Corroborative data abound [after watching this fantastic swing-dance]; following a digest thereof [plus a

few elabortive essays], the ongoing dialogue with a lib/Dem continues.

In Pa. a Pollster suggested the Sandusky Report could help Corbett's reelection bid [it cost $180K+], and
a Reader Poll @ PoliticsPa suggested the Sandusky Scandal will affect Voting. That is why it is vital to
maximize the deliverables that the GOP can muster in November, as Weak tax collections will test
Corbetts tax pledge; meanwhile, the Senate GOP and Gov restarted campaign to loosen PA alcohol sale
laws and the PA HOUSE WAS SCHEDULED TO DEBATE 'HYBRID' PENSION PLAN. {Also, the Philly pot bill's
future unclear and to-be-investigated is the fact that the State gave embattled ex-NAACP head $100K to
fix a football field [which was financed by Vick].}

Regarding Bergdahl, in its umpteenth iteration, after rapidly recognizing that its Rift with Congress over
deal had deepened, the White House blamed Hagel for Bergdahl terrorist swap, which a HOUSE PANEL
IS TO INVESTIGATE; pilloried for its dependence upon anonymous sources and innuendo, the NYT
STICKED-UP FOR WHITE HOUSE and SLAMMED BERGDAHL'S PLATOON MATES as others perceived it as
Treasonous. Meanwhile, State Dept Spokeswoman Marie Harf Called Terrorists Released in Bergdahl
Trade "Gentlemen" while appearing on MSNBC with Andrea Mitchell, who also disputed her claim [citing
personal experience] that Congress had Not been Briefed on Bin Laden Raid. One commentator
[mirroring my view] has remitted a Memo to Krauthammer, reminding him that, When It Comes to
Bergdahl, America Is Not Israel; almost none of Obamas usual media enablers have defended, let alone
supported, last weeks Taliban-terror-masters for alleged-army-deserter swap, but Krauthammer did so
[although has backtracked since] by citing Israel [forgetting major differences, among them BHOs
having pressured Israel to release prisoners]. {Also, LETTERMAN WAS THE ONLY LATE NIGHT COMIC TO
POUNCE ON OBAMA'S TALIBAN SWAP.}

