran to stop building a nuclear weapons program. Another 27 percent say the action has been about right, while just 7 percent say the U.S. has been too aggressive.

Some 55 percent think it would be “a disaster” if Iran were to obtain the capability to use nuclear weapons, while 40 percent sees it as “a problem that can be managed.” Those sentiments are unchanged from 2010.

There’s a huge gap between Democrats and Republicans on how worrisome an Iran with nukes would be. By a 10 percentage-point margin, Democrats are more likely to say it’s a problem that could be managed (51 percent) over a disaster (41 percent). Republicans, by a 42-point margin, say a nuclear Iran would be a disaster (70-28 percent).

Overall, two-thirds of voters (65 percent) favor the U.S. using military action, if necessary, to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Just 28 percent are opposed.

To varying degrees, majorities of Republicans (81 percent), Democrats (54 percent) and independents (53 percent) agree on using force to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

In a Monday interview with Reuters, President Obama said, “If, in fact, Iran is willing to agree to double-digit years of keeping their program where it is right now and, in fact, rolling back elements of it that currently exist ... if we’ve got that, and we’ve got a way of verifying that, there’s no other steps we can take that would give us such assurance that they don’t have a nuclear weapon."

Voters overwhelmingly reject that deal: 84 percent -- including 80 percent of Democrats -- think it’s a bad idea to allow Iran to get nuclear weapons 10 years from now in return for agreeing it won’t obtain nukes before then.

While 34 percent of voters think Obama is a strong negotiator with foreign leaders, a 59-percent majority says he’s a weak one. That’s up from 54 percent who felt that way a year ago.

More than a quarter of Democrats (29 percent) join large majorities of independents (67 percent) and Republicans (83 percent) in saying Obama is a bad negotiator on the international stage.

By a 56-27 percent margin, voters say it is a good thing Congressional leaders invited Prime Minister Netanyahu to address Congress.

COMMENT:  We always stress here that polls are a snapshot in time, and that other polls may have different results.  But Fox News polls are done responsibly, and these results are devastating for the Obama foreign policy.

The question is whether public opinion, or any set of facts, will change what Obama is doing, and isn't doing.  Americans clearly feel in danger, and we have a president who seems to believe that it's all our fault.

March 5, 2015     Permalink

MARCH 4,  2015

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:06 P.M. ET: 

STRIKEOUT – From The Hill:  "The Senate failed on Wednesday to override President Obama’s veto of legislation approving the Keystone XL oil sands pipeline, falling five votes short of the two-thirds majority needed in a 62-37 vote.  It’s the first time Congress has voted on whether to override a veto from Obama and could be a sign of things to come, with Republicans in charge of the House and Senate.  Eight Democrats voted with Republicans to override Obama: Sens. Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Mark Warner (Va.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Bob Casey Jr. (Pa.), Michael Bennet (Colo.), Tom Carper (Del.) and Jon Tester (Mont.).  Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), who backs the pipeline, missed the vote."  Disgraceful, just disgraceful.  The nation backs the pipeline in every poll.  Congress voted it.  Workers need it.  And Obama vetoes it to satisfy environmental extremists.  Too bad there weren't more independent-thinking Democrats who would buck this radical president.

DEPRESSING – Dem Congressman Chris Van Hollen of Maryland has announced his candidacy for the U.S. Senate to succeed the retiring Barbara Mikulski.  Van Hollen is typical of the "progressive" Democrats who now dominate the once-responsible Democratic Party.  He's a favorite of Nancy Pelosi and favors the Palestinian side in the Mideast.  (His daughter lives in Ramallah, on the West Bank.)  Not good news for those who wish the Democratic Party would grow up.  Maryland is a Democratic state, although it just elected a Republican governor.  Anything can happen in the Senate race.

DUMP HILLARY? – Latest revelations about Hillary Clinton maintaining a private, unapproved, insecure e-mail account, with a private server, while secretary of state, are adding to Dem apprehensions about her as a candidate.  It's clear the base of the party would prefer someone to her left.  Clinton is still well ahead of any challenger for the nomination, but that could change if more comes out that reinforces an already bad image of her as secretive, dishonest, and someone who doesn't believe the rules apply to her.  If Clinton's presidential effort should weaken, Dems would be hard pressed to come up with a winning candidate.  Elizabeth Warren would be the quick favorite, but watching Warren campaign is about as exciting as emptying the dishwasher.

