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.

I appeared on Silvio Canto Jr's talk show from Dallas yesterday.  It's here.

MAY 5,  2014

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 8:30 P.M. ET: 

MAJOR FASHION NEWS – From London's Telegraph:  "A top Iranian dress designer has made an outfit for Baroness Ashton that could spare the blushes of Iranian diplomats during crunch nuclear talks.
Three years ago Iranian state media doctored pictures of the EU’s foreign policy chief to show her with a much higher neckline than she actually had during negotiations in Turkey.  Her attire then was modest by Western standards but clearly deemed too racy by Iran’s.  The new Iranian set of clothes, apparently a goodwill gift, will ensure the Baroness does not flash too much flesh during future meetings – if she decides to wear them.  Baroness Ashton, 58, has received the dress and 'warmly welcomed its design,' said the costume’s proud maker, Mitra Tamjidi told Iran’s ISNA news agency. She 'is scheduled to put on the dress in one of her diplomatic meetings.'"  I can't wait.

GOWDY HEADS BENGHAZI COMMITTEE – From Fox:  "South Carolina Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy, a former federal prosecutor known for his aggressive style of questioning at congressional hearings, has been tapped to lead a select committee tasked with investigating the 2012 Benghazi attacks.  House Speaker John Boehner made the announcement Monday afternoon.  'With four of our countrymen killed at the hands of terrorists, the American people want answers, accountability, and justice,' he said. 'Trey Gowdy is as dogged, focused, and serious-minded as they come.'"  That's correct.  He's terrific, the very best.  The question, though, is whether these hearings will ever get off the ground.  Already we're hearing that Democrats might boycott them, turning them into a partisan affair, and giving the mainstream media the excuse it needs to ignore them.  We're also hearing that the Obama White House might invoke executive privilege and refuse to cooperate.  I have to believe that a smart guy like Gowdy has already mulled these possibilities and has replies.  Ultimately, public opinion might well decide whether this probe gets going.

DULL CONVERSATION ALERT – From The Hill:  "President Obama will speak about climate change on Tuesday with a number of national and local TV meteorologists across the country, according to an administration official.  The 2014 National Climate Assessment will be released Tuesday and will be the focus of Obama’s interviews. 'Today' show weather forecaster Al Roker will be among those interviewing Obama on this year’s report, which is expected to look at the number of extreme weather events and their connection to climate change, among other data.  The Washington Post reports Tuesday’s climate lineup reflects a 'reinvigorated strategy' from the administration on climate change action."  I'm sure Al Roker will ask really tough questions of Obama.  As a TV weatherman, he's an expert on climate change (choke).  This whole thing is a farce.  Obama is under pressure from wealthy liberal donors to the Dem Party to take on the so-called climate issue.  Meanwhile, I'd love to know what investments these donors have, and whether they'll profit from the changes they demand in energy policy.  I doubt if any mainstream news organization will bother to investigate.

THE OTHER SIDE OF RUTGERS – Several days ago former Secretary of State Condi Rice withdrew as commencement speaker at Rutgers after leftist students and faculty objected to her, and some students took over a university office to protest.  Now other students are expressing outrage at Rice's withdrawal.  From Fox:  "Student groups at Rutgers University expressed their dismay Monday at the withdrawal of former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as a commencement speaker.  In an open letter to university president Dr. Robert Barchi, three student groups said they took issue with Rice's decision to withdraw as a speaker amid protests over her previously planned appearance at the school's graduation. The groups also expressed concern that Rutgers is not a place where 'the free ideas and a diversity of opinions are encourage'  The letter was written Monday on behalf of the Rutgers College Republicans, Eagleton Undergraduate Associates, Greek Life at Rutgers University, and other student organizations.  'The decision surprised many and evoked a wide range of responses on the Rutgers University campus, social media and in the national media' wrote Donald P. Coughlan of the Eagleton Undergraduate Associates."  Good letter.   The reputation of Rutgers has been sullied by a small group of intolerant faculty and students.  What will Rutgers do to get it back?

May 5, 2014        Permalink

GOP LEADING IN MAJOR POLL – AT 10:31 A.M. ET:   We caution that polls are only snapshots in time, that they differ, and that the midterms are six months away.  But polls do give us a sense of where things stand, and they're entertaining on a Monday morning.  From The Politico: 

Republicans are beating Democrats in a generic ballot for the 2014 midterm elections — a reversal from just two months ago, a new poll says.

