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 30,  2014

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:51 P.M. ET:

NO DIETICIAN IN CHIEF – President Obama said in an interview that Michelle Obama will not be running for public office.  Thus this nation is once again denied what its founders truly yearned for – a nutritionist as chief of state.  We'll survive, but it will be hard.  Pass the fries.

NEW MOUTHPIECE – Eric Shinseki wasn't the only resignation to be announced in Washington today.  White House Press Secretary Jay Carney is resigning, to be replaced by his deputy, with the journalistically correct name of Josh Earnest.  (As opposed to Fred Deceitful, who could have gotten the job.)  I know little about Earnest except that he has a longtime association with Barack Obama as a staff member.

NECESSARY – The White House is adding a crisis-control expert to the counsel's office.  From the Daily Caller:  "Jennifer O’Connor, a former partner at WilmerHale who has helped both the Internal Revenue Service and Department of Health and Human Services navigate legal crises, is slated to join the White House Counsel’s Office Friday, the Legal Times reports.  O’Connor served in the Clinton administration during his first term."  I look forward to better, clearer explanations for the administration's disasters.

REVOLUTION IN SACRAMENTO – From CBS:  "SACRAMENTO (CBS13) — New regulations passed by the Sacramento City Council will require taxi drivers in Sacramento to speak English.  The City Council passed new rules requiring drivers have proof of basic English skills, as well as making sure cars are eight years old or newer and that drivers wear professional clothing. The last requirement is a change from the proposed ordinance that required them to be hygienically clean."  I am not making this up.

May 30, 2014     Permalink

BULLETIN – AT 11:31 A.M. ET:  ERIC SHINSEKI HAS RESIGNED AS SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

THE PANNING CONTINUES – QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 10:54 A.M. ET:   Rarely have I seen a foreign-policy speech by an American president panned as universally as has been Obama's speech earlier this week at West Point.   Superb British commentator Nile Gardiner now weighs in with that typically British zest, and gives us our quote of the day.  From The Hill: 

The president's West Point speech was short on policy but big on grandiose platitudes and self-congratulatory statements that will do nothing to reassure America's allies in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. It was a distinctly lightweight address on issues of tremendous gravity, with a direct impact on U.S. interests. From Tokyo to London, America's partners are looking to Washington for leadership, but getting feel-good Twitter sound bites instead.

Obama came across as the anti-Reagan, a figure content to lead from behind rather than project confident, assertive U.S. leadership — hardly the right signal to send to America's increasingly emboldened enemies and strategic competitors. President Reagan understood the importance of building America's defenses, squaring up to America's foes, and standing with friends and allies. Obama has had every opportunity to learn from Reagan's success, but has sadly chosen instead to pursue a path of American decline and disengagement from the world.

COMMENT:  An absolutely accurate portrayal of foreign policy under Obama.  He's Jimmy Carter all over again.  And, I think, Americans are starting to sense it.  Sadly, Obama still has a base of support on the left that thinks his foreign policy is just fine, in part because the left applauds American decline.  After all, isn't America the real problem?  I'm afraid Obama's views fit very well with those of his base, a base he helped create.

May 30, 2014       Permalink

SHINSEKI FIGHTS BACK – AT 9:28 A.M. ET:  The secretary of veterans affairs has taken action, but has not offered his resignation.  From the Washington Examiner: 

Embattled Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki fought for his job Friday, apologizing to the veterans and the nation for a breach of integrity at the agency and announcing a set of reforms including the firing of senior leaders at the Phoenix medical facility.

Speaking to a friendly audience at the Coalition for Homeless Veterans, he spent most of his speech touting his accomplishments in cutting veterans homelessness by 24 percent during a tough economic time in which homelessness usually surges.

At the end of the remarks, Shinseki said he wanted to address the “elephant in the room.”

After the release of a VA inspectors general report earlier this week, he said the country now knows that the VA has systemic problems with providing care for its veterans.

“That breach of integrity is irresponsible and unacceptable to me,” he said. “Leadership and integrity problems can and must be fixed — and now.”

