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 28,  2015

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:54 P.M. ET:

HORROR – From KTLA:  A Texas sheriff’s deputy died Friday after being shot multiple times from behind in an “unprovoked attack” while pumping gas into his vehicle while on duty.  The Harris County Sheriff’s Office responded to reports that a deputy had been shot, the department tweeted around 8 p.m.  The department confirmed an hour later that the deputy, identified as Darren Goforth, had died.   Goforth was pumping gas when he was shot several times from behind, the department tweeted, adding that it was an “unprovoked attack.”  Goforth was a 10-year veteran, with a wife and two children.  This was an execution.  It will raise social tensions.  It comes just days after some radical blacks called for the execution of police officers, but we cannot now demonstrate a direct connection.  Let's see if the national news outlets give this murder the attention it deserves.  Police lives matter.

NO CLASS – From Fox:  WASHINGTON – Newly surfaced emails show the Clinton Foundation asked the State Department about proceeding with two presumably paid speeches for former President Bill Clinton in North Korea and the Republic of the Congo, despite each engagement’s ties to repressive regimes.  The emails, obtained by FoxNews.com, surfaced as part of a records request by the group Citizens United.  In both sets of 2012 emails between the foundation led by Bill Clinton and the department led by wife Hillary Clinton, the former president’s team acknowledged the invitations could raise concerns. But they asked the State Department, which screened all such speeches by the ex-president, anyway.  Why would a former president of the United States even consider speaking in such places?  Money.

DEMS AT WAR – From The Hill:  Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley thinks the Democratic Party’s decision to limit the number of primary debates is tantamount to rigging the nomination process.  “Four debates and only four debates — we are told, not asked — before voters in our earliest states make their decision,” the presidential candidate said at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) Summer Meeting on Friday.  “This sort of rigged process has never been attempted before,” he added. “One debate in Iowa. That’s it. One debate in New Hampshire. That’s all we can afford.”  After O'Malley's speech wrapped up, observers noted palpable tension as he greeted DNC Chair, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz.  There are civil wars going on within each party, and that's common.  Both parties have, historically, had deep divisions.  Former President Teddy Roosevelt bolted his party to run for president again in 1912.   Southern Democrats walked out of the Democratic Party in 1948 to back Strom Thurmond, who ran as a third-party candidate.  Even some of FDR's Democratic allies balked at his running for a third term in 1940.  Parties are not automatically harmonious.

August 28,  2015     Permalink

WATCH THIS STORY CLOSELY – AT 10:34 A.M. ET:   It's hard to believe, but Democratic leaders in the Senate, apparently on order from the White House, may well try to filibuster the Iran nuclear agreement, making it impossible for the Senate to vote on it at all.  This is an outrage, a direct affront to democracy and the American people.   But let's move on, right?  From CNN:

Washington (CNN) A leading Republican critic of the Iran nuclear deal Tuesday blasted Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid for pushing to prevent a vote on a resolution that could kill the agreement.

"Harry Reid wants to deny the American people a voice entirely by blocking an up-or-down vote on this terrible deal," said Sen. Tom Cotton, a freshman from Arkansas. "He is obstructing because he is scared. He knows that a majority of Americans and senators oppose this dangerous deal, and that its only chance for survival is if he and the president ram it down the throats of the American people."

Cotton's tough-worded press statement came a day after Reid said he hoped to stop the resolution of disapproval procedurally from moving forward -- in other words, filibuster it and prevent a final vote by requiring 60 senators to vote to end debate.

"I said I felt cautiously optimistic that we would have enough votes to sustain the President's veto, and that seems pretty clear to me, but we'll see," Reid told reporters after an event with President Barack Obama Monday in Nevada, according to a transcript provided by Reid's staff. "As far as procedurally stopping this bill from moving forward, I hope -- I know it's a long shot -- but I hope that it can be done."

While overriding a veto would require Republican senators to get 13 Democrats to join them, the threshold for ending a filibuster to hold a vote is lower -- 60 votes instead of 67. That Democrats are eying preventing a vote, and not just sustaining a veto, points to increasing confidence that their party members won't break ranks.

