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.

APRIL 8,  2015

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 10:28 P.M. ET:

GREAT MOMENTS IN CENSORSHIP – From College Fix:  "A scheduled movie screening of 'American Sniper' at the University of Michigan was abruptly cancelled Tuesday after nearly 300 students and others complained the film perpetuates 'negative and misleading stereotypes' against Muslims.  'The movie American Sniper not only tolerates but promotes anti-Muslim … rhetoric and sympathizes with a mass killer,' according to an online letter circulated among the campus community via Google Docs that garnered the signatures.  The signers were mostly students, but also some staff, as well as the Muslim Students’ Association and the president of Students Allied for Freedom and Equality, a Palestinian solidarity group at UMich.  The online memo, titled a 'collective letter from Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) and Muslim students on campus,' accused the public university of 'tolerating dangerous anti-Muslim and anti-MENA propaganda' by showing the movie, the highest grossing film of 2014."  The University of Michigan is destroying the very freedoms that our soldiers fight for. 

OBAMA ROMPS  – Would you look at those popularity numbers?  Why...oh wait, they're not from Americans.  Sorry about that.  From fusion.net:  "A new Bendixen & Amandi Poll for Univision Noticias – Fusion in collaboration with The Washington Post shows that 89 percent of Cubans think the U.S. leader should swing by for a visit now that the two countries are trying to make nice. Obama also enjoys an 80 percent favorability rating on the communist-led island. The poll suggests that Obama is nearly twice as popular in Cuba as he is in the United States. Back home, where the U.S. president’s favorability rating is around 47 percent — the same as President Castro’s in Cuba."  Hey, I've got an idea:  Obama leaves the White House, moves to Cuba, and is appointed president for life.  Good climate.  Good cigars.  No need for campaign funds. 

THAT GREAT DEAL WITH IRAN – From The Times of Israel:  "The Iranian defense minister made clear Wednesday that international inspectors would not be granted access to the state’s military sites under the framework agreement with the world powers on the country’s nuclear program.  'No such agreement has been reached and basically, visiting military centers are among the red lines and no visit to these centers will be allowed,' Brigadier General Hossein Dehgan said, according to Iranian media reports quoting a Defense Ministry statement.  Dehgan said international media reports to the effect that the deal will allow International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) experts to inspect military centers across Iran were 'lies' and 'deceits.'"  Well, that ends that.  If the inspectors can't inspect military sites, how do we know that Iran's nuclear program is not resulting in nuclear weapons?  Barack, cat got your tongue?

TRUTH TELLIN' – I've always believed that Dick Cheney is one of the most perceptive public servants of our time.  He's been abused for it.  From CNS:  "During Tuesday’s Hugh Hewitt show, former Vice President Dick Cheney voiced his opinion on President Barack Obama saying, 'His actions are constituted in my mind those of the worst president we’ve ever had.'   Following a discussion where Cheney was critical of the Obama administration’s negotiations with Iran on nuclear facilities, Hewitt asked, 'Is he naïve, Mr. Vice President? Or does he have a far-reaching vision that only he entertains of a realigned Middle East that somehow - it all works out in the end?'  'I don’t know, Hugh,' Cheney replied. 'I vacillate between the various theories I’ve heard, but you know, if you had somebody as president who wanted to take America down, who wanted to fundamentally weaken our position in the world - reduce our capacity to influence events, turn our back on our allies and encourage our adversaries, it would look exactly like what Barack Obama’s doing.'"  Does the term "Manchurian candidate" interest you?

April 8, 2015       Permalink

ANOTHER RIGGED REPORT – AT 10:25 A.M. ET:  But you may be sure that The New York Times will look the other way.  Obama is rushing to normalize relations with Communist Cuba, getting absolutely nothing in return.

Cuba, though, is balking.  Like any other nation that has observed Obama, it knows that it can easily get concessions out of him.  Cuba is currently on the U.S. list of nations that promote terror.  But just you wait.  From Fox: 

White House officials left open the possibility Tuesday that President Obama could recommend Cuba's removal from a list of state sponsors of terror around the time of the Summit of the Americas later this week in Panama. The officials also sought to soften tensions with Venezuela that threatened to overshadow the summit.

