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.

OCTOBER 9,  2014

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 8:09 P.M. ET: 

SAD NUMBERS – From Breitbart:  "Nearly six in ten black Americans (59 percent) believe that there would already be a cure for the deadly Ebola virus had it originated in Europe or America.   A YouGov/Economist poll also found that 62 percent of Americans think 'more would have been done' to combat Ebola had it not originated in West Africa. Forty-two percent of Americans also believe there would be a cure had the virus originated in Europe or the U.S. while 23 percent do not think that would be the case.  The poll, which was conducted October 4-6 and has a margin of error of +/- 4.4 percentage points, was taken before Thomas Eric Duncan -- the Liberian alien who became the first person diagnosed with Ebola on American soil -- died on Wednesday."  There is probably truth to some of these beliefs.   We are more aware of tragedy in Europe or America.  It's cultural.  But I doubt if a quick cure could be cooked up simply because a disease originates close to home.  That's not science. 

SERIOUS STUFF IN LONDON – From AFP:  "LONDON — Police in London on Thursday said they had arrested a fifth British man on suspicion of Islamist-linked 'terrorism' after saying earlier they had managed to avert a 'significant plot.'  The 20-year-old was arrested 'on suspicion of being concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism,' the Metropolitan Police said in a statement.  The police said he was arrested on Tuesday along with the other four, but this was not revealed 'for operational reasons.'"  At least they're not saying he was arrested on suspicion of planning "workplace violence."  There has been reporting that suggests that the alleged perpetrators plotted to behead ordinary people on the streets of London.

AMERICA IN 2014 – From AP:  "PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- A Philadelphia supermarket stabbing that left a man with wounds in his face and neck didn't deter some customers, who continued to shop.  Police Chief Inspector Scott Small says the attacker stabbed the man on Tuesday evening.  Small says the victim's wounds left a 'heavy blood trail' but about 20 customers continued to shop near it even after they were told it was a crime scene and the store was closed. He says some customers even wheeled shopping carts through the blood trail and there was 'no way they could have missed the blood.'  Police say the stabbing suspect was apprehended. Small says the victim was taken to a hospital in critical condition with deep cuts."  We now await the arrival of the excuse industry, which will "explain" the "socio-economic" reasons for this cultural breakdown.  And, believe me, it's your fault.

$60,000 A YEAR – Reader Jacqueline Reckseit alerts us to this, from Fox:  "They got most of their SAT questions right, but students at Harvard blew this lay-up posed by the college blog Campus Reform: Who is the bigger threat to world peace, ISIS or the U.S.?  Various students at the hallowed Ivy League school said they believe that America, not the Muslim fanatics who behead innocent people, is the biggest threat to world peace.  The students were interviewed on the quad by Campus Reform on Saturday, and the shocking video was posted on Tuesday...Caleb Bonham, editor of Campus Reform, conducted the interviews and said that the students’ response is nothing new.  'This video demonstrates the absurdity behind the bash America fad,' Bonham told FoxNews.com. 'Unfortunately, too many students think it is intellectual to try and piece together a reason why America is a greater threat than this terrorist organization trying to establish a caliphate through public executions, bombings and beheadings.'"   These kids will be our leaders in 25 years.  We hope they mature and grow, unlike many of their teachers, who are still stuck in the 1960s.  Ronald Reagan was right in saying that we're always one generation away from losing our freedoms.  I wonder what generation that will be.

October 9,  2014     Permalink 

DEVASTATING TO MANY – AT 10:53 A.M. ET:  Obamacare, as we noted last night, is a drag on Democrats.  Now the drag may get draggier.  From Fox: 

More than a dozen states plan to cancel health care policies not in compliance with ObamaCare in the coming weeks, affecting thousands of people just before the midterm elections.

"It looks like several hundred thousand people across the country will receive notices in the coming days and weeks," said Jim Capretta of the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

The policies are being canceled because states that initially granted a reprieve at the request of President Obama are no longer willing to do so.

