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.

OCTOBER 20,  2014

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:44 P.M. ET:

INSPIRING – From The Guardian:  "A man who was completely paralysed from the waist down can walk again after a British-funded surgical breakthrough which offers hope to millions of people who are disabled by spinal-cord injuries.  Polish surgeons used nerve-supporting cells from the nose of Darek Fidyka, a Bulgarian man who was injured four years ago, to provide pathways along which the broken tissue was able to grow.  The 38-year-old, who is believed to be the first person in the world to recover from complete severing of the spinal nerves, can now walk with a frame and has been able to resume an independent life, even to the extent of driving a car, while sensation has returned to his lower limbs.  Professor Geoffrey Raisman, whose team at University College London’s institute of neurology discovered the technique, said: 'We believe that this procedure is the breakthrough which, as it is further developed, will result in a historic change in the currently hopeless outlook for people disabled by spinal cord injury.'"  We hope so.  Always great to report an advance like this.

DID ANYONE VOTE FOR OBAMA? – From Daily Caller:  "Move over, Alison Lundergan Grimes. Get out of the way, Michelle Nunn. Natalie Tennant?  Hop aside. Another Democrat has joined the party and refused to say if he voted for President Barack Obama.  Incumbent Sen. Mark Begich of Alaska refused to answer the question from an America Rising tracker as he entered a school for a campaign event.  'Senator Begich, did you vote for Obama in 2008 and 2012?' asked the tracker.  'Do you support Obama’s handling of ISIS?' the tracker followed up.  Begich remained silent until he saw two staffers at the end of the video, to whom he made small talk on the way into the school."  It's so silly.  Of course all these Dems voted for Obama?  But they're in trouble with someone no matter which way they answer.  Why don't they just say that they voted for Obama, but have disagreements with him? 

A BIT OF VINDICATION – From Breitbart:  "A new Politico poll finds that Americans rate former President George W. Bush as a more effective manager than President Barack Obama.  When asked the question 'Which President do you believe was more effective at managing the basic functions of the federal government?' 38% of Americans said Bush, 35% said Obama, and 26% said 'both about the same.'  The Politico poll, which surveyed districts and states with the most competitive midterm election races, also found that 64% of Americans believe the nation is 'out of control.'"  One of these days, both Bush and Cheney will receive the credit they deserve.  But you probably won't hear it on CNN.

IRANIAN DECEPTIONS – From AP:  "VIENNA — The head of the UN nuclear agency sounded a note of caution about Iran’s claims that it is not interested in nuclear arms, saying he cannot guarantee that all the country’s atomic activities are civilian in nature.  Though not new, Yukiya Amano’s comments Monday are significant amid a renewed deadlock in the 12-year probe by his International Atomic Agency of suspected nuclear weapons work by Iran.  Iran denies such activities.  Amano’s comments also come as the US and five other powers try to persuade Tehran to allow the IAEA greater sleuthing powers, allowing the agency to do snap inspections of sites suspected of possible unreported nuclear work.  Amano told an IAEA meeting in Vienna that his agency cannot 'conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.'"  How in the world can we conclude a nuclear agreement with Iran under these circumstances?  But Barack can!

October 20, 2014       Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 11:08 A.M. ET:  The great commentator Mark Steyn has written a superb column on what's wrong with the Republican approach to politics.  It's a must-read, one of the best things I've seen recently.  Here is quote: 

You can’t have conservative government in a liberal culture, and that’s the position the Republican Party is in.

After the last election, I said that the billion dollars spent by the Romney campaign on robocalls and TV ads and all the rest had been entirely wasted, and the Electoral College breakdown would have been pretty much what it was if they’d just tossed the dough into the Potomac and let it float out to sea. But imagine the use all that money and time could have been put to out there in the wider world.

Liberals expend tremendous effort changing the culture. Conservatives expend tremendous effort changing elected officials every other November — and then are surprised that it doesn’t make much difference.

