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.

MAY 16,  2014

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:45 P.M. ET:

ANOTHER BRILLIANT DECISION – From Breitbart:  "The Los Angeles NAACP chapter that withdrew its lifetime achievement award to embattled Clippers owner Donald Sterling last month honored Al Sharpton with its 'Person of the Year' award on Thursday evening, in Sterling's absence.  Sharpton took a dig at Sterling in his acceptance speech, according to Frank Stoltze of Southern California Public Radio. 'Sterling may be rich but he’s not as rich as the history of this organization,' Sharpton told guests at the gala dinner.  I guess some bigots are a little more acceptable than other bigots.

MAJOR EDUCATIONAL NEWS – The complex issue of chocolate milk is now at the fore.  From Fox: "A ban on chocolate milk may be too much for the governor of Connecticut to stomach.  The state General Assembly earlier this week approved nutrition legislation that threatened to remove chocolate milk from public schools. But, drawing a line in the sand in the nanny-state debate, Democratic Gov. Dannel Malloy announced Friday that on the matter of lactose legislation -- he is intolerant.   'This specific bill has not yet come to the Governor’s desk and will be reviewed in detail when it arrives,' Malloy spokesman Andrew Doba said in a statement.  'However, on the broader topic at hand, the governor is not supportive of banning chocolate milk in public schools. While we must be extremely mindful of the nutritional value of what’s offered to students, ensuring an appropriate array of options helps to ensure that kids received the calcium and other nutrients they need.'"  Finally chocolate milk has its MacArthur.  We are saved.

NOT THAT HOT – From Reuters:  "Most Americans have a favorable view of former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and think she will win the 2016 presidential election, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Thursday.  Fifty-seven percent of Americans who were aware of Clinton hold a favorable opinion of her, compared to 43 percent who see her negatively, according to the online survey. Nearly one-quarter of Republicans said they had a favorable view of Clinton, a Democrat."  Frankly, for a woman who's been a national figure for as long as FDR was when he died, those aren't great numbers.  She was polling in the 60s not long ago.  If she slips another five points to, say, 52%, the party elders will start to worry.  And candidates almost always slip as soon as they declare their candidacy and the other side opens fire.

May 16,  2014     Permalink

ANTI-GOVERNMENT FERVOR – AT 8:36 A.M. ET:  A new Fox poll dramatically demonstrates the loss of faith in government that has occurred during the Obama administration. 

When it comes to Washington controversies, most American voters think Benghazi, the IRS and the government’s electronic surveillance program are serious matters. A Fox News poll also finds that less than four in 10 voters trust the federal government.

The new poll, released Thursday, finds 37 percent of voters answer “yes” when asked: “would you say you generally trust the federal government?” Six in 10 say they don’t trust the government, down a touch from a high of 62 percent (June 2013 and July 2011).

One thing that is sure to erode trust is a scandal, and 78 percent of voters consider the Obama administration’s handling of the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi a serious matter, including 52 percent who say “very serious.” Just over half (53 percent) see government surveillance of everyday Americans as “very serious” and 44 percent feel that way about the IRS targeting conservative groups.

Partisanship also shapes views on trustworthiness. In 2002, the first time this question was asked on a Fox News poll, 47 percent of Democrats said yes, they trust the government. That increased to 53 percent in February 2009, about a month after President Obama was inaugurated, and it stands at 55 percent in the new poll. The trend is reversed and more dramatic among Republicans: 63 percent trusted the government in 2002, while 32 percent felt that way in 2009 and just 19 percent trust Uncle Sam today.

For independents, trust was 53 percent in 2002, 35 percent in 2009 and 31 percent now.

In all, that’s an increase in trust of eight percentage points among Democrats from the days of the George W. Bush administration, and a decrease of 44 points among Republicans and 22 points among independents.

COMMENT:  If Republicans can't capitalize on this kind of discontent, they don't deserve to be in business.  We'll decide that after November.  Anyone have openings for used Republicans? 