In coming weeks, 13 states and the District of Columbia plan to cancel such policies, which generally fall out of compliance with the Affordable Care Act because they don’t offer the level of coverage the law requires.

Virginia will be hardest hit, with 250,000 policies expected to be canceled.

And because federal law requires a 60-day notice of any plan changes, voters will be notified no later than November 1, right before the Nov. 4 midterms.

Many of those forced out of their current plans and into ObamaCare may not be able to keep their doctors. They also could face higher deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses, making ObamaCare an election issue on the eve of voting.

Obama had originally unequivocally promised that underhis health care plan, everyone could keep their doctors and plans.

COMMENT:  Ah, the Obaman competence.  The vision.  The caring souls.  I hope this mess will produce change on election day. 

October 9, 2014       Permalink

GREAT MOMENTS IN EDUCATION – AT 10:27 A.M. ET:  You really can't make this up.  And it's from Nebraska, which shows that nuttiness in education has invaded the heartland.  From NRO: 

A Nebraska school district has instructed its teachers to stop referring to students by “gendered expressions” such as “boys and girls,” and use “gender inclusive” ones such as “purple penguins” instead.

“Don’t use phrases such as ‘boys and girls,’ ‘you guys,’ ‘ladies and gentlemen,’ and similarly gendered expressions to get kids’ attention,” instructs a training document given to middle-school teachers at the Lincoln Public Schools.

“Create classroom names and then ask all of the ‘purple penguins’ to meet on the rug,” it advises.

The document also warns against asking students to “line up as boys or girls,” and suggests asking them to line up by whether they prefer “skateboards or bikes/milk or juice/dogs or cats/summer or winter/talking or listening.”

“Always ask yourself . . . ‘Will this configuration create a gendered space?’” the document says.

The instructions were part of a list called “12 steps on the way to gender inclusiveness” developed by Gender Spectrum, an organization that “provides education, training and support to help create a gender sensitive and inclusive environment for children of all ages.”

Other items on the list include asking all students about their preferred pronouns and decorating the classroom with “all genders welcome” door hangers.

If teachers still find it “necessary” to mention that genders exist at all, the document states, they must list them as “boy, girl, both or neither.”

COMMENT:  You may be sure that this will spread.  Teachers themselves are being indoctrinated in left-wing politics in schools of education.  This Nebraska program is part of the diversity industry, part of the "inclusiveness" game.  But, of course, diversity and inclusiveness never include people with a contrary point of view. 

Oh, do you know where your purple penguin is? 

October 9, 2014       Permalink

HAS CANADA GIVEN UP ON KEYSTONE? – AT 9:14 A.M. ET:  I was wondering when this was going to happen.  Good for the Canadians.  From Bloomberg: 

So you’re the Canadian oil industry and you do what you think is a great thing by developing a mother lode of heavy crude beneath the forests and muskeg of northern Alberta. The plan is to send it clear to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast via a pipeline called Keystone XL. Just a few years back, America desperately wanted that oil.

Then one day the politics get sticky. In Nebraska, farmers don’t want the pipeline running through their fields or over their water source. U.S. environmentalists invoke global warming in protesting the project. President Barack Obama keeps siding with them, delaying and delaying approval. From the Canadian perspective, Keystone has become a tractor mired in an interminably muddy field.

In this period of national gloom comes an idea -- a crazy-sounding notion, or maybe, actually, an epiphany. How about an all-Canadian route to liberate that oil sands crude from Alberta’s isolation and America’s fickleness?  Canada’s own environmental and aboriginal politics are holding up a shorter and cheaper pipeline to the Pacific that would supply a shipping portal to oil-thirsty Asia.

Instead, go east, all the way to the Atlantic.

Thus was born Energy East, an improbable pipeline that its backers say has a high probability of being built. It will cost C$12 billion ($10.7 billion) and could be up and running by 2018. Its 4,600-kilometer (2,858-mile) path, taking advantage of a vast length of existing and underused natural gas pipeline, would wend through six provinces and four time zones. It would be Keystone on steroids, more than twice as long and carrying a third more crude.