Regarding Illegals:
Child Alien Crisis Obama's Fault, But GOP Won't Pounce

Immigration: Republicans should take the president to task for unlawfully enticing
thousands of "unaccompanied illegal children" from Latin America to cross the border.
Instead, a GOP leader asks for an amnesty deal.
What is at the top of the Republican wish list? A vibrant economy? An America strong
and respected in the world? Capturing the Senate? A Republican elected to the White
House in 2016?
Nah. The GOP wants amnesty for illegal aliens.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., made that abundantly clear in an interview
with a local Virginia TV station WTVR last Friday. He said he told President Obama that
"we can work on the border security bill together. We can work on something like the
kids."
And Breitbart reports that Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., is secretly gauging House GOP
support for action on amnesty legislation before August.
On almost every issue, it makes more sense to wait until Republicans fulfill their current
excellent chances this year of getting a Senate majority and retaining the House before
considering dealing with Obama. But on immigration it makes no sense at all to make a
deal.
Democrats use immigration to smear Republicans as racists. Expanding immigration will
give Democrats millions of new votes in the coming decades, destroying forever the
political forces that oppose big government.
The more than 90,000 children who crossed the Mexican border into the U.S. and were
apprehended this year, and the more than 140,000 expected next year, could and
should turn the immigration issue into a GOP weapon against Democrats.
Instead of sending them back home to their parents, Attorney General Eric Holder made
it a priority to hire taxpayer-funded lawyers for them. Why don't we hear Cantor, Ryan
and other GOP leaders shout that Democrats are exploiting children to further their
political agenda?
Moreover, this whole crisis is of the administration's making. Its Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals program two years ago prevented minors' deportation for two years,
and now Obama has added two more years. As the immigration system becomes
overloaded, disease and hygiene issues are coming into play.
Cantor himself is suffering for defying his base. A June 2 Daily Caller/Vox Populi poll
found him at only 52% against GOP primary challenger Dave Brat.
Obama is equating immigration law enforcement with cruelty to children in the public's
mind. Instead of holding him responsible, Republicans are asking how they can help him.
Regarding other Domestic Policies, there is Growing Rejection of Common Core, which has been viewed
as a 'Gross Abuse of Democracy' [as Arne Duncan Threatened Entire State Of Oklahoma Because State
Backed Out Of Common Core and Common Core contains a strong whiff of Orwellian indoctrination];
regarding gun-laws, the libs are exuding frustration [Esquire: Police Who Support NRA Are Traitors 'to
the Uniform' and The Daily Beast: Gun Rights Opponents Need to Go Big or Go Home]. Regarding
Politics, A DEM REP CLAIMED BOEHNERS CALLING TALIBAN TERRORISTS 'NOT NECESSARILY ACCURATE'
AND JONI ERNST LEADS IN THIRD STRAIGHT IOWA SENATE POLL AND COCHRAN SAID HE DOESN'T
KNOW MUCH ABOUT TEA PARTY FOR THIRD TIME!; regarding BHOs Scandal-Sheet, Obamas IRS
ILLEGALLY Sent CONFIDENTIAL Taxpayer Info to FBI. Regarding Climate-Change, Australias Prime
Minister Tony Abbott is seeking out like-minded countries to form an alliance to thwart climate
policies being pushed by President Obama and other world leaders and Krugman wrote that climate
denialism is Ayn Rand's fault. Regarding the Media, JUDICIAL WATCH THREATENED TO SUE FEDS OVER
COMMUNICATIONS BEHIND DINESH D'SOUZA'S ARREST and a new NY Times App ["NYT Opinion"] is to
Charge $6 a Mo. for Opinion Pieces and Will Run Paid-Ads as Op-Eds; meanwhile, FNC appears
unstoppable, as FOX TROUNCED CNN AND HUMILIATED MSNBC AS MOST TRUSTED, Megyn Kelly
Topped O'Reilly in the ratings for the First Time For Entire Week and Adam Housley, a senior Fox
correspondent Blasted White House and 'Washington Post' for alleged coordination [an end-around]
Over a Diplomatic Security Report related to a story that was critical of the administration's post-
Benghazi security for American diplomats overseas.

Regarding Israel and the Middle East:
Reuven Rivlin Elected New President of Israel
Amidror: U.S. Is Israel's "Irreplaceable" Ally, But Israel May Have to Stand Alone
The establishment of a Palestinian Authority (PA) unity government that includes Hamas
is the last inning of a ballgame which has been in extra innings far too long.
Ministerial committee to vote on contentious bill defining Israel as Jewish state
Israel: Inspectors Won't Derail Iran Nukes
Israel: Hamas Aiming to Boost West Bank Support, Terror via Charity Groups
BB was accused of having no plan [when he actually continues reacting to events]
Iran Closed Border with Pakistan after Terror Attack in Balochistan
Iran Claims Missiles Can Reach Strategic U.S. Base in Indian Ocean
How Iran Gains from Assad Victory
Syrian Rebel Infighting Kills 630
Egypts president punished Hamas, Jihadi Islami in Gaza, and fired up strife in
Palestinian government
Senate Foreign Relations Committee to Review U.S. Aid to Palestinians
Will the West Fund Hamas?
Ya'alon: Land for Peace Paradigm Has Brought only Terror and Rockets
Palestinian Lecturer Who Led Auschwitz Trip Quits after Backlash - "My letter of
resignation from Al-Quds University was a kind of litmus test to see whether the
university administration supports academic freedom and freedom of action and of
expression as they claim or not."
Palestinian Forces Clash with Hamas Loyalists in West Bank

Further Ugly Vibes from the Obama Administration

The gloves are off. The White House has now unequivocally designated Israel as the
scapegoat and is meting out punishment for the disastrous outcome of the peace
negotiations it initiated. The process began in March when President Obama publicly
lambasted Prime Minister Netanyahu in a brutal and offensive manner the day before
their scheduled meeting in Washington. It climaxed last week when the White House
reneged on its commitment to Israel, announcing that it would continue business as
usual with the new PA government after the merger with the genocidal Hamas, the
terrorist organization which remains utterly committed to the destruction of Israel.