May 16, 2014      Permalink

SABATO PREDICTS – AT 8:27 A.M. ET:   University of Virginia political analyst Larry Sabato believes the Dems are in bad shape for November.  I'll believe it when I see the election results, but from his mouth to you know whose ears.  From The Politico: 

Last week, Republican primary voters passed their first Senate test, producing a North Carolina nominee, Thom Tillis, who is merely imperfect, not catastrophic. After the disasters of recent years, national Republicans will happily take it.

The North Carolina result did nothing to change the expectation among most observers that the Republicans have a 50-50 or better shot at taking the Senate majority. It might even have enhanced those odds. The conventional wisdom is reasonable: We know that the president is unpopular, the president’s party typically performs poorly in midterms and the Democrats are overextended on this year’s Senate map. One of the ways the Republicans could hurt their chances is by running bad candidates in some of these races. Tillis might turn out to be that kind of candidate, but he was clearly the most credible nominee in the primary field.

So where is the Senate right now? Hypothetically, there’s still a wide range of potential outcomes – and all the likeliest ones involve at least some kind of Republican wave, perhaps delivering the magic six-seat gain that would dethrone Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Let’s adopt a mariner’s, or a meteorologist’s, terminology to make sense of the situation. Democrats hope for no wave at all: Something akin to “beach week,” the post-finals getaway that some of my University of Virginia students are celebrating this very instant on the Atlantic seaboard. Beach week for the Democrats, though, is about as likely as the undergrads’ dream of putting off adulthood. More realistically, Democrats can hope for fearsome-sounding waves that crash loudly but do little structural damage. Republicans, on the other hand, are rooting for an impressive tidal wave, if not a full-fledged historic tsunami.

COMMENT:  My own sense is that Republicans will make gains, but that almost all the races will be difficult.  The Dems run a superb ground game – getting their people to the polls.  Even though this is difficult in an off-year election six years into a presidency, the Dems are also superior at scaring their base into believing a Republican victory will mean their children will be taken away from them and sold to Exxon Mobil. 

Overconfidence is the problem this year.

May 16, 2014       Permalink 

UNDERSTANDING THE ENEMY – AT 8:16 A.M. ET:   Our enemies in the world constantly do us the service of reminding us who and what they are.  From the New York Post: 

KHARTOUM, Sudan — A Sudanese woman doctor who married a Christian man and who was convicted earlier this week on charges of “apostasy” was sentenced to death on Thursday, judicial officials said.

According to the Sudanese officials, 26-year-old Meriam Ibrahim, whose father was Muslim, was convicted on Sunday and given four days to repent and escape death. She was sentenced after that grace period expired, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity in line with regulations.

The BBC reported the woman’s death by hanging will not be carried out until two years after the birth of her child.

How kind of them.

The sentencing drew condemnation from Western embassies in the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, and international rights groups, including Amnesty International.

Only Western embassies?  Hmm.

The rights group reported the woman is eight months pregnant.

The court in Khartoum also ordered Ibrahim be given 100 lashes for committing “zena” — an Arabic word for illegitimate sex — for having sexual relations with a non-Muslim man.

The couple married in 2011 and have a child, born 18 months ago. Under Sudanese law, Ibrahim’s marriage to a non-Muslim is regarded as void.

COMMENT:  Haven't heard a word from "feminist" groups.  And, of course, you may be sure that the multiculturalist crowd will be out there labeling any critic of this barbarism as Islamophobic.  That's the game these days.

Oh, where are the college students, the ones who shouted down Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Condi Rice?  I guess they're just too busy fighting American imperialism.

May 16, 2014       Permalink

BILL SABOTAGING HILL? – AT 8:05 A.M. ET:  I've kind of wondered whether Bill Clinton really wants Hillary to be president.  I mean, share the spotlight?  Get the same Oval Office?  Have her own portrait on the wall?  Nah. 

And Bill just said something that may confirm my suspicions.  Of course, our mainstream media was a bit shy about reporting it.  But not London's Daily Mail: 

Former President Bill Clinton divulged on Wednesday that it took former secretary of state Hillary Clinton 'six months of very serious work' last year to recover from a fainting spell in December 2012 that resulted in a concussion and blood clot.