Deputy National Security adviser Benjamin Rhodes said the State Department's review of Cuba's place on that terror list is in "its final stages." While he said the timing is in the hands of Secretary of State John Kerry, he would not rule out an Obama announcement before or during the two-day summit in Panama City.

What a joke.  State will say exactly what Obama wants it to say.

Removing Cuba from the terror list would be one of the biggest developments since Dec. 17, when Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro announced they would seek to re-establish diplomatic relations after half a century of antagonism. But Rhodes cautioned that the actual opening of embassies in Havana and in Washington by both countries was still some time off.

"When you have two countries that haven't spoken to each other like this over 50 years, you have lot off issues to work through," Rhodes said in a call previewing Obama's trip to Jamaica and then to the summit in Panama. Obama leaves for the Caribbean on Wednesday.

COMMENT:  The timing will depend on Obama's decision on what will make him look best.  He has, since the election of last November, which removed political constraints on him, moved to establish a dramatic left-wing legacy – recognition of Cuba, contempt for police officers, amnesty for illegals, wrecking our relationship with Israel, and cozying up to the world's greatest sponsor of terror, Iran.  Some legacy.  A nightmare for our children.

April 8, 2015       Permalink

STUNNING REBUKE – QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 9:52 A.M. ET:  The White House is lining up the usual left-wing suspects to support the Iran agreement.  The same crowd comes out of the woodwork every time Obama snaps his fingers.

But the deal gets a hefty thumbs down from two genuine heavyweights – former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, in The Wall Street Journal.   It is hard to refute their logic.  From the Jerusalem Post: 

Two former US secretaries of state - Henry Kissinger and George Shultz - penned an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday criticizing President Barack Obama for the framework agreement his administration reached with Iran last week.

The former top diplomats said that the framework agreement with Iran effectively concedes any option of using military force to compel Iranian compliance.

“Mixing shrewd diplomacy with open defiance of UN resolutions, Iran has gradually turned the negotiation on its head,” Kissinger and Shultz wrote in the Journal. “Iran’s centrifuges have multiplied from about 100 at the beginning of the negotiation to almost 20,000 today. The threat of war now constrains the West more than Iran.”

“While Iran treated the mere fact of its willingness to negotiate as a concession, the West has felt compelled to break every deadlock with a new proposal. In the process, the Iranian program has reached a point officially described as being within two to three months of building a nuclear weapon. Under the proposed agreement, for 10 years Iran will never be further than one year from a nuclear weapon and, after a decade, will be significantly closer.”

And...

"In a large country with multiple facilities and ample experience in nuclear concealment, violations will be inherently difficult to detect," they wrote. "Devising theoretical models of inspection is one thing. Enforcing compliance, week after week, despite competing international crises and domestic distractions, is another."

"Any report of a violation is likely to prompt debate over its significance - or even calls for new talks with Tehran to explore the issue. The experience of Iran’s work on a heavy-water reactor during the 'interim agreement' period - when suspect activity was identified but played down in the interest of a positive negotiating atmosphere - is not encouraging."

COMMENT:  Kissinger and Shultz are, of course, correct.   They understand the psychology of diplomacy, not just its talking points.  Yes, if Iran violates the agreement, what will we actually do?  What will Germany do, with business with Iran booming?  What will the UN do?  What will the next president do?  What if there's another crisis, perhaps in Asia?  Will we even pay attention?

The Iranians, known for their negotiating skill, have gotten the best of Obama, known as one of the worst negotiators ever to sit in the White House.

April 8,  2015     Permalink

CONFUSION ON IRAN – AT 9:06 A.M. ET:  There is new confusion in the press on the degree of Democratic support for legislation giving Congress a clear role in approving or disapproving the Iran agreement.  For example, there is this, from Reuters: 

Democrats are aligning with Republicans to support a bill giving Congress the opportunity to approve or reject sanctions relief in an Iran nuclear deal, and are close to forming a veto-proof majority that U.S. President Barack Obama says could undermine the delicate final stage of negotiations.

The support for the legislation by lawmakers in Obama's party illustrates the depth of concern in Washington over the threat posed by Iran and the concern of many lawmakers that they are being shut out of the process to contain it.