Prior to this, administration spokesmen had been campaigning behind the scenes to
undermine the standing of Israel with the American public. That Israel had frozen
settlement construction for nine months and conceded to an abhorrent release of
bloody Palestinian terrorists were facts they simply ignored. Conversely, the Palestinian
refusal to make a single concession or agree under any circumstances to an end of
conflict was rarely mentioned.

Even following the announcement of the PA-Hamas union, Secretary of State John Kerry
continued blaming Israel, making bizarre predictions about it becoming an apartheid
state, which followed his earlier warnings of an impending third intifada and
international boycotts all of which he subsequently retracted.

Kerrys views were echoed by his envoy, Martin Indyk, whose feral hatred of Netanyahu
should have disqualified him from assuming any mediating role. When Netanyahu
agreed to the wretched terrorist release, he made it clear to both the US and the PA
that construction in the settlements would resume. Yet, in a series of background and
open briefings, Indyk laid the primary blame for the collapse of the peace negotiations
on Israel for having announced building tenders for 700 homes, not in some obscure or
isolated settlement, but in Gilo, a suburb existing for over 40 years in the heart of Jewish
East Jerusalem. And so it was that this provocative action, the poof which scuttled
negotiations, became the basis for condemning Israel by the administration.

To make matters worse, unsubstantiated allegations were circulated that Israel was
engaging in massive espionage activity against the United States. Despite angry
disclaimers from Netanyahu and leading government officials, the Administration failed
to refute the charges which were even used to justify denying Israel eligibility for the US
Visa Waiver Program.

However, with Obamas current catastrophic ratings and the impending congressional
elections, it was assumed mistakenly that at least in the short term, the White House
would avoid a frontal confrontation and merely give Europeans the wink to intensify the
pressure and avoid a frontal confrontation.

But the Administration shocked Israel by accepting the new PA-Hamas government even
before the consummation of the union. This was in flagrant breach of former
undertakings, betraying its long-standing ally by announcing disingenuously that it
would work with the new PA- Hamas government, as long as it abides by the principles
mandated by the US. Yet, far from renouncing terror, Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal
boasted that the reconciliation will actually consolidate the resistance from one of
intifada to another until the liberation of Palestine.

The US initiative was clearly designed to pave the way for Israels further global
isolation. It was immediately endorsed by the European Union, the United Nations, the
UK and France and of course China, Russia and India all of whom praised the union as an
important step towards Palestinian reconciliation.

AIPAC, the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, and other Jewish
agencies immediately condemned the charade stressing that US law expressly
prohibits funding to a Palestinian government in which Hamas participates. They urged
Congress to conduct a review of assistance to the PA and ensure implementation of the
law denying support to the PA if it cooperated or bonded with Hamas.

There were senior lawmakers Democrats as well as Republicans who also
condemned the move and insisted that the Palestinian anti-terror act passed in 2006
specifically precludes the US government from funding any government in which Hamas
is involved or exercises influence.

Although there is no certainty that Congress will, in the short term, force the White
House to back down, public opinion unquestionably opposes the Obama policy. Despite
the hostility generated by the anti-Israeli liberal media, opinion polls all indicate record
levels of support for Israel amongst the American people. The most recent, conducted
last month by Paragon Insights on behalf of the Israel Project, showed that a 2-1
majority blame the Palestinians for the breakdown in negotiations and agrees that Israel
cannot be expected to deal with a PA which merges with genocidal Hamas terrorists.

Over recent months, Congress has also displayed a lack of confidence in the Obama
administrations lack of accountability and transparency in foreign relations. This has
created major tensions, particularly amongst Democrats who do not wish to be obliged
to choose between abandoning their President or supporting Israel.

That is the reason why Democrat Senator Robert Menendez, head of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee and a powerful supporter of Israel, temporarily withdrew the US
Israel Strategic Partnership Act from the agenda. He did so out of concern that an
amendment, introduced by Republican Bob Corker reflecting congressional distrust of
the presidents handling of nuclear talks with Iran and demanding greater
accountability, could create major splits in the ranks of the Democrats. The bill, which
designated Israel as a strategic partner and had already been passed in the House of
Representatives by 410 to 1 majority, was designed to expand US weapons stockpiles in
Israel and extend areas of joint US Israel collaboration in areas such as energy, water
and homeland security.

