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.

Sunday's Angel's Corner is here.

MAY 16,  2015

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

GREAT MOMENTS IN EDUCATION – From Truth Revolt:  "Board members of California's Oakland Unified School District unanimously voted on Wednesday to cease suspending students for what they call "willful defiance." Those behaviors can include swearing/yelling at teachers, refusing direct orders, texting, and storming out of class, to name a few.  The reason? Concern that too many black students are being suspended for willful defiance."  Great way to solve a behavior problem – just stop punishing the behavior.  Brilliant, really brilliant.

REPORT FROM SOUTH WALES – From College Insurrection:  "Students at Aberystwyth University, the former university of Prince Charles, voted to ban Bibles being automatically placed in their accommodation, ending a tradition going back generations."  The reason given was a lack of multiculturalism in the Bible.  Here the Bible is plainly guilty.  I have read many Bible stories, and not once did I encounter one about a Nebraskan.  And Argentinian gays?  Forget about it.  And with all the mention of music, not a single word about jazz.  Didn't those guys with beards ever hear of Louis Armstrong?  The Bible must be examined by our Department of Education.  I mean, what are we feeding our children?

END OF WORLD NEWS – It's official, reported by the Anchorage Daily Times:  "The Arctic Ocean is warming up and icebergs are growing scarcer in some places, the seals find the water too hot..."  That does it for me.  No more questions.  No more skepticism.  Global warming.  Why, I...wait a second...just a minute.  Uh, yeah, that story is from the Anchorage Daily Times.  Page one, major headline.  But I didn't notice it was from the edition of November 2, 1922.  That's 93 years ago.  Well, maybe they just had a scoop or somethin'.  Look, global warming could be old, like from before Michelle Obama got her law degree.  Sure. that's it.  And there were plenty of people in Model T's causing it!  I think we just broke a story.

May 16, 2015       Permalink

NARROWING THE FIELD – AT 11:30 A.M. ET:  Republicans have a situation that is at once a blessing and a curse.  They have enormous presidential talent available, but too many candidates become a blur, especially during debates.  However, the Republican National Committee, which has been well run in the last few years, is taking on the problem.  From The Politico: 

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. — A broad consensus is beginning to take hold among Republican party officials that the presidential primary debates shouldn’t include any more than a dozen candidates — despite the fact that there might be as many as 19 declared candidates by the time the primary debates start this August.

Though the precise criteria for debate participation ultimately will be decided by the networks staging them — and party leaders continue to insist nothing has been finalized — there is behind-the-scenes agreement here at the Republican National Committee spring meeting that the first debates should be capped at 12 candidates.

“Our goal is to accommodate as many candidates as possible at the beginning,” said Steve Duprey, the New Hampshire committeeman who chairs the RNC’s 2016 debate committee. “I think there’s consensus to cap it between nine and 12. And we may not need more than that, depending on how the contest goes. Each of the media partners may have different criteria and they’re going to evolve.”

COMMENT:  The Republican field in 2012 began with too many candidates, and the first debates were absurd.  You couldn't, as the saying goes, tell the players without a scorecard. 

Narrowing the field – which means excluding some candidates – is obviously a very delicate matter.  How do you determine who goes?  By opinion polls.  By vote of the national committee?  Leaving it up to the organizations that sponsor the debates?

Stay tuned.  The Democratic field is, er, much narrower.  They don't have the problem, or the glory.

May 16, 2015       Permalink

THEN WHY BOTHER? – AT 10:56 A.M. ET:  A major religious figure in Iran has reiterated a key Iranian position, that a nuclear agreement would never include inspection of military sites.  Wouldn't this kill the deal supposedly being negotiated right now?  From Breitbart: 

Iran will never allow Western powers or the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect Tehran’s military sites as part of a final agreement with the P5+1 world powers, Iran’s Ayatollah Mohammad Ali Movahedi Kermani said Friday in an address to Tehran University students.

Kermani has enormous influence in the country as Tehran’s Friday Prayers imam, and is appointed directly by the country’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

He said that the West, and particularly the United States, “are hallucinating” if they think that Iran would allow inspection of its military apparatus, according to Iran’s state-controlled Fars News agency.

Those who wish for Iran to recognize the State of Israel as part of a final agreement should “bury their dreams,” the Ayatollah added.