Culture trumps politics — which is why, once the question’s been settled culturally, conservatives are reduced to playing catch-up, twisting themselves into pretzels to explain why gay marriage is really conservative after all, or why 30 million unskilled immigrants with a majority of births out of wedlock are “natural allies” of the Republican Party.

COMMENT:  Well said.  For too many years the Republicans, to cite an example, have essentially ignored the liberal takeover of our educational system, and the blatantly leftist takeover of our colleges.  And while they complain about press bias, they've done nothing serious to push back.  Fox News is the greatest thing to happen to our side since Ronald Reagan, and it wasn't a creation of the Republican Party. 

Steyn should be taken seriously.

October 20, 2014       Permalink

THIS IS WHAT WE FEARED – AT 9:58 A.M. ET:   With nuclear negotiations with Iran about to come to a scheduled end, the Obama administration is apparently planning an end-run around Congress to get through a bad deal.  From The New York Times: 

WASHINGTON — No one knows if the Obama administration will manage in the next five weeks to strike what many in the White House consider the most important foreign policy deal of his presidency: an accord with Iran that would forestall its ability to make a nuclear weapon. But the White House has made one significant decision: If agreement is reached, President Obama will do everything in his power to avoid letting Congress vote on it.

Another Obaman celebration of democracy.

Even while negotiators argue over the number of centrifuges Iran would be allowed to spin and where inspectors could roam, the Iranians have signaled that they would accept, at least temporarily, a “suspension” of the stringent sanctions that have drastically cut their oil revenues and terminated their banking relationships with the West, according to American and Iranian officials. The Treasury Department, in a detailed study it declined to make public, has concluded Mr. Obama has the authority to suspend the vast majority of those sanctions without seeking a vote by Congress, officials say.

But Mr. Obama cannot permanently terminate those sanctions. Only Congress can take that step. And even if Democrats held on to the Senate next month, Mr. Obama’s advisers have concluded they would probably lose such a vote.

“We wouldn’t seek congressional legislation in any comprehensive agreement for years,” one senior official said.

White House officials say Congress should not be surprised by this plan. They point to testimony earlier this year when top negotiators argued that the best way to assure that Iran complies with its obligations is a step-by-step suspension of sanctions — with the implicit understanding that the president could turn them back on as fast as he turned them off.

“We have been clear that initially there would be suspension of any of the U.S. and international sanctions regime, and that the lifting of sanctions will only come when the I.A.E.A. verifies that Iran has met serious and substantive benchmarks,” Bernadette Meehan, the spokeswoman for the National Security Council, said Friday, referring to the International Atomic Energy Agency. “We must be confident that Iran’s compliance is real and sustainable over a period of time.”

But many members of Congress see the plan as an effort by the administration to freeze them out, a view shared by some Israeli officials who see a congressional vote as the best way to constrain the kind of deal that Mr. Obama might strike.

Ms. Meehan says there “is a role for Congress in our Iran policy,” but members of Congress want a role larger than consultation and advice. An agreement between Iran and the countries it is negotiating with — the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China — would not be a formal treaty, and thus would not require a two-thirds vote of the Senate.

The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Robert Menendez, the New Jersey Democrat, said over the weekend that, “If a potential deal does not substantially and effectively dismantle Iran’s illicit nuclear weapons program, I expect Congress will respond. An agreement cannot allow Iran to be a threshold nuclear state.” He has sponsored legislation to tighten sanctions if no agreement is reached by Nov. 24.

COMMENT:  Let's hope this is a false alarm, that either Obama gets a good agreement, which is highly unlikely considering his pathetic weakness, or that the negotiations collapse, in which case the Iranian nuclear drive is laid bare before the world.  But I don't think it's a false alarm.  Based on what I've read, from a variety of sources, Obama is perfectly willing to accept a defective deal, as long as he could sell it to the American people.  And our "allies" are, in many cases, more than eager to have any deal so they can go back to doing lucrative business with Iran.  There was even a conference in London recently to prepare businesses for a post-sanction era.

