Please note that you can leave a comment on any of our posts at our Facebook page.  Subscribers can also comment at length at our Angel's Corner Forum.

Our Angel's Corner archive is here.

DECEMBER 3,  2015

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:51 P.M. ET: 

APPALLING – From PJ Media:  President Obama has appointed a foreign policy advisor known to be a friend of the terrorist group Hamas to be the administration’s new czar in charge of countering ISIS. The appointee, Robert Malley, has a history of sympathizing with Islamists, which makes the appointment all the more appalling.  According to the government watchdog group Judicial Watch, the White House downplayed the controversial appointment by "burying it deep in a press briefing delivered at a Paris hotel during the recent climate summit."  Malley is an old lefty, who should never have been appointed to any post in the government.  His appointment as ISIS "czar" is especially insulting.  I'm sure the insult was intentional.

QUOTE OF THE DAY – From former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani:  “You can come to one clear conclusion with the information they have right now. This is an act of terror. The question was motivation… The question here is not, is it an act of terror. We’re beyond that. When you got two assault weapons, two handguns, you’re in body armor, you got a home that’s boobytrapped. You’ve been practicing to do this… If you can’t come to a conclusion at this point that this was an act of terror, you should find something else to do for a living besides law enforcement. I mean, you’re a moron.”  Rudy hits it again.  Watching some of these TV anchors try to avoid the T-word is borderline hilarious.  As for the Obama administration, they came to power trying to redefine terror as "man-made disasters."  Hasn't worked.

DISCOVERY – From Fox:  Astronomers using NASA’s Hubble and Spitzer space telescope have found what they believe is the faintest object ever seen in the early universe, a galaxy that existed 13.8 billion years ago or about 400 million years after the big bang.  Nicknamed Tayna, meaning “first-born” in Aymara, a language spoken in the Andes and Altiplano regions of South America, the object could offer clues into the formation and evolution of the first galaxies. It also suggests that the early universe could be rich in galaxy targets for the upcoming James Webb Space Telescope to uncover.  Obama immediately offered residents of the early galaxy the chance to immigrate to the United States, once they're vetted.

MAJOR IMMATURITY NEWS – From Daily Caller:   A group of Hamilton College (New York) students published a list of almost forty demands on Tuesday, which the group insists that the university must begin implementing within 24 hours in order to end “the inevitable tokenization of all marginalized bodies” at the school.  The students at the New York private university collectively refer to themselves as The Movement and are demanding, for example, that white professors be “discouraged” from leading certain departments, the replacement of male/female pronouns, the erasure of Nobel Laureate Elihu Root’s name from campus, and the censorship of “opinions that further marginalizes historically oppressed communities.”  The demands — which are riddled with grammatical errors — were issued in conjunction with a protest of “tokenism,” which the students define as “the practice of hiring, appointing, or accepting a token number of people from underrepresented groups in order to deflect criticism or comply with affirmative action rules.”  I love that term "underrepresented."  I thought we were talking about universities.  Apparently we're talking about state legislatures.  Since when is a university required to "represent" this or that group? 

December 3, 2015       Permalink

I'M SHOCKED, SHOCKED, THAT THERE IS CHEATING GOING ON – AT 10:44 A.M. ET:  I cannot believe the that the dear, brotherly Iranians would engage in anything underhanded, anything that offends the peaceful precepts of Islam.  From The Hill:

An official determination that Iran formerly worked to build a nuclear weapon — despite Tehran's ardent claims to the contrary — is just the latest bad omen for the prospects of the nuclear deal involving the country, critics of the agreement said Wednesday.

Hours after an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) assessment leaked to the press, key opponents of the nuclear deal warned that it was proof Iran was getting a light sentence from the rest of the globe.

“I think we’re getting off to a very, very poor start,” Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) told reporters after a roughly two-hour top-secret committee hearing.

“These are exactly the things that we talked about during the hearing process that raised concerns and they’re being validated right now,” he added.

“It just sets a very bad precedent that if Iran thinks it can violate the world’s will, as expressed by Security Council resolutions, and in essence face no consequence for it," said Sen. Robert Menendez (N.J.), one of the four Democrats who voted against the deal in September.

"Then what makes it think that whatever sanctions or other protocols we have moving forward in the [nuclear deal], that they won’t think in the long term that they can get away with violations of that?"

The IAEA report, which was leaked to multiple news outlets on Wednesday but won’t be formally approved until Dec. 15, concludes that Iran conducted preliminary work to build a nuclear weapon, but ceased that activity at least five years ago.

COMMENT:  Did they cease it, or hide it?  I don't trust anything Tehran does.  But there are powerful interests, including business interests, who want to smooth over the Iran nuclear deal because they benefit.  And those interests are in charge. 

December 3, 2015       Permalink

SHOOTER BACKGROUND – AT 9:37 A.M. ET:  Why do I have to, once again, get some of the best information from the British press.  London's Daily Mail has unusually perceptive coverage of the United States. 

On Wednesday morning, California health inspector and US citizen Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, and his Saudi wife of two years, Tashfeen Malik, 27, dropped off their six-month-old baby with Farook's mother, saying they were going to a doctor's appointment.

