Must Be Dead Broke Again

The money’s already spent, and the Clinton Foundation has no other money to send back to Harvey Weinstein.

That’s the excuse that the Clinton Foundation is using (I’m deliberately eliding Hillary Clinton’s fatuous excuse for not returning Weinstein’s donations to her campaign—”there’s no one to return the money to”) for refusing to return Weinstein’s donation of somewhere between $100,000 to $250,000 to the Foundation.

The money’s gone.  And since money is eminently fungible, as all of the management of the Clinton Foundation—Chairman Bill Clinton, Vice Chairman Chelsea Clinton, Chief Communications and Marketing Officer Craig Minassian, et al.—all know full well, by implication the Foundation has no other money with which to make the returns.

Apparently, the Clintons, are dead broke again, and now their Foundation is, too.

On Whose Side Is He?

[Steve] Bannon has been recruiting and promoting challengers to GOP incumbents and the party’s preferred candidates in next year’s midterm elections.

And

…it could also imperil Republican majorities in the House and Senate.

Indeed.  He’s trying to get farther right candidates nominated in place of incumbents, but he’s likely to drag the party too far right to suit a center-right population of Americans, force serious candidates to expend resources on frivolous primaries (rather than primaries involving serious Conservative candidates), even get candidates like Christine O’Donnell, Todd Akin, or Sharron Angle nominated—which in their time cost the Republicans entirely winnable Senate seats..

He could do more good for the Republican Party, and frankly for our Republic, by doing these things within the Progressive-Democratic Party to ensure incumbents spend their resources on primaries and are dragged farther left, even get Left-wing extremists nominated onto the Progressive-Democratic tickets in the general elections.

Of course Bannon knows all of this full well.  Hence my question.  Is he really willing to risk the Senate and lose the chance for a Republican President and Senate to get more Conservative jurists appointed to the Supreme Court and to our lower Federal courts?

Or, another question: is this just sour grapes run amok because Bannon can’t be a White House player anymore?

One More Reason

…for charter and voucher schools, this time provided by the Biloxi (public) School District.  They’ve banned Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird from its 8th grade classrooms.  Why?

…some of the book’s language “makes people uncomfortable.”

Never mind that proper education must make people uncomfortable because it challenges their preconceived notions, it makes them think, it makes them think for themselves.  It even confronts students with uncomfortable aspects of our history, like Atticus Finch explaining to his daughter, Scout, the term “nigger-lover.”  Or Tom Robinson referring to himself, ironically, as a nigger.

No, we have to raise precious little snowflakes unable to take care of themselves in adulthood.

Never mind, either, that the Web site associated with the district says that

To Kill A Mockingbird teaches students that compassion and empathy don’t depend upon race or education.

Instead, the school has ducked the question:

School board Vice President Kenny Holloway says other books can teach the same lessons.

No, very few do, and those that do don’t do it nearly as well.

Threats

The German government now is stooping to naked threats in an effort to keep President Donald Trump from not renewing certification of Iran’s compliance with ex-President Barack Obama’s (D) Executive Agreement with Iran on the latter’s nuclear weapons program.

The threat begins with the distortion that decertification constitutes withdrawal from the EA—of course it does not, and the members of the German government know that full well.  The threat, though, is made naked by German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel:

It’s imperative that Europe sticks together on this issue.  We also have to tell the Americans that their behavior on the Iran issue will drive us Europeans into a common position with Russia and China against the USA.

If we don’t coddle an enemy, Germany will side with other enemies of ours.

Some friend.  In the event, the denial of certification went through, anyway.

And there is no withdrawal from the JCPOA; although Trump did remind folks that he had the authority to do so, and he warned that if Congress didn’t act, he would.

Duties

President Donald Trump’s decertification of Iran’s compliance with the JCPOA—because they’ve not been, and after two certs (six months) of data collection reasonably free from Obama administration bureaucrats’ fogging, the data are clear.

The Wall Street Journal headlined their piece earlier in the week that forecast that decision with this:

Trump Leaves Thorny Issues at GOP Lawmakers’ Doorstep

This is entirely appropriate. Our elected representatives should be handling the thorny issues instead of cowering under their desks avoiding “hard choices.”

On the question of what to do with the decert, House Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R, TX) was paraphrased by the WSJ as saying [the emphasis is mine to highlight the WSJ‘s characterization of the timing]:

the question for lawmakers now is, “What would happen if we change our mind and void the deal, what would be the consequences?”

This is disingenuous. They’ve had that question before them since the JCPOA was signed. Of course they already know the answers, having kept plugging current affairs into the consideration as they’ve occurred these last couple of years.

Just like they’ve known for the last eight years what bills to pass that would repeal and replace Obamacare and Dodd-Frank.  Just like they’ve known for the last dozen years what bills to pass to reform our nation’s tax code and spending habits.

But there’s that duty avoidance in favor of ducking and covering again.