He told the crowd, “We tell Mr. Amano (IAEA director general), the westerners, and the U.S. that they should bury their dreams of recognition of Israel and also the inclusion to visit Iran’s military sites within the framework of nuclear agreement.”

COMMENT:  Major Iranian figures have made these same points over and over.  They can hardly go back on their statements now.  Yet, we continue to negotiate a final nuclear agreement.

What will this agreement be?  Simply an agreement to "discuss further the issue of inspection"?  I'll bet that's what it comes down to, and that is an outrage.

May 16, 2015       Permalink

SPEAKING OUT – AT 10:34 A.M. ET:  We've occasionally advocated here for retired military officers to speak out more loudly about the security failures of this administration.  Now one has.  From The Washington Times: 

Retired Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis said the U.S. is suffering “strategic atrophy” that will threaten the long-term security of the nation.

The retired general and former Central Command (CENTCOM) commander made the remarks while speaking at the Heritage Foundation, a prominent conservative think tank in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday.

“The perception [among allies] is we’re pulling back,” Gen. Mattis said, the U.S. Naval Institute reported Thursday.

The conversation with Gen. Mattis covered a variety of topics, including Russian President Vladimir Putin’s desire “to break NATO apart,” to China, which “is doing a pretty good job of finding friction points between our allies,” USNI reported.

Gen. Mattis praised the United Arab Emirates and Jordan for aiding the U.S. coalition in its fight against the Islamic State group. He added that he has “no doubt” that any foreign policy missteps can be rectified with the right leadership.

COMMENT:  Devastating.  We know what he means by "the right leadership."   He means a change in presidents.  We get that chance a year from November.  But it's such a long time.

May 16,  2015     Permalink

MAY 15,  2015

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

HUMBLE SERVANTS – From Fox:  "Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton earned more than $25 million combined in speaking fees since January 2014, Fox News confirmed Friday.  Clinton’s presidential campaign reported the income in a personal financial disclosure report filed with the Federal Election Commission. The form also shows that Hillary Clinton earned more than $5 million from her 2014 memoirs, 'Hard Choices.' Each White House candidate is required to disclose a financial report."  Harry Truman went back to Missouri after he left office, put his suitcases in the attic, and never cashed in on the presidency.  Ditto Dwight Eisenhower.  Some people have class, and some don't.

JUST WHAT WE NEED – This will certainly get the country moving again.  From Fox:  "One of the nation’s largest public school systems is preparing to include gender identity to its classroom curriculum, including lessons on sexual fluidity and spectrum – the idea that there’s no such thing as 100 percent boys or 100 percent girls.  Fairfax County Public Schools released a report recommending changes to their family life curriculum for grades 7 through 12.  The changes, which critics call radical gender ideology, will be formally introduced next week."   Fairfax is a Democratic stronghold in northern Virginia, just outside Washington.  This absurdity doesn't surprise me.  Can you just imagine the signs on the locker rooms:  "FOR 82% GUYS"; or "77% GIRLS WELCOME HERE."  We are being degraded as a nation.

UNIQUE COMPLAINT AT HARVARD – From Bloomberg:  "A coalition of more than 60 Asian-American groups filed a federal discrimination complaint against Harvard University, claiming racial bias in undergraduate admissions.  Asian-American students with almost perfect college entrance-exam scores, top 1 percent grade-point averages, academic awards and leadership positions are more likely to be rejected than similar applicants of other races, according to their administrative complaint, filed Friday with the U.S. Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights. Harvard denies any discrimination."  Harvard is making it up.  Of course there's discrimination.  Asian-Americans are the most accomplished students in the country,  and the left doesn't care much for them.  I mean, how dare people of another race succeed?  Why can't they feel oppressed like real people?  What's wrong with them, studying instead of protesting?  Keep 'em out!

May 15, 2015      Permalink 

AND IN THE REAL WORLD – AT 11:22 A.M. ET:  The fight against ISIS is getting more desperate in Syria.  From Fox: 

DAMASCUS, Syria – A Syrian official on Thursday called on the international community to protect the 2,000-year-old ruins of the ancient city of Palmyra, now threatened by advancing Islamic State (ISIS) militants.

Maamoun Abdulkarim, Syria's director-general of antiquities and museums, told The Associated Press by telephone that the U.S.-led coalition, which has been striking the extremists in Syria since September, should expand its raids to hit IS fighters battling government forces at the gates of Palmyra.