According to a Pew Research poll released Monday, 47 percent said they would vote for the GOP candidate in their district while 43 percent said they would vote for the Democrat.

The 4-percentage-point edge is an improvement for the GOP. Just two months ago, Democrats had a 46 percent-44 percent edge in the Pew generic ballot.

The poll also suggests President Barack Obama will likely be more of a liability for Democrats than he was in 2010. Sixteen percent of voters said their midterm vote should be considered a vote for the president, while 26 percent of voters said their vote should be considered a vote against him. In the midterms in 2010, 24 percent said their congressional vote was a support vote for Obama, compared to just 20 percent who said theirs was a vote against him.

Sixty-five percent of voters also said they want the next president in 2016 to pursue different policies than the Obama White House.

Democrats are struggling to win over independent voters, according to the poll. Republicans hold a 16-point edge among independent voters, 49 percent-33 percent.

COMMENT:   An optimistic poll for our side.  But I caution:  Note that the same poll taken two months ago had different results, with the Dems winning.

We must fight as if we're 20 points behind.   We must be optimistic, but not self-assured.  And we must consider defeat a catastrophe, not a setback.  This election is about the future of the United States.  It will set the stage, psychologically, for the 2016 presidential election, and affect the national morale of our country.

No halfway effort.  And let's start the process of dragging our voters to the polls, something that wins elections for the other side.

May 5, 2014       Permalink

OUR COMMANDER – AT 9:44 A.M. ET:   Barack Obama has been in office five and a half years, and we still ask, "Who is he?"  We still seem to know so little about him.  And when people ask penetrating questions about his past, about why he won't release key records in his background, they're put down immediately or called "racists." 

There will probably now be a formal congressional investigation of Benghazi.  Democrats are already opposing it, some threatening to boycott it.  I wonder why.  Could it be that this probe will finally tell us the character of the man in the White House?  The great Andrew Malcolm of IBD, gives us a stark portrait of Barack Obama's actions during an event in which four Americans, including an ambassador, were murdered:

But for us the most pressing, curious and disturbing question today remains: Where was the Commander-in-Chief and what was he doing during an eight-hour attack that left four government employees unprotected, abandoned and dead?

We know now, thanks to Bret Baier's recent interview with ex-Obama aide Tommy Vietor, that the president was not in the Situation Room, the secure, in-house command post where presidents usually go to oversee crises. Remember the Osama bin Laden assassination-night photo with Obama back in the corner and others riveted to a real-time video screen?

Clinton and then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta have both said they talked with Obama by phone that awful evening. And Obama's said he ordered all necessary security for American facilities and representatives abroad.

But that's it! Nothing more.

Not until the next morning when Obama emerged into the Rose Garden with a silent Clinton to denounce the attack, cite the video and vow quick justice to the perpetrators. Then, he flew off to Las Vegas campaign fundraisers before the bodies were cold. Justice remains undelivered 600 days later.

Now, recall the contemporary context: Six weeks out from his reelection. Months into his comforting meme that he had al Qaeda on the run, decimated its leadership and sent Bin Laden to sleep with the fishes.

Mitt Romney was warning that indecision and lack of preparation were great threats to national security. Obama would mock him as uninformed and outdated for his prescient warnings about Russia remaining a strategic foe of the United States.

COMMENT:  A picture of a president who is a perpetual candidate, but not much of an involved president.  It is, in my view, a compelling picture. 

It is also the picture of a president who believes the United States of America is the problem, not the solution. 

As some have called him, the first post-American president.

May 5, 2014       Permalink 

UKRAINE – AT 9:21 A.M. ET:  The armed combat in Ukraine increases.  There are reports of Russian warplanes flying over Crimea, which is southern Ukraine.  From USA Today: 

Ukrainian troops are battling a pro-Russia militia occupying an eastern city in an apparent escalation of a security sweep to bring the region back under government control.

Gunfire and multiple explosions could be heard Monday in Slovyansk, a city of 125,000 people that has become the focus of the armed anti-government insurgency.

The Interfax news agency cited Interior Minister Arsen Avakov as saying that pro-Russia forces were deploying large-caliber weapons and mortars.

