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 9,  2015

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

IT IS WRITTEN – There are signals throughout the political world that Hillary Clinton will announce her candidacy on Sunday, and do so on Twitter.  I just can't wait.  Why, I think we'll stay home just to see the announcement as soon as it's made.  Besides, we expect churchbells to ring in the neighborhood.  Oh, the humanity!  I hope she doesn't run as the "trust and integrity" candidate.  We've had enough laughs in recent politics.

REVOLT – At the same time, there are increasing rumblings within the Democratic Party over the staleness of its leadership.  Some of the rumblings are directed at Nancy Pelosi, whose leadership has turned a solid Dem majority in the House into a pathetic minority.  Republicans are in their best congressional position since the 1920s.  And yet, the noisiest Democrats want the party to lurch even further to the left.

ABOUT TIME – From the New York Daily News:  "Stay away, Rev. Al.  That was the message from the family of South Carolina police shooting victim Walter Scott to the civil rights activist Thursday two days before the funeral for the slain father of four.  'We don’t want another Ferguson type of circus here,' a source close to the Scott family told The Daily News.  That was a reference to the Missouri town that was rocked by violent demonstrations last year after black teen Michael Brown was killed by a white cop."  I'm glad to see that a grieving black family is refusing to be exploited by Rev. Al, a schemer and no-good.  We know him well in New York.

FIGHTING BACK – From AP:  "WALKERTON, Ind. (AP) - A northern Indiana pizzeria that closed after its owner supported Indiana's religious objections law has reopened.  Memories Pizza owner Kevin O'Connor says he reopened about 4 p.m. Thursday. He says that within an hour, all eight tables were filled and six people were waiting for carryout orders. There were no protests as of 7 p.m.  O'Connor faced criticism after he and his daughter, Crystal, said they would never deny service to a gay customer but would decline to cater a same-sex wedding because it would conflict with their Christian beliefs. Protests led them to close the Walkerton pizzeria about 20 miles southwest of South Bend."  I'm glad they're back.  No one should be forced to participate in a ritual or religious ceremony.  That, to me, offends the First Amendment.

April 9,  2015     Permalink

IT GETS WORSE BY THE DAY – AT 8:52 A.M. ET:  Virtually every statement coming out of Iran regarding the nuclear "agreement" should set off alarm bells.  We are being taken to the cleaners.  From MNA, an Iranian news agency: 

TEHRAN, Apr. 07 (MNA) – Iran’s Zarif, the foreign minister, and Ali Akbar Salehi attended a closed session in the Parliament today to brief the MPs on Swiss Statement regarding Iran and the 5+1 nuclear talks.

And...

Zarif was quoted to have asserted that the additional protocol must be passed by the Parliament. He stressed that Iran would allow no online cameras to be installed in nuclear facilities as the country had have several tragic experiences in which Iranian nuclear scientists had been assassinated due to having been identified.

“I have told the western diplomats that Iran is capable of making an atom bomb anytime it wills, but the one and only fact that has stopped us from doing so is Ayatollah Khamenei’s Fatwa (an Islamic legal pronouncement) and not the sanctions and pressures levied at the country,” Zarif was quoted as having said.

COMMENT:  How encouraging.  No online cameras?  What are they hiding?  Do we have to ask?  And bragging that Iran is capable of making nuclear weapons at any time will not endear this "agreement" to the U.S. Congress.  The big guy issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons?  Fatwas can be reversed.

Congress takes up the nuclear negotiations with Iran next week.  Congress must have a say, with or without Ayatollah Barack.  Oh, I mean the president. Sorry.  No disrespect meant.

April 9, 2015       Permalink

A GOOD REVERSAL – AT 8:41 A.M. ET:  We told you last night that the University of Michigan had canceled a showing of "American Sniper" after complaints from Arab students and their leftist fellow travelers.  Apparently, someone reminded the university, which is publicly funded, about something called "free speech."  Now, a reversal.  From the New York Post: 

The University of Michigan, which had scrapped plans to screen the Iraq war drama “American Sniper” because some students were upset by its “stereotypes,” reversed course late Wednesday, saying it would show the film after all.

University Vice President for Student Life E. Royster Harper issued a statement that called the decision to cancel the Friday-night showing a “mistake.”