Her long recovery is 'something she never low-balled,' Bill said.

But Bill's timeline contradicts the State Department's claims just after the conclusion of Hillary's treatment in January 2013 that 'she seems to be fully recovered.'

Hillary Clinton took ill at some point the week of December 9, 2012, just as she was supposed to testify before a Congressional committee about the terrorist attack that took four American lives in Benghazi, Libya three months before.

After falling in her home, Clinton incurred a concussion. The State Department did not say what day the accident occurred, but it described her concussion on December 13 as 'not severe.'

COMMENT:  This subject became current again after Karl Rove suggested that Hillary might have suffered brain damage.  Although he walked back the comment, it was one of those "dumb Republican" moments that can hand sympathy and votes to the other side. 

But despite Rove's blunder, Hillary's health is clearly an issue.  If she has an episode between now and the campaign, it could dim her prospects, in part because it would look nervy of her to run – putting herself before the country.

There was a time when we knew little about the health of presidential candidates.  The public was not told in 1960 that Jack Kennedy had Addison's Disease, which could be fatal.  Barack Obama has released little of his medical history.  We know he was born and can walk across a room. 

So we'll wait for Hillary's decision.  The Republicans should be prepared to battle any candidate.

May 16,  2014     Permalink

MAY 15,  2014

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 6:28 P.M. ET: 

MODEL PLANE NEWS – From Fox:  "The 'Mini-Me drone' Iran says it reverse-engineered from an American aircraft is a crude fake, according to a new report, making it just the latest in a long line of the Islamic Republic's phony claims of weapons wizardry.  Iran's state-run Fars News Agency on Sunday trumpeted the news that the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps had made a copy of the Lockheed Martin RQ-170, and had shown off the craft at an aerospace exhibition in Tehran. But defense industry sources told the U.S. Naval Institute the supposedly cloned drone is a fake, and a crude one at that.  'It seems their fiberglass work has improved a lot,' the source said. 'It also seems that if it were a functional copy, versus a detailed replica, it wouldn’t necessarily have the exact same landing gear, tires, etc.,' said one source familiar with the RQ-170.  'They would probably just use whatever extra F-5 parts or general aviation parts they had lying around.'"  Good detective work.  Now I hope that Obama doesn't feel sorry for the Iranians and send them a real drone.

MILITARY FASHION NEWS – From the Washington Times:  "Everything counts when you’re in the line of fire, and now a new U.S. Army helmet could give soldiers a slighter advantage by keeping their heads cooler than the enemy, literally. LiveScience reports that the Army’s Edgewood Chemical Biological Center in Maryland designed the high-tech headgear, which provides chemical and biological protection through a  powered air-purifying respirator.  From the report: 'The helmet consists of a face mask, connected by a hose to a blower unit, and a battery pack that hangs from the soldier’s hip or back'"  You watch:  Hollywood stars will begin wearing it as a fashion statement.

DISGRACE – This administration still won't name our enemy in the war on terror.  This, from PJ Media, on a hearing about terrorism in Africa:  "Ambassador Robert Jackson, principal deputy assistant secretary of state for African affairs, stood in on the panel of witnesses for Assistant Secretary for African Affairs Linda Thomas-Greenfield, who was reportedly traveling. Thomas-Greenfield acknowledged to a House panel last November that while Boko Haram has a 'religious bent to what they do, they are non-discriminating in their attacks on people.'"  Whaa?  Haven't we learned that Islamic terror groups attack Muslims all the time?  They attack anyone who gets in their way.  But, in the logic of the Obama doctrine, a group that attacks Muslims cannot be Muslim.  Also, Boko Harm is hardly non-discriminating.  They usually target specific, Christian groups.