In the beleagured city of Odessa, pro-Russian demonstrators stormed police headquarters on Sunday and won the release of 67 people detained after deadly riots there.

It was Odessa's latest clash between pro-Russian separatists and supporters of the Ukrainian government in the port city, where more than 40 people died in the riots and subsequent fire in a trade union building on Friday.

Earlier Sunday, Ukraine Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk visited Odessa and accused Russia of engineering violence that left dozens of people dead in recent days.

Yatsenyuk also blamed government security forces for failing to prevent the bloodshed, calling the deaths a "tragedy of all of Ukraine."

COMMENT:  And the president of the United States is fixated on the theory of "climate change," egged on by environmental religionists and wealthy donors wanting to "give back."  Ukraine is the world foreign crisis since the presumed end of the Cold War, and look how little interested Americans are.

As some pundits are pointing out, this is not a new cold war.  It is hot war.  People are being killed.  Heavy weapons are being used.

The United States lacks the diplomatic clout to confront Russia, although Russia is a comparatively weak country.  Or is it that those running our affairs have no problem with the expansion of "The Motherland"?

May 5, 2014       Permalink

THE PARTY LINE – AT 9:14 A.M. ET:  Our increasingly left-wing president is going all in on "climate change" despite serious concerns in thoughtful circles that the issue is not fully researched, that numbers may be wildly inaccurate, and that we may spend trillions of dollars on a theory that may turn out to be weak.  But who cares?  It's trendy.  From the Washington Post's true believing Juliet Eilperin: 

After years of putting other policy priorities first — and dismaying many liberal allies in the process — Obama is now getting into the weeds on climate change and considers it one of the key components of his legacy, according to aides and advisers.

He is regularly briefed on scientific reports on the issue, including a national climate assessment that he will help showcase Tuesday. He is using his executive authority to cut greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and other sources, and is moving ahead with stricter fuel-efficiency standards for the heaviest trucks.

And while he routinely brings up climate change in closed-door meetings with world leaders, according to his aides, he also discusses it in his private life, talking about global warming’s implications with his teenage daughters.

“This is really real for him, in terms of what he’s leaving,” said Cecilia Muñoz, who directs the White House Domestic Policy Council and has helped coordinate federal investment in climate-resilient infrastructure projects. “This is personal for him.”

COMMENT:   The article makes plain the influence of the rigid left on Obama's thinking.  The left not only wants to "confront" climate change, it wants to shut down all the progress that's been made in extracting traditional forms of energy, even though alternative forms are far from ready and far from proved.

We are being confronted by fanatics at a time when measurements of the so-called "climate change" are increasingly wobbly.  Indeed, these are the same people who seem to oppose anything that will make this country stronger and more energy independent.  The only criticism they have of Obama's weak, ineffective foreign policy is that it isn't weak enough. 

Are we talking energy policy here?  Or are we talking an overall political philosophy that is anti-American at its core? 

And are we talking about wealthy leftist donors, as the article does, who have an inordinate influence over what this president does?  Hmm.

May 5,  2014     Permalink

MAY 4,  2014

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:48 P.M. ET: 

MAJOR NUTRITION NEWS – From Fox:  "Hide your Big Gulps, again, New York.  Mayor Bill de Blasio announced this week his administration will pick up where former mayor Michael Bloomberg left off and will continue the battle to ban sodas larger than 16 ounces. The city will appeal a state court ruling that axed the ban last year.   City lawyers will argue the case at the Court of Appeals on June 4, the New York Daily News reported this week.  Former Mayor Michael Bloomberg got lots of headlines in 2012 when he declared war on Big Gulps and other large sugary drinks.  The much-discussed ban on sodas over 16 ounces was an edict issued by the city's Health Department and never got approval from city council. A state judge in March 2013 blocked the ban and said Bloomberg overstepped his authority in issuing it without the city council's consent."  Nothing like a mayor with a set of priorities.