COMMENT:  If a filibuster happens, it will be a dark moment.  But let's see if the GOP congressional establishment will fight, and bring real fire to that fight, or simply give in again.  And let's see if the news media will try to ignore, or at least minimize, the story, once again to enhance the greater glory of Barack.

August 28, 2015       Permalink

NO VOTER FRAUD, NOTHING TO SEE, NOTHING TO SEE – AT 10:07 A.M. ET:  An Illinois reader alerted us to this story, which pretty much destroys the idea that there's no voter fraud.   It's always been there, and it generally benefits Democrats in big cities.  From the Washington Free Beacon: 

A public interest law firm is threatening to bring lawsuits against more than 100 counties across the United States that appear to have more registered voters than living residents.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), a law firm dedicated to election integrity based in Indiana, recently sent statutory notice letters to election officials in 141 counties putting them on notice of their discoveries. The group says if action is not taken to correct the questionable voter rolls, they will bring lawsuits against every single county on the list.

“Corrupted voter rolls provide the perfect environment for voter fraud,” said J. Christian Adams, president and general counsel of PILF. “Close elections tainted by voter fraud turned control of the United States Senate in 2009. Too much is at stake in 2016 to allow that to happen again.”

The statutory notice letters argue the counties are violating the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and urge them to correct the issue, claiming their voter rolls contain a substantially high amount of ineligible voters. The group used federally produced data to come to their conclusions.

“Voter rolls across America have been discovered that contain substantial numbers of ineligible voters, resulting in the possible disenfranchisement of legally eligible voters via ballot dilution that threatens to subvert the nation’s electoral process,” a sample letter sent to the counties reads.

“Based on our comparison of publicly available information published by the U.S. Census Bureau and the federal Election Assistance Commission, your county is failing to comply with Section 8 of the NVRA,” it continues. “Federal law requires election officials to conduct a reasonable effort to maintain voter registration lists free of dead voters, ineligible voters and voters who have moved away.”

“In short, your county has significantly more voters on the registration rolls than it has eligible live voters and is thus not reasonably maintaining the rolls.”

According to PILF, the 141 counties targeted for their suspicious voter rolls span across 21 states and include: Michigan (24 counties), Kentucky (18), Illinois (17), Indiana (11), Alabama (10), Colorado (10), Texas (9), Nebraska (7), New Mexico (5), South Dakota (5), Kansas (4), Mississippi (4), Louisiana (3), West Virginia (3), Georgia (2), Iowa (2), Montana (2), and North Carolina (2), as well as Arizona, Missouri, and New York (1 each).

COMMENT:  Read the whole piece.  It's worth it.  We can lose our democracy through corrupt voting practices.  We're still not really sure who won the 1960 presidential election between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. 

The piece makes the point that the Obama Justice Department has no interest in enforcing voter integrity laws.  Gee, I wonder why.

August 28, 2015       Permalink

HILLARY, WE HARDLY KNEW YE – AT 9:46 A.M. ET:   Is the White House sending signals to its big-money donors?  From the Washington Examiner: 

Top donors to President Obama's two national campaigns are galvanizing around a potential run by Joe Biden, and those bundlers and givers have little crossover with donors supporting Hillary Clinton's presidential run, according to top fundraisers for the Draft Biden committee and other veteran strategists backing Biden.

Jon Cooper, an Obama bundler who is now the finance chairman of the Draft Biden Committee 2016 super PAC, says he's been inundated with phone calls and interest in the last few weeks and has assembled a national finance team of bundlers and donors from coast to coast.

"Based on the surge in support that we've seen, we fully expect to raise between $2.5 million and $3 million over the next few weeks," Cooper, a Long Island technology manufacturer, told the Washington Examiner. "That's going to provide the resources necessary to build the infrastructure that Vice President Biden will need to hit the ground running and finance a race."

More have committed to write checks if and when Biden decides to jump in.

Many of the donors are former Obama bundlers, Cooper said, although he acknowledged hearing from some that had previously committed to Clinton but are now changing their minds.

