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 25,  2015

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:30 P.M. ET: 

OUR FUTURE LEADERS – From MRCTV.org:   "President Ronald Reagan is one of the most famous Americans of the 20th century. Between his acting career and his eight years as president, you would think that his face would be instantly recognizable to anyone with even a basic knowledge of recent American history.  You would think.  As it turns out, a lot of college students at the University of Maryland had absolutely no clue who Reagan was when they were shown a picture of America's 40th president.  A few historically-literate students recognized Reagan right away. But, the majority of those I showed the picture to were completely flummoxed or provided me with wild guesses. Some of those guesses included: John Wayne, Kenny Rogers, George Bush and some guy named Fred Moore."  The University of Maryland this week banned the showing of "American Sniper" to satisfy Muslim students.  Do you think there's a values problem on that campus?

PASSING – We felt as if we knew her.  From NBC News:  "Mary Doyle Keefe, the telephone operator whom Norman Rockwell beefed up for his iconic 'Rosie the Riveter' cover of The Saturday Evening Post in 1943, has died at 92 in Simsbury, Connecticut, a funeral home confirmed.  Keefe, who lived in a retirement home for the last eight years of her life, died peacefully Tuesday, Cameron Funeral Home of Granbury said. A graveside service is scheduled for Saturday in Bennington.  The Post cover became one of the enduring symbols of homeland unity during World War II, when women stepped in to the jobs of millions of men who'd gone off to battle. It depicts Keefe holding a rivet gun and a lunchbox with the name Rosie on it, with her feet resting on a copy of Adolf Hitler's 'Mein Kampf.'"  Plenty of Rosies in World War II.  All heroines.

MORE GREAT MOMENTS IN EDUCATION – From London's Telegraph:  "He is widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language, a poet and playwright whose works still shape minds and lives more than four centuries later.  But when it comes to the question of to study or not to study the canon of William Shakespeare, only a small fraction of English literature students in America’s top colleges are required to specialise in the words of the bard.  Just four of the country’s 52 highest-ranked academic institutions require students of English literature to take a compulsory Shakespeare course, according to a new report.  The study, 'The Unkindest Cut: Shakespeare in Exile 2015.' was published by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, a Washington group that lobbies for traditional academic standards in universities.  The council noted that Shakespeare’s demise as a subject of specialist study mirrored an increase in courses with emphasis on race, class, gender, and sexuality such as 'Literature, Food, and the American Racial Diet' at Princeton University."  Any kid who doesn't understand literature, food, and the American racial diet should not be allowed to graduate from Princeton.  I mean, what else is there?

April 25, 2015       Permalink

WILL HILLARY BE #486725? – AT 11:44 A.M. ET:   The Hillary mess gets messier.  Each day the aura of scandal grows around Hillary Clinton, and we've started to see significant drops in her poll numbers, centered around her "trustworthiness."  Now there is talk that she may face serious legal problems, not just bad poll numbers.   From Fox:   

With a sitting Democratic senator recently indicted on federal bribery and corruption charges, top criminal defense lawyers in the nation’s capital say Democratic presidential front runner Hillary Clinton could conceivably face similar scrutiny, amid mounting disclosures about the tangled finances of her family’s philanthropic foundation.

The new book “Clinton Cash” by Peter Schweizer, an investigative reporter affiliated with the right-leaning Hoover Institution, has unleashed a torrent of conflict-of-interest allegations relating to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton’s own conduct during her tenure, from 2009 to 2013, as secretary of state.

Particular scrutiny – by Fox News, the Washington Post, and the New York Times – has focused on why the State Department, under Clinton’s leadership, green-lighted a foreign transaction that enriched major donors to the foundation while placing an estimated 20 percent of America’s stockpile of uranium - the fissile material that can be used to make nuclear weapons -under the control of a Kremlin-backed Russian firm.

It was, moreover, shortly after the uranium deal went through that former President Bill Clinton nailed down a $500,000 fee for a speaking event in Moscow.

“There’s certainly smoke there,” said Caleb Burns, a partner at the Washington law firm Wiley Rein LLC, who has long experience handling financial and public integrity cases. “The question’s going to be whether or not she took any official action in exchange for those donations. If she did, I think there is going to be a high, high likelihood of additional scrutiny, either from Capitol Hill or from the Department of Justice itself.”

