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.

JULY 15,  2015

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 9:32 P.M. ET: 

GREAT MOMENTS IN RESEARCH – From NRO:   Sociology researchers are now insisting that we as a society start accepting people who choose to “identify as real vampires” — so that they can be open about the fact that they’re vampires without having to worry about facing discrimination from people who might think that that’s weird.  The study, titled “Do We Always Practice What We Preach? Real Vampires’ Fears of Coming out of the Coffin to Social Workers and Helping Professionals” was conducted by researchers from Idaho State University and College of the Canyons and the Center for Positive Sexuality in Los Angeles.  It's about time we stop oppressing vampires.  Every time I read the Bill of Rights and then think of our attitude toward vampires, I realize how hypocritical we are.  I propose a national holiday to honor the vampire community and its contributions to our culture.  And it's high time that Dracula got a statue.

OBAMA ON COSBY – From AP:  President Barack Obama is rejecting the idea of revoking Bill Cosby’s Presidential Medal of Freedom because of sexual misconduct allegations.  Obama says there’s no precedent or mechanism to take back the medal. He declined to talk about the specific allegations against Cosby because there are pending legal matters.  Technically, Obama is right.  There is no precedent or mechanism.  But there should be.  Someone who brings discredit on the medal or the country should have the honor withdrawn upon recommendation of a bipartisan panel.  Very stringent conditions would have to be met, however, to avoid political correctness.

BERNIE ROMPS – From the Phoenix New Times:  Democratic Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders just announced that his campaign event scheduled for this Saturday in Phoenix will now be held at the downtown Convention Center. This marks the second time the campaign has decided to switch locations in order to accommodate the flood of RSVPs.   It's unclear exactly how many people have registered for the event (New Times was unable to reach the Sanders Campaign before press time), but the campaign is clearly anticipating a huge turnout.  It's getting clear that Hillary is in trouble.  That doesn't mean she won't get the nomination – she's built up plenty of party support over the years – but the lack of enthusiasm for her is pretty obvious.  She's too much the next person in line.

THE MARCH OF MEDICINE – From The Hill:   Eleven fictitious people created as part of an undercover watchdog effort were able to automatically re-enroll in ObamaCare coverage, a new report finds.  The report, from the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, follows up on a GAO report last year. That report found that 11 of 12 fictitious people, with fake documents, were able to successfully enroll in ObamaCare coverage through the federal HealthCare.gov marketplace.  The follow-up report, released by congressional Republicans on Wednesday, finds that those 11 fictitious people were able to maintain their coverage through the end of 2014 and then were automatically re-enrolled for 2015. Some were re-enrolled even though no additional documentation was provided.  And I'll bet they got free birth-control pills as well, even the guys.

July 15, 2015       Permalink

WONDERFULLY SAID – AT 10:14 A.M. ET:  Barack Obama is already being compared to Britain's Neville Chamberlain, who sold out Czechoslovakia in the infamous Munich agreement of 1938.  But the brilliant Mark Steyn thinks that's unfair...to Chamberlain.  I think you'll like this, from Breitbart: 

Columnist and author of “The Undocumented,” Mark Steyn argued comparing President Obama to Neville Chamberlain is “rather unfair to Neville Chamberlain” on Tuesday’s “Hannity” on the Fox News Channel.

Steyn said of comparisons between Obama and Chamberlain, “I think actually that’s rather unfair to Neville Chamberlain, Sean. He got the central question of the 1930’s wrong, but he was an honorable man, who believed he was acting in the interests of his country and the British Empire which he loved. When Churchill became prime minister he kept Chamberlain on and had him chair the War Cabinet in his absence. And Churchill wept over Chamberlain’s funeral casket, and claimed he was an honorable man who just happened to be wrong. I don’t think you can say that about Obama. I think what Obama did is significantly worse than what Neville Chamberlain did. I don’t think, in effect, Obama was negotiating on behalf of the United States. I think what happened at these talks is that he and the Iranians were, in a sense, negotiating together to anoint Iran as the regional power in the Middle East and to facilitate Iran’s reentry, the biggest planetary sponsor of terrorism, to facilitate its reentry into the global community. That’s what Obama was there doing.”

