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.

Our Angel's Corner archive is here.

FEBRUARY 8,  2016

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

CREDIT WHERE IT'S DUE – As regular readers know, I am no fan of current popular culture, especially the music scene.  We used to have Kern, Berlin, Gershwin, Rodgers, and Cole Porter.  Now we have "singer songwriters."  We used to have Ella Fitzgerald and Frank Sinatra.  Now we have...I can't recall them, but they dress funny.  And so it was with a great sense of relief, surprise, and delight, that I watched and listened to Lady Gaga's rendition of the national anthem before yesterday's Super Bowl game.  Here is a woman who built her reputation on garish costumes and questionable taste.  But along the way there were many streaks of true musicality.  Her rendition of the anthem was strong, tasteful, respectful, and heartfelt.  She did a fine job, and has won praise across the internet.  So congratulations Lady Gaga.  You're a solid singer after all.

GOOD GOOGLE MOVE – From Fox:   Last week, Anthony House, the senior manager for public policy and communications at Google, revealed plans to show users anti-radicalization links in response to terrorism-related searches. The plan was outlined before a committee of the British parliament dedicated to counter-terrorism.  The program is still in its pilot stages, but House is hopeful that this new plan may provide a clever tool that protects the freedom of the Internet while protecting the livelihoods of the world's citizens. "We should get the bad stuff down, but it's also extremely important that people are able to find good information, that when people are feeling isolated, that when they go online, they find a community of hope, not a community of harm," said the Google manager.  Well said.  I hope they have the courage to see it through, because they'll get plenty of opposition from the professional multiculturalists.

MAJOR EDUCATION NEWS – From the Daily Caller:   In just the latest instance of taxpayer-funded censorship, students in one University of Florida course have been banned from using words such as “husband,” “wife,” “mom,” or dad” in the classroom and risk losing points off their grade if they don’t comply.  In the syllabus for her “Creativity In Context” class — a required course for any student pursuing a minor in Innovation — UF professor Jennifer Lee informs students of her four paragraph long classroom “communications policy” that she says will enforce “ethical conduct” in the classroom.  “The following policies and guidelines will be followed in this course,” the policy begins, followed by a bullet point instructing students to “Use inclusive language.” The policy mandates that students “[s]peak in a way that does not make assumptions about others based on “norms”, stereotypes, or one’s own identity or experience.”  The syllabus explains that this means replacing the words “boyfriend”/”girlfriend” with the more inclusive “partner” or “significant other.” The rule applies to conversations about married couples too: saying “husband” or “wife” is forbidden. Even the words “mom” and “dad” have a more “inclusive” alternative — students are told to use the word ‘family” instead.  Will some courageous members of the Florida legislature please stand up and suggest cutting off funds to the University of Florida unless this nonsense is stopped.

February 8, 2016      Permalink

FACING THE TRUTH – AT 10:25 A.M. ET:  Field Marshal Obama assures us that ISIS is on the run, and that he has a plan to destroy it.  But even David Ignatius of the Washington Post, someone friendly to the administration, can't accept that.  ISIS, is in fact, getting stronger.   From WaPo: 

Republican and Democratic presidential candidates should be able to agree on one stark foreign policy reality: The tide hasn’t turned in the war against the Islamic State. In the 18 months that the United States has been working to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the group, it has grown to become a global force that can strike targets in Europe, Asia, Africa and America.

The self-declared “caliphate” that in June 2014 was localized in Iraq and Syria now has nearly 50 affiliates or supporting groups in 21 countries. It has declared 33 “official provinces” in 11 of those countries.

Though it has lost about 25 percent of the territory it held at its peak in Iraq and Syria, it has meanwhile established an international presence, on the ground and in cyberspace.

“Follow ISIS and you will see the huge momentum that the group has harnessed across the globe,” says Rita Katz, co-founder of the SITE Intelligence Group, using a common shorthand for the Islamic State. “The government’s first step in fighting ISIS must be to stop dismissively characterizing the jihadists as a mere gang of guys in pickup trucks. It should be called what it is: a threat to global security.”  (Editor's note:  Rita Katz is not related to the editor of Urgent Agenda.)

And...

What seems to engage Obama most is countering the jihadists’ narrative that this is a war between Islam and the West. He made an eloquent presentation of his case for tolerance in a speech this week at a mosque in suburban Baltimore. But there’s little evidence that this message of outreach to Muslims is checking the Islamic State’s growth.

COMMENT:  I agree with Marco Rubio that Obama knows exactly what he is doing.  ISIS is a pesty distraction to him.  His main goal is to enhance the standing of Islam in its relations with the West.  Witness his appeasement of Iran.  The next president, and the next president's forces, will have to deal with ISIS.  Obama will just go into presidential retirement claiming he ended two wars, which he didn't.

