RUTHFULLY YOURS

On Tuesday, Three Reps and two Senators announced their support for the Nuclear Iran Deal. One More Senator in support will dash opponents’ hope.

By mid-afternoon on Tuesday, Sept. 1, three members of the U.S. House of Representatives announced they were supporting the Nuclear Iran Deal. As the afternoon wore on, word came that first Senator Bob Casey (D) of Pennsylvania, and then, to close out the afternoon, Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) also came out in favor of the agreement.

The three members of the House of Representatives who said they will support the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action are Rep.s Patrick Murphy (D-FL-18), Bobby Rush (D-IL-01) and Adam Smith (D-WA-09). None of these were real surprises.

But people were quite hopeful that Casey might swim against the tide. In fact, his statement announcing his support went on for 17 pages.

Casey, like so many other politicians who say they will vote to support the deal, admits that the chances of Iran cheating are significant. He began his analysis with this understanding.

This special edition of The Glazov Gang was hosted by Ari David, the host of the Ari David Show Podcast, and joined by Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center who writes the blog The Point at Frontpagemag.com.

Daniel came on the show to discuss The Catastrophic Iran Deal, analyzing the Radical-in-Chief’s dirty work for the Mullahs (starts at 6:45 mark).

The discussion was preceded by a dialogue on The Clinton Scandal and Cover-up, in which Daniel unveils the endless lies of the Clintons.

Don’t miss it!

Talk about imposing sanctions on Chinese and Russian individuals and a company benefiting from their government’s looting of American trade, military and personnel secrets, is cheap, but futile.

The Obama administration’s threats of sanctions may sound reassuring to largely cyber-ignorant Americans, but it will do little to discourage further attacks. But threatening obviously difficult-to impose sanctions, will do little to deter the Chinese or the Russians. Especially so, since the security of the American government and private sector cyber systems is lacking, thus minimizing the risk of discovery before large quantities of data can be stolen over a long period of time.

“Down the lanes of August – and the bees upon the wing,All the world’s in color now, and all the song birds sing.Never reds will redder be, more golden be the gold,Down the lanes of August, and the summer getting old.”

“Down the Lanes of August” – 1923 Edgar Albert Guest (1881-1951)

Financial markets dominated the month. Puerto Rico defaulted on a bond payment, marking the first time a U.S. commonwealth had done so. In seven business days the Shanghai Index lost 27% of its value, or about $1.5 trillion. In six days, U.S. stocks fell 11%, costing investors around $2.8 trillion. Markets in other parts of the world shared similar fates. The VIX, a measurement of volatility that had spent much of the year in the mid to high teens, spiked to 40.74 on the 24th, the day the DJIA was down 3.6%. Another measure of volatility looks at the closing price of the DJIA versus the previous day. On only three occasions in the preceding four months did the index close up or down more than 1.5%. In August, that happened five times. Volatility is disquieting, but provides opportunities for traders. Investors should ride out churning seas.

The media made much of the point moves in the Dow Jones, while paying less attention to the less dramatic percent changes. Certainly, those few days were enough to wake a complacent investor from his August slumber, but they didn’t come close to setting records. Yes, the 588 points in the DJIA lost on August 24th exceeded the 508 points lost on October 19th, 1987, but to be equivalent the Dow Jones would have had to have lost 3,700 points!

Jerrold Nadler, New York Congressman, Endorses Iran Nuclear Deal-http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/22/nyregion/jerrold-nadler-new-york-congressman-to-endorse-iran-nuclear-deal.html?_r=0

THIS IS FROM HIS CAMPAIGN SITE IN 2014…..WHAT A HYPOCRITE…..DESERVES TO LOSE IN 2016

FOREIGN POLICY/MIDDLE EAST

“He greatly values the unshakeable bond between the U.S. and Israel and supports U.S. efforts to promote safety, security and prosperity there. And he has long believed that the U.S. has an important and unique role to play in the peace process. The Jewish Press wrote that Jerry “is a consistent and lifelong supporter of Israel, as well as a strong community activist in both the Jewish and general community.”
While Israel and her neighbors struggle to find peace, there is a disturbing trend of growing anti-Semitism around the world. This blind and irrational hatred of the Jewish people rears its ugly head not only in Arab nations that do not support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, but in other countries as well, particularly in parts of Europe. Jerry believes that it is vitally important to work against the scourge of anti-Semitism around the world. As such, he has spearheaded a number of efforts to use congressional power and influence to do just that.
One of his signature achievements in this regard was, on the heels of the infamous 2001 UN Conference Against Racism in Durban, successfully persuading the Ford Foundation to issue new funding guidelines, to immediately cease funding of groups that promote “bigotry, hatred or the destruction of any state,” and to strengthen its approach to oversight of grant-making. These efforts have played a major role in catalyzing the philanthropic sector generally to become a strong partner in combating global anti-Semitism and anti-Israel hatred.”