Steyn added, “I think that’s the other difference between Obama and Chamberlain. The horrors of the — of what Germany did were not known to Neville Chamberlain. And in a sense the appeasers of the 1930’s did so because of the horrors of the first World War and the lost generation, and they didn’t want that to happen again. And it’s because we know they got it wrong, that history won’t give us the same opt out card. Because we should have known better because it had happened before. And I think what Obama gets here, I think it does come back to a — to his classic Marxist worldview in which he sees America as the problem on the world’s stage. And if you look at everything he did — he’s done, Sean, what he did with Iran fits into that context. I mean, whether you look at missile defense in Eastern Europe, where he takes the side of Russia over US allies like Poland and the Czech Republic. If you look at little things, like the Falklands Islands, where he takes the side of Argentina over a US ally like United Kingdom. And in the Middle East, he’s taken the side of Iran over US allies like the Sunni monarchies and Israel, because his central view is that America and American power is the problem in the world. And, therefore, American allies are part of that problem. And, therefore, what he does is, in a sense, withdraw from the world, and enhance the position of the enemies of American allies. That’s what he’s done in the Middle East. And it won’t be confined to the Middle East, it’ll spread beyond that.”

COMMENT:  Like John Podhoretz, quoted earlier today in this space, Steyn gets it right and states it eloquently.  What I'm encouraged to see in the 24 hours since the deal was announced, is that the best of our side is stepping forward and doing so with rhetorical power.  Now we must translate that rhetorical power into political power.

July 15, 2015        Permalink

SICKENING – AT 9:31 A.M. ET:  It was inevitable.  With a wink from Obama, the international bashing of Israel has begun.  The Germany bashing came in first, with German businessmen practically bursting out of their pants to rush to Tehran to sell things, including weapons.

Now Britain, sadly, in a disgraceful comment by its foreign minister, joins the chorus.  From Reuters:

Britain's Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond told parliament on Wednesday that Israel would not have been satisfied with any kind of nuclear deal with Iran, dismissing criticism of the agreement struck between Tehran and foreign powers.

"The question you have to ask yourself is what kind of a deal would have been welcomed in Tel Aviv. The answer of course is that Israel doesn't want any deal with Iran," Hammond said in response to an opposition legislator who said he objected to the agreement and cited dismay in Tel Aviv.

"Israel wants a permanent state of stand-off and I don't believe that's in the interests of the region. I don't believe it's in our interest," Hammond said.

Earlier on Tuesday, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier also criticized Israel's opposition to the deal, saying the agreement will help contribute to security in the Middle East.

"This is a responsible deal and Israel should also take a closer look at it and not criticize the agreement in a very coarse way," Steinmeier told German broadcaster ARD in an interview on Wednesday.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has described the deal as a "stunning, historic mistake" and said it would enable Iran to pursue a path to nuclear weapons.

Hammond said on Wednesday that Britain hopes to re-open its embassy in Iran before the end of the year, following the agreement.

"I very much hope that we will be in a position to re-open our respective embassies before the end of the year," Hammond said. The re-opening was dependent on resolving some technical issues, he added, without elaborating.

Diplomatic relations were suspended and the British embassy was closed after hundreds of Iranian demonstrators stormed the building in November 2011.

Hammond also said he had spoken to British finance minister George Osborne to ensure that the country was ready to capitalize on the "quite substantial" business opportunities that would arise from the diplomatic agreement.

COMMENT:  And that, my friends, is the bottom line.  And it's why there will never be new sanctions on Iran.  Let the good times roll.

July 15, 2015       Permalink

THE DAY AFTER – AT 9:06 A.M. ET:   It is a day after the "deal" was announced, and everyone who's anyone is reacting.  Among the thoughtful, those with a sense of history, there is real apprehension bordering on despair.  These are the people who think in national-defense terms, who believe that the survival of the United States is more important than the greater glory of Barack.  Sadly, there aren't too many of them in the media, but they are there.

Perhaps the best overall statement I've read about the Iran deal came from John Podhoretz of Commentary:

The United States and its allies have struck a deal with Iran that effectively ensures that it will be a nuclear state with ballistic missiles in 10 years, assuming Iran adheres to the deal’s terms, which is a very large assumption. And though I’ve only made a preliminary pass at the deal sheet and don’t want to make definitive calls about it, it appears from the language that Iran will have 24 days before it has to allow inspections at its sites, none of which has been shut down or dismantled — which will make cheating unbelievably easy. And, while the president this morning declared that violations would make sanctions “snap back,” the only way they will do so is after a U.N. commission meets and agrees such violations have happened and then imposes them — which you know Russia will never allow. The president and the secretary of state are making large claims for the deal that are not true; the same will be true of all of its signatories, who are seeing Nobel stars in their eyes. This is an infamous day, and while those of us who see Iran’s nuclearization as the threshold threat for the rest of the 21st century will not be silent and will not give up the fight against it, it is appropriate to take a moment to despair that we — the United States and the West — have come to this.

COMMENT:  The notion that sanctions can be reimposed is ludicrous on its face.  The money will start to flow between Iran and other countries, and what we will have will be the equivalent of international bribery.  No nation will give up lucrative contracts simply to prevent what they will see as inevitable anyway, an Iranian bomb. 

This deal cooks us.  It also tells us everything we need to know about Barack Obama. 

