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.

OCTOBER 21,  2016

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:55 P.M. ET: 

HYPOCRITES – FROM LIFEZETTE:   The Clinton Foundation in 2011 employed more women than men but paid them less, on average, according to a salary schedule included in an email released Friday by WikiLeaks.  A foundation employee emailed the payroll schedule to board Chairman Bruce Lindsey and John Podesta, who currently chairs Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. It included then-Chief Operating Office and Chief of Staff Laura Graham’s salary recommendations for 2012 for rank-and-file employees.  The average salary for women and men was close. But men out-earned women, $68,164 to $64,118, on average. The median salary also was higher for men, $55,200 compared with $50,000.  Republicans could never get away with this.

AMERICA TODAY – FROM CBS BOSTON:  NATICK (CBS) — A group of thieves stole over $13,000 in iPhones from the Apple store in the Natick Mall in a “flash mob” robbery.  Natick Police Lt. Cara Rossi said a group of seven teens were only in the store for less than one minute, but were able to steal 19 phones.  In a video, the thieves can be seen cutting the security cords that tethered the iPhones to their displays all at the same time.  They fled the mall on foot, and police were unable to find them.  Lt. Rossi said both male and female thieves were involved, and that they all wore hoodies and hats to help conceal their identities.  Police said they were working with mall security to try to find footage of the group entering or exiting the mall.  Natick Police said they believed the thieves may be connected to a similar theft that took place in Hingham in September.  Obviously organized, which means many people know something.  You may be sure no one is talking.  Let's see if we can find a "progressive" public official who'll condemn this. 

CYBERATTACK – FROM HEATSTREET:  A major denial of service attack occurred this morning against a major U.S. DNS provider, DynDNS, temporarily bringing down websites like Twitter and Reddit.  According to Dyn, the attack began at 7:10 EST, and it took until 9:45 for services to return to normal.  A distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack is when a group of people send millions of requests into a server, essentially clogging up the piping and preventing legitimate requests from getting through. You don’t need to be a 400-pound hacker to conduct a DDoS attack, as all it takes is an easy-to-use program.  There is substantial concern that this event was a dress rehearsal for something larger.  Cyberattacks are a new form of warfare, and, in severe circumstances, could shut down things like electric grids, airlines, train lines, and hospitals. 

October 21,  2016     Permalink

THE COMMON DILEMMA – QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 8:29 A.M. ET:  How many people have told you that we're being presented this year with the worst presidential choices they've ever seen, and that they can't vote for any of the candidates.   Charles Krauthammer, often considered the most brilliant of the conservative columnists, is facing the same dilemma.  His decision?  From The New York Daily News: 

I didn’t need the Wiki files to oppose Hillary Clinton. As a conservative, I have long disagreed with her worldview and the policies that flow from it. As for character, I have watched her long enough to find her deeply flawed, to the point of unfitness. But for those heretofore unpersuaded, the recent disclosures should close the case.

A case so strong that, against any of a dozen possible GOP candidates, voting for her opponent would be a no-brainer. Against Donald Trump, however, it’s a dilemma. I will not vote for Hillary Clinton. But, as I’ve explained in these columns, I could never vote for Donald Trump.

The only question is whose name I’m going to write in. With Albert Schweitzer doubly unavailable (noncitizen, dead), I’m down to Paul Ryan or Ben Sasse. Two weeks to decide.

COMMENT:  I've heard a number of people say that they intend to write in a candidate as a protest vote.  Instead of not voting, they would be making some kind of political statement.  Might not be a bad idea, but a better idea, and I think we'll see it, is to start examining the nominating process of each party.  That process got us to where we are.  Can't the United States of America do better than Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump?

And further...maybe it's time we examined a Constitutional change that would make it possible to have a new presidential election in less than four years.  Other democracies have mechanisms for removing a chief executive short of impeachment.  We might examine alternatives.  The four-year rigid term was established in the age of sail, when it took three months to get a letter across the Atlantic.  Our needs have changed.  I think we should be able to remove a president for sheer incompetence, and vote in a new one.  The process should be made difficult, to maintain the American tradition of stability, but the option, it seems to me, would enlarge democracy and act as a safety valve.

October 21,  2016      Permalink

A COMMENT ON OUR TIMES – AT 8:17 A.M. ET:  Expressing our opinions during election years with bumper stickers, yard signs, or buttons is a great American tradition.  But it's possible that tradition is becoming too dangerous.   From CBS Boston: 

DEDHAM (CBS) – If you’ve noticed fewer political lawn signs and bumper stickers during this election cycle, fear could be the reason why.

As Nov. 8 approaches, fewer people than usual are displaying their political affiliation via signs or stickers because tensions are running so high. Residents in Dedham said they understand why people are hesitant to make their political views public.

“Maybe because people are afraid to let people know who they’re voting for,” one Dedham resident told WBZ NewsRadio 1030’s Carl Stevens. “You don’t see too many signs for either. Maybe people are afraid to get labeled.”

People don’t want to be labeled, others in Dedham said, because the result could be vandalism or even violence.