February 8, 2016       Permalink 

THE INEVITABLE – AT 9:56 A.M. ET:  There is growing heat on Attorney-General Loretta Lynch to remove herself from the FBI investigation into Hillary's e-mails.  Entirely reasonable.  From The Hill: 

Loretta Lynch is on the edge of the spotlight, about to be dragged to the center.

If the FBI finds sufficient evidence to launch a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton or one of her top aides for mishandling classified information, Lynch’s Justice Department will have to decide whether or not to press ahead.

Even if no evidence of wrongdoing is found, Clinton’s many critics are unlikely to take the word of an appointee of President Obama’s, and will doubt that justice has been served.

Already, top Republicans are calling for a special prosecutor to be brought in and evaluate the situation.

No. 2 Senate Republican John Cornyn (Texas) took to the floor of the Senate last week to call for a special counsel to be appointed “because of the conflict of interest by asking Attorney General Lynch to investigate and perhaps even prosecute somebody in the Obama administration.”

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) agrees that Lynch ought to consider a special counsel, a spokesperson said, to reassure the country that decisions are made “without regard to any political considerations.”

The Justice Department, however, has so far declined the request.

“This matter is being reviewed by career attorneys and investigators and does not meet the criteria for the appointment of a special prosecutor,” department spokeswoman Melanie Newman said in a statement.

COMMENT:  The Justice Department statement doesn't pass the common-sense test.  Everyone knows that decisions on whether to prosecute Hillary will be made at the top, not by "career attorneys and investigators." 

There have been stories in the last few days asserting that the Obamans are becoming concerned that they could beome embroiled in a Hillary scandal.  The White House, after all, has been defending Clinton.  Maybe Obama wants to protect his former secretary of state...until he throws her under the bus and brings Joe Biden in from the bullpen.  But if Hillary proves tainted, there'll be questions about those who worked with her at the highest levels. 

A special prosecutor would seem, on the surface, to be a sound and fair idea.  Problem is, appointment of one could delay the investigation, and possibly push it past the election.  How do you indict a president-elect?

February 8, 2016       Permalink

NEW HAMPSHIRE – LATEST POLL – AT 9:31 A.M. ET:  The latest tracker shows it's still Sanders for the Dems, Trump for the GOP.  There does not appear to be any last-minute surge by anyone else.  From WHDH, Manchester: 

Bernie Sanders is now beating Hillary Clinton by 16 points- 56% to 40%, after he lost a point overnight, and she kept what she had.

Undecided is up to 4%, an increase of two points since yesterday.

The tracking poll shows Sanders is too far ahead of Clinton for her to catch him by Tuesday.

All she can do now is try to cut the margin her loss..

But the Republican race is more complicated, and the outcome is a mystery.

Donald Trump stays in the top spot, with 34%, after dropping two points overnight..

Then, a tie for second--at 13%--after Marco Rubio lost a point, and there was no change in Ted Cruz's support.

John Kasich and Jeb Bush also are now tied, at 10%. Kasich gained one point...While Bush held steady.

COMMENT:  We'll know the exact figures tomorrow night.  Reporting should be quick and efficient.  It's a small state, and people vote with ballots.  No caucuses.

Oh, by the way, does anyone remember Iowa?  Wasn't there some kind of primary, or caucus, or something there last week?  It's always the same with these early primaries.  There's a big buildup, some interest in the results, and then the campaigns shift somewhere else.

Wednesday the campaigns move south, to South Carolina.  Hillary Clinton hopes to win there, and possibly win big, because of the large minority vote.  And, on the GOP side, the key question is whether brassy New Yorker Donald Trump will play well with a very different political culture.

February 8,  2016     Permalink 

FEBRUARY 7,  2016

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

BIBLICAL THREAT – From Daily Caller:   Former Sec. of State Madeleine Albright attempted to shame young women voters at a Hillary Clinton campaign event on Saturday, repeating her now-famous line: “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.”  From what the polls say, that place will be fully occupied.

SICKENING – A tabloid "newspaper" editor in San Antonio, Stephanie Zarriello, says she will publish the names and addresses of every police officer in the city, in response to a controversial police shooting of a suspect.  From kens5:  "Like Ku Klux Klansman with hoods, (officers) do everything they can in order to protect their identities for fear of being brought to justice," said Zarriello.  That's why the San Antonio Observer says it is planning to publish the names and addresses of every officer in the San Antonio Police Department.  "Just as the names and addresses of sex offenders are publicized in order to protect the public from their wicked behavior, we feel that our community has the right to the exact same level of protection," said Zarriello.  Incredible language.  Publishing names and addresses puts a target on the back of every officer and every member of his family.  Where are the responsible journalists to denounce this abuse of freedom of the press?

