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.

JUNE 7,  2014

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:49 P.M. ET: 

FIFTIES STAR GONE – Actress Mona Freeman, who was one of a pool of teenaged movie stars in the 1940s and 1950s, has died at 87.  It's hard to imagine it now, but Hollywood used to have a regular stable of female teenagers (or somewhat older girls playing teenagers), often seen in teen-oriented or family films.  Judy Garland, Natalie Wood, Carol Lynley, Mona Freeman, Deanna Durbin, and, of course Debbie Reynolds, starred in mostly "wholesome" movies of the era.  They don't do much stuff like that today, and the term "teen star" has largely disappeared.

VIRGINIA RACE ON – From AP:  "ROANOAKE, Va. (AP) -- Former presidential adviser and lobbyist Ed Gillespie won the Republican nomination at the state party convention Saturday and will face Democratic Sen. Mark Warner in the general election in November.  Gillespie won the nod at the Virginia Republican Convention in Roanoke to challenge Warner, a former Virginia governor and early favorite in the race. Gillespie is the former Republican National Committee chairman and a former adviser to President George W. Bush and Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign. A onetime aide on Capitol Hill, Gillespie also has made millions as a corporate lobbyist."  Virginia is a purple state, and incumbent Warner is popular.  Uphill for Gillespie, but he knows the political game and we'll be rooting.

LOOKS RIDICULOUS – From Reuters:  "U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry commemorated the 70th anniversary of D-Day at his mother's family estate in the French resort of Saint Briac-sur-Mer on Saturday, paying tribute to the American soldiers who died during the liberation of the town in 1944.  Kerry laid a wreath at a small monument overlooking the village harbor dedicated to three U.S. soldiers who were killed during the battle to liberate the village.  Later in a speech at the town hall, Kerry credited the courage and kindness of the people of Saint Briac, on the north coast of Brittany, for saving his family's heirlooms from the Nazis during the occupation."  Look, I guess there's nothing wrong with this, but for a guy seen as a wealthy, aloof snob, the "French estate" imagery isn't the best, especially on D-Day.

June 7, 2014       Permalink

SICKENING – AT 12:08 P.M. ET:  Only the best for graduates of Gitmo.  From Fox: 

Qatar – On a weekend night you can't escape the roar of race car engines along the coastal roads here in the Qatari capital. It must be a bit of a culture shock for the five Taliban detainees sprung from Guantanamo Bay last week in exchange for the freedom of Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl.

There has been an outcry from critics of the prisoner swap, who worry that these men with blood on their hands are getting off far too easily. Qatar's citizens are the richest in the world, per capita, but only a minority of residents here are actually citizens and the Taliban five are not among them.

We do know their families are coming here to live with the former prisoners in some sort of residential compound.

Sources here say they are likely to live in "5 star villas" along with more than a few of their compatriots who are already living in the Qatari capital at the expense of this gas-rich Emirate.

Qataris have a different relationship with the Taliban than does the U.S.

Afghanistan is not their war. These men and their families are fellow Muslims. And Qatar sees the latest prisoner swap as a humanitarian gesture. That is pretty much all Doha is saying.

The terms of the former Guantanamo prisoners' existence here have not been publicly spelled out either. One source says they won't even be using the phone while here.

They are officially banned from fundraising and political organizing. It is not clear how much that can be monitored. Washington has said it is leaving the monitoring up to Doha. But some here say it is hard to believe the Americans won't be watching them, too.

At least one of the former captives, according to a relative, plans to return to the battlefield after his year of loose house arrest in Qatar is up. Former regional governor and military commander Noorullah Noori is also wanted by the U.N. for war crimes in connection with the massacre of Afghan shi'ites.

COMMENT:  What a wonderful deal we made, right?  If these guys return to battle, and kill Americans, I wonder how Obama, and his pals in the media, will explain it to those Americans' families.  Oh, Obama will be out of office by then, probably speaking out against his own country.  He'll have "moved on," the most revered rite on the political left.

June 7, 2014       Permalink

HILLARY'S STRATEGY – AT 11:18 A.M. ET:   Hillary Clinton is apparently engaged in a delicate balancing act.  She must keep the support of Barack Obama, yet distance herself from policies that may hurt her if she runs for president.  From the Times of Israel: 

In her book “Hard Choices,” a copy of which was purchased by The Associated Press, Clinton describes an administration split during the frantic days of Arab protests in 2011. She includes herself among an old guard of cautious realists such as Vice President Joe Biden, national security adviser Tom Donilon and Defense Secretary Robert Gates at odds with a younger generation of White House aides “swept up in the drama and idealism of the moment.”

“I was concerned that we not be seen as pushing a longtime partner out the door, leaving Egypt, Israel, Jordan and the region to an uncertain, dangerous future,” the former secretary of state recounts.