COMMENT:  The story of the Clintons is the story of the survival of the fibbest.  It is one scandal after another, always accompanied by the image of a couple who have profited mightily from their government "service."  And yet, the Democratic Party is not deterred.  Hey, when your point man on race is Al Sharpton, you're not exactly signalling high standards.

April 25, 2015      Permalink

FAMILY INCOMES TELL A GRIM STORY – AT 11:16 A.M. ET:   In a way, this is the real bottom line:   Where are family incomes today compared to the past?  The picture is not encouraging.  From IBD: 

Back in January, President Obama was boasting that the economy had finally turned a corner. He called 2014 a "breakthrough year for America," and said "our economy is growing and creating jobs at the fastest pace since 1999." He went on to credit his "middle class economics" for producing these gains.

The latest income data, however, don't show anything like what Obama was describing. Real median family income fell in March, to $54,203, back to where it was in September 2009.

Sentier Research — which uses Census data to compile monthly income statistics — found that family incomes plummeted more after the recession than during the recession itself, bottoming out in mid-2011.

After that, family incomes started to make a painfully slow climb. But even now, nearly six years after the recession ended, they are still 5% below where they stood at the previous peak in early 2008, just as the recession was starting. At the current pace, it will take several more years for family incomes to reach that peak again.

Another way to look at it. Under President George W. Bush, this income measure averaged $56,081 — despite his presiding over two recessions. That's 6% higher than the average under Obama and 3.5% above the latest March figure.

If this constitutes a "breakthrough year" for this administration, that isn't saying much for how it measures success.

COMMENT:  It strikes me that most economic recoveries are "felt," not just measured.  People can feel recovery and success around them.  The country still seems very hesitant about the economy.  We just haven't come back, and job creation appears to center on jobs that few people really aspire to. 

I'm not so sure the people of this country will ever feel optimistic about the economy unless we start making things again.   Services, however important, just don't provide the kind of economic muscle we once had.  When FDR spoke about the United States being the "arsenal of democracy," he was referring to our vast manufacturing and shipbuilding industries. 

April 25,  2015     Permalink

BULLETIN:  WORLD NOT ENDING TOMORROW – AT 10:55 A.M. ET:  A new study from Duke University provides escape from the gloom.  From London's Daily Mail: 

Global warming hasn't happened as fast as expected, according to a new study based on 1,000 years of temperature records.

The research claims that natural variability in surface temperatures over the course of a decade can account for increases and dips in warming rates.

But it adds that these so-called 'climate wiggles' could also, in the future, cause our planet to warm up much faster than anticipated.

The study compared its results to the most severe emissions scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

'Based on our analysis, a middle-of-the-road warming scenario is more likely, at least for now,' said Patrick Brown, a doctoral student in climatology at Duke University. 'But this could change.'

The Duke-led study says that variability is caused by interactions between the ocean and atmosphere, and other natural factors.

COMMENT:  Still one more study reflecting disagreement among real scientists, who are not the same as political scientists.  And yet the White House tells us that the science is settled.  If it's settled, why are these studies being done?

April 25,  2015     Permalink

APRIL 24,  2015

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

BRIAN TOASTING – From The New York Times:  "An NBC News internal investigation into Brian Williams has examined a half-dozen instances in which he is thought to have fabricated, misrepresented or embellished his accounts, two people with inside knowledge of the investigation said.  The investigation includes at least one episode that was previously unreported, these people said, involving statements by Mr. Williams about events from Tahrir Square in Cairo during the Arab Spring.  The investigation, conducted by at least five NBC journalists, was commissioned early this year after Mr. Williams was forced to apologize for embellishing an account of a helicopter episode in Iraq in 2003. He was subsequently suspended for six months from his anchor position on the 'NBC Nightly News.'"  It would be wise for Williams to be given some assignment other than chief anchor for NBC News.  There has to be some pride.

DETAILS, ALWAYS DETAILS – From Fox:  "The Iraqis are getting a batch of American F-16 fighter planes to run combat missions against the Islamic State, but questions remain over whether they can fly them.  According to officials, the first batch of the much-awaited jets is set to arrive in the war-torn country this summer. The Iraqis purchased 18 in 2011 for $3 billion, and another 18 for $830 million two years later, for a total of 36 aircraft.  To date, there have been numerous delays in getting the F-16s to Iraq, mostly because of the deteriorating security situation there, Pentagon spokesman Col. Steve Warren told reporters on Friday. 'We remain committed to fulfilling the delivery of those aircraft,' he added.  He said there are 36 Iraqi pilots in the U.S. Air Force training 'pipeline,' with 30 at the Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona, and the other six at language school. 'These will be the first pilots to use Iraq's F-16s in the fight against ISIL,' said Warren, adding that the first batch of jets delivered this summer will number 'less than 10.'"  I worry about the pilots at language school.  I mean, how fast can they learn the English?  And what about the others?  Enough English to fly an advanced aircraft?