"If Daesh enter the city it will be a human catastrophe," he said, using an Arabic acronym for the group. "If Daesh enters the city it will mean destroying the temples, ruins and tombs."

Palmyra is known for its Roman-era ruins, which once attracted thousands of tourists, who came to see its towering colonnades and a temple to the god Baal.

The UNESCO world heritage site in the ancient oasis city is Syria's most famous, and includes other attractions such as a theater, Efqa Spring and the Temple of Baalshamin.

Since Syria's conflict began in March 2011, looters have stolen artifacts from museums and damaged the ruins of Palmyra.

COMMENT:  You may be sure that if ISIS wins in Syria, it will begin to win everywhere else in the Mideast.  As it's often said, in the Mideast it's the strong horse that wins.

We are now the weak horse.  Our main emphasis is reaching a nuclear agreement with Iran to fulfil Barack Obama's dream of reconciliation with the Iranian regime.  Not a dream, really.  Actually a fantasy.

Does Hillary have anything to say about all this?

May 15, 2015      Permalink

HILLARY IN TROUBLE – AT 9:43 A.M. ET:  The signs are not good.  She's sagging in the polls.  Perhaps more important, she's become the object of ridicule and criticism within her own party.  From The Politico: 

Four in 10 Democratic insiders in the early states warn that Hillary Clinton is not spending enough time on the campaign trail, making her vulnerable to possible challenges from the left and dampening the enthusiasm of progressives who are already committed to her.

'The POLITICO Caucus — our weekly bipartisan pulse-taking of the most important activists, operatives and elected officials in Iowa and New Hampshire — also finds Democrats almost evenly divided over whether Clinton needs to take a firmer position on the trade battle that’s gripped Washington this week, but many approve of Bill Clinton’s efforts to be a more silent partner in his wife’s campaign.

Clinton will return to Iowa and New Hampshire next week, amidst an aggressive fundraising swing. Her campaign said Thursday that the events will again be small and relatively private.

But insiders are clamoring for the former secretary of state to do more events that allow more voters to see her in person. There’s a pervasive belief that her campaign stops need to feel more authentic and open in order to fire up the base.

Authentic?  Hillary?  Are we serious?  Hillary could fake childbirth.

“She needs to step it up dramatically,” said a pro-Clinton Iowa Democrat, who — like all 77 respondents — completed the questionnaire anonymously in order to speak candidly.

“We have this need to feel well-loved every four years,” said an uncommitted New Hampshire Democrat. “If other candidates begin to make inroads, Clinton’s absence will be noted.”

Several Democrats said she should headline a rally or give a major speech soon. One key Democrat in Iowa, where she finished third in 2008, explained that “a big open-attendance event would go a long way because it would at least let people actually see her” in person.

COMMENT:  But one does not have the right to see the queen, or gaze upon her.  Hillary appears to feel entitled to the presidency, as if it's an honorary position given after hanging around long enough. 

My own sense, as I've noted before, is that the presidency in 2016 is the Republican Party's to lose.  Of course, the party has been excellent at that, so I'm not placing any bets just yet.

May 15, 2015        Permalink

POLICE TRAGEDY – AT 9:06 A.M. ET:  We have always acknowledged at Urgent Agenda that there are some bad cops, and some bad departments.  There has always been a problem with police corruption, which is why departments have internal-affairs divisions.

But the great majority of police officers are not corrupt, not dishonest, and not violent.  Most officers never draw their weapon once in their careers.  These officers are being unfairly tainted by the radical left and their journalistic allies because of the bad behavior of a few.  And the effect is devastating.  From Fox:

Police throughout the nation say they fear a growing anti-cop sentiment driven by a handful of racially-charged incidents is making their jobs more dangerous on the streets, where the number of officers killed in the line of duty is rising sharply.

High-profile cases involving police and black suspects from Missouri to Baltimore have prompted intense criticism of law enforcement, from not only activists but the media and even the White House, leaving law enforcement officers alienated and angry, say cop advocates. And the protests, rioting and federal investigations come even as the job of keeping Americans safe has become more dangerous.

“Nobody goes into law enforcement wanting to be hated," David Cruickshank, a Connecticut police officer and CEO of the Law Enforcement Research Group, told FoxNews.com. "Most get into this line of work for their love of their community.”

Cruickshank and other law enforcement advocates worry that what they see as an anti-cop climate is killing morale in police departments of every size.

