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 23,  2015

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:53 P.M. ET: 

NUTS – From the Connecticut Post:   Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson are history in Connecticut.  Under pressure from the NAACP, the state Democratic Party will scrub the names of the two presidents from its annual fundraising dinner because of their ties to slavery.  Party leaders voted unanimously Wednesday night in Hartford to rename the Jefferson Jackson Bailey dinner in the aftermath of last month’s fatal shooting of nine worshipers at a historic black church in Charleston, S.C.  The decision is believed to be unprecedented and could prompt Democrats in other states with similarly named events to follow suit.  How childish and silly.  Neither Jefferson nor Jackson were perfect, but they lived 200 years ago, and to judge them by today's standards is absurd.  Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom.  He was father to many of the ideals that the NAACP presumably holds dear.  It's time for black organizations to stop engaging in symbolism and start dealing with the real problems that are destroying the dreams of black America.

CHILLING – From Fox:   Donald Trump made a splashy visit Thursday to the U.S.-Mexico border in a bid to draw attention to illegal immigration. But on the sidelines, he was making news for other reasons -- his threat to mount an independent run for the White House if the Republican Party won't welcome him.  The warning, made in an interview with The Hill, comes as Trump faces some of the toughest criticism yet from fellow Republican candidates. Trump said the Republican National Committee "has not been supportive," and suggested if he does not clinch the nomination and is not "treated" well by Republicans, he'd consider an independent bid.  This is utterly frightening.  Frank Luntz makes the point, which I think is accurate, that a Republican candidate for president cannot possibly win if there is a strong, conservative candidate running as an independent.  That's what we'd have if Trump runs his own campaign, which he can privately finance.  This must be prevented at all costs.

ABOUT TIME – From the Daily Signal:   Representatives from Coca-Cola, Ford Motor Co. and Xerox say they’ve asked Planned Parenthood to remove their names as corporate donors to the embattled organization.  The move follows a Daily Signal report revealing the names of 41 companies that Planned Parenthood listed as donors. That list, which was featured on Planned Parenthood’s website, has since been removed.  This latest development comes in the wake of two undercover videos that showed Planned Parenthood executives talking about the sale of fetal body parts. Planned Parenthood is facing both federal and state investigations—and the possibility of losing taxpayer funding.  It's about time that Planned Parenthood was called to account.  The alleged selling of fetal parts is the exact opposite of "planned parenthood."  It rejects and shows contempt for parenthood.  The organization should not be receiving public funds unless it makes substantial reforms.  Even then there's plenty of room for doubt.

July 23, 2015       Permalink

THUMP – AT 11:47 A.M. ET:  The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has opened hearings on the Iran agreement.  Chairman Bob Corker, who's become highly respected in his position, wasted no time in being kind.  From Fox:

A top Senate Republican accused the Obama administration on Thursday of cutting a deal with Iran that paves its path to a nuclear weapon, telling Secretary of State John Kerry: "You've been fleeced."

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker tore into the nuclear agreement at the start of a hearing before his committee, where Kerry and other top officials were testifying. He said he walked away from a briefing with the secretary a day earlier "depressed," and claimed Iran could eventually build a bomb by simply waiting out the clock and "abiding by this agreement."

"From my perspective, Mr. Secretary, I'm sorry ... I believe you've been fleeced," Corker said.

Kerry, though, vigorously defended the agreement, calling it "fantasy, plain and simple," to think the United States failed to hold out for a better deal at the bargaining table.

"Let me underscore, the alternative to the deal we've reached isn't what we're seeing ads for on TV," he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the first public hearing on the controversial deal to lift economic and other sanctions in exchange for concessions of the Islamic state's nuclear program.

"It isn't a better deal, some sort of unicorn arrangement involving Iran's complete capitulation," Kerry said.

Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz also said the deal is not "built on trust."

The hearing comes as lawmakers raise new concerns about alleged secret "side deals" struck with Tehran over its nuclear program.