Some said they would worry about their car getting destroyed if they attached a political bumper sticker. Others said they’d be afraid of violence if they advertised support for Donald Trump because many in Massachusetts vote Democrat.

WBZ-TV Political Analyst Jon Keller said social media exacerbates that fear.

“Slapping a bumper sticker on your car, putting a sign in your yard, next thing you know there’s a photo of it online,” Keller said. “It gets back to people or someone you don’t want it to get back to. Now you’ve angered your customers, perhaps your boss, people in your community.”

COMMENT:  What a sad commentary on American democracy.  I don't think either side is particularly to blame, but both sides should have come together a long time ago with joint statements stressing that civilized behavior is critical to the maintenance of freedom.  All I hear is silence.

October 21, 2016       Permalink

PROPER REQUEST – AT 8:08 A.M. ET:   The archbishop of New York is pulling no punches over the disgraceful Democratic e-mails released by Wikileaks that contain demeaning comments about Catholics.  From Lifesitenews.com:   

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colorado, October 19, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan called for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to disassociate herself from anti-Catholic statements made by her campaign chairman and said the remarks were “extraordinarily patronizing and insulting to Catholics.”

Asked about the anti-Catholic comments after speaking at The Bishop’s Respect Life Dinner on Monday night for the Diocese of Colorado Springs, Cardinal Dolan suggested that had other faith traditions been the target of the prejudiced remarks, there would have been a swift apology and absolute disavowal of them.

But as far as an apology from Clinton for the remarks demeaning Catholics, “Hasn’t happened yet,” Cardinal Dolan said.

Emails released last week by WikiLeaks showed Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta and Director of Communications Jennifer Palmieri, both Catholics, in conversations with activists from two left-wing organizations. In the emails, Catholics were debased, with their beliefs being called “severely backwards.” Conservative Catholics also were accused of “an amazing bastardization of the faith,” and Rupert Murdoch was mocked for baptizing his children as Catholics in the River Jordan.

The U.S. Church’s bishops were slammed in the emails as well, referred to as “a middle ages dictatorship.”

COMMENT:  The cardinal is absolutely correct.  You don't have to be Catholic to be offended at the left's repeated insults toward Catholicism and Catholic teachings, especially about the sanctity of life.  Hillary Clinton should personally deliver the apology.

October 21,  2016     Permalink

OCTOBER 20,  2016

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 9:02 P.M. ET: 

IDIOT – FROM REUTERS:   BEIJING (Reuters) - Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte announced his "separation" from the United States on Thursday, declaring he had realigned with China as the two agreed to resolve their South China Sea dispute through talks.  Duterte made his comments in Beijing, where he is visiting with at least 200 business people to pave the way for what he calls a new commercial alliance as relations with longtime ally Washington deteriorate.  "In this venue, your honors, in this venue, I announce my separation from the United States," Duterte told Chinese and Philippine business people, to applause, at a forum in the Great Hall of the People attended by Chinese Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli.   "Both in military, not maybe social, but economics also. America has lost."  Duterte may be a borderline idiot, but his perception of America's decline is widely shared.  It should worry us, but a good part of the liberal press is indifferent, or perhaps has the view that American influence is evil.

TRUMP MAY HAVE A POINT – FROM ROLL CALL:   More than two out of every three U.S. citizens in a recent poll say they are very or somewhat concerned about the security of the nation's electoral system.  The Economist/YouGov poll was conducted amid Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s recent claims that the November election is “rigged.”  Seventy-two percent of respondents said they were very or somewhat concerned about the security of the electoral system while just 21 percent were either not very concerned or not concerned at all.  The survey found that two out of five respondents (42 percent) said they believed that Russia was attempting to influence the U.S. presidential election.  Last week, the White House officially accused Russia of meddling in U.S. elections. Russian President Vladimir Putin has denied any hand in the recent cyberattacks on Democratic groups and voter registration systems.  I think Trump's language is what hurt him.  To say the election is "rigged" is over the top.  If he'd said there are legitimate concerns about the accuracy of the vote, he'd have been right.  There always have been.  It's a legitimate issue.  You gotta say it right.

ME? – FROM BREITBART – President Barack Obama offers multiple excuses for why health insurance premiums continue to skyrocket, including blaming Republicans and insurance companies for the problems.
He complains that too many reporters spend more time discussing premium increases than explaining why he isn’t responsible for them.  “No, I had nothing to do with that,” Obama said, calling it “complicated” despite the “hysteria” that was growing.  Compare please to Kennedy's reply when asked who was responsible for the Bay of Pigs fiasco in Cuba:  "I am the responsible officer of the government."  We've come a long way down.

October 20, 2016       Permalink

THERE ARE OTHER ELECTIONS COMING – AT 9:54 A.M. ET:  There are European elections coming up that will have a serious impact on the European continent, and how we engage with the emerging Europe.  From Bloomberg: 

As Europeans assess the fallout from the U.K.’s Brexit referendum, they face a series of elections that could equally shake the political establishment. In the coming 12 months, four of Europe’s five largest economies have votes that will almost certainly mean serious gains for right-wing populists and nationalists. Once seen as fringe groups, France’s National Front, Italy’s Five Star Movement, and the Freedom Party in the Netherlands have attracted legions of followers by tapping discontent over immigration, terrorism, and feeble economic performance. “The Netherlands should again become a country of and for the Dutch people,” says Evert Davelaar, a Freedom Party backer who says immigrants don’t share “Western and Christian values.”

