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 last night.  It's here.

NOVEMBER 14,  2011

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 8:43 P.M. ET:

NEWT FLIES – A new CNN poll, taken nationally among Republicans, shows Newt Gingrich almost tying Mitt Romney for the GOP presidential nomination, while Herman Cain has slipped.  Romney gets 24%, Gingrich 22%, and Cain, who was soaring into the first tier just two weeks ago, at 14%, following allegations against him of sexual harassment.  Is the Newt surge a reflection of real sentiment, is he the post-Cain flavor of the month, or simply the latest in the anyone-but-Mitt phenomenon?  Voting begins in Iowa in a month and a half, and we'll have some answers.

US SECURITY GUYS BOIL AT LONDON 2012 PREPARATIONS – U.S. security personnel are reportedly furious at what they see as lax security preparations for the 2012 summer Olympics, to be held in London.  The original estimate of the number of security personnel needed, 10,000, has now been raised to 21,000.  There is a shortage of qualified people.  The U.S. will send 500 FBI agents and an equal number of diplomatic security agents to help guard the Olympic site.  An Al Qaeda attack, just months before the U.S. presidential election, could have a profound impact.  In 1972, the Munich summer Olympics were attacked by Palestinian terrorists, with the resulting deaths of 11 Israeli athletes.  That is the American nightmare for 2012.

GLORIA ALLRED PRESENTS – Gloria Allred, who seems to show up at any sexual harassment case that draws a TV camera, today presented the former boyfriend of Herman Cain accuser Sharon Bialek, who backed up Bialek's story of being treated inappropriately by Cain.  The former beau is now a Lousiana pediatrician, and says that it was he who encouraged Bialek to contact Allred.  It's probably a moot point politically, as Cain is fading in the polls.  He has not handled the accusations skillfully, and the public is starting to turn. 

SYRIA BOILING – Despite being suspended from the Arab League because of its brutality toward its own citizens, the Syrian regime continues to battle domestic opponents.  Reuters reports that 40 Syrians were killed today, equally divided between dissidents and Army troops, in fighting near the border with Jordan.  Syrian President Assad shows no sign of giving up, or even compromising, and he now has Russia on his side.  Moscow said it opposed the Arab League action against Syria.  And France said today that military action in Syria, of the kind we saw in Libya, is not now contemplated.  What incentive does Assad have to stop?

November 14, 2011     Permalink

NEW POLL OUTLINES OBAMA'S VULNERABILITY – AT 9:32 A.M. ET:  If the election is a referendum on President Obama's performance, he's very vulnerable, a new poll shows.   From The Politico:

President Barack Obama’s persistently low approval ratings for his handling of the economy and a growing sense that the country is on the wrong track could make him more vulnerable next year than current polls suggest, according to a new POLITICO/George Washington University Battleground Poll.

Against a generic, unnamed Republican challenger, Obama tied 43 to 43. But when voters were pushed to pick between Obama and the GOP front-runner, Mitt Romney, the president took a 6-percentage-point lead. Obama beat Herman Cain by 9 percentage points in the survey, conducted last week as new revelations about sexual harassment allegations against the former Godfather’s Pizza CEO continued to trickle out.

Those fresh numbers highlight the circumstance that will determine who wins next year’s election: The more that the 2012 contest is a referendum on Obama’s job performance, the more likely he is to lose.

Which is why the Dems will shift the focus to the president's opponent, and the mainstream media will play right along. 

“Generic Republicans never flip-flopped on a position and never had any problems in their personal life,” said Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, who helped conduct the bipartisan poll. “When it’s a choice, we’re in a much, much stronger position.”

COMMENT:  That is correct...for now.  Remember than candidates look small when they're competing for the nomination.  Mitt Romney is on a stage with seven other people, some of whom have no business being there.