Any agreement with Iran would come after our midterms.  Obama's obligations to the Democratic Party will be over.  But the party's obligations to him would also, at that moment, be very limited, especially as the president has become so unpopular.

If there's a defective agreement, get ready for a monumental clash between Congress and president.   And get ready for Christiane Amanpour to shill for the Iranian government (she's Iranian by birth), as she's been doing regularly.

October 20, 2014      Permalink

ON THE OTHER HAND – AT 9:19 A.M. ET:  Hillary Clinton may be the Dem frontrunner for 2016, as noted in the post just below, but her influence in the upcoming midterms is decidedly limited.  From The Hill: 

Self-proclaimed Clinton Democrats are struggling this election cycle, and not even their powerful namesakes may be enough to save them.

Both Bill and Hillary Clinton have tried to turn on their charms to help centrist Democrats in Kentucky and Arkansas. But as candidates in both states are slipping, help from the party’s preeminent power couple is falling short.

In Kentucky, Alison Lundergan Grimes has clung tightly to both Bill and Hillary Clinton as she tries to unseat Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell(R).

The former president has already campaigned with the Democratic hopeful twice and will head to the Bluegrass State again next week. The former secretary of state held a rally with Grimes on Wednesday, coming as Grimes kept emphasizing she was a "Clinton Democrat through and through” after flatly refusing to say whether she voted for President Obama.

The former president — a master of the retail politics central to places like Arkansas — is the featured guest in his native state this weekend. There, Democrats are trying to save vulnerable Sen. Mark Pryor (D) and push former Rep. Mike Ross (D) into the governor’s mansion. Pryor even took a selfie on stage with Clinton this month, in an attempt to illustrate how close he is to his state’s favorite son.

Despite their close ties to the Clintons, their efforts to distance themselves from a deeply unpopular current president may not work.

That raises questions not only for Hillary Clinton as she ponders a 2016 White House bid, but also for the Democratic Party as it finds itself increasingly unsuccessful in the Deep South and Appalachia.

COMMENT:  Read the whole piece.  It's well done.  It notes that the Clintons are probably the only prominent national Democrats who might make a race of it in 2016 in the South.  That was part of Bill Clinton's strategy in 1992 – appeal to the entire country, not just the coastal regions and big cities. 

But the Obama legacy, now vastly unpopular, and especially so in the South, hangs over the Democratic Party.  You can't sell a man as a god, then abandon him without looking like a heretic.  Remember that Hillary, or any Democrat, will need the black vote to win in 2016.

October 20, 2014       Permalink

NEW PRESIDENTIAL POLL – AT 8:52 A.M. ET:  Our midterm is still two weeks away, but the 2016 presidential prelims are already underway.  A new poll confirms what pundits have been saying, that Mitt Romney still has political legs.  From The Hill: 

Former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney leads a field of potential 2016 GOP candidates in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll, while former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton holds a commanding lead among Democrats.

Twenty one percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents would choose the former Massachusetts governor, who garnered twice the support of his closest challengers.

Former Govs. Jeb Bush (R-Fla.) and Mike Huckabee (R-Ark.) each had 9 percent support in the new poll, followed by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) with 9 percent, Gov. Chris Christie (R-N.J.) with 8 percent and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) with 5 percent.

Sixty four percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents support Clinton. Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) trail the former first lady, according to the poll, with 13 percent and 11 percent, respectively.

COMMENT:  What must be determined is whether the results are based more on name recognition than on actual preference.  I'm guessing it's a combination.  I'm not really surprised that Romney, having already run for president, leads the GOP pack, at least for now.  He is also the only Republican who currently has presidential stature.

What does surprise me about the Democratic field is that Elizabeth Warren has not gained any traction.  Among the Dem base she is reasonably well known.   Bottom line, unless there is some dramatic change in the Democratic electorate, I think Hillary can have the nomination without too much effort.  Look, that party must nominate a woman.  It thinks in terms of groups.  Its voters can't turn down a woman again, as they did in 2008.  It'll either be Clinton or Warren, and I suspect the thinking will be that only Clinton could win a general election. 

