Why Is Obama Stonewalling on Details of the $1.7 Billion in Iransom Payoffs? The structured transfers of $1.3 billion from a Treasury slush fund remain shrouded in mystery. By Andrew C. McCarthy

‘Confidentiality”?

Yes, that’s the State Department’s story on why the Obama administration is stonewalling the American people regarding the president’s illegal and increasingly suspicious Iransom payoff. The administration refuses to divulge any further information about the $1.7 billion the president acknowledges paying the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.

Grilled on Wednesday about how Obama managed to pay the final $1.3 billion installment — particularly given the president’s claim that it is not possible to send Tehran a check or wire-transfer — State Department spokesman Mark Toner decreed that the administration would continue “withholding this information” in order “to protect confidentiality.”

Whose confidentiality? The mullahs’? That of the intermediaries the president used? Whose privacy takes precedence over our right to know how Obama funneled our money to our enemies?

The closest thing to an answer we have to the latest round of questions comes courtesy of the perseverance of the investigative journalist Claudia Rosett. (You weren’t expecting the Republican Congress to be minding the purse, were you?)

Recall that we have been asking about the $1.3 billion payment since the first revelations about this sordid affair. After all, if, as Obama and his toadies maintain, the payment is totally on the up and up — just a routine legal settlement involving Iran’s own money — then why won’t they answer basic questions about it?

Why are such matters as the administration’s process in tapping a congressionally appropriated funding source for the settlement — a settlement Congress did not approve and seems to be in the dark about paying for — being treated as if they were state secrets so sensitive you’d need have a Clinton.mail account (or be a Russian hacker of a Clinton.mail account) to see them?

Generally speaking, the State, Treasury, and Justice Departments cannot issue press releases fast enough to salute themselves over legal settlements that supposedly benefit taxpayers by billions of dollars — at least according to the same math that brought you all those Obamacare savings. How is it that, in what is purportedly a completely aboveboard legal case, we are not permitted to know how our own money was transferred to the jihadist plaintiff?

With the administration taking the Fifth, it was left to Claudia to crawl through Leviathan’s catacombs. In her New York Sun report on Monday, we learned that she hit pay dirt: stumbling upon a bizarre string of 13 identical money transfers of $99,999,999.99 each — yes, all of them one cent less than $100 million — paid out of an obscure Treasury Department stash known as the “Judgment Fund.” The transfers were made — to whom, it is not said — on January 19, just two days after the administration announced it had reached the $1.7 billion settlement with Iran. They aggregate to just 13 cents shy of $1.3 billion, the same amount the State Department claims Iran was owed in “interest” from the $400 million that our government had been holding since the shah deposited it in a failed arms deal just prior to the Khomeini revolution.

So, stacked atop of the pallets of $400 million in foreign cash that Obama arranged to shuttle from Geneva to Tehran as ransom (or, as the administration prefers, “leverage”) for the release of American hostages — via an unmarked cargo plane belonging to Iran Air, a terrorist arm of the mullahs’ terrorist coordinator, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps — we now have a second whopping money transfer that (a) violates federal criminal laws against providing things of value to Iran and (b) looks like it was conceived by Nicky Barnes.

Police Held Back While Violent Mob Assaulted Trump Fundraiser Attendees? By Debra Heine

A week ago in Minneapolis, Republican donors attending a Trump fundraiser were assaulted, robbed and spat upon by a violent leftist mob as they were leaving the event. Attendees say that even though there was a strong law enforcement presence at the convention center downtown where the fundraiser was held, they were not afforded any police protection when coming to and leaving the event — and even more incredibly, there were no arrests.

Many people who attended the event told Fox 9 that police seemed to back down from intervening, but the Minneapolis Police Department insists there was no stand-down order.

Twin Cities News Talk TCNT morning hosts Andrew Lee and MN state Senator David Osmek took calls on Monday from attendees who also said that the police seemed to be holding back. One male attendee claimed he was told by more than one officer that law enforcement had been ordered to “stand down” — and that the order had “come from the top.”

The first caller, Carol, said that as attendees were leaving, they were urged to use alternative doors because the protesters were by the front doors. Because it was raining outside, she wrapped her autographed Trump sign in her sweater so it wouldn’t get wet.

“When we came out on the sidewalk, there weren’t any protesters,” she said. But it didn’t take long for the mob to figure out what was happening. “We were ambushed,” she continued. “They came running at us — I was grabbed. Women with bandannas over their noses and mouths screamed obscenities at us.” She noted that she didn’t see any police in the immediate area.