Ultimately a compromise will be found, but this behavior reflects the turmoil even
amongst President Obamas Democratic supporters concerning the administrations
appeasement of the Iranians and pressure against Israel.

In the meantime, the House of Representatives passed the National Defense
Authorization Act which included major boosts for Israels missile-defense programs as
well as sections highlighting concern about negotiations with the Iranians and was
carried on a bipartisan majority of 325 to 98.

It is indicative of the direction in which the wind is blowing when potential presidential
candidate Hillary Clinton, in her new memoir, signals her disapproval of President
Obamas policies when referring to the tactical error in trying to enforce a hardline
on settlements. She also criticized Obama Iranian policy, telling a gathering of the
American Jewish Committee: I personally am skeptical that the Iranians will follow
through and deliver No deal is better than a bad deal.

After the November midterm elections, the president will increasingly become a lame-
duck and with the onset of primaries and campaigning for the next presidential election,
there is every probability that the Senate and Congress will act against Obama if he
makes further excessive demands on Israel or totally capitulated to the Iranians.
However, it should be noted that, despite the Obama administrations harsh political
behavior towards Israel, it has in fact strengthened the crucial US-Israel defense
relationship.

Israel must weather the remainder of Obamas presidential term, diplomatically
balancing resistance to the negative pressures without severing its crucial relationship
with the US. It should simultaneously seek to further strengthen the public support it
currently enjoys amongst the American people and throughout Congress.

Regarding Hillary:
Hillary Clinton's Book Is Being Destroyed By Critics
'NEWSLESS SNORE': POLITICO TRASHES HILLARY CLINTON'S 'HARD CHOICES' BOOK
PRICES WERE ALREADY SLASHED

HILLARY CLINTON: OBAMA AND I RESTORED AMERICA'S LEADERSHIP IN THE WORLD

'SEXISM' IN '08
Palin: Hillary Book Proves Obama Campaign Fired First Shot in Real 'War on Women'

First Gaffe Of Campaign?
Super-PAC in fight over 'Ready for Oligarchy' merchandise

No Regret For 'What Difference Does It Make'
Benghazi Investigations 'More Of A Reason To Run' For President

'We Came Out Of White House Dead Broke'
BACKED DOWN FROM 'DEAD BROKE' COMMENT; 'WE'RE OBVIOUSLY BLESSED'
RAND PAUL: HILLARY SHOULD SHARE HER SOB STORY WITH REAL AMERICANS
BRZEZINSKI AND HALPERIN SLAMMED 'TONE DEAF' HILLARY

Hillary Clinton: John McCain My Favorite Republican

With a smile, Hillary deflected tough questions on the eve of the release of her book Hard Choices.
Diane Sawyer asked Clinton if there was "anything you personally should have been doing to make it
safer in Benghazi? Clinton responded that she gave very direct instructions that the people who have
the expertise and experience in security, because she is not equipped to sit and look at blueprints to
determine where the blast walls need to be or where the reinforcements need to be. Sawyer continued
to ask Clinton about her role in Benghazi by saying I wonder if people are looking from a sentence that
begins from you, I should have. .
CNN'S COSTELLO: HILLARY'S BENGHAZI ANSWER 'DIDN'T RESONATE'