Clinton says reasons for maintaining close ties with Mubarak remained: the need to isolate Iran, keep the Suez Canal trade route open, protect Israel’s security and combat terrorism in a region where al-Qaeda was plotting new attacks.

For Clinton, highlighting the policy differences she had with Obama, however subtle, may prove crucial if she decides to run for president in 2016. Egypt is a particularly appealing example given the turbulent path it has taken since Mubarak stepped down amid violent street protests more than three years ago.

Since then, a Muslim Brotherhood-led government came to power only to be itself ousted in a military coup, the leader of which recently prevailed in an internationally criticized presidential election.

Clinton says she counseled caution. Obama wasn’t comfortable with the level of violence and some of his advisers were displeased when Clinton spoke publicly about the need for an “orderly transition,” rather than an immediate one, she writes.

When Mubarak, pushed by a Clinton-picked American mediator, former diplomat Frank Wisner, offered some concessions to the protesters, Obama told advisers: “That’s not going to cut it.”

When Wisner then attended a security conference in Europe and as a private citizen spoke favorably about Mubarak playing a future role in Egypt, Obama called Clinton to express his unhappiness with the mixed messages. “That’s a diplomatic way of saying he took me to the woodshed,” she writes.

COMMENT:  I have no way of knowing whether Clinton is sincere in these comments, although it's been widely reported that she's far more hawkish than Obama...one of the reasons for left-wing grumbling about her probable nomination.

The question is how far she can go in distancing herself from an administration in which she played a leading role.  Has she had a talk with Obama about this? 

She may have to appease Obama in some way, such as putting an Obama ally on the ticket with her – someone like Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts. 

The fact is that Clinton has many problems in running for president.  Ask yourself, for example, what she will have to say to the Democratic National Convention in her speech accepting the nomination.  She'd be speaking to a group of leftist activists in the hall, but to a much more moderate audience at home. 

Maybe she'll decide it's not worth it.

June 7, 2014       Permalink

THE COMING END OF EUROPE – AT 10:52 A.M. ET:  There is a new exodus out of the Middle East, and Europe is bearing the brunt.  From Breitbart: 

In the first four months of this year so many illegal immigrants crossed the Mediterranean and entered one of the EU member states that the number is already close to the 2013 total and is likely to rise as summer weather brings calmer seas, officials from the European Union’s border agency Frontex told the New York Times.

The total so far for 2014 is more than the equivalent period in 2011, the year of the Arab Spring, which eventually saw 140,000 make clandestine crossings into Europe. Officials said the number of people attempting the sea crossing from North Africa to Italy rose sharply during January to April, when 42,000 migrants were detected on these routes, with 25,650 of these crossing from Libya, according to a BBC report.

Combined with seven other less busy routes, the total figure for this year is probably now about 60,000.

This follows publication of Frontex’s annual report which showed that illegal border crossings increased sharply in 2013, rising to over 107,000 from 75,000 in 2012, with the greatest number of illegal migrants being Syrians, Eritreans and Afghans.

The number of Syrians detected at the borders of EU member states accounted for almost a quarter of all arrivals in 2013 and at 25,500 was almost three times the 2012 figure.

While Syrians and Egyptians departed for Italy primarily from Egypt in 2013, migrants from the Horn of Africa and West Africa departed mostly from Libya.

According to Frontex, to reach Italy, migrants from the Horn of Africa typically used a perilous route across the Sahara, travelling onward through Libya. In 2013, over 40,000 made this crossing, “38 per cent of all detections of irregular migration at EU level.”

This number will surge even more if Libya’s interior minister, Salah Mazek, carries out a threat he made earlier this month when he said his country could “facilitate” the crossing of the thousands of people waiting in Libya to cross to Europe.

COMMENT:  Europe is gradually becoming Islamicized, although saying that will probably get me labeled as Islamophobic.  But the degree to which Islamic interests will control European politics is growing by the day.  Muslims don't have to have a majority of a country's population to exercise effective control.  They just have to be the balance of power in a national election, and 20% of the vote could easily do that. 

Obama might rejoice, but eventually Europe's interests and ours will diverge, and diverge more.

June 7,  2014     Permalink

JUNE 6,  2014

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:46 P.M. ET: 

GOP MINI-SURGE IN GEORGIA – Georgia is one of three states where Democrats can possibly pick up a Republican U.S. Senate seat.  (The other two are Kentucky and Mississippi.)  The Dems are running Michelle Nunn, daughter of former Senator Sam Nunn, to replace the retiring Republican, Saxby Chambliss.  But now the Republicans, about to make a choice of their Senate candidate, seem to be gaining.  From The Hill:  "Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) has a lead over both his primary and general election opponents in the crowded Georgia Senate race, according to a new poll conducted by SurveyUSA.  Kingston leads businessman David Perdue (R) by 52 percent to 41 percent in the primary runoff, according to the automated poll, and has a 43 percent to 37 percent lead over Democrat Michelle Nunn in the general election. Perdue has a similar lead in the general election."  This seat must be held.

