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.

AUGUST 4,  2015

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:52 P.M. ET: 

THURSDAY'S DEBATE LINEUP – From Fox: Fox News has announced the line-up for the prime-time Republican presidential debate this Thursday, and here's who qualified:  Real estate magnate Donald Trump; former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush; Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker; former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee; retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson; Texas Sen. Ted Cruz; Florida Sen. Marco Rubio; Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul; New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie; and Ohio Gov. John Kasich...But former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and several others will not be on the prime-time, 9 p.m. ET stage. The seven who did not make the top 10 will be invited to a separate 5 p.m. ET debate. Aside from Perry and Santorum, this includes Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal; former HP head Carly Fiorina; South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham; former New York Gov. George Pataki; and former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore. Some of the candidates who didn't make the top tier, based on polls, are much more interesting than some of those who did – especially Carly Fiorina and Bobby Jindal.  Maybe enough people will watch the "junior" debate to boost some of its participants into the top tier.

BERNIE STILL BURNING HILLARY – From The New York Times:   Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont continues to tighten the race with Hillary Rodham Clinton in New Hampshire, according to a poll released on Tuesday.  The WMUR Granite State poll found that 42 percent of likely Democratic primary voters said they would vote for Mrs. Clinton, while 36 percent said they supported Mr. Sanders. The survey considers that gap to be a statistical tie, but it shows that Mr. Sanders continues to show strength after months of negative publicity about Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state.  Hillary is in serious trouble.  She is wounded.  But she still is the national Dem frontrunner by a large margin.  She may limp to the nomination, with little enthusiasm behind her, but the liberal press will then boost her in the general-election campaign.  She could rob a bank and the newsies will still support her.

THIS IS CRAZY – From Daily Caller:   The top U.S. immigration agency told a Senate subcommittee it’s working to blunt homegrown terrorism by marketing U.S. citizenship to immigrants.  “In furtherance of DHS’s mission to safeguard the homeland, [United States Citizenship and Immigration Services] is committed to fostering integration and community cohesion,” the agency recently told the Immigration and the National Interest Subcommittee in records obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation.  Oh, come on.  People bent on terrorism aren't going to be inspired by Abraham Lincoln.  What the immigration people are trying to do is get more probable Democratic voters on the citizenship rolls.  An old game.

POLITICAL REALITY – From the Daily Beast:   For some wealthy donors, it doesn’t matter who takes the White House in 2016—as long as the president’s name is Clinton or Bush.  More than 60 ultra-rich Americans have contributed to both Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton’s federal campaigns, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission data by Vocativ and The Daily Beast. Seventeen of those contributors have gone one step further and opened their wallets to fund both Bush and Clinton’s 2016 ambitions.  After all, why support just Hillary Clinton or just Jeb Bush when you can hedge your bets and donate to both? This seems to be the thinking of a group of powerful men and women—racetrack owners, bankers, media barons, chicken magnates, hedge funders (and their spouses). Some of them have net worths that can eclipse the GDPs of small countries.  Happens in every election.  Donald Trump, now leading in the polls for the Republican presidential nomination, has been very generous to Democrats in the past, including Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi.  It's not a pretty sight, though, as it's obvious influence buying.

August 4,  2015     Permalink

BALTIMORE ON THE ROPES – AT 10:38 A.M. ET:  Probably one of the worst-run cities in America.  Crime is now out of control.  From Fox:

Baltimore's police and civic leaders launched a two-month partnership Monday that will see ten federal agents embed with the city's homicide detectives in the latest bid to curb a surge in violent crime that has not been seen in decades.

Under the program, two special agents from each of the federal government's five crime-fighting agencies (the FBI, DEA, Secret Service, U.S. Marshals Service and the ATF) will help investigate cases for the next 60 days. The city's acting police commissioner, Kevin Davis, told reporters that the agents met with officers Monday to discuss cases where officers have identified suspects, but need additional evidence to file charges.

The homicide rate in Baltimore began to skyrocket in May, when the city saw 42 homicides in a single month. There was a brief dip in June, with 29 killings, however the number shot up to 45 in July, breaking a record set in 1972. The uptick comes after rioting in the spring over the death of Freddie Gray, a black man who was critically injured while in police custody.

In total, the city has recorded 192 homicides so far this year, according to The Baltimore Sun. By contrast, 208 murders were committed in all of 2014. The three-month total of 116 homicides for May, June, and July is the highest since at least 1970.