Even Europe’s most powerful politician, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, is under assault. The anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany (AfD) party has drained support from Mrs Merkel’s Christian Democrats in recent state and local elections, capitalizing on discontent over Germany’s refugee crisis. In Austria the far-right Freedom Party has a shot at winning the presidency in balloting set for Dec. 4, after an election in May that the Freedom Party narrowly lost was annulled because of irregularities in vote counting. The populists are deeply skeptical of European integration, and those in France and the Netherlands want to follow Britain’s lead and quit the European Union. “Political risk in Europe is now far more significant than in the United States,” says Ajay Rajadhyaksha, head of macro research at Barclays.

There’s a second test of populist muscle on Dec. 4, when Italy holds a referendum on constitutional changes proposed by the government of Prime Minister Matteo Renzi. Five Star is the leading opposition to the government’s plan to cut the number of seats in Parliament’s upper chamber and limit its powers, a move Mr Renzi is seeking to speed action on economic reforms. With the prime minister threatening to resign in the event of a “no” vote, growth-enhancing measures such as a corporate tax cut and help for Italy’s fragile banking system could be off the table. “You might end up having a political crisis on top of an economic slowdown and a banking mess,” says Bloomberg Intelligence economist Maxime Sbaihi. “Suddenly, stars could align for the worst.”

COMMENT:  Much of this is happening because arrogant elites in Europe show the same contempt for the people as they do in the United States.  Europe has actually been very generous in its immigration policies, but there's a difference between generosity and suicide. 

At the same time, some of leanings of the rising "populist" groups can be chilling, and reminders of the darker phases of Europe past.  We are in for a tough ride, with American leadership waning under the non-wisdom of Barack Obama.

October 20, 2016       Permalink

IS THIS AN OUTLIER? – AT 9:25 A.M. ET:  We refer to the IBD/TIPP poll, which had the best record of accuracy in the 2012 presidential race.  From IBD: 

Donald Trump held onto his 1-point lead over Hillary Clinton in the second day of the IBD/TIPP presidential tracking poll — 41% to 40%. Libertarian Gary Johnson and the Green Part's Jill Stein remain far behind at 7% and 5%, respectively.

In a two-way matchup, Clinton continues to hold a three-point lead over Trump — 43% to 41%. The poll included 779 likely voters, giving it a margin of error of +/- 3.6 percentage points.

The second day's results of the IBD/TIPP poll don't reflect any impact of the spirited presidential debate Wednesday night, which covered a wide range of issues, from the Supreme Court, to abortion, to ISIS, to economic policy and entitlement reform.

During the debate, Clinton repeatedly struggled to defend her policy positions and the Clinton Foundation scandal against sharp questioning from moderator Chris Wallace. When asked, for example, about conflicts of interest involving the foundation while she was Secretary of State, Clinton tried to turn the focus on what she described were the strengths of the nonprofit.

Rasmussen also defies the predictions of most of the polls:

It’s too early to measure the impact of last night’s final presidential debate, but Republican Donald Trump now has a three-point lead nationally on Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online White House Watch survey finds Trump with 43% support among Likely U.S. Voters to Clinton’s 40%. Six percent (6%) still prefer Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, and three percent (3%) favor Green Party nominee Jill Stein. Another three percent (3%) like some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided.

COMMENT:  Ditto the Los Angeles Times poll, which has consistently put Trump ahead.  Are these simply outliers, the polls that we'll look to in the future as having been terribly wrong, or are they finding things the others aren't?  We won't know until the election is over, but the cold fact remains that the RealClearPolitics average of polls puts Clinton 6.4 points ahead. 

I have no educated guesses here.  I have only a hunch that the race will tighten toward the end unless Trump totally self-destructs, which is a possibility.  On the other hand, Clinton can have a medical crisis, another possibility.  All speculation at this point.

October 20, 2016       Permalink 

AFTERMATH – AT 9:07 A.M. ET:  Most post-debate polls give the victory to Clinton, but most observers also feel, and I agree, that the needle probably didn't move much. 

Third debates rarely have much impact in presidential races.  Most voters have already decided, people are tired of politics, and rarely does anything important happen during the debate.  The exception, of course, was the great election of 1980, when Ronald Reagan used the third debate to safely put away incumbent small-timer Jimmy Carter.

Nothing has changed in our overnight observation that Trump's unforced error – refusing to say clearly that he'd accept the election results – would be the major headline.  It should not be, as it's meaningless rhetoric.  It's not, after all, the candidates who decide whether the results are valid.  But the press is unashamedly pro-Clinton, and that foolish comment was picked out as the most useful to further the desired outcome of the election.

We'll see by early next week if the major polls show any change from before the debate.  By that time we'll have only two weeks to go before the election.  If the present trend continues – or at least what we're told is the trend – we'll be looking at President Hillary Clinton, who will enter office as the most distrusted new president in modern history.  Congratulations.

October 20,  2016     Permalink