DEM REVOLT ON KEYSTONE? – From Fox:  "A Democratic senator suggested Sunday that the Senate might have enough votes to pass a bill compelling the Obama administration to approve the Keystone XL pipeline.  Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., noting that 62 senators voted in favor of a Keystone measure last year, said: 'I still think that vote is there. I really do.'  Manchin discussed the prospects just days after his Senate colleagues introduced a bill to build the Canada-to-Texas pipeline. The difference between the measure approved last year and this one is that last year's was a nonbinding resolution with no real teeth to it.  The new Senate bill would require approval of Keystone. Getting a filibuster-proof, 60-vote majority on board with such a bill is a heavier lift for sponsors.  But Manchin said he 'would hope' that a few more Democrats would be willing to support it, and even suggested it could be a positive step for the White House.  'We don't want to usurp anyone's power, but if it gives the White House some protection from the environmental community coming after them, sooner or later you've got to give to the will of the people,' Manchin said."  We wish Manchin luck, but I doubt he'll have it.  In the end, the Dems in the Senate will kneel before their master in the White House.   As for the "will of the people," don't make me laugh.  The "people" count for nothing in this administration, unless they're certain people.

RETURN TO THE PAST – From the New York Post:  "Katie Couric is in preliminary talks to head back to NBC’s 'Today' — at least on a temporary basis, The Post has learned.  Couric is a contender to sit in and co-host the No. 2 morning show while Savannah Guthrie is on maternity leave, sources told The Post.
Guthrie, 42, is five months pregnant and expected to be away from the show for a few months beginning in late summer.  While the preliminary talks between Couric, 57, and NBC concern a temporary position, it could, sources added, turn into something longer term if she sparks an uptick in ratings."  What an inspirational story.  We understand that, when this first broke, Jimmy Carter called a reporter and announced for the presidency. 

May 4, 2014       Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 11:17 A.M. ET:   All of you are familiar with the absurd left-wing trendiness on American college campuses.  Have you heard the latest?  Well, apparently we now have a request from the lunatic fringe for "trigger warnings" to be issued each time a student might be subjected to "offensive" material in class.  I kid you not.  College as nursery school.  But there is pushback.  From College Insurrection: 

In their latest quest to cater to hypersensitive activists, schools are now considering the establishment of “trigger warnings,” which are intended to protect people from taking part in class discussions and media that might offend.

The Editorial Board of USA Today just issued its own set of warnings — about this concept.

... For all of their reputation for free thinking, universities can be governed by well-meaning but stifling liberal orthodoxy.

The latest example comes in the form of the push on several campuses for “trigger warnings” — statements that advise students that a particular book or other work includes disturbing content that might trigger traumatic reactions in certain people.

For example, a course that included Things FallApart, a novel by Chinua Achebe, might include a warning that it dealt with racism, violence and colonialism. Readers of Virginia Woolf’s Mrs. Dalloway would have to be warned of the suicide of a pivotal character. And a course covering Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn or William Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice would have to warn students of the former’s racism and the latter’s anti-Semitism.

The practice began on the Internet, particularly with blogs dealing with such topics as violence against women and post-traumatic stress disorder. In that context, the advisories are relatively harmless, though presumably someone seeking out blogs on rape or PTSD would know what to expect.

In academia, trigger warnings are another matter entirely. At best, they are silly. By the time today’s students get to college, they’ve been exposed to all manner of sex, violence and depravity on the Internet, on TV and at the movies. It’s hard to believe that any significant number are truly shocked by something they encounter in a college classroom.

…Almost all forms of trigger warnings lend themselves to overreach, in what subjects they cover and how they are applied. According to The New Republic, the Oberlin warnings had covered works containing “racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, cissexism, ableism, and other issues of privilege and oppression.”

Students at Wellesley College, meanwhile, used the trigger warning concept to object to a statue of an underwear-clad man, calling it “a source of apprehension, fear, and triggering thoughts regarding sexual assault.”

This is not to say that students shouldn’t be able to complain about works, or that PTSD isn’t serious. But it does mean that simplistic, coddling warnings are a terrible idea. Swaddling students in such niceties is no way to prepare them for life.

COMMENT:  Well said.  But the chilling notion here is that colleges don't seem too inclinced to prepare students for life, especially life in a democracy.  I think too many "educators" prefer life in an authoritarian welfare state.  That's the scare.

May 4, 2014        Permalink

PATHETIC – AT 10:51 A.M. ET:  I recall the Senate Watergate committee, in the early 1970s, formed to investigate the break-in at Democratic Party headquarters by Republican operatives.  Dems relished the investigation, but Republicans joined the committee and it was truly a bipartisan effort.  When serious matters are involved, that's what's supposed to happen. 