Adding to the urgency of Baltimore's violence is the relatively low "clearance rate" of closed homicide cases. Last week, Davis said the city police department's "clearance rate" was at 36.6 percent, down from the department's mid-40s average.

COMMENT:  New York was able to lower its homicide rate by 80% during the Giuliani-Bloomberg years, but the press does handstands to avoid mentioning that spectacular record.  Crime is rising again in New York under ultra-progressive Mayor Fidel, or Bill, de Blasio.

Baltimore's city government is interested only in race, and the result is obvious.

August 4, 2015       Permalink

MADNESS IN WASHINGTON – AT 10:06 A.M. ET:  Will the White House help terrorists defeat Americans?  Maybe.   After all, it's the age of Obama.  From Fox: 

The Obama administration has signaled it may intervene next week in a civil lawsuit in which 11 American families won a potential billion-dollar judgment from the Palestinian leadership over a series of bombings and shootings that killed or wounded dozens of U.S. citizens, a move that critics say would find the government siding with terrorists over its own citizens.

The families won a $218.5 million judgment in February after a seven-week trial in Manhattan Federal Court in which a jury found the Palestine Liberation Organization and Palestinian Authority were responsible for a string of attacks from 2001 to 2004 that killed 33 and injured hundreds. A 1992 law that requires damages in such cases to be tripled, as well as interest on the award, would push it to as much as $1.1 billion. The judgment, which the Palestinians are appealing, would equal nearly a third of the Palestinian Authority’s annual operating budget.

Late last month, the Department of Justice, which had previously not been involved in the 11-year-old case, informed the court it was considering filing a “statement of interest” in the case by Aug. 10, but officials would not elaborate. A source said the Department of Justice was working with the State Department on the matter.

“As the filing states, the United States is considering whether to submit a Statement of Interest in the [Sokolow v. Palestine Liberation Organization] matter,” a DOJ spokeswoman told FoxNews.com. “Any filing would be made on behalf of the United States, not on behalf of any other party.”

And...

John Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and a Fox News contributor, said the administration would be wrong to assert a diplomatic role in the case.

“Palestine is not a state, and is therefore, not entitled to be treated like a state,” Bolton told Fox News. “It does not enjoy sovereign immunity and it would be wrong for the United States government to argue otherwise in federal court.”

COMMENT:  We'll be watching this.  Apparently, the administration wants the terrorists treated more gently.   And the Obama crowd is arrogant enough to go up against American families that have lost loved ones to terror.  After all, who are we to question other cultures?

August 4, 2015       Permalink

THIS IS NOT PROGRESS – AT 9:31 A.M. ET:  Field Marshal Obama's non-strategy for defeating ISIS appears to be non-working.  What a surprise.   From USA Today: 

WASHINGTON — In a sign of its resilience, the Islamic State appears to have recruited new fighters to offset 15,000 militants killed in a U.S.-led airstrike campaign approaching its first anniversary, U.S. military and intelligence estimates show.

More than 5,500 airstrikes by a U.S.-led coalition in Iraq and Syria that began Aug. 8, 2014, have forced the extremist organization to disperse its fighters into smaller groups, making them less of a threat to seize large chunks of territory, according to the military estimates. Despite the lethal strikes, the group continues to attract new recruits and replace leaders, highlighting the difficulty of fighting a movement that draws support from Muslims around the world.

A year ago, the CIA said it believed the Islamic State had between 20,000 and 31,500 fighters in Iraq and Syria. The estimate remains the same this year, according to a U.S. intelligence official, who asked not to be named since he was not authorized to discuss the issue.

The U.S.-led coalition confirmed the 15,000 casualty number but would not discuss it publicly. The deaths are tracked as part of daily battle damage assessments and coalition efforts to avoid civilian casualties. Aerial surveillance is used to assess the impact of airstrikes, including enemy casualties.

One reason the military does not trumpet enemy death estimates is lingering embarrassment from the Vietnam War, when the Pentagon announced daily enemy death figures as a sign of military progress. Yet those counts proved to be exaggerated and U.S. troops ultimately withdrew from Vietnam, having failed to defeat the army of communist North Vietnam.

COMMENT:  That last paragraph is complete garbage.  We now know that the United States was actually doing quite well against the North Vietnamese.  How do we know?  Because they admitted it in their own official history, a written history largely ignored in the United States.  We withdrew because of political pressures at home, not because of battlefield failures.  Once we withdrew, the South Vietnamese army took over and acquitted itself very well.  We ultimately failed because a peace treaty was torn up by the enemy, and the United States, tired of the war and suffering from some very distorted reporting by major news organizations, cut off aid to the South Vietnamese.  President Gerald Ford called the aid cutoff an act of dishonor, and he was correct.