FANATICS – No matter where one stands on abortion, the idea of aborting a baby because it's the wrong sex is abhorrent to any civilized person.  And yet, it's not abhorrent enough to be outlawed in at least one state.  From Breitbart:  "On Tuesday, thirteen Democrats on the California State Assembly Health Committee voted down a bill that would have outlawed the practice of sex selection through abortion.  The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (AB 2336) ran into opposition by all of the Democrats on the committee, who saw the bill as a prelude to broader abortion restrictions, according to a report from LifeNews.com. Instead, Democrats introduced a resolution to condemn sex-selection abortion--but not to outlaw it.  The bill was introduced on May 6th by Assemblywoman Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield), who said in her opening testimony that 'the U.N. estimates that upwards of 200 million girls around the world have been aborted merely because they were "the wrong gender."' She explained that countries like India and China are dominated by a male-child mentality, with mothers preferring future working men and family providers over the 'burden' of baby girls.   'This is the real war on women,' Grove told the committee. 'Girls are being killed simply for being girls and it's happening right here in California and not just Third World Nation.'"  But the fanatics on the left won't give an inch, even if it will save unborn girls.

May 15,  2014     Permalink

SCARY, BUT EXPECTED – AT 10:21 A.M. ET:  What can you expect, with Obama in the White House?  From USA Today: 

The emerging deal with Iran over its nuclear program is unlikely to satisfy members of Congress who seek to end Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon.

U.S. diplomats met Wednesday in Vienna with Iran and other world powers to begin writing the text of a final deal. Though the sides remain far apart on several issues, the Obama administration may allow an Iranian nuclear program that retains the capabilities to produce a weapon.

I think Obama carries a photo of Neville Chamberlain in a locket.

"The Iranians will have some kind of (uranium) enrichment capacity" at the end of negotiations, said Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who has advised the administration on Iran sanctions.

Jofi Joseph, former director for non-proliferation in Obama's national security council, said any deal would increase inspections and monitoring, along with the number of inspectors in Iran and the number of places they can go. "Those would significantly reduce the chance of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon," Joseph said.

The talks are being coordinated by European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton. Her spokesman, Michael Mann, said Wednesday that parties were "getting down to the nitty-gritty." The talks will continue until Friday, the Associated Press reported. An interim agreement reached in November set a target date of July 20 for a deal.

Obama has said repeatedly that an Iranian nuclear bomb is "unacceptable."

Iran, which backs several terrorist organizations in the Middle East, has the world's fourth-largest oil reserves and second-largest natural gas reserves. Yet Iran's leaders say its nuclear program is for power generation and medical and scientific research, a claim the United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency has questioned.

COMMENT:  Iran will get the better part of the bargain...and of course we don't know what part of their nuclear program is actually hidden.

We should be gravely concerned.  Obama wants an agreement, and his sympathies for Muslim regimes are fairly obvious.  Condi Rice was ridiculed when she warned of a mushroom cloud over Atlanta.  We have no reason to laugh.

May 15, 2014       Permalink

WILL THIS GUY SURVIVE? – AT 9:34 A.M. ET:  He may, but he'll probably be on the road to pariahland.  From Fox: 

Public universities in California are barred from using race as a factor in admitting students, but a UCLA professor who once served on its admissions oversight team says he has proof they do it anyway.

While the first round of admissions consideration is handled fairly, African-American students are nearly three times as likely to make it out of the "maybe" pile than equally-qualified white students, and more than twice as likely as Asians, according to Tim Groseclose, a political science professor at the school and author of a new book titled, “Cheating: An Insider's Report on the Use of Race in Admissions at UCLA.”

“UCLA is using racial preferences in admissions,” Groseclose, who made his case using data from 2006-2009, told FoxNews.com.

After a first look results in most applications being either accepted or rejected, a handful of senior university staff sift through those marked for further consideration, according to Groseclose. That’s where the alleged bias happens. He found black applicants were accepted at a 43 percent rate in the second round, while whites were accepted at a 15 percent rate and Asians at an 18 percent rate.

"All of the cheating was done by the senior staff,” Groseclose said.

And race outweighs socioeconomic status, according to Groseclose. For instance, black applicants whose families had incomes exceeding $100,000 were about twice as likely to be accepted in round two as Asian and white kids whose families make just $30,000 and had similar test scores, grades and essays.

