He Said What?! 

As the calendar counts down to the June 30th deadline for President Obama to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran, the president is once again making it painfully obvious just how desperate he is to add this notch to his belt.

During an interview with an Israeli TV channel, the president said the following: 
 

"I can, I think, demonstrate, not based on any hope, but on facts and evidence and analysis, that the best way to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon is a verifiable, tough agreement. A military solution will not fix it. . . it would temporarily slow down an Iranian nuclear program, but it will not eliminate it."

The facts, evidence and analysis clearly show that Iran cannot be trusted to keep any agreement it signs. The New York Times reports today that Iran is once again cheating on existing commitments and obligations. 

"Tehran's stockpile of nuclear fuel increased about 20 percent over the last 18 months of negotiations," the Times writes, clearly undermining the administration's claim that Iran's nuclear program had been "frozen" during the negotiations. 

But putting the obvious aside, why on earth would the president say that a military solution won't work? Just two weeks ago, the president told members of the Adas Israel Congregation in Washington, D.C., "I've made clear that when it comes to preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, all options are and will remain on the table."

Really? Obama once again took the military option off the table. 

Even if he believes that a military solution won't work, those words should never have come out of his mouth. Iran has virtually no reason now to fear a U.S. strike and thus to make the concessions necessary to have a meaningful agreement. 

I guess this is what we can call the Obama Doctrine -- Speak too much and carry no stick. 

The "Ferguson Effect" 

For the past two decades, violent crime in America had been declining. Unfortunately, hard won gains in public safety appear to be ending. While violent crime in the first half of 2014 fell nearly 5%, violent crimes this year are increasing at an alarming rate. 

Heather Mac Donald documented the disturbing trend in a recent Wall Street Journal column. Consider these statistics: 
 

• In Baltimore gun violence is up more than 60% compared to this time last year.
• In St. Louis in the first four months of 2015, robberies were up 43% and homicides increased by 25%.
• In Atlanta homicides were up 32% in the first five months of the year.
• In Chicago homicides are up 17%.
• In New York City, where left-wing Mayor Bill de Blasio ended stop-and-frisk policing, homicides are up 13%. 

  What explains this sudden surge in violent crime? Some are calling it the "Ferguson effect." 

  As a result of the media's eager embrace of a false narrative (hands up don't shoot) and the demonization of police that followed the deaths of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Freddie Gray and others, "the criminal element is feeling empowered," said St. Louis Police Chief Sam Dotson. 

  But the worst may be yet to come. Mac Donald writes that there is an orchestrated effort underway to end the effective policing methods that helped to bring down crime rates over the past 20 years. She warns: 

  "If these decriminalization and deincarceration policies backfire, the people most harmed will be their supposed beneficiaries: blacks, since they are disproportionately victimized by crime."

  You can read her entire column here. 

  TSA: Terrible Security Agency? 

  While the country is focused on the security issues surrounding the expiration of the Patriot Act, perhaps we should be more concerned about lapses at the Transportation Security Agency. 

  According to a report from the inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security, undercover investigators were able to successfully smuggle weapons and mock explosives past TSA agents in 67 out of 70 tests. That's a 96% failure rate! 

  My initial reaction to this news was anger. Thanks to TSA rules, travelers are routinely subjected to invasive pat downs. Yet this report suggests that all the aggravation and harassment is virtually useless. 

  One possible explanation for the terrible results is that the investigators are professionals who know the TSA's weaknesses and set out to demonstrate them in order to stay one step ahead of the terrorists. If the TSA security procedures are not working, they need to be fixed. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that this report could lead to even more intrusive procedures without added security. 

  I would feel a lot better if the number one reform at TSA were to concentrate resources on the people who fit the profile of those who have committed terrorist attacks. There are clear ways to do that, but we don't because it violates liberal sensibilities. 

  Are The Frontrunners Stumbling? 

  Yesterday we reported that former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley took a shot at both Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush in his presidential announcement speech. O'Malley said that the presidency is not a crown to be passed back and forth between two royal families. 

  He may be on to something. A new CNN/USA Today poll finds that Americans have growing doubts about both of the presumed frontrunners. 

  Regarding Hillary Clinton: 
   

• While she continues to dominate the Democrat primary field, most Democrats said they would prefer to see several strong candidates compete for their party's nomination. Only 43% preferred having one clear frontrunner. 
• 46% of Americans said they had a favorable opinion of Clinton, while 50% viewed her unfavorably. 
• 47% said she cares about people like them, down six points from July. This question tends to be a crucial measure of potential support. 
• 57% of adults said they did not view Clinton as honest and trustworthy. That's up eight points from March. 

  As for Jeb Bush, while it's possible that his name is his biggest asset, it is also his biggest liability: 
   

• 56% of Americans said they were "less likely" to vote for Bush because he was the son and brother of former presidents. 
• 62% of Americans said he "represents the past," while only 45% said the same of Hillary Clinton. 

  Given the choice between two these candidates, which the voters do not appear particularly excited about, they chose Hillary over Jeb 51%-to-43%. 

  This Just In 

  The latest CNN poll also finds that 61% of Americans believe the war against ISIS is going badly. Only 32% of Americans approve of Obama's handling of the situation. And more Americans blame Obama (44%) than Bush (43%) for the current conditions there.