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.

Our Angel's Corner archive is here.

JUNE 5,  2017

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

ENOUGH ALREADY! – FROM THE DAILY MAIL:   Hillary Clinton has been reading daily devotionals since losing the election which teach her about 'being strong in the midst of unpredictability', her pastor has revealed.  The Rev Bill Shillady said that the former Democratic Presidential candidate's prayers have been about 'encouragement' as she grapples with her shock defeat to Donald Trump.  He said that Clinton has been finding 'strength and hope' in her Methodist faith as she tries to understand what went wrong.  Clinton has only touched briefly on the personal impact her defeat has had on her making Rev Shillady's disclosure a significant insight into her state of mind.  In the Democratic Party, even the pastors leak.  Hillary, take your grandchildren to the zoo. More important than politics.

YEAH, I THINK I'D BE WORRIED – FROM FOX:  Concerns are being raised on Capitol Hill about whether partisan politics could impact the 2020 Census and swing congressional redistricting in favor of Democrats.  Fox News has learned that last summer, a pro-Democratic analytics firm that describes itself as “a platform for hope and change” was included as a subcontractor in a $415 million advertising contract for the 2020 Census.  The data firm, Civis Analytics, was founded by the chief analytics officer on former President Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign.  Since congressional redistricting, which occurs every 10 years, is based on the results of the national Census, the chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is now asking the secretary of the Department of Commerce to ensure that the Census will be conducted in a nonpartisan fashion -- and that redistricting will not be impacted.  If I were running the Republican National Committee I'd take this issue very seriously.  I'd imagine that some operations involving the Census could be hacked, with devastating results.  I wouldn't put anything past today's cyber manipulators, especially the leftist kind.

MAJOR SPORTS NEWS – FROM STUDYFINDS:  STONY BROOK, N.Y. — Twitter has long been a popular soapbox for professional athletes to speak their minds or simply converse with fans, but could it damaging to their careers? A new study finds that late-night tweeting causes NBA players to perform worse on the court the next day.  Researchers at Stony Brook University examined 112 NBA players’ Twitter accounts from 2009 through 2016 and then analyzed their game-by-game statistics using Yahoo Sports. The authors specifically looked for tweets posted between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. Statistics were only utilized for the study when a game occurred within the time zone that corresponds to where the player lives.  After examining the 30,000 tweets among the players, the researches determined that when players tweeted late at night, their shooting accuracy dropped by about 1.7 percent in games the next day and they averaged about 1 point less. They also took fewer shots, and recorded fewer rebounds, steals, and blocks.  The researchers point to sleep deprivation as a primary consequence of late-night tweeting, which can impact a player’s performance.  So it's really sleep we're talking about.  Tweeting can lead to less sleep.  How much did this study cost?

June 5, 2017       Permalink

DEMS SAYING BYE-BYE TO HILLARY – at 11:47 A.M. ET:  And they hope she takes the hint.  From The Hill:

Democrats say they’d like Hillary Clinton to take a cue from former President Obama and step out of the spotlight. 

They say her string of remarks explaining her stunning loss in November coupled with the public remarks blaming the Democratic National Committee for the defeat — which many took as also critical of Obama — are hurting the party and making the 2016 candidate look bitter. 

Ya think?

The Hill interviewed more a dozen Democrats about Clinton’s remarks, including many staunch Clinton supporters and former aides.

They said they understood the need for Clinton to explain what happened in the election, and many also empathized with Clinton’s anger over former FBI Director James Comey’s handling of a probe into her private email server.

But they also unanimously said Clinton needs to rethink her public blaming tour.

“Good God, what is she doing?” one longtime aide wondered after watching Clinton at the Recode conference in California on Wednesday. “She's apparently still really, really angry. I mean, we all are. The election was stolen from her, and that's how she feels. 

“But to go out there publicly again and again and talk about it? And then blame the DNC?” the aide wondered. "It's not helpful to Democrats. It's not helpful to the country, and I don't think it's helpful to her.”

COMMENT:  Every time Hillary opens her mouth, she demonstrates why she should never be president.  It's all about her, never about the country.  She even expressed her bitterness in her commencement address at Wellesley, her alma mater. 

It's reported that she'd like to run again in 2020.  It's also being reported that Joe Biden would like to run.  They'd both be in their mid-seventies.  But the Democrats desperately need a younger bench, and both Clinton and Biden can prevent that bench from developing.  Not good for the party.

June 5, 2017       Permalink

WILL BRITAIN ACTUALLY GET TOUGH? – AT 10:41 A.M. ET:   Tough words are flowing in the aftermath of the latest London attacks.  But will Britain follow through?  That may depend on the outcome of Thursday's national election.  From Fox: 

After yet another deadly terrorist attack swept through the streets of Britain late Saturday, lawmakers and leaders were scrambling to take back the reins and foil any further tragedies.

British Prime Minister Theresa May, speaking Sunday after a meeting of the government’s COBRA emergency committee, claimed there was “too much tolerance” of Islamist extremism in the U.K. and insisted that the country’s counterterrorism strategy would be reviewed.