July 15,  2015     Permalink

JULY 14,  2015

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

IRAN – What becomes clear is that the U.S. violated virtually all of its red lines in reaching an agreement with Iran, an agreement whose purpose seems to be the greater glory of Barack.  The deal does not permit the kind of inspections originally promised, and does grant concessions that even Obama's own chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff warned about only last week.  Republicans are properly appalled.  Many Democrats probably are as well, but their party has changed, and going up against Obama is not considered a wise career move. 

CYNICAL – Some of the reactions to the Iran deal are remarkably cynical.  The most disgraceful – the foreign minister of Germany criticizing Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's rejection of the agreement.  Imagine, the foreign minister of the nation that committed the Holocaust is rapping Israeli concerns about a pact with a regime that denies the Holocaust, while preparing for another one.  German businessmen are salivating over new trade with Iran, and I guess money does talk.

MADNESS – From Reuters:   A nuclear deal clinched between Iran and six major world powers that caps more than a decade of negotiations has stoked talk of a joint Nobel Peace Prize for Tehran and Washington this year, despite the likelihood of strong objections from some quarters.  US President Barack Obama, who won the prize in 2009 for promoting nuclear non-proliferation, hailed the Iran deal on Tuesday as a step towards a "more hopeful world". But Israel pledged to try to halt an "historic surrender".  Awarding the prestigious award to Washington and Tehran would fit a pattern of nuclear-themed peace prizes in years ending in '5', commemorating the bombings of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.  Giving the Nobel Peace Prize to Tehran is like giving the Girl Scout man-of-the-year award to Bill Cosby. But the prize has been so discredited in recent years that it really doesn't matter. 

TOUGH HILLARY? – It's probably just Hillary being devious, but reporters have noticed that her comments on Iran became tougher as the day wore on and more facts came out.  From AFP:  Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton vowed Tuesday that Iran will never be able to acquire atomic weapons if she is elected to the White House.  Clinton’s tough words came as critics in the US Congress, as well as skeptical US allies around the globe, criticized an agreement with Tehran as providing a path — albeit a somewhat delayed one — toward an eventual nuclear weapon.  “As president, I would use every tool in our arsenal to compel rigorous Iranian compliance,” Clinton said in a statement.  “The message to Iran should be loud and clear: We will never allow you to acquire a nuclear weapon; not just during the term of this agreement –- never.”  A former US secretary of state who oversaw the placement of some sanctions on Iran, Clinton said she is “still studying the details” of the plan, but gave it her qualified backing.  I have no idea what her statement means.  She has such a history of dishonesty that it's hard to take anything she says seriously. 

July 14, 2015       Permalink 

BATTLE BEGINS – AT 12:32 P.M. ET:  Republicans in Congress are already weighing in on the Iran deal, and they don't like it.  From Fox: 

Now, it's Congress' turn.

The announcement Tuesday of a landmark nuclear deal with Iran shifts the debate from the negotiating table in Vienna to the floors of Capitol Hill, where a rebellion already is brewing over elements of the deal that critics call a "historic capitulation."

President Obama, speaking early Tuesday morning from the White House, touted the agreement as a breakthrough that has "stopped the spread of nuclear weapons" in the region. The deal would curb Tehran's nuclear program in exchange for significant sanctions relief.

But Congress, under legislation approved earlier this year, has a say and will be able to approve or reject the terms after a 60-day review period.

With a potential veto showdown on the horizon, Obama faces a tough sales job, and his task is only compounded by the fact the vote could easily slip into September -- after the August recess, where wavering lawmakers could face pressure from voters and advocacy groups.

The president on Tuesday said he welcomes a "robust debate." At the least, he's sure to get it.

"This is a deal for a deal's sake," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a hawkish senator and 2016 presidential candidate, told Fox News, calling it a potential "death sentence for the state of Israel."

In the hours after the deal was announced, U.S. lawmakers listed several complaints. Contrary to Obama's claims, they say, the deal could trigger an arms race in the Middle East by legitimizing Iran's nuclear program, despite the restrictions it imposes.

Further, lawmakers are pointing to at least two provisions: One giving Iran leverage over its own nuclear site inspections, and another that could lift the U.N. arms and missile tech restrictions on Iran in the coming years.

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif., voiced concerns about both those provisions on Tuesday, and was joined by fellow Republicans.

Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., called the arms embargo provision a "historic capitulation."

COMMENT:  It is important that the Republicans get their message out quickly and clearly, and they must be prepared to counter the ugly comments that are sure to come – that they're "warmongers," that they oppose Obama because he's black, that they're Islamophobic.  This is going to be a very bitter battle because Obama's legacy is on the line.  Don't expect softballs, except in the questions that most mainstream journalists will lob at the administration.