New e-mails released from Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail account by the State Department late on Monday show that the then–secretary of state was furious over the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, blaming mysterious “forces” for orchestrating the January 2010 ruling and plotting with shadow adviser Sidney Blumenthal about ways to overturn it.

Two days after the Court’s January 21, 2010, decision — which cited the First Amendment in its decision to overturn aspects of campaign-finance laws that restricted the political spending of organizations — Blumenthal forwarded to Clinton an article from the Center for Public Integrity. The piece postulated that the new ruling would allow foreign leaders to sway American elections through donations from U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies.

“This is unbelievable,” Clinton replied to Blumenthal. “Or maybe totally so given the forces at work.” She gave no further hint as to what “forces” she was referring to.

Conservative luminaries have been warning that Donald Trump poses a threat to the Republican party and to the political future of conservativism. Charles Krauthammer has called him “political poison.” Fred Barnes says Trump has “made the GOP’s future dicey.” George Will thunders characteristically that “every sulfurous belch from the molten interior of the volcanic Trump phenomenon injures the chances of a Republican presidency.”

All this may be true. Trump is indeed a braggart who goes out of his way to antagonize people — not a winning approach in electoral politics. And he’s shown little real commitment to conservative principles — or principles of any other kind, for that matter.

But Trump is not the long-term problem faced by the Right. Ramesh Ponnuru’s assurance regarding Trump that “this too shall pass” may be underestimating Trump’s staying power, but at some point he will pass.

But if mass legal immigration is permitted to continue, the Right is finished regardless of what Trump does or says.

ew e-mails from Hillary Clinton’s private server released late Monday night by the State Department reveal the increasingly nasty tone and tactics deployed by her shadow adviser, Sidney Blumenthal, with the close Clinton confidant blasting Obama senior adviser David Axelrod, savaging Republican leader John Boehner, and suggesting ways to impeach African-American Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Though President Obama banned Clinton from bringing Blumenthal into her State Department coterie, the latest tranche of private e-mails from 2010 released Monday by the department illustrates the extent to which Clinton relied on Blumenthal for political and diplomatic advice. From the conflict in Northern Ireland to Israel to the U.S. midterm elections, Blumenthal was intimately involved in some of the most sensitive topics that crossed Clinton’s desk that year.

The former prosecutor who let Petraeus slide weighs in on the e-mail scandal.

Well, well, well: The Obama-appointed prosecutor who gave Obama’s former CIA director a sweetheart plea deal when he was caught mishandling classified information now says there’s no case against Obama’s former secretary of state for mishandling classified information. How very persuasive.

Oh, and did I mention that the Obama-appointed prosecutor is a donor to the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign?

In what appears to be an audition for attorney general in a hoped-for Clinton II administration, Anne M. Tompkins, the former U.S. attorney for the western district of North Carolina (appointed by President Obama in 2010), has penned an op-ed for USA Today arguing that Hillary Clinton is not guilty of “knowingly sending or receiving classified materials improperly.”

Understand: Ms. Tompkins has had nothing to do with the FBI’s investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s handling of classified information through an unauthorized private e-mail system. She is not privy to the evidence the FBI is gathering — she knows no more about the case than anyone else who reads the papers. To exonerate Clinton, she relies on nothing other than her status as the government lawyer who oversaw the prosecution of David Petraeus.

The Petraeus case, she insists, was much stronger than the case — or at least what she frames as the case — against Hillary Clinton. She thus contends that there is “no merit” to the comparison between the Petraeus and Clinton situations offered in a Wall Street Journal op-ed by former Bush attorney general and top federal judge Michael Mukasey.

Trump is political street theater. If voters want a rant, they will get it from Trump. If they want solutions with substance they can get that from Ted Cruz, Rubio. Walker, Fiorina. ….rsk

Donald Trump has at least three things going for him.

One, the mood of the country remains foul and fed-up — and volatile to the point that conventional wisdom is hardly reliable. Two, Trump has turned invective and narcissism into an art form, and his simplistic putdowns seem to garner ever more attention even as they become more monotonous and banal — largely because they are directed at a despised media elite. Three, the Democratic party is in worse shape than the Republican party. Apparently Trump’s attacks can still safely be savored as long as the Democrats are imploding.

Trump’s successes have come about not because of a brilliant new Contract with America or because he is reassuringly conservative on the issues. His diehard supporters — and even those who would never confess that they derive a perverse and stealthy delight from watching him put down the New York/Washington political and journalistic elite — don’t care that just in the last decade he has flipped on all the issues. They apparently ignore the fact that Trump is often self-contradictory, as he wings his way through endless interviews and blustery press conferences.