That is a key indicator that the attack was pre-planned, not some spontaneous act of "workplace violence."  A detective once said that you always find out what perps did with children and pets before the crime to help demonstrate premeditation.

By noon, according to police, the couple had donned assault clothing, armed themselves with rifles and stormed a holiday party attended by San Bernardino County employees, killing 14 people and wounding 17 others.

Before sunset, after a massive manhunt and a violent shootout with police on a residential street, they were both dead, leaving a grieving community with few clues to puzzle out the motive for the carnage.

Those who knew Farook, among them his colleagues at the San Bernardino County Public Health Department, described him as a devout Muslim but not someone who often talked about religion.

'He never struck me as a fanatic, he never struck me as suspicious,' said Griselda Reisinger, a former colleague.

Co-worker Patrick Baccari, who shared a cubicle with Farook, told the Los Angeles Times he and his young family appeared to be 'living the American dream.'

COMMENT:  One terrorism expert said on Fox this morning that the couple were in some respects ideal terrorists.  They never let on that they were involved in anything but routine religious practice. 

We'll learn more.  One thing I want to know, and that the FBI will undoubtedly be investigating, is how the murderous yet amorous couple could afford the arsenal found inside their house.  Follow the money.

December 3, 2015       Permalink

THE SHOOTINGS – AT 9:08 A.M. ET:  Readers know that I have what I call the "48-hour rule."  It holds that it takes the left 48 hours after an incident to reorganize and go right back to the party line.

I must commend the left in the wake of the San Bernardino shootings.  They did it in less than a day.  By this morning, on CNN, it was all gun-control all the time.  Terrorism?  Maybe a word or two.  Led by Barack Obama, for whom the word "legacy" is the most important word of all, there'll be a new push for gun control, although we now know that yesterday's shooters were maintaining a military-style arsenal in their home and car, complete with bombs and improvised explosive devices.  Show me the law that could have prevented that.  Show me the law they would have followed.

I certainly don't mean to suggest that there are no steps that we can take to lessen gun violence.  Surely making background checks more effective, and including mental-health histories, are moves in the right direction.  I'd add common-sense steps like requiring safety training and certification for all gun owners.  But the "gun-control solves all" crowd is less interested in practical steps than in showboating.

The very existence of the arsenal inside the shooters' home, and the need for robots to safely examine that home, suggest that terrorism was the likely motive.  It may take time to determine whether the man-and-wife shooter team, killed later by police, were self-radicalized, or were associated with some group.  Let's see if the media stays interested. 

December 3,  2015     Permalink

DECEMBER 2,  2015

There'll be no "Short Takes" tonight, replaced by some comments on the shootings in San Bernardino.  These shootings are a very big deal. 

They're a very big deal because 1) it is very rare for a mass shooting in America to involve more than one shooter;  2) the shooters were superbly armed and appeared to have had some kind of training; 3) they were not on a suicide mission, and, judging from the arsenal in their getaway car, were apparently prepared to strike again; 4) a woman was involved; 5) they apparently slipped under the intelligence screen, like the shooters in Paris; 6) they appeared to involve Mideast elements.

I was able to monitor some of the television coverage, which involved the three broadcast networks and the cable systems.  I generally found it professional and neutral, although Fox News seemed obsessed, almost neurotic, about constantly claiming that it wasn't trying to label the attacks as terrorism.  There have been some changes in tone at Fox recently that are frankly disturbing, and I'm not the only one to note them.  I hope Fox isn't forgetting that it became hugely successful by providing an alternative to the liberal tilt of the others. 

The reaction of the usual liberal suspects has been sickening.  The president immediately went into his "we need more gun control" mode, as if gun-control laws would have influenced these thugs.  The New York Times, head of the president's amen corner, followed through with its "Yes, sire," agreement with the godlike figure on Pennsylvania Avenue.  It's all about guns, not the people who fire them.   Nothing to see, nothing to see.

As to the event itself, facts are still unfolding.  We know that two shooters, a man and a woman, were killed by police trying to escape.  The AP is reporting that they were married.  We know that at least the man was employed, or formerly employed, by the agency that was hit in the attacks.  Both the man and woman were of Middle Eastern descent.  There is indeed the possibility that this was "workplace violence," a grudge of some kind, but it seems highly unlikely.  When law enforcement got into their home late in the day they discovered what they described as an IED facility – a place to build improvised explosive devices.  Not exactly the kind of thing needed if you were just having an argument with the boss.  We don't know if there were any other shooters, or even a getaway driver.

We also don't know if the attacks were the work of an ISIS cell, or any other organized terror group.  But CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, was already out with a televised press conference asking people not to blame their entire religion for the acts of the few.

More information is coming out each hour.  We'll have more tomorrow.  But our vulnerability has been exposed once more.

GRIM ECONOMIC FORECAST – AT 10:55 A.M. ET:   Forecast for a recession next year, election year.  From Reuters: 

LONDON (Reuters) - The outlook for the global economy next year is darkening, with a U.S. recession and China becoming the first major emerging market to slash interest rates to zero both potential scenarios, according to Citi.