COLD CAUCUS – From The Hill:  "Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said Wednesday that senators were launching an Arctic caucus, which will focus on helping build U.S. leadership in the region.  The Alaska Republican and Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) are forming the caucus, which will include discussions on a range of issues including defense, energy, environment and trade.  'I'm calling on colleagues in the Senate to join me, to step up, to help us not only build out policy initiatives, but really take that leadership role we should be doing as an Arctic nation,' she said from the Senate floor. 'Embrace your inner-Arctic self.'"  I think they should make Al Gore an honorary member, and prove to him that there's still ice in America.

March 4, 2015       Permalink

BE PREPARED – AT 11:08 A.M.  ET:  I don't know if it's based on specific intelligence, but the New York Police Department is preparing for a possible ISIS attack.  From the New York Post: 

The NYPD has quietly spent the last six months making preparations for a potential ISIS assault in Manhattan, which police fear could be similar to the 2008 terror attacks in Mumbai, India, sources told The Post.

Cops have been trained to deal with coordinated bombings and shootings, as in the four-day terror assault that killed more than 160 people in Mumbai, the sources said.

Police trainers have even placed a map of Manhattan over a map of Mumbai to show the geographical similarities, one source said.

Several hundred cops have been reassigned to counterterrorism duties, and some have been trained to use high-powered rifles to take out potential terrorist snipers.

Concerns about an ISIS attack against New York have escalated ever since the US military recently announced plans to help drive the terrorist group out of its stronghold in Mosul, Iraq, a source said.

COMMENT:  It's encouraging that this kind of training is going ahead, and isn't being stopped by New York's left-wing mayor's office.  Sooner or later, we'll be hit again.  Remember that the purpose of terror is to terrorize a population and force it to live in fear.  A series of small attacks against America on the same day may do just that.  New York is still one of the major and logical targets.

March 4, 2015       Permalink

WHOOPS – AT 10:44 A.M. ET:  Have the talks with Iran hit a dead end?   There are reports today that they've gone wobbly, and that even the massive concessions already made by Washington are not enough.  From Reuters:

(Reuters) - Iran rejected on Tuesday as "unacceptable" U.S. President Barack Obama's demand that it freeze sensitive nuclear activities for at least 10 years but said it would continue talks on a deal, Iran's semi-official Fars news agency reported.

Iran laid out the position as the U.S. and Iranian foreign ministers met for a second day of negotiations and as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a stinging critique of the agreement they are trying to hammer out.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry met a day after Obama told Reuters that Iran must commit to a verifiable halt of at least 10 years on sensitive nuclear work for a landmark atomic deal to be reached.

"Iran will not accept excessive and illogical demands," Zarif was quoted by Fars as saying.

"Obama’s stance ... is expressed in unacceptable and threatening phrases," he was reported as saying, adding that talks with Kerry in Switzerland would nonetheless carry on.

COMMENT:  I don't know how our negotiators can deal with such a red line without making even more catastrophic concessions.  My fear is that is exactly what Obama might do, just to get a piece of paper.  It should be the fear of every American.

March 4, 2015       Permalink

THE HEART OF THE MATTER – AT 9:52 A.M. ET:  With all the controversy over Bibi's speech yesterday, it took the editorial page of the Washington Post finally to get to the heart of the matter, and make a reasonable demand of the administration: 

THE CONCERNS about a prospective nuclear agreement with Iran raised by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a speech to Congress on Tuesday are not — as the White House was quick to point out — new. They had, for example, been spelled out in Senate hearings, as an editorial we published last month recounted. Mr. Netanyahu’s decision to repeat this case before a joint meeting of Congress in defiance of the White House and leading Democrats risked turning what should be a substantive debate into a partisan scrimmage.