“The initial decision to cancel the movie was not consistent with the high value the University of Michigan places on freedom of expression,” Harper said. “The movie will be shown at the originally scheduled time.”

The university had canceled the film after sophomore Lamees Mekkaoui started a petition against the Best Picture nominee, saying the Clint Eastwood-directed film “condones a lot of anti-Middle Eastern and North African propaganda.”

COMMENT:  This is only speculation on my part, but I'd imagine some of the funders in state government, possibly the state legislature, gently noted that this is America, and that the people of Michigan might disapprove of canceling a movie because it upsets some students.

Whatever the reason, Michigan has now made the right decision.

April 9, 2015       Permalink

RAND STUMBLES – AT 8:28 A.M. ET:  Rand Paul's first day as a presidential candidate didn't go well at all.  He is very confrontational, and even got into an argument with Fox News, which is an achievement for a Republican.  He seemed unprepared to answer questions, and his staff apparently didn't prep him very well.  The first reviews, even from conservative sources, are less than glowing.  From the Washington Post: 

MILFORD, N.H. — Less than 24 hours after Rand Paul announced his White House bid before hundreds of jubilant, flag-waving supporters, his fledgling presidential campaign seemed to be defined more by his defiant performance when the cheering stopped.

In a series of interviews after the freshman senator from Kentucky declared his candidacy on Tuesday, Paul turned prickly — briskly sidestepping tough foreign policy questions from one journalist, lecturing another on how to conduct an interview, and testily declining to clarify his position on abortion.

And so, as Paul’s first full day of campaigning drew to a close, the narrative surrounding his campaign came straight from the candidate. It just wasn’t one he’d chosen himself.

Rand Paul has never been one to shy away from confrontation. He launched his political career on an anti-establishment message. He’s gained renown for trolling his political opponents on social media. Even the first half of the slogan for his presidential campaign skews combative: “Defeat the Washington machine.”

But the rocky media rollout of his presidential effort highlighted a key question facing him now: whether the same tough approach that has made him a favorite among tea party activists and libertarians might be limiting in a national campaign, as he looks to build a broader coalition rich with voters from beyond his base.

COMMENT:  That's a fair report.  Chris Christie has also stumbled to a degree because his confrontational, tough, New Jersey style wears out its welcome after a time.

Rand Paul has an interesting message.  He's got to learn to deliver it.  And he must confront, thoughtfully and respectfully, the doubts about him over foreign policy.  When confronted with past statements that seem isolationist or even left-wing, he often bristles rather than providing solid replies.

It's early, but you don't get too many breaks on the presidential trail.

April 9, 2015       Permalink

WILL CONGRESS ACT? – AT 8:17 A.M. ET:  The key question in Washington is whether the House and Senate will pass legislation giving Congress a clear say in the Iran nuclear deal...and with enough votes to override a presidential veto.  From Reuters: 

WASHINGTON - A Democratic US senator on Wednesday offered an amendment to an Iran nuclear bill that would remove the measure's tie to Iranian-sponsored terrorism, a change that could attract more support for the legislation from his party.

Despite President Barack Obama's threat to veto the bill due to concerns it would undermine final talks with Iran, many Democrats are lining up with Republicans to pass the legislation giving Congress a say in any final pact.

Senator Chris Coons plans to have his amendment called up for debate on Tuesday, when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is set to work on the bipartisan legislation.

Negotiations are to conclude by the end of June following last week's announcement of a "framework" deal for Iran to curb its nuclear program in return for an easing of economic sanctions on Tehran. It was not yet clear how much support Coons' amendment will receive in the Republican-controlled Foreign Relations Committee.

COMMENT:  The White House is putting major heat on Democratic senators to abandon this bill, or, if they participate in passing it, to refuse to vote to override a presidential veto.  Some outside interest groups are even threatening Chuck Schumer of New York, who favors the bill, that they will move to deny him the Senate minority leadership if he continues on his course.

If Obama were smart, which he's not, he'd withdraw his veto threat and pledge to work with Congress, rather than defy it.  If he were smart, which he's not, he would have done this originally.  He probably would have picked up enough support in both parties to help him with his talks with Iran.  But maybe he feared sharing space on Mount Rushmore with some senators.

April 9,  2015     Permalink

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