Carol said that when she screamed, the thugs mocked her and called her a “white supremacist.” She said that when she wrestled herself away, her Trump sign became uncovered. When the protesters saw it, she said she ran really fast across the street and that once she crossed the street, the mob stopped pursuing her.

Another caller, Cynthia, said she was dropped off about a block away from the convention center because her driver didn’t want to get in close proximity to the intimidating mob.

Is Ted Cruz Finished? By Michael Walsh

Political suicide is a terrible thing to witness. But that’s what Texas Senator Ted Cruz might have done with his disastrous speech at the GOP convention last month:

A new poll suggests there is at least one fellow Republican who could unseat U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz in 2018: Rick Perry.

The former Texas governor would beat Cruz by 9 percentage points, according to the forthcoming survey from the Democratic-leaning firm Public Policy Polling. Set to be released later today, the poll found Perry would get 46 percent of the vote and Cruz 37 percent, with 18 percent saying they are not sure whom they would support.

Perry is the only challenger that PPP tested who would defeat Cruz. The poll indicates he would trounce two other Republicans talked about as potential opponents, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick by 22 points and U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul by 32 points. He would also beat two Democrats, U.S. Housing Secretary Julián Castro and former gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis, both by 12 points.

In general, the poll shows Texas Republicans want Cruz to be their candidate for Senate again in 2018 — but not overwhelmingly. Fifty percent said they would like Cruz to be the nominee, while 43 percent said would like someone else to carry the banner.

Hardly surprising. Cruz didn’t win many friends during this past primary season, and may well have made himself some unnecessary enemies instead. There is much to admire about the Texas senator and his professed fidelity to the Constitution, but whether he has the personality or temperament to run for national office is yet to be determined.

Hillary Clinton plays a rich white woman’s version of the race card By Thomas Lifson

Hillary Clinton may regret her attempt to tar Donald Trump as a racist by linking him to the alt right movement (whatever that is – no such formal organization exists). She went full Southern Poverty Law Center on the Trump campaign, tarring people she disagrees with as racists. (As AT readers know, the SPLC has made a lot of money soliciting contributions from well-meaning people, but has been running out of racists to fight (because racists on the left are invisible to it). So it has resorted to tarring Dr. Ben Carson on its “extremist watch list,” an allegation so absurd that it was forced to issue a totally unconvincing apology.)

In Hillary’s judgment, she use the tactic of guilt-by-association to connect Trump to Steve Bannon to articles published by the website Bannon headed, and those headlines back to Trump. Normally, guilt-by-association is a tactic the left decries as unfair – for instance making any connection between Barack Obama and Bill Ayers.

The problem Hillary faces is she is giving the al right exactly what it wants: attention. And once the alt right gets attention, it starts raising questions in the minds of people that Hillary and the left would prefer remain unspoken.

If there is anyone who can be seen as a spokesman for the alt right, it would be Milo Yiannopoulos, two of whose headlines on Breitbart articles she quoted in her Reno, NV (interesting choice of venue: the city that first gained fame as “America’s divorce capital”).

Milo has fired back in characteristic fashion:

This is precisely what the alt-right is responding to. They post offensive memes because they know it’ll wind up boring, grouchy grannies like Hillary. The speech codes and political correctness of the Left are what has given rise to this vibrant new movement, what has given rise to Donald Trump’s extraordinary popularity, and what gives rise to me — and my fabulous headlines!

Science: A graven image By Glenn Fairman

How ironic that Science – a supposed neutral methodology — has taken on the status of an authoritative graven image, with all the dogmatic accoutrements that accompany a religious system. Nothing illustrates this more than its stance on Naturalistic Macro-Evolution and on Climate Change.

As for the former, the Neo-Darwinian model never had the intrinsic explanatory power to be so much as a working hypothesis, even before its detractors began making mincemeat of its assumptions by holding its manifold contradictions and threadbare evidence to the antiseptic light of day. Yet, it permeates modernity’s worldview and is as resistant to the call for reconsideration or reformation as any 16th-century cleric. If the edifice is now crumbling, it is due to the fact that all idols contrary to truth, like Dagon in the Philistine temple, come to fall on their faces.

As for the latter, it is no longer an article of contention that those who drive the global warming agenda have made common cause with political forces, and those entities are hell-bent on maximizing their own climate of fear as they aggregate power for their own ends. Having perfected the technique of using a thin veneer of altruism as a fig leaf to cover their nakedness, the Left have become what they once claimed to despise: a monolithic authority impervious to reason. And it is for this reason alone that they have wrangled science into a state of harlotry, using influence, money, and promotion as the methodology by which their new quasi-science will approach the remaking of the world. Those who have whored out a tool of inquiry, in the service of justifying their agenda, revealed their true hand when threats of prosecution, as well as the demolition of professional reputations of the heretical, were laid on the table. Apparently, little has changed from when Galileo was forced to mutter under his breath, “Yet, it moves.”