But, he argued, a Biden presidential campaign wouldn't have to rely on coaxing over more Clinton donors, noting that out of 820 top Obama donors, only 51 have committed to Clinton.

COMMENT:  As they say, follow the money.  This would not be possible without an approving wink from the White House.  Obama wants his dream – to be succeeded, not by the sinister Hillary, but by his friend, Joe.

The problem is that Joe, a much more decent man than Obama, is just as wrong on the issues.

August 28, 2015       Permalink

ANOTHER WARNING, PROBABLY IGNORED – AT 9:31 A.M. ET:  We are getting constant warnings from military experts about the deteriorating state of our defenses.  Here is another, dealing with the critical issue of cybersecurity.  American defense today runs on computers.  A serious computer breach can have deadly consequences.  From the Washington Examiner: 

The United States is at risk of falling behind its enemies in the field of cybersecurity, military leaders said this week.

The comments come after an unclassified server of the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs was penetrated this month by a state-affiliated hacker believed to be Russian or Chinese. That incident, Defense Secretary Ash Carter told Defense One, "is evidence that we're not doing as good as we need to do in job one in cyber, which is defending our own networks.

"Our military is empowered by and also dependent upon networks for its effective operations. So, we have to be good, and I would say we have to be better at network defense than we are now," Carter continued. He also said he was trying "to encourage interest in our nation and a back-and-forth of people" between the public and private sectors "so that our people have the benefit of getting to know the technology, the culture, and the business practices and so forth of the commercial sector, and we draw the commercial sector into the great mission of helping us protect the nation."

Speaking at a conference in Augusta, Ga., on Tuesday, Army Cyber Command chief Lt. Gen. Edward Cardon struck a similar note. "As far as we have come over the past decade, I still think we are near the beginning of what is truly possible," Cardon said. "However, the window to accomplishing our potential in a proactive manner is closing."

COMMENT:  This will fall on deaf ears at the White House and among those who run the Democratic Party in Congress.  Defense is out.  "Social justice" is in.  Except that you can't have social justice unless you have a secure nation.

August 28,  2015     Permalink

AUGUST 27,  2015

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

EXCITING POLITICAL NEWS – Jeb Bush has mightily secured the endorsement of Eric Cantor.  You remember Eric Cantor, don't you?  He was the House majority leader and blew his chance to become speaker by inconveniently losing a 2014 primary battle for renomination to his congressional seat.  He fell into instant
obscurity. His endorsement of Bush will have an impact that I would estimate at about six hours.

MAJOR EDUCATIONAL NEWS – From The College Fix:   Classes to help transgender individuals alter their vocalization are slated to be offered this fall at the University of Connecticut.  The Transgender Voice and Communication Group offers “an opportunity to use new vocal and communication qualities in a safe and confidential environment” and includes “role playing” and other activities.  This semester’s group launches and runs through Nov. 30 at the public university, an online campus calendar and description states.
Look, I have no problem with people learning what they wish to learn.  But the image of trendiness and political correctness has become so strong at many American colleges that serious public scrutiny, leading to cuts in government aid, is sure to follow.

NOT THE PARTY OF TRUMAN OR KENNEDY – From Gateway Pundit:  Democrats’ election outreach efforts to veterans may need to start with a refresher course on what U.S. troops look like.  For starters, they don’t wear Polish military uniforms.  Until Thursday, the Democratic National Committee’s “Veterans and Military Families” website had as its only picture a shot from White House photographers during President Obama’s visit to Warsaw in 2011.  The president had been cropped out, but faces of four elderly veterans wearing European-style military uniforms were visible above several paragraphs asserting the party’s “commitment to America’s veterans.” The Polish military’s White Eagle insignia was clear on the headgear of two of the veterans.  While largely harmless, the error points to a common complaint among U.S. veterans groups about the lack of knowledge of many Americans about military life, tradition and challenges.  Not surprising that this happened.  When I was growing up, everyone knew a soldier or had at least one soldier in the family.  That is no longer the case.  Many Americans can go through life and never meet a member of the military.  The military is a distant institution, not part of our lives.  It's a terrible development, and does damage to the nation.