He then announced the firing of senior leaders at the Phoenix medical facility and the elimination of any VA bonuses for the year. He also called on Congress to pass a bill that would make it easier to fire VA employees.

COMMENT:  Look, Shinseki is personally a fine man with a distinguished military record, including being severely wounded in Vietnam.   A Japanese American, he rose to the post of Army chief of staff. 

But leadership requires full accountability, and in his present position he has clearly been unsuccessful.  Firing the underlings is appropriate, but he must at least offer his resignation.  He must take "full responsibility," to use the military phraseology, and he has not done so.

To say that problems must be fixed now is a bit much for a man who has been on the job five years.  The "now" was then. 

Shinseki is something of a darling of the left, having been the most senior military officer to raise questions about our invasion of Iraq.  He is to be commended for his integrity at risking his career for principle, and his position did probably cost him his job as chief of staff.  But each assignment is different, and just as Truman fired MacArthur over the latter's inappropriate conduct during the Korean War, Obama must now either dismiss Shinseki or at least ask him to retire honorably.  It's sad, but necessary.

UPDATE:  Just in, from CNN:  "President Barack Obama will have a closed-door meeting with Shinseki in the Oval Office at 10:15 this morning. Earlier, Obama said he would have a 'serious conversation' with Shinseki about whether he's the right person to address the crisis. The comment, made during an interview taped Thursday for 'Live! With Kelly and Michael,' was played today on ABC's 'Good Morning America.'"

May 30, 2014       Permalink

HILLARY SPEAKS – AT 9:07 A.M. ET:    We now have a preview of Hillary Clinton's Benghazi defense, which will be presented in her about-to-be-published book.  It is not so much defense as offense, in which she actually defends the use of the now-famous video as an instigating factor in the Benghazi incident.  From The Politico: 

Hillary Clinton offers a detailed account of the deadly attack on the American embassy in Benghazi — and a pointed rebuttal to Republican critics who’ve laced into her over the incident — in a much-anticipated chapter of her forthcoming book, “Hard Choices,” obtained by POLITICO.

“Those who exploit this tragedy over and over as a political tool minimize the sacrifice of those who served our country,” Clinton writes in the gripping chapter, “Benghazi: Under Attack.”

Read that carefully.  That's the language of Bill Clinton.

Casting doubt on the motivations of congressional Republicans who have continued to investigate the attacks, including with an upcoming House select committee, Clinton continues: “I will not be a part of a political slugfest on the backs of dead Americans. It’s just plain wrong, and it’s unworthy of our great country. Those who insist on politicizing the tragedy will have to do so without me.”

The arrogance is breathtaking.  "I will not be a part of..."  Someone should remind the secretary that she served at our pleasure, and that questioning her actions and judgment is part of the democratic political process.  It's not up to her to decide whether to participate. 

The 34-page chapter is Clinton’s most complete account to date of the attack and its aftermath. Her tone is less defensive than defiant: Clinton takes responsibility for the “horror” of the loss of life in Benghazi, but puts it in the context of “the heartbreaking human stakes of every decision we make” — and she accuses adversaries of manipulating a tragedy for partisan gain.

She'll get plenty of support from her amen corner in the American media, but I'm not so sure this defiance will fly.  In fact, her timing isn't very good.  The House, under the brilliant Trey Gowdy, is about to investigate Benghazi.  If facts turn up that contradict Clinton's claims in her book, the book can easily become the butt of jokes.

But the book will be widely publicized, and many of the "interviews" with Clinton will be butterballs.  I can't wait for Diane Sawyer to ask the softies.  Our side must respond with thoughtful replies, and with facts.  The facts are not on Clinton's side.

May 30, 2014        Permalink

RUSSIAN MOVEMENT? – AT 8:24 A.M. ET:  There are reports of some Russian troop movements away from Russia's border with Ukraine, but I'd be awfully careful about this.  From Fox: 

U.S. defense officials say that Russia has pulled a large number of forces away from the Ukraine border, a withdrawal that the U.S. has been demanding for weeks and a move that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel called "promising."