Clinton’s new strategy: I may be a crook, but he is a racist By Silvio Canto, Jr.

What exactly made the Clinton campaign go “race card” on Trump?

It seems a bit early for such a card. After all, isn’t she supposed to be leading by 10 points and headed for a landslide?

Do you recall Reagan ’84, Nixon ’72, or even Clinton ’96 sounding so desperate or attacking their opponents like this? They usually said little or had their helpers engage in attacks.

So what’s going on? Let me give you a couple of theories:

1) The Clinton campaign must have internal polling that it is a lot closer than the national polls suggest, or at least some information that her lead is melting because of all the bad news. They may also (and that’s speculation on my part) have polling that shows that there is zero excitement in the African American communities for her campaign. In other words, she will get 90% but the turnout may be very low! I remember analyzing the 2016 Texas primary on Telemundo Dallas last spring and we spent much of the night talking about the lousy Hispanic turnout. Excitement and Hillary Clinton do not go together!

2) The Clinton campaign may fear some bad news coming. Julian Assange told the media that bad stuff is coming. He may be bluffing or engaging in self-promotion. However, the recent AP story suggests that Assange may put the bow on this scandal. My guess is that some emails may confirm that the State Department and the Clinton Foundation were just a bit too close for comfort. At some point, even the friendly media will call on her to answer some questions!

The Chicago School of Free Speech One school tries to educate freshmen, not bow to their anxieties.

For a change, we come not to bury a college president but to praise him. His name is Robert Zimmer, and nearby the University of Chicago president defends the educational and societal virtues of free speech on college campuses. Let’s hope he wears body armor to the next faculty meeting.

Mr. Zimmer’s public coming out is all the more notable because it appears to be part of a university-wide message. The school’s dean of students, Jay Ellison, has written a letter to incoming freshmen noting that the desire for “safe spaces” from discomfiting speech or ideas will not override the academic community’s interest in rigorous debate.

“Members of our community are encouraged to speak, write, listen, challenge and learn, without fear of censorship,” Mr. Ellison wrote for tender millennial ears. “You will find that we expect members of our community to be engaged in rigorous debate, discussion, and even disagreement. At times this may challenge you and even cause discomfort.”

This is so refreshing we want to keep going. Mr. Ellison’s letter adds that Chicago’s “commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called ‘trigger warnings,’ we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.”

The letter comes with a monograph by dean John Boyer discussing the university’s “history of debate, and even scandal, resulting from our commitment to academic freedom.” Maybe Chicago’s example will inspire spinal infusions at the likes of Rutgers, the University of Missouri, and even the timorous souls at Yale.

Another Obama Parting Gift His final fiscal year federal budget deficit will increase by 35%.

As President Obama ends his second term, he’s leaving plenty of political parting gifts. The latest is a 35% single-year increase in the federal budget deficit, and a rising trajectory of spending and debt as a share of the economy. Hillary Clinton’s campaign promise of more “stimulus” spending next year suddenly looks a lot more politically problematic.

That’s the story you haven’t read from the Congressional Budget Office’s latest fiscal and economic outlook released this week. For the 2016 fiscal year that ends next month, CBO now forecasts that revenues will rise by only $26 billion while outlays will increase by some $178 billion. The federal deficit will therefore rise from $438 billion to $590 billion, the biggest deficit since 2013.

The revenue shortfall reflects the decline in corporate profits and slower economic growth; the second quarter was revised down to 1.1% Friday. Meanwhile, outlays will rise 5% thanks in large part to the automatic spending drivers of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (which has soared thanks to ObamaCare). Net interest outlays will rise 11% this fiscal year despite historically low interest rates as overall debt continues to increase.As a share of the national economy, debt held by the public—the kind the Treasury must repay—will increase to 76.6% this fiscal year. That’s the highest share of GDP since 1950 when the debt burden was winding down after World War II. It was 52.3% in President Obama’s first year in office, and it usually is flat or falls during an economic expansion.

No such debt reduction is on the horizon now. Thanks to ObamaCare and his refusal to reform entitlements, Mr. Obama has set the federal fisc on an even uglier path long after he’s left for a tour of the world’s great golf courses. CBO says spending will keep rising and so will debt as a share of GDP—to 77.2% in 2017, 79.3% in 2021 and 85.5% in 2026. (See the nearby chart.) All of this assumes no change in current policy and no economic recession. The odds of the latter are close to zero.