YEAH, RIGHT – From Daily Caller:  "During his farewell address to the Justice Department Friday, Attorney General Eric Holder referred to his tenure at the Department of Justice as its 'golden age' and in the same mold as Robert Kennedy’s storied tenure.  Loretta Lynch will take over the department following the Senate’s 56-43 confirmation vote Thursday."  Since when did Bob Kennedy, who was made attorney general without ever having practiced law, have a storied tenure?  Wasn't he the dude who wiretapped Dr. King?  As for Holder, the gold seems awfully faded.  He is one of the most political AG's in memory.

April 24,  2015     Permalink

SENATE STARTS IRAN DEBATE – AT 9:55 A.M. ET:  The full Senate has begun debate on a compromise bill that would give Congress at least some say in a final nuclear accord with Iran.  The legislation is far from perfect, but it is a start.  From The Hill: 

Senators began debate on Iran legislation Thursday, with Sens. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Ben Cardin (D-Md.) making their opening salvos on the proposal.

Cardin, the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, urged senators to maintain the bipartisan nature of the legislation on curbing Iran's nuclear capabilites, which passed unanimously out of the Foreign Relations Committee earlier this month.

“What we did in the bill that we bring forward to you is a compromise,” the Maryland Democrat said. “Let’s see the amendments and try to work with you on the amendments. Let’s maintain the bipartisan cooperation we have here.”

Corker, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman who is facing skepticism within his own party over the bill, said that without the legislation, the president can “go straight to the U.N. Security Council ... and implement whatever deal he wants to implement with Iran.”

He acknowledged that senators have a “tremendous amount of work,” but called on lawmakers to bring forward any amendments.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) said he plans to offer or support amendments that would require any final deal to be submitted as a treaty to Iran, that would require the administration to submit any breaches of a final deal to Congress — instead of just material breaches — and that Iran wouldn’t get sanctions relief until they “live up to their international obligations.”

The Arkansas Republican said that includes closing the Fordow site, fulfilling obligations to the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the president being able to certify that the country isn’t making intercontinental ballistic missiles and that Iran is no longer a state sponsor of terrorism.

Democrats, as well as President Obama, have pressed for Iran’s support of terrorism to be separate from the ongoing nuclear talks.

Cardin said Thursday that “we’re not talking about actions we’ve taken against Iran for terrorism or human rights violations. That’s a separate issue.”

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) also warned his colleagues against introducing “poisonous” amendments.

“Sometimes you got to know when you hit a home run and be able to cross the plate. ... Not think you’re still stuck in the dugout,” he said. “I urge my colleagues to suppress any intentions that would drive this to a point that we can’t have that strong vote.”

COMMENT:  It seems to me that Corker and Menendez have a strong argument – pass this legislation, which Obama says he'll sign, to provide a foundation for future, tougher legislation if need be. 

Remember, there may not be any deal at all.  Iran and the West are far apart on fundamental issues, like the extent of sanctions relief and the thoroughness of inspections.  If those issues can't be settled, the deal is off.  Even the current legislation is a warning to the president not to make serious concessions because both parties in Congress are watching. 

It will be intriguing to see if Hillary Clinton weighs in on this legislation.  As a presidential candidate and former secretary of state, she would be expected to have an opinion.  Of course, she'd also be expected to act decently, so expectations are sometimes not fulfilled.

April 24, 2015       Permalink

VATICAN THE TARGET? – AT 9:18 A.M. ET:  Italy has conducted a large anti-terror sweep that shows that the threat of terror is as great as ever, and may be greater.  From CNN:

Rome (CNN) Italian authorities said they had launched a "vast anti-terrorism operation" Friday, going after suspects associated with al Qaeda who had discussed a range of targets, including the Vatican.

Some members of the terrorist cell had direct contact with al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden before his death in Pakistan in 2011, wiretaps showed, Italy's state-run ANSA news agency reported.

And wiretaps and other intelligence revealed that the group planned to carry out terrorist attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan as well as in Italy, according to Caligari Chief Prosecutor Mauro Mura.