COMMENT:  If I were Professor Groseclose I'd watch my back and wear a protective vest.  This is explosive stuff and seems to be based on sound methodology.  What is so sad is the discrimination against Asian Americans.  Indeed, Asian American legislators in California recently revolted against an attempt to put into law some admissions gimmicks that would have the effect of suppressing their numbers in state colleges.   Asian American kids work so hard, and are too often told they must yield their places because of ideological trendiness.

Oh, by the way, why is it that the academic left always resents groups that are successful?  

And when will black leaders finally realize that this kind of artificial fawning and groveling by white leftist academics actually demeans their children and leads to new resentments? 

May 15, 2014      Permalink

DANGER FROM SYRIA – AT 9:05 A.M. ET:  There are a number of stories like this showing up – warnings that what is happening in Syria can produce a terrible by-product in the United States.  From WaPo: 

The chamber of horrors of the Syrian civil war has spawned a terrorist group so extreme that it has been rejected even by al-Qaeda — and this toxic group is now establishing a safe haven in the city of Raqqah in northern Syria that could soon be used to attack foreign targets.

The hyper-militant terrorist group is known in the West as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS. Its efforts to establish a Muslim caliphate that spans the two countries, and to absorb another al-Qaeda offshoot known as the al-Nusra Front, brought a rebuke a year ago from al-Qaeda’s chief, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

And...

In the view of these officials, ISIS could attempt an attack outside the Middle East soon, and several plots have already been disrupted. But analysts believe that the group is focused now mostly on battles within Syria and Iraq.

The group has established a secure haven in Raqqah, a city of about 220,000. Its fighters control the roads in and out. They sell the region’s oil and natural gas resources to finance their operations, supplementing revenues from kidnapping and other criminal activities. U.S. officials believe ISIS is now self-financing and no longer needs donations from wealthy supporters in the Gulf.

And...

A nightmare for U.S. counterterrorism analysts is that these al-Qaeda offshoots could recruit new followers among the millions of desperate Syrian refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Syria itself.

One veteran U.S. official views the terrorist threat coming out of Syria and Iraq as potentially the most worrying development in the Middle East since the late 1970s. The United States may be less focused on the jihadists than it was a decade ago, but they remain very much interested in the United States.

COMMENT:  Look what a handful of terrorists did to us on September 11, 2001.  And these new groups are far more radical. 

I won't blame it all on Obama and Kerry, but their mishandling of the Syrian crisis made the growth of these groups far more likely.  Not too many apologies forthcoming.  What difference does it make?

May 15, 2014       Permalink 

OH THE SHEER GOSSIP OF IT ALL – AT 8:52 A.M. ET:  The beheading of the executive editor of The New York Times has much of the internet ablaze.  One reason is that the Times has been unusually blunt in describing Jill Abramson's departure as a firing rather than a "time to seek new opportunities" thing.   The paper's own reporting on the assassination is filled with slings and arrows.  It's clear Ms. Abramson wasn't Miss Congeniality. 

The New York Times dismissed Jill Abramson as executive editor on Wednesday, replacing her with Dean Baquet, the managing editor, in an abrupt change of leadership.

Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., the publisher of the paper and the chairman of The New York Times Company, told a stunned newsroom that had been quickly assembled that he had made the decision because of “an issue with management in the newsroom.”

Ms. Abramson, 60, had been in the job only since September 2011. But people in the company briefed on the situation described serious tension in her relationship with Mr. Sulzberger, who was concerned about complaints from employees that she was polarizing and mercurial. She had also had clashes with Mr. Baquet.

COMMENT:  Other than that, she was a swell girl, and we wish her well in her forthcoming marriage to the Devil. 

You may be sure of one thing:  Ms. Abramson will receive major book offers in the coming seconds.  You may also be sure she has some kind of agreement with The Times to remain silent on the details.  If there's anything the free press hates it's employees who talk to the press.

May 15,  2014     Permalink