Obviously, biology can change everything.  Hillary is not young, and she's had illnesses.  One rushed trip to a hospital, and she's probably done.  It's not pleasant to bring up, but that's the reality for any candidate.

October 20,  2014     Permalink

OCTOBER 19,  2014

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE –  AT 11:58 P.M. ET: 

OH PLEASE HELP HER, PLEASE – From Hollywood Reporter:  "Barbra Streisand sent out an email Saturday asking Democrats to donate money immediately to candidates facing stiff opposition in the November midterm elections.  'Have you seen Congress lately? It’s a mess,' Streisand wrote. 'And it’s only going to get worse if people like Karl Rove and the Koch Brothers continue to treat corporations better than people.'  Streisand, who teamed up with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in sending out the email, urged donors to contribute at least $5 immediately. 'We have to act now,' Streisand wrote. 'We’re running out of time and money.'"  I'm so saddened by Barbra's stress.  Please try to help.  Oh, and maybe someone should tell her that when she says Congress is a mess, we assume that includes the Senate, which is under Democratic control.

THE HYPOCRISY OF THE MIDEAST – It's been confirmed that the daughter of Ismail Haniyeh was recently treated in an Israeli hospital.  Who is Ismail Haniyeh?  He's the head of Hamas, Israel's fiercest enemy.  Guess blood is thicker than politics.  Oh, it's also reported that Israel just signed a deal to supply natural gas to Egypt.  A great advancement for peace.  Of course, the U.S. Government and, a few days ago, Jimmy Carter, have been trying to discredit the Egyptian government.  I guess it's too cooperative with Israel, and too pro-American.  Unbelievable. 

OBAMA FLOPS AGAIN – From Reuters:  "(Reuters) - President Barack Obama made a rare appearance on the campaign trail on Sunday with a rally to support the Democratic candidate for governor in Maryland, but early departures of crowd members while he spoke underscored his continuing unpopularity.  With approval levels hovering around record lows, Obama has spent most of his campaign-related efforts this year raising money for struggling Democrats, who risk losing control of the U.S. Senate in the Nov. 4 midterm election.  Most candidates from his party have been wary of appearing with him during their election races because of his sagging popularity."  I've never seen a president lose popularity to the extent that Obama has.  He was completely oversold from the very start, and never lived up to his billing. 

October 19, 2014       Permalink

WE HOPE IT'S ACCURATE, AND A TREND – AT 11:32 A.M. ET:  The Republican electoral position appears to be improving.  From the Washington Examiner: 

When the new Congress reconvenes in January, voters increasingly want it to be a Republican-led one.

With approximately two weeks to go until the 2014 midterm elections, likely voters prefer them to produce a GOP-led Congress over a Democratic one, 49 percent to 44 percent, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News/Annenberg poll.

Registered voters — a larger group than likely voters — also said they’d prefer Congress to become led by Republicans, 45 percent to 43 percent, the poll found.

This favoring of Republicans is a first since the poll began asking about it five weeks ago.

Though Democrats carry a 10-point lead among low-interest voters, Republicans carry a 10-point lead among high-interest voters, the poll also found.

The poll of 1,172 registered voters — 484 of them likely voters — was conducted Oct. 10-16 with an overall margin of error of plus or minus 3.56 percentage points.

COMMENT:  Good.  I hope it translates into real votes.  I expect the Dems to throw a curve in the next few weeks.  We have to be ready to handle it.  Or, there can be a convenient three-days-before-election news story, generated by the Obama press. 

I'm hoping for a celebration.  Already bought the hot fudge.

October 19, 2014       Permalink

OUTRAGEOUS – WHY ARE OUR TROOPS IN THIS POSITION? – AT 11:21 A.M. ET:  It hasn't gotten much attention in the Obama media, but American troops are being dispatched to Africa to help fight Ebola.  Is this what they enlisted for?  Is this right?  From Breitbart: 

If any American soldiers in Liberia contract the deadly Ebola virus, they will be quarantined, stabilized, and evacuated to a medical facility for treatment, said the Ebola mission commander, adding that the U.S. military hospitals that will admit potentially infected troops have not yet been identified.