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., first brought attention to them Tuesday, saying they learned from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that there were two "side deals" between Iran and the IAEA.

COMMENT:  Please note that no one in Congress, to the best of my knowledge, is championing this agreement, although Nancy Pelosi has said she'd strongly support it.  You don't hear any major figure rushing to CNN to say how wonderful the agreement is. 

Oh, wait, there is one person who said that – Katrina Vanden Heuvel, editor of the hard-left Nation magazine.  If she's for the deal, all grown-ups should be against it. 

July 23, 2015       Permalink

FBI TERROR WARNING – AT 10:21 A.M. ET:  ISIS is now judged to be more dangerous than Al Qaeda.  From Fox:   

The Islamic State terror group’s effort to inspire troubled Americans to extremism is a greater threat to the U.S. than an external attack from Al Qaeda, the FBI director said Wednesday.

FBI Director James Comey told an audience at the Aspen Security Forum that the group, commonly known as ISIS, has influenced a significant number of Americans through a year-long campaign on social media urging Muslims who can’t travel to the Middle East to “kill where you are.”

Twitter handles affiliated with the group have more than 21,000 English-language followers worldwide, Comey said, adding that thousands of those could be U.S. residents.

The FBI has arrested a significant number of people over the last handful of weeks who had been radicalized, Comey said. He also repeated his previous disclosure, without elaborating, that several people were arrested who were planning attacks related to the July Fourth holiday.

Comey said it was too soon to say how Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, the Chattanooga gunman who killed five U.S. troops last week, became radicalized.

Abdulazeez's relatives have said he had a history of drug use and depression. Comey noted that "the people the Islamic State is trying to reach are people that Al Qaeda would never use as an operative, because they are often unstable, troubled drug users."

Asked if the threat from the Islamic State group had eclipsed that of Al Qaeda, the rival organization that attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001, Comey said, "Yes."

COMMENT:   ISIS has yet to pull off a major event in the United States, but the law of averages is with the group.  In addition, it's proved to be intelligent and resourceful. 

One question is how ISIS will see the 2016 American presidential campaign.  Its leaders certainly know that a major attack can influence the vote.  Will they try to use their influence?  Which way?  They may not be thinking the way we believe them to be thinking.

July 23, 2015       Permalink

HOUSE SPEAKER TO OPPOSE IRAN DEAL – AT 9:53 A.M. ET:  No doubt where Speaker Boehner stands on the Iran agreement.  He is opposed, and his opposition signals that his party will fight hard to sink the deal.  From Fox:

House Speaker John Boehner vowed Wednesday to do "everything possible" to stop the newly struck Iran nuclear deal, as Congress formally begins consideration of the hard-fought pact.

The warning comes just days after the U.N. Security Council endorsed the deal, over the objections of many in Congress. Republicans, and some Democrats, had wanted the administration to wait until Congress reviews it before seeking approval from the United Nations.

Congress nevertheless will have its say. Fox News has learned the administration formally sent the deal to Capitol Hill on Sunday -- this starts a 60-day clock for lawmakers to consider it, and then vote to approve or disapprove it or take no action.

The White House has launched an aggressive campaign in recent days, trying to sway wavering Democrats while publicly ripping Republicans for opposing the deal.

In an appearance on "The Daily Show" Tuesday, Obama portrayed the controversial deal as the best compromise the government could achieve. In a jab at the George W. Bush administration, he joked that his critics think if only former Vice President Dick Cheney had been on the U.S. negotiating team, "then everything would be fine."

COMMENT:  Forget Obama's sarcasm.  Reports from Washington say that the administration is genuinely worried about Congressional reaction, not that it has done anything to ease Congressional concerns.  Going to the UN before submitting the agreement to Congress was not a wise step.

As things now stand, it's a good bet that both houses of Congress will vote down the deal.  That judgment, of course, can change in the 60 days of Congressional examination. 