While racially tinged incidents are nothing new, the firestorm that erupted with the shooting of an unarmed black man, Michael Brown, last August in Ferguson, Missouri, has been followed by a grand jury's decision not to indict an NYPD cop in the death of Eric Garner, the death of Freddie Gray while in the custody of Baltimore police and this week's decision by police in Madison, Wis., not to charge a police officer in the March 6 shooting death of an unarmed black youth.

And...

Former NYPD Commissioner Howard Safir believes there is a "war on police," and said the flames are being fanned from the nation's highest office.

“After 20 years of incredible crime reduction accomplished by thousands of dedicated police officers, the public has become complacent now that they are safer," said Safir, who led the nation's largest police department from 1996-2000. "They have let the anti-police pundits and talking heads convince everyone from the president to the attorney general that police are racist and brutal.”

COMMENT:  Safir is right.  The left yearns to return to the 1960s.  "Progressives," in truth, are really regressives.  They love high crime rates, and social chaos, because those things confirm their infantile view of society. 

They also love riots.   They know that, after the riots, their pals will demand more money for "social justice," and will probably get it.  Pockets will be lined, but there'll be no more justice than before.

May 15, 2015       Permalink

BY GEORGE – AT 8:31 A.M. ET:  The George Stephanopoulos story at ABC keeps growing.  It is devastating for ABC News, for he is their chief anchor, presiding over several shows.   It's now been revealed that not only did George not disclose a $50,000 contribution to the Clinton Foundation, a direct conflict-of-interest with his journalistic responsibilities, the actual amount was $75,000.  From WaPo: 

Revelations that George Stephanopoulos made donations to the Clinton Foundation in recent years, while failing to disclose them in relevant news reports, are generating a world of trouble for ABC News and its chief anchor...

...Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a presidential candidate, said that the donations essentially disqualified Stephanopoulos from moderating debates in the 2016 race. “It’s impossible to divorce yourself from that, even if you try. I just think it’s really, really hard because he’s been there, so close to them, that there would be a conflict of interest if he tried to be a moderator of any sort,” said Paul.

Yippee for Rand.  It's about time there were real consequences for journalists who violate basic ethics.  If I were the GOP national chairman, I'd demand that George recuse himself from all political reporting during the 2016 election campaign, and that GOP candidates for president refuse to be interviewed by him. 

Stephanopoulos is listening. He told Politico’s Dylan Byers today that he won’t be moderating a February 2016 Republican presidential debate. “I think I’ve shown that I can moderate debates fairly. That said, I know there have been questions made about moderating debates this year. I want to be sure I don’t deprive viewers of a good debate.”

Those are the words of a wounded talent. Earlier today, ABC News and Stephanopoulos himself apologized for the donations but stood pat on his suitability to cover politics. “We stand behind him,” said an ABC News statement, in part. So why not just steamroll the resistance and insist that the anchor remain the designee to moderate the debate?

Withdrawal from the debate gives the anchor’s longtime critics an opening: If Stephanopoulos is essentially conceding that his donations could well deprive “viewers of a good debate” in February 2016, doesn’t it stand to reason that any other involvement in the coverage would also deprive viewers? Now that he has retreated, how does he advance?

He doesn't.  The deed is done.  Stephanopoulos worked for the Clinton White House.  He should have done handstands to prove that he could overcome his partisan past.  He did not.  His recent interview with the author of "Clinton Cash" was so tough that the author is now demanding that he be re-interviewed. 

Peter Schweizer, author of “Clinton Cash,” sat through a tough interview with Stephanopoulos over his book’s suggestion of overlaps of interest between donors to the Clinton Foundation and State Department business while Hillary Clinton was running the agency, from 2009 to 2013. ““Really quite stunned by this,” Schweizer told Bloomberg in an e-mail. It’s “a massive breach of ethical standards. He fairly noted my four months working as a speech writer for George W. Bush. But he didn’t disclose this?”

COMMENT:  We have two of the three major network news operations involved in scandal.  NBC News is still coping with the Brian Williams's vivid imagination.  It is an opportune moment for the elders of mainstream journalism to have a conversation with themselves, and the public, about standards.  Don't hold your breath.  "We stand by our story" is still the flagship excuse in American journalism.  In European journalism, the situation is even worse.

May 15,  2015     Permalink