In the wake of last week's announcement of an initial accord between Tehran and major world powers, senators are reaffirming their backing for the bipartisan bill and seeking ways to make the bill more palatable for the White House.

The Democrats, along with Republicans who control Congress, are pressing ahead despite White House claims that Obama alone has the power to negotiate and implement the evolving agreement that would see Iran curb its nuclear program in exchange for phasing out crippling sanctions. The deadline for a final deal is June 30.

The White House confirmed on Tuesday that Obama intended to veto the bill in its current form.

But then there's this, from The Hill:

The White House is trying to bottle up bipartisan legislation that would give Congress 60 days to review a final Iran nuclear deal.

The pushback may be having an effect — Sen. Chris Coons, a Democrat from Delaware, is now undecided about the legislation after Republicans had touted him as a supporter.

Coons is worried Republicans might use the bill as a political weapon, something the White House has warned about.

“He’s reviewing and making a decision on how he’ll vote next week. He is focused on creating a responsible structure for congressional oversight. He is concerned about the bill becoming a partisan vehicle,” said Sean Coit, Coons’s spokesman.

Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, another Democrat floated as a likely vote to override a veto of the Corker-Menendez bill, softened his stance on Tuesday. A spokesman said it’s “TBD” if Warner will vote for the bill or support a veto override.

“Let’s first see what happens during [the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s] markup next week,” the aide said.

Claiming Coons and Warner as likely allies, the supporters of the Iran legislation believe they have 66 votes, one short of the threshold needed to override a veto from President Obama.

With the bill close to a tipping point, the White House is leaning on Democrats to withhold support.

COMMENT:  It's hard to read, but I'd go with the Hill's version of events.  This White House is rough, and the "first black president" card is already being played by the Congressional Black Caucus. 

Also, those who deviate from the line risk career destruction.  Already the political thugs at moveon.org are threatening Chuck Schumer, suggesting that his accession to the leadership of Senate Democrats would be inappropriate if he continues to support Corker-Menendez.  The Huffington Post shouted that Schumer was moving toward supporting "war."  The left could easily do to Schumer what it did to Joe Lieberman. 

Obama has little to lose with rough, threatening tactics.  The election to succeed him takes place in 18 months.

April 8,  2015     Permalink

APRIL 7,  2015

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:25 P.M. ET:

RAHM IN – Rahm Emanuel has been re-elected mayor of Chicago.  I can't imagine anyone wanting such a thankless job, but, apparently, there was one other guy, Rahm's opponent.  Emanuel will now be in a position to help get out the Illinois vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

BOW DOWN – Radical feminist groups are already issuing warnings about how Hillary Clinton is to be treated by the press when she runs for president.  The word "sexist" will be applied to anyone who doesn't go along.  The latest demand by some groups:  Clinton is not to be referred to by her first name.  That, we're told, would be sexist.  I'm sure Her Majesty would do just fine, although I personally prefer Her Grace.

MODERN VALUES – From Mediaite:  "A Las Vegas man committed suicide and, in material he left behind, blamed the M Resort Spa Casino, its employees, and the fact that he ended up being banned from free buffets for life.  John Noble had apparently won free buffets for life, but according to The Las Vegas Review-Journal, he was banned two years ago after he harassed some of the female employees."  Couldn't anyone take the time to get this guy some help?

OUTRAGEOUS – Obama continues to disgrace himself, and the nation.  From Mediaite:  "Towards the end of his speech at Tuesday morning’s Easter Prayer Breakfast, President Barack Obama appeared to veer off script to make some comments that implicitly referenced the fierce debate that has been raging over the last week about 'religious freedom' laws in Indiana, Arkansas and elsewhere.  'On Easter, I do reflect on the fact that as a Christian, I am supposed to love,' Obama said. 'And I have to say that sometimes when I listen to less-than-loving expressions by Christians, I get concerned.' As the crowd began to murmur, the president backed off, saying, 'But that’s a topic for another day.'"  The murmur was disapproving, and for good reason.  Last week dozens of Christian students were murdered in cold blood in Obama's father's country of Kenya.  They were murdered only because they were Christian.  I guess that wasn't important enough to mention at an Easter Prayer Breakfast.