WHAT? – From the Washington Times:  "President Obama was caught on camera chewing gum during the D-Day ceremonies in France as Queen Elizabeth II was welcomed, and Twitter feeds worldwide exploded with criticism.  'Obama and his chewing-gum. Classy' one French user tweeted sarcastically.  'Not very elegant, the Obama attitude in the middle of the ceremony,' another user said, while yet another added, 'Is there anyone who will ask Barack Obama to stop chewing on his gum like a cowboy?'  The words 'shameful' and 'vulgar' were thrown around as social media networks lit up with outrage at Mr. Obama’s display."  It's good to see the outrage.  It's embarrassing to have such a leader.

OH PLEASE – From The New York Times:  "Mayor Bill de Blasio does not think there are enough Democrats in Brooklyn.  So come summer of 2016, he is hoping to import about 35,000 more.  The de Blasio administration on Friday proposed that when the Democratic Party gathers to crown its next presidential nominee, it do so in the mayor’s home borough, a cradle of the resurgent left that has morphed from a symbol of the working class into a gritty, global arbiter of cool."  I'd hate to see my birthplace, home of the one true faith – the Brooklyn Dodgers – sullied by the presence of the new leftist Dems.  However, it could be hilarious.  The libbies would meet in Barclays Center, named for a big, bad international bank.  How appropriate.  And they'd be meeting not far from the old New York Naval Shipyard, where some of America's greatest warships were built, including the Arizona and the Missouri.  We'd have to provide emotional-support counselors.  Oh, by the way, Bill Clinton was nominated in New York (Madison Square Garden) in 1992.  Maybe Hillary wants to get the same charge.

IMPORTANT NUTRITION NEWS – From The Hill:  "A standoff between a left-leaning campaign advertising firm and a popular ice cream maker is ending sweetly, as Revolution Messaging and Ben & Jerry’s announced an 'ice cream reconciliation' on Friday.  The digital marketers at D.C.-based Revolution Messaging launched a campaign bashing the ice cream company after a Ben & Jerry’s truck delivering free scoops of its frozen product as part of a promotional campaign passed over the advertising firm earlier this week and instead paid a visit to the Washington Redskins.  'Ben & Jerry’s ice cream promised to cool down overheated D.C. workers, but instead they spent the day in Maryland, hanging out with the most hated name in the NFL,' an attack ad posted on YouTube and created by Revolution Messaging declared. 'What would the Native Americans think? What will D.C. lobbyists do?' the ad’s narrator asked as dramatic music played."  I'm glad to see our great national nightmare is over.

June 6, 2014       Permalink

ANNIVERSARY – AT 10:58 A.M. ET:  This is the 70th anniversary of D-Day, the invasion of northern France by the Allied nations. 

I don't think Americans fully understand the contribution, and sacrifice, of the World War II generation.  No, not all of it was voluntary.  Americans did what they had to do, some with enthusiasm, some with reluctance, but at least they did it.  Prior to World War II that generation – which Tom Brokaw calls the Greatest Generation – fought its way through the Depression.  Many of the men and women who went to war after Pearl Harbor was attacked in 1941 had already had lives of desperation.  Now they were called upon to risk, and, in many cases, give up those lives. 

After the war they built a remarkable nation, and yet kept it militarily strong, allowing us to win the Cold War without a new world war.  And, contrary to the ranting of some members of their children's generation, which was not quite great, they were not indifferent to the flaws in American society.  We forget that it was the Congressional votes of the Greatest Generation that passed the civil rights laws of the early 60s, which corrected historic wrongs.

Finally, for a generation of limited education, the Greatest Generation had impressive taste in popular culture.  They danced to the music of George Gershwin and Cole Porter, went to movies like "Casablanca" and "Gone With the Wind," helped create the original golden age of television.

In the 1960s the pathetically ignorant campus rebels advised their pals not to trust anyone over 30.  We now realize it was that generation over 30 that had saved the world, saved this country, and made it possible for those kids to enjoy the freedoms they so happily abused.

There are very few of the Greatest Generation left.  I calculated that the youngest World War II veterans are about 86.  It is impossible to think of the country without them.  They cannot be replaced.

June 6, 2014       Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 9:08 A.M. ET:   Walter Russell Mead is one of the best commentators writing today.  Thoughtful.  Practical.  The rare college professor who understands the real world.  I recommend that you read his columns.