Although defense officials were not authorized to speak about the precise numbers, a senior defense official traveling with Defense Secretary Hagel told The Washington Post that approximately seven Russian battalions remain of those that were deployed to the east and south of Ukraine, amounting to a couple of thousand troops.

U.S. officials had previously estimated as many as 40,000 Russian forces had been aligned along the border with a restive eastern Ukraine that has been wracked with violence between government security forces and pro-Russian separatists.

Hagel didn't provide any details to reporters traveling with him en route to an Asian defense conference in Singapore at the start of a 12-day overseas trip which will include a meeting with NATO defense ministers in Brussels next week. However, he called the withdrawal promising.

"They are not where they need to be and won't be until all of their troops that they positioned along that border a couple of months ago are gone," Hagel told The Associated Press.

"We do know that thousands of Russian troops have been pulled back and are moving away. But we also know that there are still thousands of Russian troops still there that have not yet moved," Hagel said.

COMMENT:  Whatever Putin does will be done in Russia's and his own interest, not ours.  Unless there's a full withdrawal, this initial step is meaningless

Ukraine now has a new president, described as pro-Western.  Putin knows that, for the sake of appearances, he has to "negotiate" with this new guy, at least for a time.   But in terms of power, Putin holds the cards.  Watch him chip away at the eastern provinces of Ukraine, and bring them into the Russian orbit.  Who's resisting him?

May 30,  2014     Permalink 

MAY 29,  2014

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:56 P.M. ET: 

FOX GETS HILLARY – Smart move on Hillary's part.  From deadline.com:  "Fox News Channel said today that Bret Baier and Greta Van Susteren will conduct a joint half-hour interview with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on June 17, spanning the two anchors’ respective programs. It will begin on Special Report at about 6:45 PM ET and continue during On The Record until 7:15 PM. The interview will cover an array of topics, including the 2016 presidential election, the 2012 attacks in Benghazi and Clinton’s new book, Hard Choices. Van Susteren most recently interviewed Clinton in January 2013."  Showing she's 1) not afraid of Fox and 2) that she won't kowtow to leftist demands that Fox be boycotted, Clinton is making a shrewd move and reaching cable's largest news audience.

OH, NOW WE KNOW – Publicity hound lawyer Gloria Allred has announced her verdict in the Santa Barbara murders.  From Mediaite:  "The jealous and chauvinistic Rodger wrote in his marathon, rambling manifesto that he was moved to kill his six victims, two of whom were women, because he felt rejected by the many women he had approached over the years. Oddly, some feminist activists are adopting Rodger’s own rationale for mass murder and have begun to label even the killer a victim of sorts.  In The Washington Post on Monday, columnist Ann Hornaday blamed misogynistic culture in television and movies (specifically, Judd Apatow comedies) for setting Rodger on a murderous path. The famous feminist attorney Gloria Allred echoed this theme on Tuesday in an appearance on MSNBC. She agreed that male chauvinism is clinically defined 'mental illness,' and that those who suffer from it are themselves victims as much as are those upon whom they inflict abuse."  Well, I guess that settles that.  No more discussion needed.  Gloria has spoken.  I wonder if she ever met the killer.  I am appalled at this pseudo-psychiatry, done from a distance.  Maybe Al Gore will blame the killings on global warming.

OH, THIS IS JUICY – It's been noted that President Obama got a chilly reception at West Point yesterday.  IJReview.com dug up a video of President George W. Bush's last appearance as president at West Point so reader/viewers can compare them.  It's here.  The difference is stark.  You gotta see it.

BAD TASTE AWARD – The new 9/11 museum at Ground Zero in New York is getting decidely mixed reviews.  There are, reportedly, some pretty good exhibits, but a combination of exorbitant entry fees, inflated salaries for executives, and some examples of  truly bad taste, have marred the image.  From ABC:  "The National September 11 Memorial Museum has pulled its controversial commemorative cheese platter from its shelves after an outcry at the museum’s opening.  The USA-shaped platter featured hearts over New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania, where the planes crashed on 9/11. The item was first reported by Gothamist a week ago and was met with resounding criticism.  The museum opened last week to mixed reactions from the public, many of whom praised the actual museum while criticizing the gift shop and restaurant that were built on the land once known as 'Ground Zero.'  Many likened it to having a gift shop at a cemetery, noting the many individuals who perished there."  New York, which has lost much of the style it used to have, does it again.