Its end point, a refinery in Saint John, New Brunswick, operated by a reclusive Canadian billionaire family, would give Canada’s oil-sands crude supertanker access to the same Louisiana and Texas refineries Keystone was meant to supply.

COMMENT:  That's free enterprise.  Find a need and fill it.  I wish we'd build Keystone, but we won't unless a Republican is in the White House.  So let the Canadians profit.  They've earned it with their oil exploration. 

We're constantly told to go to green energy.  Of course, we eventually will, when the technology is ready, at a reasonable cost.  In the interim, we'll have a petroleum-based economy.  Clearly, we should make our energy as clean as possible.  We can do it, and still use the oil and natural gas that are plentiful.

October 9, 2014       Permalink

FIGHT AGAINST ISIS, LATEST – AT 8:52 A.M. ET:  It isn't going well, that's for sure.  From Reuters: 

(Reuters) - Islamic State fighters seized more than a third of the Syrian border town of Kobani, a monitoring group said on Thursday, as U.S.-led air strikes failed to halt their advance and Turkish forces nearby looked on without intervening.

With Washington ruling out a ground operation in Syria, Turkey described as unrealistic any expectation that it would conduct a cross-border operation unilaterally to relieve the mainly Kurdish town.

The commander of Kobani's heavily outgunned Kurdish defenders said Islamic State controlled slightly less than a third of the town that lies within sight of Turkish territory.

However, he acknowledged that the militants had made major gains in a three-week battle that has also led to the worst streets clashes in years between police and Kurdish protesters across the frontier in southeast Turkey.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said Islamic State, which is still widely known by its former acronym of ISIS, had pushed forward on Thursday.

"ISIS control more than a third of Kobani. All eastern areas, a small part of the northeast and an area in the southeast," said Rami Abdulrahman, head of the Observatory which monitors the Syrian civil war.

COMMENT:   The Kurds are intensely pro-American, but we have always knifed them in the back, beginning with Bush 41's ice-cold secretary of state, James Baker, who wouldn't lift a finger to help them after the first Gulf War.  The Kurds have no state, but want one, and have no oil. 

Things aren't going well.  I wonder what Obama will say when the town falls.  He'll make a statement, then go play golf.

October 9, 2014     Permalink

OCTOBER 8,  2014

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:52 P.M. ET: 

SOBER – From the Washington Times:  "The Pentagon on Wednesday made the sobering prediction that more towns in Syria and Iraq will fall to the Islamic State in the coming weeks, and that air power alone is not going to be enough to prevent the fall of the Syrian city of Kobani near the Turkish border.  It also raised the prospect of Islamic State terrorists marching on Baghdad, a fear that lawmakers and former top military officials say can only be addressed by ground forces."  Interesting that the assessment came from the Pentagon, not the White House.  I wonder if it had White House approval.  I get the sense that it's now every man for himself in the administration.  No one wants to be blamed for the impending disaster in Syria and Iraq. 

THE ADMIRAL OF THE FLEET SPEAKS – From The Politico:  "Former President Jimmy Carter is criticizing President Barack Obama’s Middle East policy, saying he has shifting policies and waited too long to take action against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.  In an interviewed published Tuesday in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, the 39th president said the Obama administration, by not acting sooner, allowed ISIL to build up its strength."  We eagerly awaited this military briefing from the admiral.  You think he means it?  Or is he only saying these things because Obama never calls him?

NANCY WHO? – From National Journal:  "House Republicans have surprising new company in attacking Nancy Pelosi: her fellow House Democrats.  Three Democrats running in GOP-leaning House districts have used late-stage television ads in a bid to distance themselves from the liberal leader of Democrats' House caucus—the same caucus they're fighting to join in 2015.  'Here's what I believe: Congress is broken,' says Gwen Graham, one of the Democratic Party's top recruits, in a recent TV ad as a photo of Pelosi and House Speaker John Boehner flashes on the screen. 'Both parties—Republican and Democrat—are to blame. And both need new leaders in Washington.'"  They're running from Obama.  They're running from Pelosi.  Soon they'll be embracing photos of FDR and Harry Truman.