August 27,  2015     Permalink

THE SLEEPER ISSUE? – AT 11:31 A.M. ET:   It may be that the sleeper issue in 2016 is law-and-order.  From Ed Rogers at WaPo:

While the media are captivated by other things, a sleeper issue may be beginning to stir, and it may have a meaningful impact on the 2016 elections. That is, crime. As a Post editorial points out, we can’t be totally sure yet if the rises in crime rates this year are “the beginning of unsettling trends or mere blips.” But it is well documented that there has been a recent spike in crime. Murders in the District are up nearly 30 percent from last year. And Heather Mac Donald wrote an eye-opening article in May in the Wall Street Journal detailing “The New Nationwide Crime Wave” and examining the “Ferguson effect” on our country.

But after decades of decline in crime rates, why is this happening — if this is, as it seems, the start of a long-term trend? In Baltimore, the scene of riots this year after the death of Freddie Gray, robberies and homicides are up, partly due to “a sharp reduction in arrests . . . as the police union said many officers were afraid to do their jobs for fear of being prosecuted.” At least some of the increase in crime may be the result of the Black Lives Matter group — and their sympathizers — intimidating Democratic political leaders at the national, state and local levels into, essentially, becoming more lenient on crime. At the same time, the group and its message are demoralizing our nation’s police forces, who are now facing rules and restrictions that are sometimes inconsistent with the lessons learned and with the reality on the ground. The anti-police attitude that has become so pervasive is eroding the effectiveness of America’s police officers, and the crime statistics reflect that.

The Democrats clearly have not thought through the ramifications of giving Black Lives Matter and their apologists an open platform and demonizing law enforcement for doing its job. Part of this new message the Democrats are adopting is essentially a call to allow more criminals to roam free. What happens when the crime levels get worse? This could become a much bigger issue on the campaign trail, and it could put Democrats in a position where they are once again viewed as the party least sympathetic to law and order.

COMMENT:  New York City has its first Democratic mayor in two decades, and he is becoming intensely unpopular because he's seen as soft on crime.  The crime issue is a major opening for Republicans, if they know how to use it effectively.  Big if.

August 27, 2015       Permalink

SICKENING – AT 10:31 A.M. ET:   Is there any limit to the vulgarity of some of our politicians?  Some have used yesterday's tragedy in Virginia to push their "gun control" agenda, even though areas with the strictest gun controls are often the areas with the highest crime rates.  These politicians never miss an opportunity to advance themselves, even as others grieve.

Don't get me wrong.  As a responsible gun owner, I believe there are things that can be done to reduce gun violence.  The savage who murdered two journalists in Virginia yesterday had a history of deeply disturbing behavior.  Yet, he was able to buy a gun and pass a background check...probably because his mental-health status was not in the federal database.  And it appears that no one ever intervened to get him the help he probably needed.  Mental health must come to the fore in the gun debates. 

I should also note that, while much attention was given to the murderer's complaints about discrimination and his upset over the Charleston shootings, no attention was given to the fact that he attended San Francisco State University, one of the most radical schools in the United States.  I'd love to know what he was taught there. 

From the Washington Times: 

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday that she felt “great heartache” over the shooting ambush that killed a TV news reporter and cameraman live on air in Virginia, pledging that as president she would fight for more gun-control laws.

“We have got to do something about gun violence in America — and I will take it on,” Mrs. Clinton said in an on-camera statement to reports while on campaign trail in Iowa.

In an emotional plea for more restrictive gun laws, Mrs. Clinton said that too many people know that the availability of firearms is a problem in the United States but avoid the subject because “it is hard.”

“It is a very political, difficult issue in America,” he said. “But I believe we are smart enough, we are compassionate enough to figure out how to balance the legitimate Second Amendment rights with preventive measures and control measures so that whatever motivated this murderer, who eventually took his own life — we will not see more deaths, needless, senseless deaths.”

COMMENT:  Please notice the lack of specifics.  Same old story.  A sound bite in place of thought.