May 29, 2014       Permalink

SHOOTING AFTERMATH – AT 9:56 A.M. ET:  In the aftermath of the Santa Barbara knifings and shootings – by a deranged individual – the legislators are at it again, trying to "prevent" the next atrocity, while focusing only on guns.  I guess knives are okay.

As I've said here before, I'm a gun owner, but have no problem with Constitutional, thoughtful measures that can reduce the chances of these mass events.  California, where that latest incident occurred, is struggling with answers.  There is now a new, controversial proposal being examined.  From The New York Times: 

LOS ANGELES — Just days after a 22-year-old killed six college students and himself near the campus of the University of California, Santa Barbara, state lawmakers are championing legislation that would permit law enforcement officials and private individuals to seek a restraining order from a judge that would keep people with a potential propensity for violence from buying or owning a gun. The process would be similar to the one currently used for restraining orders in cases of domestic violence.

Notice no mention of knives.  The killer murdered three of his victims with a knife.

The legislation is being introduced this week in response to the attack on Friday by Elliot O. Rodger, who was able to buy three guns and go on a rampage despite warnings from his family and mental health professionals that he was unstable and possibly dangerous. It is unclear, however, if the measures contained in the bills could have prevented his actions if they had been law.

Although mass shootings have not translated into stricter gun control laws nationally, they have prompted changes on the state level — largely limiting access to guns, but in some cases loosening existing laws, which gun advocates say give people more leeway to arm themselves against criminals. After a mass shooting at a school in Newtown, Conn., Connecticut and New York passed bans on assault rifles and created stricter background checks.

But California, which already has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, could go even further. The legislation, known as a gun violence restraining order, would allow people to notify courts or law enforcement officials if they are concerned that a family member or friend is at risk of committing violence. Gun control advocates have recently started pushing for such restraining orders in statehouses across the nation, expanding on similar laws that have passed in Connecticut, Indiana and Texas.

COMMENT:  Obviously, there are civil-liberties issues here, but it's a proposal worthy of examination.  The fact that similar laws have been passed in Indiana and Texas is noteworthy.  Those are conservative states.

At least the proposed legislation addresses mental-health issues, which are critical to the discussion.  We'll follow the debate in the California legislature.  California can be flaky and trendy, but there appears to be some mature discussion going on.

May 29, 2014       Permalink

WARNING FROM THE NORTH – AT 9:16 A.M. ET:   Under Steve Harper, Canada has emerged as a more stalwart defender of Western values, and Western lives, than America under Obama.  Now comes a warning from the north about the Muslim Brotherhood, toward which Obama has been unduly sympathetic.  From CBC: 

The Canadian government should consider investigating the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood, which has entrenched itself in North America and represents a greater systemic threat than al-Qaeda, according to a newly released report on the group.

“The aim of the group in North America is to weaken and destroy the free and open societies within Canada and the U.S.A. from within and replace them with the heavily politicized views of [founder] Hassan Banna, Sayyid Qutb and the Muslim Brotherhood,” according to the report, entitled The Muslim Brotherhood in North America (Canada/U.S.).

The report, written by Tom Quiggin, a court expert on terrorism and member of the Terrorism and Security Experts of Canada Network, raises concerns about the Brotherhood’s alleged ties to Canadian organizations, some which have either been accused of being terrorist organizations or alleged to have links to extremist groups.

Based in Egypt, the Brotherhood, which maintains it rejects violence, was labelled a terrorist organization by the interim Egyptian government last December, months after a military coup toppled the democratically elected president Mohammed Morsi. Egypt has also been cracking down on members of the organization, and an Egyptian court recently sentenced to death the group’s leader and 682 supporters.

This year, British Prime Minister David Cameron announced he had ordered an inquiry into the group’s activities in the U.K.