Some evidence indicated the Vatican was among the targets considered, police said. Talk of this took place March 2010, around the time a possible suicide bomber from Afghanistan entered Italy, Mura said.

Police said, too, that some of the suspects were involved in a Pakistani market bombing in 2009 in which more than 300 people were killed and injured

The suspects had been under surveillance for years, some as far back as 2005, police said.

On Friday, Italian State Police closed in, carrying out raids in seven provinces in what they called a first-of-its-kind operation. One of the raids targeted the alleged terrorist cell's headquarters on the island of Sardinia.

COMMENT:  With the Middle East in flames, we can only imagine what will happen if terror groups get control of governments.  We've been lucky that Pakistan, which has nuclear weapons, has not gone down the drain.  But the drain is still there, and our will power may not be.

April 24, 2015       Permalink

RUBIO ROARS – AT 8:58 A.M. ET:  The Fox News poll confirms the earlier result from the Quinnipiac poll – Marco Rubio is catching on with voters.  From Fox: 

The Bush dynasty is a negative for voters and Marco Rubio is seen as a leader of the future, as the Florida senator jumps to the head of the GOP pack. The Clinton dynasty is a plus -- and even though Hillary could have an honesty problem, she dominates the Democratic side. And both the Republican faithful (with their crowded field) and the Democratic faithful (with their sole favorite) are happy with their range of 2016 choices.

These are some of the findings from the latest Fox News poll on the 2016 presidential election. Here are some more:

Announcing your candidacy helps your poll numbers. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio receives a five percentage-point bump after his April 13 announcement and has the backing of 13 percent in the race for the Republican nomination -- just a touch over Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker who gets 12 percent among self-identified GOP primary voters. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul comes in at 10 percent, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee earn 9 percent each and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz gets 8 percent.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson each garner 6 percent. Last month Christie was at 4 percent and Carson at 11 percent.

And...

Who’s a leader of the future? Rubio tops that list. Voters see him “more as a leader of the future” (50 percent) than the past (21 percent) by a 29-point margin.

That dwarfs the numbers who see Paul (by 12 points), Warren (by 11 points) and Walker (by 10 points) as leaders of the future. By a 2-point margin, more see Clinton as a leader of the future (43 percent) than the past (41 percent).

Biden (by 33 points) and Bush (by 17 points) are the only two seen more as leaders of the past.

COMMENT:  The Republican opportunity couldn't be more clear.  Remember, any remaining strength in Clinton's numbers is being helped mightily by pure name recognition.  Once the Republican field becomes better known, Clinton's name advantage melts away.

April 24, 2015        Permalink

SUMMING IT UP – QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 8:29 A.M. ET:  IBD sums up the Democratic dilemma involving Hillary Clinton superbly.  This is what it's about:

With each day, new revelations call into question Hillary Clinton's behavior during her tenure as secretary of state and after. It's time for her to suspend her campaign and start answering questions.

When even the left-wing media notice a leading Democrat's apparent ethical lapses, she has a real problem. And so does the Democratic Party, which as of now has all its bets for 2016 placed on Hillary Clinton, who, Peter Schweizer's upcoming book "Clinton Cash" suggests, may have engaged in corrupt behavior in office.

The latest revelation is a potential bombshell: That while Clinton was secretary of state, a federal committee approved the $610 million sale of Wyoming-based uranium mines to Russia's state atomic energy agency, Rosatom, as it tried to corner the market for the radioactive mineral.

Clinton's State Department was one of those that approved the deal. That's not illegal, but there's a conflict: The chairman of Uranium One, the Canadian company that sold the uranium mines to Russia, was Ian Telfer, who gave $2.4 million to the Clinton Foundation.

That's not all. The New York Times notes that a Russian investment bank that was behind the deal paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speech in Moscow.

It also should be noted that the Wyoming mine is no small operation, and that Rosatom makes nuclear weapons, among other things. So national security is at stake.

Nor is this the only whiff of potential scandal emanating from the Clinton Foundation.

COMMENT:  The standard Clinton game is to work through a scandal with denials and testimonials from friends, hoping that the passage of time will make most people forget.  It's worked before.  But the presidency is different, and I'm not sure it will work now. 

Besides, enthusiasm for Hillary is very limited.  True, she'd be the first woman president, but that's not quite as electrifying on the left as the first black president.  And she is not considered a true, fanatical "progressive." 

For the Dems the question is, "If not her...who?"

April 24,  2015     Permalink