He examines what's become of Barack Obama, especially Obama's foreign policy.  From the American Interest: 

The world of June 2014 is not a world the Obama Administration wanted or foresaw. The plan was that six years of no-drama, no-stupid-stuff diplomacy would repair the damage of the Bush years, isolate jihadis in a democratizing Middle East, develop a new relationship with Iran, build a businesslike relationship with Russia, and pacify East Asia. Europe would sleep, the Middle East would cool, and by pivoting to Asia the United States would stabilize the world’s most dynamic economic region and enhance American prestige even as it slashed defense budgets and stepped away from the global front lines. It was a beautiful plan, but it hasn’t worked out.

And...

At this point, none of President Obama’s foreign policy problems can be solved by a teleprompter. The President doesn’t need more speechwriters or better ones. He needs something totally different: He needs some real-world wins. You don’t demonstrate your mastery of world events by making smart speeches about how intelligent your foreign policy is; you demonstrate your mastery of world events by having things go your way.

COMMENT:   Yup.  Mead aces it again.  Read the whole piece.  You can't go wrong.  Obama is in trouble because the nation is in trouble...as a result of his leadership.  And, finally, Americans seem to be catching on.  Even Democrats are distancing themselves from the prisoner exchange fiasco.

But we still have two and a half more years of Obama.  Damage will be done, especially in those areas where he doesn't have to, or won't, consult with Congress.  Maybe we need an easier way to remove a president, or restrain him.

June 6, 2014       Permalink

GOOD JOBS REPORT? – AT 8:46 A.M. ET:   Let the hype begin.  Hard facts to follow.  From The New York Times: 

American employers added 217,000 workers in May, a bit more than the average monthly gain over the last six months and another sign that the economy may finally be gaining momentum after a weak start to the year.

Problem is it takes 150,000 new jobs just to keep up with population growth.  So the net gain was 67,000 jobs, not exactly glittering.

The unemployment rate was flat at 6.3 percent, the Labor Department said Friday morning in its monthly report on hiring and joblessness.

The labor participation rate, which is closely watched by economists and the Federal Reserve as a yardstick for the overall health of the economy, was unchanged at 62.8 percent.

In recent months, the labor participation rate has been hovering at lows not seen since the late 1970s, a sign that increasing numbers of Americans have given up the search for jobs and dropped out of the work force entirely.

COMMENT:  That's correct.  Many Americans have given up.  And the meaning of "new jobs" doesn't become clear until you examine what kind of jobs these are.  In recent months there's been an inordinate growth of jobs in the food sector, which usually means low-paying jobs.  And there's been a disturbing growth in part-time jobs.  Many of the good jobs Americans used to have, especially in manufacturing, have disappeared. 

June 6, 2014       Permalink

PRETTY MUCH EXPECTED – AT 8:24 A.M. ET:  Nuclear talks with Iran were supposed to lead to an agreement by next month.  Doesn't look as if it will happen, but the "why" might be elusive.  From Reuters:

(Reuters) - It is increasingly unlikely that six world powers and Iran will meet their July 20 deadline to negotiate a long-term deal for Tehran to curb its nuclear program in return for an end to economic sanctions, diplomats and analysts say.

In theory, an extension to the high-stakes talks should not be a problem if all sides want it. But President Barack Obama would need to secure the consent of Congress at a time of fraught relations between his administration and lawmakers.

I doubt that.  Even if the law requires it, he'll just violate the law.  He's shown he can get away with it.

Iran, the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China included the July 20 deadline to reach a comprehensive agreement in an interim deal they reached in Geneva on Nov. 24.

The November agreement - under which Iran suspended some sensitive nuclear activities in exchange for limited sanctions relief - allowed for a six-month extension if more time were needed for a final settlement that would end sanctions on Iran and remove the threat of war.

An extension would allow up to half a year more for limited sanctions relief and restraints on Iranian nuclear work as agreed in Geneva. To avoid an open conflict with Congress, Obama would want U.S. lawmakers' approval to extend sanctions relief.

The latest round of talks in Vienna last month ran into difficulties when it became clear that the number of centrifuge enrichment machines Iran wanted to maintain was well beyond what would be acceptable to the West. That disagreement, envoys said, can be measured in tens of thousands of centrifuges.

COMMENT:  Obama will go for the extension for one reason only:  it gets a final agreement beyond this year's midterm elections.  After these elections, Obama's obligations to the Democratic Party end.  I have no doubt that he will make massive concessions to get any kind of deal with Iran, then use the deal to normalize relations with a terrorist state.  I no longer put anything past him. 

Democrats will have to go along.  And Hillary Clinton will be ordered to go along or risk losing Obama's potential support for 2016.  Please remember that they are not friends.

There is no way we're going to get a true, good, enforceable agreement with Iran, for Iran has already indicated it will not give up the guts of its nuclear program.  So Obama will settle for less, knowing that eager business interests in Europe will force European governments, even apprehensive ones, to go along.

June 6,  2014     Permalink