Compare please to South Korea, where we stayed the course, maintained a troop commitment even after the Korean War ended, and showed patience.  There's a free and vibrant South Korea.  There's no longer a South Vietnam.

August 4, 2015       Permalink 

AMERICANS REJECTING IRAN DEAL – AT 9:16 A.M. ET:  Polls continue to show an increase in the percentage of Americans rejecting the Iran nuclear agreement.  From The Hill: 

A majority of Americans opposes a recently reached international accord lifting sanctions on Iran in exchange for new limits on its nuclear program, according to a new Quinnipiac University poll.

Nearly six in 10 Americans, or 57 percent, oppose the nuclear deal, while 28 percent voice support for it in the national poll released Monday, in a 2-to-1 margin against the deal.

Republicans strongly oppose the deal brokered by the Obama administration, 86 to 3 percent, while Democrats support the top second-term foreign policy agenda item for President Obama, 52 to 32 percent.

A majority of Americans disapprove the way Obama is handling the situation in Iran (56 percent), compared with 35 percent who approve. A majority (58 percent) also thinks the deal makes the world less safe.

The Obama administration has worked to sell the deal, reached between the U.S., France, Germany, Britain, Russia and China with Iran, to a deeply skeptical American public and Congress.

An ABC/Washington Post poll out July 20 found that 56 percent support the deal and 37 percent oppose it, while a Pew Research Center poll released the following day found that a plurality of Americans familiar with the deal oppose it, 48 to 38 percent.

Another CNN/ORC International Poll released late last month found that 52 percent of Americans say Congress should reject the deal, compared to 44 percent who said it should be approved.

The latest survey from Quinnipiac was commissioned amid testimony on Capitol Hill from Secretary of State John Kerry, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew in favor of the deal.

COMMENT:  This is an issue where common sense can easily be applied.  If the deal were so good, so beneficial to the nations surrounding Iran, or threatened by Iran, why does John Kerry have to go to these nations and beg for their support?  If the deal were good, they'd be cheering.

But the deal isn't good.  It's terrible.  It guarantees us nothing but the ability to somewhat annoy Iran.  The Europeans like the deal because it means they can open business with Iran, which is their only goal.  The Europeans, to use Churchill's example, are people who feed the alligator in the hope that they'll be eaten last.

But the deal will go through.  Our Congress may reject it, but Obama has promised to veto the rejection.  It's unlikely that enough Democrats will defect to override the veto.  And so one of the most momentous agreements in modern diplomatic history will go into effect without the support of the American Congress, which I believe is unprecedented.

The problem is that Obama doesn't care.  He sees his legacy more in terms of what "the world" thinks than what America thinks.

August 4,  2015     Permalink

AUGUST 3,  2015

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

HOT IN IRAN – From Fox:   The Middle East is trapped under a brutal “heat dome” that has brought apocalyptic weather and a heat index that makes it feel like 164 degrees in one Iranian city.  For more than a week, Iran and Iraq have endured scorching temperatures, prompting Baghdad to declare a four-day “heat holiday” and leaving the Iranian city of Bandar Mahshahr dangerously close to breaking the all-time record with a heat index of 164 degrees on Friday.  They should consult Al Gore.  He'll recommend plug-in camels and rubber-band engines for airliners.

SICKENING – From Judicial Watch:  The U.S. government paid a controversial civil rights activist/comedian to deliver an anti-white racist tirade at a major federal agency during Black History month and Judicial Watch has obtained the disturbing transcript of the offensive political rant.  It took place at the United States Census Bureau earlier this year and the paid speaker was Dick Gregory, a self-professed humanitarian and drum major for justice who claims that his social satire changed the way white Americans perceive African American comedians. But Gregory’s angry outburst at the Census Bureau was not funny to some employees and the agency was forced to explain that it will thoroughly review its procedures for selecting future speakers to “ensure their views are appropriate for the federal workplace.”  Based on Gregory’s well-known reputation as a fiery race-baiter, it’s unlikely that the government officials who booked him didn’t know about his discriminating, shock-based performances.  Gregory was actually a pretty decent comedian about 50 years ago, then he descended into race-baiting and conspiracy theories.  Talent gone to waste.