Indeed, it was Republican Senator Howard Baker who asked, during those proceedings, the key question about President Nixon:  "What did the president know and when did he know it?"  Republicans served with distinction and enhanced the reputation of their own party.

We are about to see a major House investigation of Benghazi.  Four Americans died at Benghazi, four more than were killed at Watergate.  But already there are rumblings that Democrats should boycott the investigation.  From Fox: 

A Democratic member of the House intelligence committee called Sunday for his party to boycott the newly announced committee tasked with probing the Benghazi attacks, dismissing new evidence that Republicans have called a "smoking gun" showing the White House politicized the tragedy.

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., told "Fox News Sunday" that Democrats should not give the select committee more "credibility" by joining.

"I think it's a colossal waste of time," he said. "I don't think it makes sense, really, for Democrats to participate."

Schiff, calling the committee a "tremendous red herring," acknowledged he doesn't know what Democratic leadership will decide.

Fox News was told on Friday, when House Speaker John Boehner announced that the House would vote on creating a special committee, that the panel would be bipartisan.

Schiff's comments, though, raise the prospect that his party could try to define the committee as a political vessel by sitting it out. The remarks reflect how the committee, which has not yet been formally approved, already is a political football. It would begin its investigative work in the heat of the midterm election season, poised to level damaging charges against the Obama administration at a sensitive time.

Leading Republicans were adamant that the committee is vital to get to the bottom of what happened in the days and weeks following the Sept. 11, 2012, attack which killed four Americans, including a U.S. ambassador.

COMMENT:  If Dems are crass enough to boycott a probe into the murder of Americans, then Republicans should go ahead with the panel anyway.  They should have empty chairs reserved for Democrats.   And in front of each chair should be a sign saying INVITED. 

You may be sure that those asked to testify will immediately denounce the proceedings as "partisan."  They should be immediately interrupted and referred to those signs.  The American people will get the picture.

May 4, 2014       Permalink

THE SENATE – AT 10:32 A.M. ET:  We're getting more and more polling on Senate races, with the midterm elections only six months away.  The results, frankly are a bit disappointing.  Some Republicans seem to believe that this year's elections will be a cakewalk, but they are mistaken. 

Even in seriously contested states, like Arkansas, where Republicans have outstanding candidates, polling shows close races.  Closer, frankly, than I'd expected.  The American people may have turned on President Obama, but that doesn't automatically mean they'll turn on their locally elected representatives and senators.  And the Republican Party, as a party, does not poll well.

Paul Mirengoff, at Powerline, has done a state-by-state analysis, showing how close things really are. 

Let’s start with Arkansas. According to Magellan, our friend Rep. Tom Cotton leads Sen. Mark Pryor by three points, 46-43. Two recent polls, one of which we questioned, have found Pryor leading by 10 points. I’m not sure what to make of this race right now, but suspect that it’s very much up for grabs.

In Alaska, Republican Dan Sullivan (who hasn’t been nominated yet) leads Sen. Mark Begich 46-41. In March, Rasmussen had the race tied at 44-44. This race will probably be close but I suspect that Sullivan has the edge. Like Pryor, Begich benefits from his family name. But unlike Pryor, Begich’s victory in 2006 was a fluke (he narrowly defeated Ted Stevens who was laboring under the handicap of criminal prosecution).

In Colorado, Sen. Mark Udall leads his Republican challenger Rep. Cory Gardner 45-42, according to Magellan. All four polls that I’m aware of since March show Udall leading by 1 to 3 points. Edge, Udall but not by much.

COMMENT:  Read the whole thing.  You'll probably wind up thinking, "Wasn't this Democratic senator supposed to be toast?"  You'll see there's not much toast out there.  The contested states are swing states, and the Dems know how to play to swing-state voters.  You won't hear them singing love songs to Barack Obama.  He won't even be mentioned. 

And remember that Dems have a superb ground game on election day – getting out their base after scaring it to death.  ("They'll take away your health care.  They'll take your Social Security.")  This will be a tough fight.  There isn't even a guarantee that Republicans will gain any seats in the Senate.

May 4,  2014     Permalink