COMMENT:  If such an investigation were urged in the current United States, faculties and editorial writers around the nation would erupt with cries of "Islamophobia."  We have become a nation that refuses to name its enemies.  I hope the probe is started in Canada.  I have no doubt it will be very revealing.

May 29, 2014       Permalink

OBAMA AT WEST POINT – AT 8:58 A.M. ET:  By most accounts, Obama's speech at West Point yesterday was a letdown, poorly reasoned, and unimpressive.  Are we surprised?  Charles Krauthammer, astute as usual, examines.  From Fox: 

Charles Krauthammer said Wednesday on “Special Report with Bret Baier” that President Obama’s attempt to lay out his foreign policy vision during his commencement address at West Point was “literally pointless. It didn't have a point, it was a defensive speech.”

One day after he declared that all U.S. troops will be out of Afghanistan by 2016, Obama told the graduating cadets that "the landscape has changed" with the end of the war in Iraq. The president said that Wednesday’s graduating class would be the first class in nearly a decade that likely will not be deployed to a war zone.

“(While) I was worried about critics who think military intervention is the only way for America to avoid looking weak," he said, "just because we have the best hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail."

Krauthammer, a syndicated columnist and Fox News contributor, said the president’s speech was misguided.

“It was an answer to the chorus of criticism, even from his side of the aisle, that it's been a weak, leaderless, rudderless foreign policy, which it has been," he said. "I spoke to a member of Congress who was in the armed forces and he said there was a real pettiness and a personalization of this."

“This is a graduation speech for West Point," he said. "It was not a place where you -- you know, you want to be inspiring the future officers of America, it isn't a place to answer your critics or to go point by point against all the attacks on him. And he set out this ridiculous contrast between extreme isolationism on the one hand, and extreme, almost a caricature of intervention, on the other hand.”

COMMENT:  The rule:  Every speech by Obama is about Obama.  He is a perpetual campaigner, who takes a bit of time every now and then to govern.  When he governs, he gets it wrong.

We reported last night that the president got an icy reception at West Point.  No surprise.  Rather gratifying.  There are still Americans who know how to defend their country.

May 29, 2014       Permalink

HILLARY? – AT 8:47 A.M. ET:  She is now the subject of rising political speculation...and conversation.  It gets serious.  What are her real chances in 2016?  Karl Rove, always controversial, provides a stark piece of handicapping in The Wall Street Journal:

The factors that made Mrs. Clinton vulnerable in her first bid still exist, and there are new ones. For starters, inevitability is often perceived as entitlement. Voters don't like being told someone is owed their support. This gave Barack Obama—an asterisk in most 2006-07 polls—his opening.

Voters also prefer new ideas and fresh vision, not just a trip down memory lane. Mrs. Clinton sounds like she's offering nostalgia as a platform by emphasizing how good things were after her husband was elected 22 years ago. Already, 40% in a March 2 Pew Poll said they do not believe Mrs. Clinton has "new ideas."

Her record will also be a problem. In a March 2 Pew Research Center/USA Today poll, 67% said they approved of Mrs. Clinton's job as secretary of state—but in an April 27 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll only 38% said they approved of Mr. Obama's handling of foreign affairs. The more Mrs. Clinton makes her time as secretary of state a central element of her appeal, the more scrutiny it will draw and the more likely Mr. Obama's poor standing will pull hers down.

Mrs. Clinton may understand this as she appears to be distancing herself from the president. For example, she told the American Jewish Committee last Wednesday that when she left office "we were positioned to really explore whether we had set the table well enough to see changes" in "Iran's behavior." In other words, she set things up. If things go bad, it's someone else's fault.

I'm skeptical that will work. Every week it becomes more obvious that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama's international record consists of debacles, disasters and missteps, including the failed "reset" with Russia, the imaginary "red line" in Syria, Benghazi, the failure to stop the Iranian nuclear program, al Qaeda's resurgence outside of Afghanistan, strained relations with allies, and declining confidence in American leadership. This sorry record all occurred on Mrs. Clinton's watch. She owns it.

COMMENT:  Well said, and all true, but no complete analysis will be possible until we know the name of the probable, or actual, GOP nominee. 

May 29,  2014     Permalink