GREECE AT HOME – From AP:   SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) -- The government of Puerto Rico confirmed Monday that it failed to make a $58 million debt payment in a significant escalation of the debt crisis facing the U.S. island territory.  Puerto Rico made a partial payment of $628,000 in interest but could not afford to make the remainder, which was due Saturday, because the legislature did not appropriate the funds, said Melba Acosta Febo, president of the Government Development Bank.  The White House assures us that no federal bailout is planned.  Nonsense.  As we get closer to election time, watch for that bailout to suddenly appear.

THE DOCTOR IS NOT IN – From The Washington Times:   Obamacare has offered insurance to millions of people, but they’re unhappy with the coverage they’re getting and are particularly upset about the costs, according to a survey released Monday that suggests the health care law continues to struggle to win over Americans.  Just 30 percent of customers on Obamacare’s exchanges were satisfied with their coverage, the health care research arm of the Deloitte consulting firm said.  Only a quarter of Obamacare customers in the survey were confident that they could get care when they needed it, and just 16 percent felt “financially prepared” to handle future health care costs, Deloitte said.  “Those are not high numbers,” said Paul Lambdin, a director for Deloitte’s work on insurance exchanges and retail practices.  It was done so badly, but Obama may well be out of office before most Americans realize they've been duped.  Then the Dems will blame Bush, Cheney, and climate change.

August 3, 2015       Permalink

IS TRUMP TRUMPING ALL? – AT 10:31 A.M. ET:  A new poll shows the stubborn strength that Donald Trump is maintaining.  Is it really a tribute to him, though, or is it a rebellion against the party establishment?  From Rasmussen:   

If “The Donald” loses the Republican presidential nomination and runs as a third-party candidate, he definitely could put a crimp in GOP hopes to reclaim the White House.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 29% of Likely U.S. Voters say they are at least somewhat likely to vote for Trump if he is not chosen as the GOP nominee and runs as a third party candidate. But that includes only 14% who say they are Very Likely to vote for him. Sixty-eight percent (68%) say they are unlikely to vote for the billionaire developer if he runs as a third-party presidential candidate, with 51% who say it’s Not At All Likely.

Worrisome for Republicans, however, is the finding that over a third (36%) of Likely GOP Voters say they are likely to vote for Trump if he’s a third-party candidate, with 18% who are Very Likely to do so. One-in-three (33%) voters who are not affiliated with either major party also are likely Trump voters, including 16% who say they are Very Likely to vote for him if he runs third-party.

Even 19% of Democrats describe themselves as likely Trump voters, although that includes just nine percent (9%) who say they are Very Likely to vote that way.

COMMENT:  Before we panic, we should note that it's still very early.  I still maintain that Trump will flame out.  He, like Chris Christie, has the kind of personality that doesn't wear well.  But I could be very wrong.  Clearly, there's a rebellion going on in the GOP, and the party must address it.

August 3, 2015       Permalink

THOSE WERE THE DAYS, MY FRIEND – AT 9:58 A.M. ET:   The word "liberal" is thrown around loosely these days, and even applied to those on the fringe left, who are anything but liberal.  There was a time, though, not long ago, when "liberal" was an honorable word.  True liberals put national defense first, and had a compassionate but not insane domestic policy.  They fought Communism as hard as conservatives did, unlike today.  Jack Kelly recalls the time.  From RealClearPolitics: 

I thought the liberal giants of my youth were usually mistaken, but I never doubted their intelligence, their good intentions or their patriotism.

Those of us who are or were in Army Special Forces will always be grateful to John F. Kennedy for giving us the Green Beret.

No politician has been a more effective defender of America’s national security than Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson, D-Wash., for whom I would have voted if Democrats had nominated him for president in 1976 (instead of the pious Jimmy Carter).

Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-N.Y., the premier sociologist of his time, was a “social scientist” who was really a scientist. What a concept!

Sen. Hubert Humphrey, D-Minn., was a passionate advocate of equal rights at a time when most other politicians who were happened to be Republicans. Then the mayor of Minneapolis, he fought so hard, and so effectively, against the segregationists at the Democratic National Convention in 1948 that he prompted the Dixiecrat walkout. Mr. Humphrey was the chief sponsor of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The “Happy Warrior” was renowned for his exuberance. I remember covering a speech he made to farm reporters. Speaking of agricultural subsidies, Mr. Humphrey said: “Ten thousand bushels of wheat. Ten thousand bushels of wheat. You know what that is? That’s peanuts!”