While such reviews remain in preliminary stages, a British intelligence source told Fox News that it is an “all hands at the pump” approach, with Joint Intelligence Operations to be carried out collaboratively with M15, Scotland Yard and the Army’s Special Air Service (SAS) all involved.

The points of focus include: recruiting and deploying even more counterterrorism officers, and pushing through new laws to “round up” suspected terrorists and, if convicted, stripping them of their citizenship as a deterrent.

“There is also early talk that things could go as far as banning the burka,” the source said.

The burka debate has, for more than a decade, divided much of the British community. In 2006, MP and government minister Jack Straw first advocated support for such a prohibition in the media, but several years later apologized following the backlash. Nearby European countries such as France, Austria, Germany and Belgium have, over the years, implemented different degrees of legislation to restrict the wearing of full-face veils.

COMMENT:  If May's conservatives are in the majority after Thursday's vote, there's a chance Britain will take a tougher stance toward terror, although how much tougher remains to be seen.  The multicultural left in Britain is powerful and true believing.  If Labour wins on Thursday, nothing will be done.  Labour is run by Jeremy Corbyn, who believes terror is all the fault of the West.

June 5, 2017        Permalink

WILL RUTHIE DO THE RIGHT THING? – AT 9:56 A.M. ET:  The Supreme Court is taking up the case of the president's travel ban.  But will the Court be impartial?  One justice seems to have a serious bias problem.  I think this is fascinating.  From Law Newz: 

If campaign comments are evidence of bias in a way that invalidates the actions of a decision-maker (as the 4th Circuit claimed), then the same logic the 4th Circuit used to deny Trump’s travel ban must require Ruth Ginsburg’s recusal in the Supreme Court’s review of that travel ban.

The standard for recusal does not require a judge admit their bias. It only requires a review whether the public might “reasonably question” the “impartiality” of the judge in the matter. Liberals argued Justice Scalia merely hunting with a Vice President compelled his recusal. As Justice Scalia recognized, recusal is appropriate whenever a Justice has “said or done something” that impacts the perception of impartiality on a pending case. As Justice Scalia implicitly recognized, recusal may be necessary when the Court’s judgment would have “any bearing upon the reputation and integrity” of a party before the court if that individual Justice has voiced a prior opinion on that individual through friendship or hostility.

And...

How can anyone not “reasonably question” whether Justice Ginsburg is partial about President Trump’s campaign intentions when she said the following about him:

•“He is a faker” in an attack on Trump CNN admitted “as if presenting a legal brief”

•“everything is up for grabs” if Trump wins, in Ginsburg denouncing Trump, to the Associated Press

•“Now it is time for us to move to New Zealand” if Trump won, to the New York Times

Can anyone looking at those statements conclude Ginsburg would not be reasonably seen as partial about Trump in a case that is all about perceiving Trump’s intentions? If Justice Ginsburg is honest to the principles she claims, she must recuse from the Trump travel ban case now before the Court.

COMMENT:  I doubt if Ginsburg will do the right thing and recuse herself.  She's headstrong and sees herself as the most virtuous person in the room.  She'll stay, and vote against Trump, and nothing can be done about it.

June 5,  2017     Permalink

JUNE 4,  2017

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

EXPLANATION PLEASE – FROM THE DAILY MAIL:   The security services were facing difficult questions last night over how at least one of the London Bridge terrorists slipped through the intelligence net.
It emerged that the 27-year-old Muslim extremist appeared in a TV documentary last year about British jihadis – and was involved in a filmed altercation with police after an Islamic State flag was unfurled in a park.  He was caught on camera alongside two notorious preachers who were well known to police and intelligence officials because of their extremist views.  Amid a series of revelations last night, it was claimed that a friend of the Watford-born suspect had reported him to the anti-terror hotline after he became radicalised by watching extremist videos on YouTube.  It was also alleged that police were warned about the suspect radicalising children in a local park two years ago.  How much more evidence do you need?

WE'VE NOTICED – FROM MARKETWATCH:  WASHINGTON — The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee said there was no proof so far of collusion between Russia and Donald Trump’s campaign, as Congress geared up for a week of high drama highlighted by the testimony of former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey.  “Listen, there’s a lot of smoke. We have no smoking gun at this point,” Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia said on CNN. “But there is a lot of smoke."  Yeah, smoke.  This nonsense has been going on and on, and no one has been able to show that a crime was committed.  Will a crime be manufactured by the Trump haters in Washington?  That's the way totalitarians play the game, so I wouldn't be surprised.

AN EXTREME CONSPIRACY THEORY – FROM DAILY CALLER:  MSNBC anchor Thomas Roberts theorized on Sunday that President Trump is trying to provoke a terrorist attack on U.S. soil in order to “prove himself right” about Islamic terrorism.  Roberts floated the theory during two separate interviews, one with Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed and another with former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean.  Roberts pointed to Trump’s tweets early Sunday in the wake of a terrorist attack that left at least seven dead in London.  Trump wrote that “we must stop being politically correct and get down to the business of security for our people.” He also criticized London’s mayor, Sadiq Khan, who said that there was “no reason to be alarmed” following the attacks.  Pretty outrageous.  Reminds me of the weird theories about JFK's assassination and the equally weird theory that FDR planned the attack on Pearl Harbor.  Will MSNBC apologize?  Don't bet on it.