“If, God forbid, one of these soldiers, sailors, airmen, or marine contracted this disease, as I mentioned, they would be stabilized, they would be quarantined, we would go through the appropriate protocols,” Maj. Gen. Darryl Williams, commander of U.S. Army Africa, said on October 16 while briefing reporters in the Pentagon by telephone from Liberia. “People would be attending to them in the appropriate PPE [personal protective equipment]."

"As of today, no one has shown those symptoms. ... I’ve been here 30 days as of today,” he added. "And so they would be quarantined and then we would synchronize and work those actions so they would go back to the appropriate medical facility.”

Over 500 American troops are in West Africa, and according to Williams, none will directly be treating Ebola patients. However, he said that a select group of sailors will be handling mobile labs that contain bodily fluids of Ebola patients.

"I'm not an epidemiologist, but it's been shown that this disease is most manifest when handling bodily fluids--blood, other sorts of fluids, and there is no plan right now for U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines to do that,” said the general. “Now, the exception is the mobile labs that were here, and they are triple-protective.”

“The sailors that are in there performing the confirm-or-deny on the Ebola virus, they are wearing PPE, and they are testing for this virus,” said Williams, later adding, “They are handling specimens of people who have been inflicted with the Ebola virus.”

Nevertheless, he indicated that the risk of infection is “relatively low.”

“As long as you exercise basic sanitation and cleanliness sort of protocols using the chlorine wash on your hands and your feet, get your temperature taken, limiting the exposure, the--no handshaking, those sorts of protocols, I think the risk is relatively low,” explained the general.

Regarding American soldiers whose duty stations are overseas, William said it is uncertain whether they will have to be quarantined before returning to those stations.

COMMENT:  I really think Congress should look into this, and determine why it is necessary for American troops to be doing this.  Aren't there African troops available?  They seem to fight a lot of wars there. 

If I were a parent of any of those American soldiers, I'd be outraged...and on the phone to my congressman and senators.

October 19, 2014       Permalink

UNHEALTHY POLITICS – AT 10:41 A.M. ET:  The Democratic Party divides the American public into ethnic and interest groups.  We're not Americans, we're hyphenated Americans, to the Dems.  There is a price to be paid for this cynical practice of politics.  From The New York Times: 

WASHINGTON — The confidential memo from a former pollster for President Obama contained a blunt warning for Democrats. Written this month with an eye toward Election Day, it predicted “crushing Democratic losses across the country” if the party did not do more to get black voters to the polls.

“African-American surge voters came out in force in 2008 and 2012, but they are not well positioned to do so again in 2014,” Cornell Belcher, the pollster, wrote in the memo, dated Oct. 1. “In fact, over half aren’t even sure when the midterm elections are taking place.”

Mr. Belcher’s assessment points to an urgent imperative for Democrats: To keep Republicans from taking control of the Senate, as many are predicting, they need black voters in at least four key states. Yet the one politician guaranteed to generate enthusiasm among African Americans is the same man many Democratic candidates want to avoid: Mr. Obama.

Now, Democrats are deploying other prominent black elected officials and other surrogates, buttressed by sophisticated voter targeting efforts, to stoke black turnout. At the White House, the president is waging an under-the-radar campaign, recording video advertisements, radio interviews and telephone calls specifically targeting his loyal African-American base.

COMMENT:  What a sad commentary.  The fact is that the Democratic Party can't win a national election without the black vote.  African Americans are the most loyal bloc in the party, sometimes giving as much as 95% of their vote to Dem candidates.  And what have they gotten back?  Maybe it's time for them to ask.

The problem for us is that scare campaigns within minority communities often work.  This election is by no means won.  Candidates in many key races are separated by only a few points.  If the Dems can bring out their "loyal" voters, and if Republicans don't run an effective ground game, we can find on election night that we still have a Democratic Senate.

October 19,  2014     Permalink