Obama will veto a negative bill of rejection, and the question will be whether the veto can be overridden.  Former Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut said a few days ago that he believes the votes are almost there to override.  He's the first prominent person I've heard who's said that.  I have no idea whether it's accurate.  I think some Democrats who are on the fence will be guided by public-opinion polls, which are currently against the agreement.  And the polls that count will be ones taken in their home states or districts.  Self-preservation is the key in politics, especially as we approach an election year.

July 23, 2015       Permalink

OUTRAGEOUS – AT 9:25 A.M. ET:  The more we hear about the Iran deal, the worse it gets.  But this bit takes the prize for cynicism.  From the Washington Times: 

“If Iran violates the deal, all of these sanctions will snap back into place,” President Obama said in his White House statement on the nuclear agreement. He added, “we’ve built in a snap-back provision so we don’t have to go through lengthy negotiations at the U.N. to put the sanctions right back in place.”

But any inspections at Iranian military facilities to which Iran objects, and the “snap-back” re-imposition of United Nations sanctions would require the United States government to win the unanimous support of Germany, the United Kingdom, France, and the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy—ALL of them. This would be necessary to have the five votes required under the agreement’s Dispute Resolution Mechanism to override objections from Iran, Russia, and China. (See Articles 36-37 and Annex I Article 78). And, under the Treaty of Lisbon rules controlling the EU’s “Common Foreign and Security Policy,” key decisions on the CFSP require unanimous approval by ALL 28 MEMBERS of the European Union.

It may be true that “No one country could block a snap-back of sanctions,” as Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz said, but no one country—not even the United States—could re-impose them either unless all of Europe went along.

COMMENT:  There will be no re-imposition of sanctions.  The sanctions regime is dead.  Europe, especially Germany, will have substantial commerce with Iran, and will not give it up. 

We have lost substantially in every way in our negotiations with Iran.  Americans in decades to come will likely pay a price.  But why should Obama care?  He's a man of the world.

July 23,  2015     Permalink

JULY 22,  2015

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

NEW YORKERS PROTEST – Against the Iran nuclear deal.  From CBS local:   NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — Thousands of demonstrators gathered in Times Square Wednesday evening in protest over the recent landmark nuclear deal with Iran.  As CBS2’s Jessica Schneider reported, some 10 thousand are rallying in solidarity with signs and voices raised against the nuclear deal.  Protest organizers proclaim: “Washington is prepared to give Iran virtually all that it needs to get to the bomb. To release $150 billion to Iran will result in the expansion of worldwide terror.”  The rally was designed to put special pressure on New York Senator Charles Schumer, who's scheduled to take over as Senate minority leader upon the retirement of Harry Reid.  If Schumer is willing to defy a Democratic president and oppose the deal, he could probably bring other Democrats with him.  But it may cost him his new job.  Pro-Obama Democrats would retaliate.

RIDICULOUS – Under the guise of protecting women from sexual assault, many colleges and universities are turning women into children.  From The Fire:  According to Coastal Carolina University, sex is only consensual if both parties are completely sober and if consent is not only present, but also enthusiastic. This is a troubling standard that converts many ordinary, lawful sexual encounters into sexual assault, and it should frighten any student at CCU.  Enthusiastic?  How is this measured?  A very important cause – the fight against sexual assault, is being turned into a punchline by extremists who care little about women, but much more about their positions in "the movement."

COMMON SENSE – From The Daily Signal:  A self-described gay baker named Jesse Bartholomew has come out in defense of Christian bakers who decline to bake cakes for same-sex weddings.  In a video he posted on his Facebook page, he said “they don’t have to bake a cake for you.”  “I bake wedding cakes for a living and I cannot tell you how disgusted I am with my fellow gay and lesbian community, that they would stoop so low to force someone to bake a cake for them who simply doesn’t agree with them,” Bartholomew said.  He speaks common sense.  A belief in traditional marriage is not bigotry, a word thrown around loosely.   Forcing someone to write something, even an inscription on a wedding cake, is a profound step in a free society.  The gay movement would be much better off fighting real bigotry, and not forcing bakers or wedding photographers to participate in a ritual that they cannot religiously accept.