Morning Jolt . . . with Jim Geraghty

Why Hillary's 'Dead Broke' Comment Matters
Hillary's "Dead Broke" comment is the 2016 presidential cycle's early version of her
"Tuzla Dash," when she claimed that during a visit to Bosnia as First Lady, "I remember
landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony
at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to
get to our base." Of course, there is no record indicating any danger to her. {And this
was confirmed on videotape.}
Hillary Clinton misremembers events so they fit into her own personal heroic narrative,
not as they actually were. Lots of people do this, particularly politicians, but this is a
dangerous habit for a leader to have. If they cannot assess and interpret past events
clearly, how much faith can we have in their ability to assess and interpret what's in
front of them now? Or in the future?
In case you missed it . . .
Hillary Clinton said she and husband, Bill, were "dead broke" when they
left the White House in 2001 with a meager income of $416,039 and
$11 million in debt, as she defended her $200,000 speaking fee to ABC's
Diane Sawyer.
Clinton insists the speaking fees were necessary for the family of three
to make ends meet, managing two mortgages and the steep bills for
daughter Chelsea's private school education.
"We struggled to, you know, piece together the resources for
mortgages, for houses, for Chelsea's education. You know, it was not
easy," Clinton told ABC's Diane Sawyer, in an interview to air Monday.
Remember when I chuckled about a New Yorker writer referring to her as "Lunch-pail
Hillary," suggesting she will run a populist campaign that is "critical of the Wall Street
types"? Apparently she really intends to do this.
A woman with a net worth of $200 million, who gives speeches to Goldman Sachs for
$200,000 each, is perhaps the single least plausible populist of all time. She may
attempt to pose as this reform-minded outsider who will shake up "The System," when
she is perhaps the personification of "The System." You can count on one hand the
number of people who have had more influence over public policy than her since
January 1993.
But she's going to try it, because she is apparently incapable of perceiving herself as she
is. Because massive wealth is seen as suspicious or inherently corrupting in today's
political culture, particularly in Democratic circles, she has to pretend she's middle class,
that her personal-finance worries are just like those of Americans making mid five-
figures or less.
The "he's unbelievably rich and out of touch" attack clearly did damage to Romney in
2012. Hillary Clinton has to hope lots of people don't react the way Jimmie Bise Jr. did: "I
know of dozens of ridiculously-talented, hard-working people who'll never set foot in a
mansion. But Hillary Clinton buys two and weeps."
Our Charlie Cooke:
Leaving aside for a brief moment how utterly farcical it is to use "struggle" and
"houses" in the same sentence, the notion that the Clintons were presented in
their post-presidency with anything other than a license to print money is
unyielding in its abject hilarity. By 2001, Bill Clinton had made $200,000 per
annum for eight years while paying nothing toward his housing or upkeep, and,
in addition to the extraordinarily lucrative speaking gigs that American ex-
presidents are now to expect, he had a lifetime of pensions and benefits to look
forward to. (David Graham points out that, in the last 14 years, he has received
nearly $16 million from the government.) By the end of the year in which he left
office, the couple had made $16 million and enjoyed between $5 and $30
million in assets. By 2004, they had $50 million to their names. And by 2014,
Clinton had become the highest-earning former president in America's history,
with net assets of nearly $200 million. Being smart sorts, the couple knew full
well that this was coming, which is why in 1999, with their apparently
destructive legal bills still racking up, they bought a $6 million house in
Chappaqua, N.Y., so that Hillary could legally run for the Senate. One suspects
that, if the Clintons had been genuinely worried that their legal fights might
bankrupt them, they would not have done this, nor would friend Terry
McAuliffe have agreed to loan them $1.3 million toward its purchase.
Hillary argues that Benghazi investigation is "minor-league ball" unworthy of the country:
In an interview with ABC News, Clinton said the Benghazi inquiry from
Republicans gives her a greater incentive to run for president because
she considers the multiple investigations into the attacks "minor-league
ball" for a country of the United States' stature. But she said she's still
undecided.
"It's more of a reason to run, because I do not believe our great country
should be playing minor-league ball. We ought to be in the majors,"
Clinton said emphatically. "I view this as really apart from even a
diversion from the hard work that the Congress should be doing
about the problems facing our country and the world."
(Tapper also offered a balanced, clear, detailed assessment of the deaths of those six
soldiers after Bowe Bergdahl's disappearance. It's not quite so simple as to say that the
search-and-rescue missions got those soldiers killed . . . but it's not quite accurate to
assert, as the Pentagon did, that the solders' deaths had nothing to do with Bergdahl's
disappearance. The adjustments from the Bergdahl search put U.S. forces into more
dangerous territory and pursuing leads that they might not otherwise pursue -- leading
to a higher risks, and eventually, the six soldiers making the ultimate sacrifice.)
The back-and-forth regarding a putative GOP-effort to attract support ASAP to thwart BHOs initiative to
manifest the Cloward-Piven strategy follows:

This is the ongoing reaction of the liberal mindset that truly must be calmed for your
movement to become more readily acceptable, regardless of whether it is based in
reality/fact, in your view. Positions are perceived (rightly or wrongly) as equally
dogmatic on your side. Perhaps, if the conservative leadership just stops talking about
these policies (to appease your base), you can minimize the impression that they will
indeed be important causes which will have an important impact on decision-making.