August 27, 2015       Permalink

DEM DISASTER – AT 9:14 A.M. ET:  More and more political writers are stressing the poor condition of the Democratic Party under Barack Obama.  In fact, the party's situation is disastrous, and has contributed to its lack of credible presidential candidates.  From the Washington Post: 

There are two reasons commonly cited for the fact that far fewer Democrats than Republicans are running for president in 2016. One is that Hillary Clinton was (and largely still is) considered a formidable candidate that, for most politicians, isn't worth the energy and money to try and defeat. The other is that the Democrats, after a few bad election cycles, have a very small political "bench" -- meaning that there aren't as many politically talented and successful candidates on the left as there might otherwise be.

Our Dan Balz made this point in the wake of last November's crushing Democratic defeat. Balz noted the scattered Democratic talent on Capitol Hill -- and then looked west. "The more serious problem for Democrats," he wrote, "is the drubbing they’ve taken in the states, the breeding ground for future national talent and for policy experimentation."

Balz pointed to data from the National Conference of State Legislatures, showing that Republicans had unified control -- both chambers of the legislature and the governorship -- in nearly half of the 50 states.

There's another way to look at that. The NCSL's annual breakdown of the composition of each state's Senate and House or Assembly goes back to 2009, when President Obama was inaugurated. Since then, the ratio of Republicans to Democrats has tilted to the right in nearly every Senate and nearly every legislature...

...Overall, of the 98 state senates and houses/assemblies, the Republicans saw gains in 40 upper chambers and 45 lower ones. Meaning far fewer elected Democrats, and a smaller bench.

We can quantify that, too. According to the NCSL data, there were 4,082 Democrats in state senates and state houses in 2009. In 2015, there were 3,163 -- a decrease of 22.5 percent.

That's 900-plus fewer Democrats to move up the ladder.

COMMENT:  And let's not forget – in fact, we delightfully remember – that under Obama the Dems have lost the House and Senate.  If they lose the presidency next year, they will have lost pretty much everything, except some student governments in the Ivy League. 

August 27, 2015       Permalink

BIDEN GAINING – AT 8:52 A.M. ET:  Reports from the Biden camp have it that the vice president is genuinely torn over whether to run for president.  He has wondered out loud whether he has the emotional commitment to a grueling campaign.  A new poll should give him encouragement, although, traditionally, he has not been a big numbers grabber.  From Bloomberg: 

Here's one more reason to continue speculating about whether Vice President Joe Biden will enter the presidential race: he polls better nationally against the leading three Republican candidates than Hillary Clinton, and has a higher favorability rating, too.

According to a Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday, if Biden was the democratic candidate, he would beat Donald Trump by eight points (48 - 40 percent), former Florida Governor Jeb Bush by six points (45 - 39) and Senator Marco Rubio by three points (44 - 41). Clinton only beats Trump by four points (45 - 41), Bush by two points (42 - 40) and Rubio by one point (44 - 43).

Eighty-three percent of Democrats view Biden favorably, compared to 76 percent and 54 percent who approve of Clinton and Vermont Senator Sanders, respectively. Among all registered voters, Biden has a 48 percent favorability rating, while Clinton came in at 39 percent and Sanders at 32 percent.

“Note to Biden: They like you, they really like you, or they like you more than the others,” Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll, said in a press release accompanying the poll. “If he is sitting on the fence, his scores in the matchups and his favorability ratings may compel him to say, ‘Let's do this.’”

The good news for Clinton is that she's still leading the race to become the Democratic nominee—45 percent of Democrats polled would choose Clinton as the party nominee, 22 percent would choose Sanders and 18 percent would choose Biden. No other Democrat polls above 1 percent.

COMMENT:  I'm not sure how much stake I'd put in August polls, but the numbers are interesting, primarily because they highlight Clinton's growing problems. 

Biden also has problems.  How does he respond when Republicans ask voters, "Do you really want a third term for Barack Obama?"  And what happens when he starts issuing forth his famous gaffes? 

Republicans are not yet unified behind a candidate.  If they choose wisely, their numbers will come up in competitive polls against Democrats.  If they choose poorly, they can manage to, as the saying goes, snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

August 27,  2015     Permalink