MASSACHUSETTS? – From NRO:  "Massachusetts Democratic gubernatorial candidate Martha Coakley may be seeing another election slipping away from her. The state attorney general, who lost to Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts’s 2010 special Senate election, is trailing her opponent by her largest margin yet in the latest poll.  Republican businessman Charlie Baker leads Coakley by six percentage points among likely voters, according to a new Emerson College/WGBH poll. The survey shows Coakley under 40 percent in the deep-blue state, garnering just 39 percent to Baker’s 45 percent."  Even Massachusetts grows up.

October 8, 2014       Permalink

SOURNESS ON OBAMACARE – AT 10:21 A.M. ET:   In this midterm election, Obamacare may only count for three or four points, but those points are almost certainly going to be counted for the Republicans.  The program is losing support even in Obama's own party.   From Breitbart: 

A Gallup poll released Wednesday finds that the number of Democrats who say Obamacare has hurt them more than doubled in the last five months.

In May, just 6% of Democrats said Obamacare hurt them. Now, 15% of Democrats polled said Obamacare hurt them.

Equally troubling for Democrats, the poll found that only 27% of Democrats say Obamacare has helped them, a slight 4% increase since May. Overall, more than one in five Democrats (21%) said in the long run Obamacare will "make things worse."

Nationally, Americans remain sour on Obamacare. When Gallup asked, "In the long run, how do you think the healthcare law will affect the healthcare situation in the U.S.?" 46% of Americans said Obamacare would "make things worse" versus 36% who said it would "make things better."

Gallup concluded: "Americans' views toward the law overall and its effect on the U.S. healthcare situation in the long run continue to be more negative than positive."

COMMENT:  And this is considered Obama's big achievement.  But Republicans must be more creative in running against Obamacare and proposing practical solutions of their own.  Simply saying "no" may not be enough to keep this a winning issue.

October 8, 2014       Permalink

POTENTIAL BIG TROUBLE – AT 9:51 A.M. ET:  South Dakota has been declared "in the bag" for the Republican Senate candidate this year, a GOP pickup.  But there's potential trouble.  An independent candidate, former Republican Senator Larry Pressler, is gaining rapidly.

Pressler once represented South Dakota in the Senate as a Republican.  In recent years he has changed, and endorsed Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012.  It's possible many votes still think he's a Republican.  From The Hill: 

South Dakota Republican Senate candidate Mike Rounds is looking increasingly vulnerable as another poll shows independent Larry Pressler surging and now trailing him by just two points.

The poll, conducted by Survey USA for the American News, KSFY TV and KOTA TV, gives Rounds, a former South Dakota governor, 35 percent support. Pressler, a former U.S. senator, takes 32 percent support among likely voters.

Democrat Rick Weiland gets 28 percent in the poll, and independent Gordon Howie draws three percent support.

That's a marked improvement for Pressler from the last Survey USA poll, conducted in early September, which gave him a quarter of the vote. Meanwhile Rounds has lost four percent support, and Weiland and Howie haven't moved.

Pressler ran as a Republican when he served as a U.S. senator between 1979 and 1997, but he endorsed Barack Obama for president in 2008 and 2012.

And it aligns with other recent polling, with two surveys out in late September giving Pressler about a quarter of the vote and showing Rounds dropping below 40 percent support.

COMMENT:   If Pressler can pull it out, I see virtually no chance for the Republicans to take the Senate.  But that's a big "if."  The GOP people will now probably open up on Pressler, centering the attack on his support for Obama.

However, remember that South Dakota is the state that gave us George McGovern.  They do crazy things there.