WEIRD MARTY – From Fox:  Republican Party Chairman Reince Priebus ripped Democratic presidential hopeful Martin O’Malley for linking the rise of the Islamic State to climate change.  “Whether it’s the weak Obama-Clinton nuclear deal that paves the way for Iran to obtain an atomic bomb or Martin O’Malley’s absurd claim that climate change is responsible for ISIS, it’s abundantly clear no one in the Democratic Party has the foreign policy vision to keep America safe,” Priebus said in a statement.  The rebuke comes after a recent O’Malley interview with Bloomberg Television. When asked about terrorism, O’Malley said that climate change and a devastating drought were linked to Syria’s instability and ISIS’ rise.  O'Malley has become increasingly irrational.  It's important that we not allow him to do to America what he did to Maryland and Baltimore.

July 22, 2015       Permalink

HUH? – AT 11:08 A.M. ET:  Join me in getting your blood to boil when you read this, the latest action of the Obama regime.  From Fox: 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services on Tuesday said it will no longer require incoming U.S. citizens to pledge that they will "bear arms on behalf of the United States" or "perform noncombatant service" in the Armed Forces as part of the naturalization process.

Those lines are in the Oath of Allegiance that people recite as they become U.S. citizens. But USCIS said people "may" be able to exclude those phrases for reasons related to religion or if they have a conscientious objection.

USCIS said people with certain religious training or with a "deeply held moral or ethical code" may not have to say the phrases as they are naturalized.

The agency said people don't have to belong to a specific church or religion to use this exemption, and may attest to U.S. officials administering the oath that they have these beliefs.

COMMENT:  Sorry.  I don't buy.  Conscientious objection has traditionally been permitted in the United States, but only under strict circumstances.  And many conscientious objectors have volunteered for military service, even at risk of their own lives, if they were exempt from killing.  I respect that. 

But I don't respect exempting new citizens from a pledge of any military service.  Bearing "true faith and allegiance" requires a new citizen to be willing to defend his or her country.  This sounds more like a political gesture to exempt people based on their political beliefs.  Congress should step in and stop this move.

July 22,  2015     Permalink

THE RIGHT APPROACH – AT 10:16 A.M. ET:   Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron puts President Obama to shame in identifying and fighting extremism and terrorism.  He does not hesitate to connect it to radical Islam.  From Britain's Independent: 

The Prime Minister has vowed to tackle the "poison" of extremism in a speech laying down the Government's strategy for the next five years.

Speaking in Birmingham, David Cameron said Britain has to confront a lack of integration in some areas that leaves young people vulnerable to the supposed "glamour" of Isis propaganda.

He said a new Extremist Bill would target radicals influencing people on all sides, including Islamists and the far-right, to stop them being able to "groom young people and brainwash their minds".

And...in Cameron's own words:

"It begins – it must begin – by understanding the threat we face and why we face it. What we are fighting, in Islamist extremism, is an ideology. It is an extreme doctrine.

"And like any extreme doctrine, it is subversive. At its furthest end it seeks to destroy nation-states to invent its own barbaric realm. And it often backs violence to achieve this aim – mostly violence against fellow Muslims – who don’t subscribe to its sick worldview."

I'd love to hear those words from Obama. 

And...

When they say that these are wronged Muslims getting revenge on their Western wrongdoers, let’s remind them: from Kosovo to Somalia, countries like Britain have stepped in to save Muslim people from massacres – it’s groups like ISIL, Al Qaeda and Boko Haram that are the ones murdering Muslims.

Now others might say: it’s because terrorists are driven to their actions by poverty. But that ignores the fact that many of these terrorists have had the full advantages of prosperous families or a Western university education.