April 7, 2015        Permalink

CHICAGO VOTES – AT 11:30 A.M. ET:  Chicagoans are going to the polls today to choose a mayor.   If traditions hold, many of them will vote early and often.  If other traditions hold, the dearly departed will be seen at the polls, making one more appearance for democracy.

This is a runoff election that has Mayor Rahm Emanuel, once Barack Obama's White House chief of staff, competing against Jesus "Chuy" Garcia, who is a fellow Democrat.  Neither got the required 50% in the first round of voting in February. 

The election is important, and not only for Chicago.  The mayor of Chicago has substantial political power that can be employed in the presidential election of 2016.  Illinois is generally a safe Democratic state, but elected a Republican governor in November.  In a close presidential year the mayor of Chicago can use his resources, including an army of field workers, to get out the vote on election day.  Emanuel is close to the Clintons, and Hillary will depend on him for support...assuming he's re-elected today. 

Polls show Emanuel ahead.  But he underperformed in February, so we'll be watching closely.  From CNN:

Washington (CNN) The toughest battle of Rahm Emanuel's career comes to a close on Tuesday as Chicago voters head to the polls to choose their next mayor.

And though President Barack Obama's notoriously hard-charging former chief of staff has weathered many difficult fights before, Emanuel's allies aren't predicting victory yet.

Public polls show the mayor leading challenger Jesus "Chuy" Garcia by double-digit margins, but the historic nature of the election — it's Chicago's first-ever runoff, sparked when Emanuel failed to top 50% in the first round of voting in February — and unusual timing has the city's political observers guessing.

"We're heading into spring break. There's two days after Easter. It's right in the middle of Passover. I mean, we've never had a runoff before in the city of Chicago for a citywide office," Election Board spokesman Jim Allen told reporters this weekend.

The race has seen a huge surge in early votes, with more than 142,000 Chicagoans submitting their ballots early, up from just about 90,000 before the February vote, which saw unusually low turnout to begin with. Turnout was particularly high in wards with contested aldermanic races, but it was low in Hispanic-majority wards, a less-than-ideal early signal for Garcia.

COMMENT:   Hillary will be watching.  So will one of the finest men in the U.S. Senate, Republican Mark Kirk of Illinois, up for re-election next year.  He will not want an effective Chicago machine against him.

April 7, 2015       Permalink

RAND ANNOUNCES – AT 11:04 A.M. ET:  Rand formally announces.  He is now in the race formally.  From The New York Times:   

LOUISVILLE, Ky. — Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky declared himself a candidate for the Republican nomination for president on Tuesday, aiming to upset the political order in Washington and disprove those in his own party who doubt that a fiercely libertarian conservative can be a serious contender.

“I am running for president to return our country to the principles of liberty and limited government,” Mr. Paul wrote in a post on his website on Tuesday.

Mr. Paul’s brand of politics could make him both an outlier and a target among his rivals. In a primary contest of candidates debating which of them is the most doctrinaire conservative, Mr. Paul is likely to be the only one arguing for reducing federal drug penalties, clamping down on the nation’s intelligence agencies and taking a more deliberative approach to military intervention.

On social issues like abortion and same-sex marriage, however, he does not stray from the Republican Party line.

It will not remain a small field for long. Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, is expected to announce his candidacy next week. Also waiting in the wings are Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin and Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor, who are expected to declare soon, rounding out what Republicans say is perhaps their most competitive and robust slate of candidates since 1980, when Ronald Reagan faced competition from party heavyweights like George Bush and Howard Baker.

COMMENT:  As noted here yesterday, my enthusiasm is limited.  Yes, Rand has been saying some of the right things on foreign policy, but I'm not convinced he's sincere.  Lindsey Graham claims that Paul's real attitudes on foreign affairs are to the left of Obama's, and he may be right.

But I'm willing to listen, and to watch Rand Paul debate.  If his opinions have truly evolved into a Reaganesque view of the world, we'll give him a serious look.