October 8, 2014       Permalink

FAILING AGAINST ISIS? – AT 9:14 A.M. ET:  Still again, the Washington Post shows that it has the best, most adult, liberal editorial page around.  The Post questions Field Marshal Obama's strategy in fighting the Islamic State, and suggests that we're losing: 

TWO MONTHS after the United States began airstrikes in Iraq, and two weeks after they were extended into Syria, the forces of the Islamic State are still advancing. Last week they captured the Iraqi towns of Hit and Kubaisa, northwest of Baghdad. On Tuesday they appeared close to overrunning Kobane, a strategic city on the border between Syria and Turkey that is populated by Kurds. The enemy victories are happening in spite of U.S. and allied airstrikes and resistance from local forces. They suggest that the U.S. air campaign is failing to achieve the minimal aim of stopping the expansion of the Islamic State — much less “degrading” and “destroying” it.

Why can’t the U.S.-led coalition prevent a ragtag insurgent army from overrunning large towns? The answers speak to the limitations imposed on the military campaign by President Obama as well as the continuing political complications of fighting the Islamic State. Military analysts point out that U.S. strikes on Islamic State forces around Kobane have come late and in small handfuls — not enough, as of Tuesday, to turn back thousands of fighters armed with tanks and artillery. In contrast with the successful 2002 air campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan, U.S. pilots cannot rely on Special Forces spotters to identify targets. Mr. Obama has ruled out such ground personnel despite requests from military commanders...

...Independent military analysts believe that, in addition to targeting Kobane and towns in western Iraq, the Islamic State is readying a full-scale assault on Baghdad. To turn back the offensive, U.S. forces will need to step up the tempo of operations and react more quickly to movements on the ground, which will be difficult without ground personnel. Turkey, with its powerful army, must be brought into the fight, and that will require U.S.-Turkish agreement on a strategy for dealing with the Assad regime.

For now, the U.S. operation in Iraq and Syria is defined mainly by its limitations. The restrictions Mr. Obama has imposed on his commanders are not compatible with the objectives he has asked them to achieve.

COMMENT:  The question before the house, of course, is whether Obama cares, or is simply launching token strikes to look tough during an election campaign. 

What happens after the campaign?  What happens if ISIS makes great strides and threatens to take Baghdad.  Will Obama get behind a more serious military effort, or will he announce that our allies have failed and that Americans are fed up with the Mideast?  Will we have some kind of victory, or the virtual collapse of American foreign policy?

October 8, 2014        Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – THE PATRIOTS – AT 8:46 A.M. ET:  The big buzz, as all of you know, is about Leon Panetta's new book, "Worthy Fights," and the extraordinary interview he gave last night to Bill O'Reilly, in which Panetta, somewhat diplomatically, devastated Barack Obama's style of "leadership."  But Panetta follows two others, Robert Gates, like Panetta a former secretary of defense, and Hillary Clinton, former secretary of state and probable Democratic nominee for president.  All have raised the gravest questions about their commander-in-chief. 

The Obamans are striking back, questioning the character Panetta, in particular, and the judgment of the others.  Is it fair?  Do you attack a god when he's still doing his god act?  But Ed Rogers, at WaPo, has a superb reply to the defenders: 

Perhaps Panetta, Gates and Clinton are telling those who still serve in government that President Obama’s biases and instincts need to be challenged. The few adults left in the administration should not roll over, and the Republican opposition needs to be constantly vigilant in order to try to shape a more protective American national security posture. Maybe Panetta, Gates and Clinton are putting loyalty to a country at risk ahead of deference to the president who appointed them.

All three knew their disclosures would be flashpoints in the media and that many would find fault in their decision to go public. Gates and Panetta have both held their last government jobs, they don’t need the money and they don’t have an agenda beyond contributing to the historical record. Clinton may have a more tangled mix of motives behind her latest book, but the points she makes are still valid when reinforced by Gates and Panetta.

The bottom line is that all three have made it clear: There are problems within the Obama administration, and they saw those problems up close. As Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal told Milbank, “Secretary Panetta and others are echoing what is obvious from the outside, but it’s more powerful when it’s coming from people on the inside.”

COMMENT:  Well said.  Obama has been badly damaged by Panetta's revelations.   Most Americans may not be following this story, but the powers in Washington are eating it up.  Our regret is that, for two more years, Barack Hussein Obama Jr. will be running the foreign policy of the United States.

October 8,  2014     Permalink