One intriguing question is whether Mr. Obama has planned it this way. One of his abiding goals has been to reorient federal spending away from defense toward more income redistribution and social spending. He has achieved that to some extent during his eight years in office, but his spending wedge will grow even more pronounced as the years go on. Budget room for defense will shrink as the entitlement state expands. He is Europeanizing the U.S. military budget.CONTINUE AT SITE

A CONSERVATIVE FOR HILLARY CLINTON- A “COMEYTATION” OF CHARGES

Hillary hatred is a reckless indulgence: Gabriel Schoenfeld
Clinton derangement syndrome is not only irrational, it threatens to elect Donald Trump.

To hear the Hillary haters tell it, the Democratic presidential nominee is suffering from a number of critical illnesses that render her unfit for office and which she is hiding from the public. Rudy Giuliani, now a leading Donald Trump surrogate, says the evidence for the various diagnoses is right there on the Internet.

Of course, leveling such an unfounded accusation is both reckless and nutty. Bush Derangement Syndrome was the name of the malady conservatives ascribed to those who heaped obloquy on our last Republican president. Now Hillary Derangement Syndrome has struck Giuliani and quite a few other Republicans hard.

This is by no means a new affliction. Ever since she entered public life as America’s first lady, a barrage of allegations, many fair but quite a few preposterous, have been hurled against President Clinton’s wife. Without any foundation, she is said to be implicated in the “murder” of her friend Vincent Foster, to have caused the fiasco inBenghazi, and to be covertly promoting the Muslim Brotherhood. Trump has gone so far as to call her “the devil,” to which his supporters responded with thunderous applause. For those of us not subsumed by Hillary hatred, the level of anger is a mystery. What accounts for it?

First and foremost, one must point to the deepening polarization of our politics, exacerbated in recent years by the strains and stresses of the post-9/11 era. Given how divided the country has become on fundamental issues, anyone seeking the White House in this environment would be subject to severe disapprobation from the other side.

But the extraordinary intensity of Hillary hatred suggests it is based upon impulses extending well beyond disagreement over policy. Any explanation must begin by acknowledging that Clinton herself has regularly poured gasoline on the fires burning around her.

Dishonesty is a case in point. According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll, among voters who dislike Hillary Clinton, 47% cite untrustworthiness, a number that is well-earned. Examples abound. Most recently, we have her pointblank false claim about her use of a private email server to conduct official business as secretary of State: “It was allowed.”

Bombing Hasakah Shoshana Bryen and Stephen Bryen

Last week, two Syrian government Su-24 airplanes bombed the Kurdish-held areas of the city of Hasakah. The attack was unexpected.

The Kurds have operated semi-autonomously in Syria because their pressure on ISIS has been helpful to Damascus, and because the Kurdish agenda has been primarily regional autonomy rather than deposing Assad. U.S. Special Forces on the ground assisting the Kurds were in the range of fire, prompting a warning to Russia and Syria from the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria.

It was unexpected, too, because Russian President Vladimir Putin had previously demonstrated strong support for Kurdish interests. Even before the decline in Russian-Turkish relations when Turkey shot down a Russian Sukhoi jet, Putin went out of his way to praise the Kurds and indicate Russian support for them. The Russians allowed the Kurdish administration in Syria to open an office in Moscow, signaling that Kurdish interests would be included in any settlement of the civil war.

Turkey, naturally, sees all Kurdish military activity as threatening, and found both Syrian and Russian – not to mention American – support for or “hands off” attitude toward the Kurds as a continuing aggravation. To change the dynamic, Turkish President Erdogan’s rapprochement with Israel included an apology to Russia. Erdogan then visited Moscow, leading some commentators to seize on the Hasakah bombing as evidence that Turkey and Russia have made a deal at the expense of the Kurds.

How do the Syrian, Russian, Kurdish, Turkish and American positions intersect?

The Syrian attack on Hasakah wasn’t in independent effort. It needed Russian backing because five separate Kurdish positions were targeted. Surveillance of sites so far north in the country would have needed airborne assets and satellites; the Syrian air force has neither, but Russia does. Notably, although U.S forces were in the area, they were not directly targeted; as far back as February the U.S. had provided Russia with information about the location of American forces.

Furthermore, the attack on Hasakah had almost no military significance for the Assad regime. Syrian forces were located far from the targets, and there is no tactical military benefit to Syria from flying a mission against a town that is firmly in Kurdish control. Other motives for the bombings, which killed a large number of civilians, might have been an overture by Russia to Turkey. Or a warning from Russia to the United States. Or a mistake by Russia.