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 22,  2016

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:56 P.M. ET: 

DID THE CUBAN PEOPLE APPROVE THIS? – FROM THE MIAMI HERALD:   With little fanfare, the U.S. government recently amended regulations to allow Cuban government officials and members of the Communist Party to benefit from the softening of sanctions, including receiving cash remittances and other perks.  The new beneficiaries include members of the Cuban Ministry of the Interior (MININT), the Central Committee of the Communist Party (PCC) and other branches of the Cuban government.  The change is part of the new round of regulations announced last week by the Obama administration. Along with measures that attracted widespread attention — such as the removal of the restrictions on the purchase of rum and tobacco by American travelers — this more discreet provision debunks a long-standing policy of prohibiting U.S. transactions with most members of the Cuban government, its political organizations and defense system.  Another advance for human freedom.  Choke.

THE PRICE OF THINGS – FROM FOX:   Looking for a salty snack that will really knock your socks off?  This potato chip may do just that—and leave a gaping hole in your wallet.  Bet you can't eat just one. But you can't afford more than that.   St. Erik’s Brewery in Sweden says it's crafted the world’s most expensive potato chip. Of course, it pairs perfectly with their signature India Pale Ale, but they’re meant be savored—not inhaled like a can of Pringles.  The chips were made in partnership with the Swedish National Culinary Team as a project to create “the world’s most exclusive chip.” And one box of just five crunchy chips will set you back $56.  I thought Sweden was the socialist paradise.  That's the kind of snack only Hillary could afford, after she delivers a speech.

DYLAN DALLIES – FROM THE DAILY MAIL:   Just one day after finally acknowledging his Nobel Prize win on his website, Bob Dylan has deleted the brag.   The folk singer won the award for his book 'The Lyrics 1961-2012'. In typical Dylan fashion, the elusive musician refused to make a public statement after the honor was announced last week.   It seemed that he had finally acknowledged the win though on Thursday, when a sentence was added to a description of the book on his website, saying - in all capital letters - that the book was the 'WINNER OF THE NOBEL PRIZE IN LITERATURE'.   Come Friday though, the sentence was bizarrely removed without any explanation.  They named the wrong guy.  Had they given Donald Trump the Nobel Prize in – something – he would have treated all of Stockholm to dinner.  You gotta know how to celebrate. 

October 22, 2016       Permalink 

OUR PATHETIC FOREIGN POLICY – AT 12:52 P.M. ET:   Barack Obama thankfully leaves office in less than three months.  But he will leave behind the wreckage of American foreign policy.  Walter Russell Mead, one of the best commentators writing today, describes the reality in The American Interest: 

Hillary Clinton has swept her debate series with Donald Trump, and voters seem to like Trump less the harder they look at him. But as Clinton surely understands, even as she approaches the White House, the global scene is getting darker.

This morning, we saw a glimpse of that world, as one of America’s longest-standing allies in Asia turned its back on the United States and embraced China:

In a state visit aimed at cozying up to Beijing as he pushes away from Washington, the Philippine President announced his military and economic “separation” from the United States.

“America has lost now. I’ve realigned myself in your ideological flow,” he told business leaders in Beijing on Thursday. “And maybe I will also go to Russia to talk to Putin and tell him that there are three of us against the world: China, Philippines and Russia. It’s the only way.”

As usual, the Obama administration was caught off guard and flat-footed. John Kirby, the spokesman for the State Department, said the move was “inexplicably at odds” with the U.S.-Philippine relationship. “We are going to be seeking an explanation of exactly what the president meant when he talked about separation from us,” Kirby said. “It’s not clear to us exactly what that means and all its ramifications.”

Kirby is right that the outlook in the Philippines is murky; lots of Filipino officials are as appalled by their president’s remarks as anybody in Foggy Bottom. But what isn’t murky at all is that President Obama’s faltering foreign policy has taken another serious hit. It is hard to think of another American president whose foreign policy initiatives failed as badly or as widely as Obama’s. The reconciliation with the Sunni world? The reset with Russia? Stabilizing the Middle East by tilting toward Iran? The Libya invasion? The Syria abstention? The ‘pivot to Asia’ was supposed to be the centerpiece of Obama’s global strategy; instead the waning months of the Obama administration have seen an important U.S. ally pivot toward China in the most public and humiliating way possible.

COMMENT:  Read the whole piece.  Has Obama had a single important foreign-policy success?  I don't think so.  The world is a more dangerous place than it was eight years ago, when he was taking office.  America's position in the world is weaker.  Obama doesn't seem to care.  His "legacy" will be carefully guarded by left-wing academics and journalists.  He is Barack, come to save us. 