As the U.S. economy enters its seventh year of expansion following the 2008-09 crisis, the probability of recession will reach 65 percent, Citi's rates strategists wrote in their 2016 outlook published late on Tuesday. A rapid flattening of the bond yield curve towards inversion would be an key warning sign.

"The cumulative probability of U.S. recession reaches 65 percent next year," Citi's rates strategists wrote in their 2016 outlook published late on Tuesday. "Curve inversion will likely come more quickly than the consensus thinks."

COMMENT:  An election-year recession would clearly favor the Republicans, unless they have self-destructed by then.  It might even favor Trump, who'd be seen as a tough, practical businessman.

But it would hurt the country badly.  Despite our "recovery" tens of millions of Americans are still living on the margin, with lesser jobs than they had before and no savings.

I've always thought the "recovery" was vastly exaggerated by the administration and a compliant media.  We'll learn next year.

December 2, 2015       Permalink

AN ENORMOUS CRISIS, END OF WORLD – AT 9:56 A.M. ET:   Hillary Clinton's fans are now facing the issue they merely whispered about before.  None dare call it loathsomegate. From The Hill:

Allies of Hillary Clinton are confident she will win the Democratic presidential nomination, but they are worried about one big thing: her likability problem in the general election.

Clinton has rebounded from a rough spring and summer with a strong fall. And while her eyes remain on the primary, she is already testing general election themes against her possible GOP opponents as they do battle in what could be a drawn-out Republican primary.

Presidential elections are often decided on personality instead of specific policies. Along those lines, people in Clinton’s orbit are worried she doesn’t pass the would-you-like-to-have-a-beer-with-her test.  It’s a test she failed against then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in 2008. Throughout that cycle, Clinton stressed her “35 years of experience” while Obama pitched his “hope and change” message.

The likability test came up often on the campaign trail, most notably in the last New Hampshire debate that year when Clinton acknowledged Obama is “very likable.”

In a quip that may have cost him New Hampshire, Obama responded, “You’re likable enough, Hillary.”

Head-to-head 2016 matchups suggest vulnerabilities for Clinton, particularly against Sen. Marco Rubio, the Florida Republican who often talks about his love of professional football.

“Her challenge remains the same as it always has been — show voters who she is and reveal the person beneath the candidate,” said Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public policy at Princeton University. “To win people’s trust and to generate enthusiasm, she has to let some of her character come out.”

COMMENT:  I'm not sure I accept that last comment from-the-ivory-tower comment.   Every time Hillary's character comes out, she loses. 

She does well in debates, but has an obnoxious quality about her that just turns people off.  She never seems genuine.  She seems to think it's all about her.  She lacks the image of a "great lady," the kind you'd want in the White House.  Despite all her feminist talk, she often appears weak and indecisive.   No one puts her in a league with Margaret Thatcher or Golda Meir.  The best-known female leader today is Germany's Angela Merkel.  Merkel has that rock-like quality.  But Hillary?   Would you want to spend an hour in her dental office?

December 2, 2015       Permalink

POLLING LATEST – AT 9:32 A.M. ET:  A new poll confirms the dramatic slip of Ben Carson, who hasn't seemed up to speed on foreign policy, which has come to the fore as perhaps the number one issue, following the Paris attacks.  From ABC News: 

A new national poll out today shows 2016 presidential candidate Ben Carson falling from the top of the race for the Republican nomination amidst voters' doubts about his experience and the strength of his leadership.

The neurosurgeon garners 16 percent support in a new Quinnipiac University poll released today, dropping 7 percentage points in the last month to trail frontrunner Donald Trump by double-digits.

Trump garnered 27 percent support, while Sen. Marco Rubio took 17 percent and Sen. Ted Cruz earned 16 percent. All other GOP candidates earned 5 percent or less. Carson had been neck-and-neck for the lead with the real estate mogul in early November.

But now, he's locked in a battle with Rubio and Cruz, both of whom are seeing their highest support in months.

An increased focus on terrorism and foreign affairs after last month's tragic attacks in Paris has prompted a new chapter of the campaign. Only 42 percent of Republican voters now say Carson has the right experience to be president, plummeting from 64 percent just four weeks ago.

And only six in 10 say he has strong leadership qualities -- down from 76 percent of Republicans in early November. But his fall has even affected other areas: Carson has also seen double-digit drops in areas like honesty and trustworthiness and overall favorability, where Carson had been sky high.

COMMENT:  The race is now playing out as many had predicted.  On the one hand, there is a contest between Trump and Carson for "king of the outsiders."  It is clearly being won by Trump.  On the other hand, there's a contest for "king of the insiders," between Rubio and Cruz.  Still no decision, but the winner of the "insider" contest will battle Trump for the nomination.

The shakeout is coming.  The other candidates are fading.  Chris Christie might make a good showing in New Hampshire, but I doubt if he has legs anywhere else.  Jeb Bush simply can't gain traction.  Maybe he seeks a track somewhere, but I certainly don't see it.

It's an exciting race.  The Dem race is a sleeper, unless Hillary gets nailed by the FBI.

December 2,  2015     Permalink