Nevertheless, Mr. Netanyahu’s arguments deserve a serious response from the Obama administration — one it has yet to provide. The White House has sought to dismiss the Israeli leader as a politician seeking reelection; has said that he was wrong in his support for the Iraq war and in his opposition to an interim agreement with Iran; and has claimed that he offers no alternative to President Obama’s policy. Such rhetoric will not satisfy those in and out of Congress who share Mr. Netanyahu’s legitimate questions.

Excellent point.  Obama told us that Netanyahu's speech distracted us from the substance of the Iran negotiations, but then tells us almost nothing about the things being negotiated.

In discussing Netanyahu's argument, the Post says: 

In essence, this was an argument that Iran must be sanctioned and contained while its clerical regime remains in power. That has been the explicit or de facto U.S. policy since 1979, but Mr. Obama appears to be betting that detente can better control Iran’s nuclear ambitions and, perhaps, produce better behavior over time. Yet he has shied from explicitly making that case; instead, his aides argue that the only alternative to his approach is war.

Mr. Netanyahu strongly disputed that point. “Iran’s nuclear program can be rolled back well beyond the current proposal by insisting on a better deal and keeping up the pressure on a very vulnerable regime,” he said. Is that wrong? For that matter, is it acceptable to free Iran from sanctions within a decade and allow it unlimited nuclear capacity? Rather than continuing its political attacks on Mr. Netanyahu, the administration ought to explain why the deal it is contemplating is justified — or reconsider it.

COMMENT:  The Washington Post is a liberal paper, but its editorial page is fiercely independent, and proves it once again.  I'm surprised that Post editors are still invited to Washington parties. 

The president owes us more than glib little comments.  The Iranian nuclear program is a direct threat to tens of millions of people.  Some seriousness please.

March 4, 2015       Permalink

IN HISTORY – AT 8:46 A.M. ET:  I was struck by the constant references to history in Netanyahu's speech before Congress yesterday.   Bibi knows history, unlike our current president, who only thinks he does. 

I was also struck by Bibi's powerful presence as a leader.  Like him or not, and there is a valid debate about the man, he filled the room.   We are reminded of another figure who filled the room on this day in 1933, when Franklin D. Roosevelt took the oath of office, the last president to be inaugurated on March 4th.  In 1937 he would be sworn in for his second term on January 20th, the inauguration date we still maintain. 

Leadership has a style.  The presidency has a style.  Peggy Noonan, one of Ronald Reagan's key speechwriters, once said of Reagan that he knew how to be president.  He had a largeness, a reassuring presence.  When Roosevelt spoke to the nation by radio, in his "fireside chats," he had that same reassuring presence.  Whether one agrees or disagrees with Roosevelt's policies, he had the instinct of leadership that even his opponents conceded.

They said of Harry Truman that he did the biggest things in the biggest ways and the littlest things in the littlest ways.  Our current president does everything in the littlest ways.  He is a petty, small-minded man, a local politician.  In his response to Netanyahu's eloquent address, Obama's smallness was on its usual display.  Bibi never uttered a word of criticism of Obama, but for months we have been embarrassed as Americans by the petty slights and insults toward the prime minister coming from the White House.  No comment was deemed too crude, no insult too severe.  A high official referred to the prime minister of Israel as a "chicken s..."  As one commentator said yesterday, he wished this president could be as angry at those who behead Christians as he is at the prime minister of of Israel, an important ally.

But of course this is the president who sent the bust of Winston Churchill back to Britain.  This is the president who refused to have lunch with the leader of France during a D-Day commemoration.  This is the president who went out and played golf only minutes after being informed of the beheading of an American by ISIS. 

Have you ever heard anyone say of Obama, "He knows what to do"?  Even his partisans shy away from that.

The party follows the leader.  Some, not all, Democratic responses to yesterday's speech followed the pettiness of Barack Obama, including Nancy Pelosi's childlike comment that she was "near tears" because she felt Bibi was insulting the intelligence of Americans.  No he wasn't.  He was showing respect for that intelligence by addressing the American people in a mature, thoughtful manner.

It's just that we're not used to that style any longer.

March 4,  2015     Permalink