Mr. Humphrey was a U.S. senator for 22 years, vice president for four, but (unlike most long-serving Democrats today, and many in his), he never tried to cash in on his “public service.” He may often have been mistaken about how best to do it, but Hubert Horatio Humphrey was in government to help others, not himself.

Like Voltaire, who said: “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it,” Messrs. Kennedy, Jackson, Moynihan and Humphrey were defenders of free speech. They fought hard for what they believed, but they played by the rules. They understood how critical to liberty and democracy is the rule of law.

These liberal giants of not so long ago treated political opponents with dignity and respect. When they served in the Senate together, Mr. Kennedy and my first political hero, Sen. Barry Goldwater, R-Ariz., were good friends. Had they run against each other in 1964, the race would have been civil, and edifying.

COMMENT:  I worked for one of the liberal giants of the time, Paul Douglas of Illinois.  Not only was he a man of impeccable integrity and a brilliant professor of economics, he was the oldest man ever to go through Marine Corps basic training, having enlisted at the age of 50 to fight World War II. 

He also was a man who told me of the kindness of some Southern senators during the civil-rights debates, men who knew change had to come, could not talk about it publicly without being destroyed, but who worked behind the scenes to keep things civilized.  Not all Southerners were running around in white sheets, contrary to the image that the trendy left liked to portray. 

Jack Kelly was right.  There were liberal giants, none of whom would recognize the Democratic Party of today.  Jack Kennedy couldn't come anywhere near a presidential nomination in that party.  It is a sad spectacle. 

August 3, 2015        Permalink

AND MORE TROUBLE FOR HILL – AT 9:38 A.M. ET:   I'll bet Hillary Clinton curses the day e-mail was invented.  I mean, she curses everything else, and reportedly in vivid language, so why not that?  The pressure is building for her alleged e-mail transgressions to get more than a journalistic dusting.  From the Washington Times: 

With U.S. intelligence officials scrambling to contain damage from potentially hundreds of spy agency secrets in Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private emails, questions are mounting over why the Justice Department has not yet opened a criminal investigation against the Democratic presidential front-runner for mishandling a mountain of classified information.

While some secrecy experts believe Mrs. Clinton will be able to build a strong case that material on her server was not classified at the time it was moving through her emails, others assert that what the former secretary of state did was far more egregious than the mishandling of information that saw former CIA Director David H. Petraeus sentenced to two years probation and a $100,000 fine.

“I don’t see how the Justice Department would be able to avoid at least investigating this,” said Kevin Carroll, a former CIA officer and secrecy lawyer in Washington. “What Petraeus did was really small in comparison, because there was no exposure of any information to any foreign intelligence services.”

Mr. Petraeus pleaded guilty to improperly handling hard-copy binders of classified military files and sharing them with his mistress and biographer.

“In contrast,” said Mr. Carroll, “it’s certain that foreign intelligence services had access to the stuff on Hillary Clinton’s email.”

COMMENT:  My own view, which is shared by others, is that Justice went after Petraeus to destroy him as a possible rival to President Obama in the 2012 presidential election.  By contrast, many in the Democratic Party would be miffed if Justice went after Hillary Clinton, who is poised in some minds to become the first female president.  The Justice Department has been highly politicized under Obama, so nothing it does or doesn't do would surprise me.

August 3, 2015        Permalink

IS THIS SERIOUS? – AT 9:14 A.M. ET:  Hillary Clinton is about to release her first big TV ads of the campaign.  And they're about...her mother.  I kid you not.  From ABC: 

There's one person Hillary Clinton really wants the voters of America to get to know more than anybody else. And her name is Dorothy Rodham.

Dorothy is Clinton’s late mother. She died in 2011. But she's playing a starring role in her daughter’s presidential campaign, and is the focus of Clinton’s first television ads.

On Tuesday, Clinton’s campaign will begin broadcasting two TV ads in Iowa and New Hampshire. The one-minute spots, which will air over the course of five weeks, emphasize Clinton’s mother’s story over her own.

The first ad, titled “Dorothy,” is almost completely devoid of any discussion of Clinton’s credentials. Instead, it's focused on recounting her mother’s trauma-filled childhood.

Clinton, who narrates the story over old photos of her mom, describes how her mother is the person who most influenced her desire to fight for families and to run for president.

COMMENT:  This is not a good move.  It's transparent and obvious, an attempt to divert attention from the scandals surrounding Dorothy's daughter.  I'd be interested to see the response, but my guess is that ads like this preach only to the converted, and may actually bring ridicule.

August 3,  2015     Permalink