June 4, 2017       Permalink

TRUMP ON LONDON – AT 1:50 P.M. ET:   The president has spoken in response to the latest London attacks, and the usual suspects are out in force criticizing his common sense.  From Fox: 

President Trump on Sunday responded to the London terror attack, suggesting political correctness and the London mayor’s soft response are contributing to strikes by radical Islamic terrorists.

Seven people were killed and dozens of others were injured in the two Saturday night attacks on and near the London Bridge. Police are investigating the incidents as terror attacks, but no terror group has yet to claim responsibility.

"We must stop being politically correct and get down to the business of security for our people. If we don't get smart it will only get worse,” Trump tweeted first.

The president has from the start of his successful 2016 presidential campaign argued that the key to stopping global terror strikes is to address radical Islamic teachings and being more vigilant about allowing people into the United States from mostly-Muslim countries that are hotbeds for terror training.

"At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and Mayor of London says there is "no reason to be alarmed!” Trump also tweeted.

COMMENT:  That last comment really set off the Trump haters.  How dare the president criticize the Muslim mayor of London!  Is there no end to Trump's disrespect for diversity?

The fact is that the mayor of London has shown precious little urgency about terrorism, even commenting that it is part of urban life. 

The president went on to tweet that there is no gun debate over the London attacks because knives were used.  He was greeted with pundisteria, a journalistic form of madness, for suggesting that guns not be condemned.  Isn't condemning firearms what the good people do?

Read the president's tweets.  They're just fine.

June 4, 2017       Permalink

FIGHTING BACK ON CAMPUS – AT 12:46 P.M. ET:  Not everything is bleak in higher education.  We're starting to see some genuine fight-back by the forces of sanity and maturity.  A new appointment at Harvard is a stellar example.  From Daily Caller:   

Harvard Law School named professor John Manning as its new dean Tuesday, soliciting praise from conservative and libertarian legal scholars.

Manning, who clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia and Judge Robert Bork, joined Harvard Law’s faculty in 2004. He teaches public law and statutory interpretation.

“This is a fantastic choice,” said professor Jonathan Adler, architect of several legal challenges to the Affordable Care Act. “Professor Manning is a superlative scholar and extraordinarily decent man. Congratulations to all.”

Professor Robert George, a prominent philosopher, jurist and conservative intellectual at Princeton endorsed the move.

Ed Whelan, a Scalia clerk and legal commentator who leads the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center, called the development “excellent news.”

Among Manning’s predecessors as dean is Justice Elena Kagan, who was effusive in her praise of her longtime colleague and friend.

“[Manning] embodies a blend of scholarly accomplishment, devotion to teaching, engagement with practice, and passion for the law that represents the best of our profession,” Kagan said. “And he’s a terrific human being, always intent on what he can do to help others do their best work.”

Manning will assume the deanship this summer. He succeeds Dean Martha Minnow, who has led the law school since 2009.

COMMENT:  Already there are rumblings on the left.  Manning is a white male, and therefore seen as a threat to the comfy identity politics commonly practiced at Harvard.  President Drew Faust should be praised for backing the appointment.  Now it's time to stand firm and not let the bullies try to block Manning.

June 4, 2017       Permalink

MAY RESPONDS TO THE ATTACK – AT 11:51 A.M. ET:  Four days before Britain's national election, Prime Minister Theresa May responded to the latest terror attack.  From The Telegraph:

Theresa May has vowed that “enough is enough” as she urged people to go about their lives as normal after seven people were killed and almost 50 injured in the London Bridge terror attack.  

The Prime Minister said that there is “far too much tolerance of extremism in our country” as she set out plans to crack down on terror.

She said that while the Manchester Arena attack which killed 22 people, the Westminster attack in March which left four people dead and the London Bridge attack are not directly connected, there is now a “new trend” in the threat the UK faces as “terrorism breeds terrorism”. 

The Prime Minister said that the UK must do more to tackle the threat posed by “Islamist extremism”.

Ah, she used the term.  Will she now be read out of respectable society?

Speaking in Downing Street after chairing a meeting of the Cobra emergency committee, she said: “It will only be defeated when we turn people’s minds away from this violence and make them understand that our values, pluralistic, British values, are superior to anything offered by the preachers and supporters of hate.”

Mrs May paid tribute to the emergency services who responded to the latest attack with “great courage and great speed” as she confirmed that many of the injured are in “life-threatening conditions”.

COMMENT:  Sadly, she's run a poor campaign, and the election Thursday is in doubt.  The Labour Party, her main opponent, is headed by a certified nutcase who's expressed open sympathy with terrorists in the past, is anti-American, anti-NATO, and anti-Israel.  And yet, his party might win and put him in the prime minister's office.  Let us hope that Britain still has enough Churchillian backbone to stand for the right things.

June 4,  2017     Permalink