April 7, 2015       Permalink

OBAMA UNCONVINCING – AT 9:31 A.M. ET:   Isn't it remarkable to see how little impact Obama's words are having on the debate over the agreement with Iran?  That is because he has lost so much credibility.  This is a president who has struck out repeatedly in foreign policy, and described defeats as victories.  That reset with Russia?  Home run.  Ending the Iraq war?  Done.  Finished.  Oh, some cleaning up to do.  Yemen?  Look, you can't have everything.

Opposition in Congress to the Iran agreement is building.  Congress returns next week and will immediately debate legislation, likely to pass as of today, that will give the legislators a role in approving any final deal with Tehran.

And the president's own words are hurting him.  From Fox: 

President Obama admitted Tuesday in a broadcast interview that his nuclear agreement with Iran only delays Tehran from eventually acquiring a weapon, which could come immediately after Year 13 of the agreement -- leaving the problem for future presidents.

Obama made the comments about Tehran's so-called "breakout time" in an interview with NPR News that aired Tuesday morning. The president was attempting to answer the charge that the deal framework agreed upon by the U.S., Iran, and five other nations last week fails to eliminate the risk of Iran getting a nuclear weapon because it allows Tehran to keep enriching uranium.

Obama said that Iran would be capped for a decade at 300 kilograms of uranium -- not enough to convert to a stockpile of weapons-grade material.

"What is a more relevant fear would be that in Year 13, 14, 15, they have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point, the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero," Obama said.

The stark admission -- after his energy secretary even claimed the deal was a "forever agreement" -- came as the president seeks to quiet a growing chorus questioning whether the deal he and world leaders have negotiated merely delays the certainty of a nuclear-armed Iran. Obama has insisted confidently that Iran will not get a nuclear weapon on his watch, which ends in roughly 20 months, but has made no similar assurances about his successors.

Under the terms of the deal framework, Iran's breakout time would be expanded from the present two to three months to at least a year. But that constraint would stay in place only for 10 years, at which point some restrictions would start phasing out.

Although Obama acknowledged that Iran's breakout time could shrink, he said at least the world would have better insight into Iran's capabilities because of extensive inspections in the earlier years.

"The option of a future president to take action if in fact they try to obtain a nuclear weapon is undiminished," Obama said.

COMMENT:  That pretty much says it.  Leave it to a future president.  By that time Obama will be secretary-general of the UN, and above any loyalty to America. 

And by that time a booming business with Iran will make it impossible for national leaders to restart sanctions.  Iran will be accepted as a nuclear power with a robust economy, and the most powerful state in the region.

Another famous Obama victory.

April 7, 2015       Permalink

ALARMING – AT 9:15 A.M. ET:  One of the most alarming aspects of the nuclear understanding (or whatever it is) with Iran is the fact that nations participating in the negotiations can't seem to agree on what the terms actually are.  From The Times of Israel: 

A French government fact sheet on the Iran framework deal, which has not been made public by Paris but which has been seen by The Times of Israel, provides for Iran to gradually introduce the use of advanced centrifuges to enrich uranium after 12 years, in contrast to the US official parameters, which make no such specific provision.

The use of the more advanced IR-2 and IR-4 centrifuges, as permitted according to the French fact sheet, would enable Iran to more rapidly accumulate the highly enriched uranium needed to build nuclear weapons, accelerating its breakout time to the bomb.

The French fact sheet also specifies that Iran will be allowed to continue R&D work on the advanced IR-4, IR-5, IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges, the last of which can enrich uranium at 20-times the speed of Iran’s current IR-1 centrifuges, whereas the American parameters are less specific.

Differences between the texts issued by Paris and Washington also extend to the question of inspection and supervision of Iran’s activities, with the French document indicating that the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, will be able to visit any suspect site in Iran — so-called “anywhere, anytime” access — whereas the US document is less far-reaching.

The two documents also differ in their terminology as regards the scale and timing of sanctions relief as the deal takes effect.

And...

The Iranian Foreign Ministry on Friday issued its own fact sheet, which differs starkly with the official American parameters and with the French fact sheet seen by The Times of Israel.

COMMENT:  Other than that, everything is okay.  All hail to Barack.  All hail to the Duke of Kerry.

Imagine, this mess is the culmination of years of negotiations.  The agreement is bad enough, but the parties can't even agree on what it says.

And on this the fate of millions of people may depend.

April 7,  2015     Permalink