IF TRUE, A POSSIBLE MAJOR SCANDAL – From Newsmax:   A veteran official with the Department of Homeland Security claims he and other staff were ordered to destroy records on a federal database that showed links between possible jihadists and Islamic terrorist groups.  "After leaving my 15-year career at DHS, I can no longer be silent about the dangerous state of America’s counter-terror strategy, our leaders’ willingness to compromise the security of citizens for the ideological rigidity of political correctness—and, consequently, our vulnerability to devastating, mass-casualty attack," the former employee, Patrick Haney, wrote in an explosive column that was published late Friday on The Hill website.  This clearly calls for a Congressional investigation, but Democrats would probably block it.  It is madness.  It is corruption.  It is a betrayal of the presidential oath.  But not too many people seem to care.

February 7,  2016     Permalink

THE ACCOUNTANTS COMETH – AT 12:20 P.M. ET:   And they have Bill and Hill's numbers.  From CNN: 

(CNN) Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, combined to earn more than $153 million in paid speeches from 2001 until Hillary Clinton launched her presidential campaign last spring, a CNN analysis shows.

In total, the two gave 729 speeches from February 2001 until May, receiving an average payday of $210,795 for each address. The two also reported at least $7.7 million for at least 39 speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS, with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic 2016 front-runner, collecting at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks.

The analysis was made at a time when Hillary Clinton has been under scrutiny for her ties to Wall Street, which has been a major focus of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders on the campaign trail.

"What being part of the establishment is, is in the last quarter, having a super PAC that raised $15 million from Wall Street, that throughout one's life raised a whole lot of money from the drug companies and other special interests," Sanders said at Thursday's Democratic debate hosted by MSNBC.

COMMENT:  The Clintons are a business.  Those huge fees aren't paid to hear wisdom and advice.  They're paid to buy influence.  And you may be sure they've bought it.

Of greater concern are the huge "donations" made to the Clinton Foundation by foreign countries, especially Mideast dictatorships. 

February 7, 2016       Permalink

WELCOME TO SUPERSHOT SUNDAY – AT 11:16 A.M. ET:   The North Koreans, as some predicted, have done it.  They've carried out a major missile test on the eve of our Super Bowl.  From AP:

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- North Korea on Sunday defied international warnings and launched a long-range rocket that the United Nations and others call a cover for a banned test of technology for a missile that could strike the U.S. mainland.

The launch, which South Korean officials confirmed about two hours after an eight-day launch window opened Sunday morning, follows North Korea's widely disputed claim last month to have tested a hydrogen bomb. It will be considered a further provocation by Washington and its allies and likely draw more sanctions and condemnation from the United Nations.

North Korean rocket and nuclear tests are seen as crucial steps toward the North's ultimate goal of a nuclear armed long-range missile arsenal. North Korea says its nuclear and missile programs are necessary to defend itself against what it calls decades of U.S. hostility.

Leader Kim Jong Un has overseen two of the North's four nuclear tests and three long-range rocket tests since taking over after the death of his father, dictator Kim Jong Il, in late 2011. North Korea says its rocket launches are satellite missions, but the U.S., South Korea and others say they are a covert test of ballistic missile technology. The U.N. Security Council prohibits North Korea from nuclear and ballistic missile activity.

COMMENT:  My, my – all those people angry at North Korea.  Why, the North Koreans must be cowering in fear. 

No, they're not.  We'll do some chest thumping, the administration will be glad that the Korean test was overshadowed by Super Bowl 50, and nothing much will happen.

Iran is watching.  Iran is laughing.

February 7, 2016       Permalink

NEW HAMPSHIRE POLLING, LATEST – AT 10:58 A.M.  ET:  Latest polls show that Donald Trump on the GOP side, and Bernie Sanders on the Democratic side, have maintained their frontrunner positions.

RealClearPolitics reports that Trump's lead is anywhere from 14 to 22 points, depending on the poll taken.  Rubio is in second place in these polls, but there is no sign of a last-minute surge for him.  A mixed debate performance last night did not help his cause.

For the Dems, Bernie Sanders's lead is anywhere from 11 to 23 points.  Clinton is in the 35 to 42 range.  This is not entirely shocking.  Bernie is from nearby Vermont, and the TV markets overlap.  He's known in New Hampshire.  He has played down his socialist identity. 

The key state after New Hampshire will be South Carolina.  There Hillary will make her stand, in a state with large numbers of minority voters.  They are a major part of her base.  If she wins there, she's back on track.  If she's hurt there, someone will rush to the vice president's mansion in Washington, wake up Joe Biden, and tell him there's an election.

On the GOP side, the question is whether Trump's anticipated victory will mean much.  Will he play well in the South?  Can one of his challengers, particularly Rubio, break through to become the challenger to Trump?  Absolutely fascinating election year.

February 7,  2016     Permalink