Except he hasn't saved anyone. 

October 22, 2016       Permalink

THE MARCH OF UN-FREEDOM – AT 12:22 P.M. ET:   If you worry about the future of human freedom, read this.  You'll worry more.  From Climate Depot:

The United Nations has rejected the media credentials of three journalists from a conservative news outlet in Canada to the upcoming UN climate summit in Morocco in November. Nick Nuttall, a UN official, admitted in an October 18 CBC interview that The Rebel news outlet is being banned from attending the UN summit because of its skeptical reporting of the UN’s climate claims.

Nuttall tried to justify the UN media ban by noting that The Rebel TV host Ezra Levant has called UN promoted climate change fears a “crock.”

“What does [calling climate change a ‘crock’] add to the public’s understating?” Nuttall asked the CBC.

The UN’s Nuttall told the CBC, “I don’t see what he is actually reporting, you know, as being particularly helpful.”

But much to the shock of the UN official, the warmist Canadian Broadcasting Corp’s (CBC) Carol Off was having none of it. The CBC’s Off openly challenged the UN’s censorship of the media outlet.

“Do people have to prove that they’re helpful in order to be accredited journalists?” Off, who hosts the ‘As it Happens’ program on the CBC, asked the UN’s Nuttall.

A clearly flustered Nuttall responded, “Well, what do you think journalism is about?”

The CBC’s Carol Off tersely responded “reporting.”

As the Nuttall continued to dig himself deeper into a media hole, Off demanded an answer.

“I am just wondering again about he subjectivity of rejecting the credentials of The Rebel,” CBC’s Carol Off asked again.

COMMENT:  What is frightening is that this kind of censorship is becoming more and more popular on the left.   Our own president recently suggested that the internet needed some kind of filter to eliminate "crazy" ideas.  In his view, all those ideas are on the right. 

And too many news outlets, including the venerable New York Times, seem to have decided that slanted news is fine, as long as it is slanted in a "progressive" direction.  So when more and more people say in polls that they doubt the truthfulness of the media, they have a very clear point.

Read the whole article.  Well worth it.

October 22, 2016       Permalink

IS THIS POSSIBLE? – AT 11:14 A.M. ET:  The new Reuters/Ipsos poll shows Hillary Clinton's lead cut in half in the past week.   From Reuters: 

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump gained on his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton among American voters this week, cutting her lead nearly in half, according to Reuters/Ipsos polling released on Friday.

The polling data showed Trump's argument that the Nov. 8 election is "rigged" against him has resonated with members of his party.

"Remember folks, it's a rigged system," Trump told a Pennsylvania rally on Friday. "That's why you've got to get out and vote, you've got to watch. Because this system is totally rigged."

Clinton led Trump 44 percent to 40 percent, according to the Oct. 14-20 Reuters/Ipsos poll, a 4-point lead. That compared with 44 percent for Clinton and 37 percent for Trump in the Oct. 7-13 poll released last week.

An average of national opinion polls by RealClearPolitics shows Clinton 6.2 percentage points ahead at 48.1 percent support to Trump's 41.9 percent.

Trump is slated to give a speech Saturday in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, best known as the site of a decisive Civil War battle and cemetery, and the place where Republican President Abraham Lincoln delivered his famous address.

Aides told reporters on Friday night that Trump would make his closing argument to voters in his speech, and preview what he would do in his first 100 days in the White House.

"I think this site is fitting in terms of understanding a positive vision for the Republican party," an aide said.

COMMENT:  Again, with polls, it's hard to know which ones are accurate.  There are a few polls that even show Trump ahead, but by narrow margins.  State polls, at least the ones we're getting, show a decisive Clinton win in the electoral college.

We're already getting the usual Democratic hype about a mandate, a Clinton "win" too large to ignore.  In my view, Clinton won't win anything.  She's not capable of winning anything.  It will be the Republicans who will lose, having run a terrible campaign.  In some election campaigns one can say that a candidate won by overwhelming an opponent.  That was the case when Ronald Reagan defeated incumbent President Jimmy Carter in 1980, having trailed Carter at the start.  In other elections a candidate simply loses, as the confused George McGovern lost to President Richard Nixon in 1972, even though there was no great enthusiasm for Nixon in the country. 

If Hillary "wins," she will still have to prove to the country that she's a true winner, not simply someone who capitalized on a weak opposition.  It will be a very tough task.

October 22,  2016     Permalink

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