COMMENT:  Read the whole thing.  It's worth it.  Cameron understands things that Obama does not...which is why it's imperative that we not only elect a Republican president next year, but also that we eliminate the structure of Obama's foreign- and defense policies.

July 22, 2015        Permalink

AMERICANS REJECT IRAN DEAL – AT 9:28 A.M. ET:   Americans aren't buying the Iran nuclear deal, according to a new Pew Research Center survey: 

More Americans disapprove than approve of the deal struck last week by the U.S., Iran and five other nations to limit Iran’s nuclear program: Among the 79% of Americans who have heard about the agreement, just 38% approve, while 48% disapprove (14% do not offer an opinion).

There is widespread skepticism about aspects of the agreement, particularly the Iranian leadership’s commitment to the terms of the deal: Most of those familiar with the agreement say they have not too much (35%) or no confidence at all (38%) that Iran’s leaders will uphold their side of the agreement. And while there is greater confidence in the U.S. and international agencies’ ability to monitor Iran’s compliance, 54% are not too (33%) or not at all (21%) confident, while a smaller share (45%) express at least a fair amount of confidence in their ability.

Views about the agreement’s effect on U.S.-Iranian relations also are split: Though a plurality (42%) of those who have heard about the deal say there will be little change, about as many think relations between the two nations will worsen (28%) as think they will improve (25%) as a result of the agreement.

COMMENT:  I suspect that approval numbers will drop even further as Congressional hearings expose more of the defects in the agreement.  Obama has been unconvincing, and Iran's continued spewing of anti-American vitriol will not help drive approval numbers up. 

If both houses of Congress vote the agreement down, Obama will veto their action.  Overriding that veto will be a long shot, but even basic Congressional disapproval of the pact, by a simple majority, would be a devastating comment on Obama's foreign policy.

July 22, 2015       Permalink

POLL – DEMS FALTERING – AT 8:58 A.M. ET:  A new poll reveals potential trouble for Democrats in the upcoming presidential election, an election 16 months away.  From Quinnipiac: 

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is behind or on the wrong side of a too-close-to-call result in matchups with three leading Republican contenders, U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in Colorado, Iowa and Virginia, according to a Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll released today.

Perhaps the biggest loser, however, is Donald Trump, who has negative favorability ratings of almost 2-1 in each state, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll finds. The Swing State Poll focuses on key states in the presidential election.

In several matchups in Iowa and Colorado, another Democratic contender, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, runs as well as, or better than Clinton against Rubio, Bush and Walker. Vice President Joseph Biden does not do as well.

Clinton gets markedly negative favorability ratings in each state, 35 - 56 percent in Colorado, 33 - 56 percent in Iowa and 41 - 50 percent in Virginia.

The worst favorability ratings for any Democrat or Republican in the presidential field belong to Trump: 31 - 58 percent in Colorado, 32 - 57 percent in Iowa and 32 - 61 percent in Virginia.

"Hillary Clinton's numbers have dropped among voters in the key swing states of Colorado, Iowa and Virginia. She has lost ground in the horserace and on key questions about her honesty and leadership," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll. "On being a strong leader, a key metric in presidential campaigns, she has dropped four to 10 points depending on the state and she is barely above 50 percent in each of the three states."

"Against three Republicans, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Secretary Clinton trails in six matchups and is on the down side of too-close-to call in three," Brown added.

"That's compared to the April 9 Quinnipiac University poll in which she was clearly ahead in five of the matchups and too-close-to-call in the other four. One other key takeaway is that Vice President Joseph Biden, who is considering a 2016 run, does better than Clinton on honesty and on caring about voter needs, always a key Democratic strong point."

COMMENT:  Hillary is sinking, but who do the Dems have to replace her if she sinks further?  Bernie?  Martin O'Malley?  Al Gore? 

The Democratic Party is actually in terrible shape.  Under Barack Obama it has lost control of both houses of Congress, most governorships, and most state legislatures.  If it loses the presidency next year, it will be in despair.  I can't wait!

July 22,  2015     Permalink