The Dems/Libs keep raising social-issues to retain their caring base; the GOP keeps
trying to discuss substantive issues such as debt/deficit.

Giving an inch or two on issues related to gun ownership might go a long way.

Mentation is on-the-table.

Also, while you place a lot of emphasis on current challenges in foreign policy
understandable given the worlds events and your stated position on the role of the
federal government, I would be interested in data (perhaps previously shared but I do
not recall) about the relative importance the public at large places on foreign vs.
domestic policy. If it is domestic policy that leads, these social issues become even
more important.

Regardless of such fluctuating data, Foreign Policy must be confrontedalong with its
Domestic import.

Positions on immigration, which of course is a domestic issue, have led to differing
political outcomes.

This is untrue; Immigration has both domestic and foreign-policy implications, for it not
only relates to the Islamism that threatens the world, but it also threatens to flood
America with social-service needs [n.b., Cloward-Piven, which Rush just discussed].

If that is correct, the economy and social issues (the definition of which I view broadly
because these matters are so intertwined) are the key issues.

They can be lumped/split depending upon the point that needs to be established.

I suppose it is about jobs but also, importantly, how federal and state resources will be
appropriated.

This is true, and a balanced-budget is mandated on state-levelswhich is why it is vital
to keep as much spending of this ilk dispersed, as possible.

One concern liberals have relates to the lens through which decisions would be made
about cutting funding. If, for example, there continues to be a push to kill Obamacare
and replace it with competitive risk pools with no individual mandate and no expansion
of Medicaid, can a commitment truly be demonstrated by your wing of the Rs that
broad-based access to healthcare is indeed a priority?

Yes; witness the pre-BHO world, and superimpose interstate competition [for starters]
plus the age-26 and pre-existing illness criteria [stare decisis].

Without that perception of commitment and just a philosophical debate about spending
and the role of the federal government, your argument that Obamacare has not
expanded access to the extent predicted will fall short among skeptical Ds. I suspect the
general reaction will be yes, not yet give it a chance. You must convince folks that
your policies are not simply about stopping Obama. Its not enough.

That commitment existed within prior GOP-Administrtions, so it did not merely result
from a philosophical discussion; skeptical Dems will have to recognize that socialized
medicine via ObamaDontCare [admittedly, as a prelude to a single-payer system] has
been given a chance, and has been demonstrated to be a fiscal black-hole without any
major redeeming outcome yet generated [with more people net uninsured than when
it was initiatedand with millions to be pushed into the Exchanges after large-scale
employers are encompassed]. The GOP has an alternative philosophy and practicality,
starting with the RSCs Scalese, whose work is based on that of John C. Goodman.

While you personally are deeply entrenched in facts, politics is as much about reality as
it is about perception and likeability. You may not like it, but the so-called soft stuff
ones emotional/gut reaction to what a candidate/elected official says which may or
may not result in actual outcomes truly matters if you want to win elections and build
a broad base. So criticize as much as you like about the lack of facts, but failure to
acknowledge the underlying concerns which motivate the opposition will continue to
breed skepticism.

This initiative recognizes the trenchant need to tackle the heart as well as the mind.

Your lack of trust in Obama is driving you. You argue that stopping him should be the
sole motivator that trumps all other concerns. Yet, for that to be accepted, the Ds must
be convinced we can trust that in that process you (conservative Rs) will not muck in
social issues or decimate non-defense federal spending (at least not at a rate where
states have no ability to pick up the slack). This is the soft stuff. It matters as much as
fact. It is why platforms and stated positions matter as they suggest what motivates
someone to want to come into political office.

The Dems/libs must first concur that BHO is out-of-control [seriatim, regarding foreign
policy and domestic policy] and then the GOP must present cogent alternatives; once
yall realize the profound predicament BHO has created during the past half-decade,
alternatives to the GOP [in this two-party system] will be recognized not to exist. Then,
both the hard/soft stuff will converge effectively, yielding a far greater shellacking
than occurred in 10. And if you arent part of the solution, youre part of the problem.