July 14, 2015        Permalink

BULLETIN:  HILLARY GOES CAUTIOUS LEFT, SUPPORTS KEY PARTS OF IRAN DEAL – AT 10:42 A.M. ET:  I'm really not shocked.  Clinton is basically kowtowing to the left wing of the Democratic Party, and that requires at least lip service to Obama's sink-America foreign policy.  Of course, she helped put that policy into place.  From the Washington Examiner:

Hillary Clinton supports the "core elements" of the Iran nuclear deal, according to a House Democrat who listened to her talk privately to the Democratic caucus Tuesday morning.

Rep. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., said Clinton told Democrats that she will meet with former officials to discuss the agreement before pledging her full support.

"She did say the core elements of the deal are worth supporting," Israel said after leaving the meeting early. "However, she's having conversations with former secretaries of State and Defense and she believes we have an obligation to review all of the details of the deal."

Israel said Clinton criticized former President George W. Bush's handling of Iran and said under his leadership the Islamic nation increased its nuclear program.

"She reminded the caucus that for eight years under George Bush, the Iranians built two nuclear facilities and they mastered the nuclear fuel cycle and enhanced the number of centrifuges spinning," Israel said. "And for those Republicans critical of current policies toward Iran, it may be hypocritical and not accurate."

COMMENT:  So let me figure this out.  She supports the core elements, but will tell us later whether she supports the deal.  And she's more hawkish than the GOP on Iran's nuclear program, even though she went along with Obama's appeasement of Iran while secretary of state.

Yeah, right.  Hillary at her best.  She'll go whichever way the wind will eventually blow.

July 14, 2015       Permalink

HE DISSENTS – AT 9:10 A.M. ET:  Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel has expressed his vigorous opposition to the deal with Iran just announced.  Israel has been briefed at every stage of the talks, and believes the agreement is a complete capitulation.  From the prime minister's office: 

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued the following statement at his meeting with Netherlands Foreign Minister Bert Koenders:

"I will refer later to the details of the agreement, but before that, I would like to say here and now – when you are willing to make an agreement at any cost, this is the result.

From the initial reports we can already conclude that this agreement is an historic mistake for the world.

Far-reaching concessions have been made in all areas that were supposed to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons capability. In addition, Iran will receive hundreds of billions of dollars with which it can fuel its terror machine and its expansion and aggression throughout the Middle East and across the globe.

One cannot prevent an agreement when the negotiators are willing to make more and more concessions to those who, even during the talks, keep chanting: 'Death to America.'

We knew very well that the desire to sign an agreement was stronger than anything, and therefore we did not commit to preventing an agreement.

We did commit to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and this commitment still stands.

I say to all the leaders in Israel, it is time to put petty politics aside and unite behind this most fateful issue to the future and security of the State of Israel."

COMMENT:  Whether you like Bibi or not, and there are positives and negatives, he always gets the fundamentals right.  He does not run from the truth.  I suspect that many Republican leaders will come to that same conclusion.  The issue is what the Democratic leaders in Congress will do.

July 14, 2015       Permalink

AGREEMENT REACHED – AT 8:56 A.M. ET:  The big news this morning is that the "world powers" have reached agreement with Iran on a nuclear deal.  I watched President Obama deliver a speech at 7a.m. ET describing the deal to the American people. 

It was typical Obama.  Smooth, slick, semi-eloquent, and probably deceptive.  There were no details on the deal itself, simply the claims, absurd, that the agreement met every one of America's standards.  We already know that it doesn't.  He thanked both parties in Congress for the sanctions that pressured Iran into the deal, never noting that he had opposed those sanctions.  He claimed that the deal will prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, but even he had to admit that the deal has time limits.  At the end, after all the "statesmanlike" talk, he threatened to veto any Congressional action against the pact.  Nice guy.

At this writing we still don't have a text to examine.  The Devil most definitely will be in the details, and there'll be plenty of Devil.   We do know, for example, that the "inspections" provisions are a farce.  International inspectors would have to request permission to visit sites, and Iran would have 14 days to respond to the requests.  Not to inspect, but to respond to requests to inspect.  By the time any inspections took place, sites could easily be sanitized.

The deal is being "welcomed" by the usual suspects.  Most enthusiastic seem to be the Iranians themselves, who don't seem worried about it.  Next come the Germany business interests.  Germany has played a double game in the negotiations.  Its businessmen can't wait to export to Iran again.  Like the Germans of another era, they see nothing.  Nuclear weapons?  Where?

It's because of the commercial pressure that Obama's guarantee that sanctions could be put back in place if Iran cheats is so absurd.  No one will agree.  No one will sacrifice profits and jobs.  This deal is permanent.  There will be no "snap back" of sanctions.

July 14,  2015     Permalink