But once a candidate gets the nomination, perceptions can easily change.  No man was more maligned by the press during his run for the presidency than Ronald Reagan, variously referred to as a buffoon, a warmed over movie actor, a warmonger, and a front man for rich little men in red sport jackets.  Indeed, President Jimmy Carter actually led during most of the 1980 race, although usually not by much.  It was a Reagan surge in the last week that put him in the White House, and that was based in part on a debate performance.  It dawned on people that they might have Jimmy Carter for another four years. 

So, while these polls are interesting, they never tell the whole story, especially at this stage.  I'm assuming that Romney will be the GOP nominee.  He will be attacked as a flip-flopper and a man of privilege who cares little for the average American.  That may work.  But he's also been shown to be an effective debater, and I think he will do well against Obama. 

The fact is that Obama, by himself, is just not that well regarded by the public.  So he begins in a very vulnerable position.  The job for Republicans is to maximize their advantage, not minimize it.

November 14, 2011       Permalink

I AM NOT A CROOK, SHE SAYS – 8:23 A.M. ET:  Is Nancy Pelosi channeling Dick Nixon?  "Sixty Minutes" did a report last night suggesting that she might not be entirely on the level with some of her financial dealings.  The former speaker takes great exception:

(CNN) -- House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi fired back Sunday at a CBS News' "60 Minutes" report that highlighted several instances of what it suggested could be "soft corruption."

The show looked at the investments of various lawmakers -- including Pelosi, House Speaker John Boehner and Republican Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama -- who reportedly bought stocks around the same time legislation involving those investments was being discussed.

Pelosi and her husband participated in an initial public offering of Visa in 2008, according to CBS. They bought 5,000 shares at the initial price of $44; two days later, shares were trading at $64, CBS said.

The network reported the investment came at the same time a piece of legislation that was opposed by credit-card companies was making its way through the House.

"Congress has never done more for consumers nor has the Congress passed more critical reforms of the credit card industry than under the Speakership of Nancy Pelosi," Pelosi spokesman, Drew Hammill, said in a statement soon after the report aired Sunday night.

"It is very troubling that 60 Minutes would base their reporting off of an already-discredited conservative author who has made a career of out attacking Democrats," he added.

CBS said it used as a starting point for its story the research of Peter Schweizer, a fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank at Stanford University.

About a year ago, he began work on a book about "soft corruption" in Washington, CBS reported. The network said it had independently verified the material it used.

Pelosi's spokesman criticized the CBS story for failing to note that the "legislation in question was reported out of the Judiciary Committee on October 3, 2008 -- the day the House was consumed in passing TARP and also the last day the House was in session before the November election."

It also failed to note that in September 2008, the House passed the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights, Hammill said.

COMMENT:  None of the talking points that Hammill issued actually answer the charge of soft corruption, essentially insider trading.  There have been an inordinate number of people, on both sides of the aisle, who seem to have gotten very rich on the salary of public servants.  Lyndon Johnson was a perfect example.  We were told that his wife, Lady Bird, was a shrewd investor.  Boy, she must've really been shrewd to acquire the kind of wealth the Johnsons acquired while Lyndon was in Congress.

It is good when a mainstream news outlet takes on a powerful Democrat.  It's also unusual.  Nancy Pelosi and her husband are fabulously wealthy.  For all I know, everything is legit.  But there do seem to be some things that require investigation, and I'm glad "Sixty Minutes" started the process.  I wonder if anyone will follow up.

November 14, 2011       Permalink

IS IRAN RATIONAL? – AT 7:58 A.M. ET:  One thing we must assess in deciding on Iran policy is whether the government in Iran is rational.   This is not said glibly.  The "rationalists" say that, even if Iran gets the bomb, Tehran would never use it because the government will act like any other government...to preserve its country.

But others aren't so sure.  Yes, the Soviet Union, with all its horrors, had a rational government, and knew when it was beaten.  Emperor Hirohito, after the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, understood that Japan was defeated, even if many of his military men did not. 

But an author I respect, and see at meetings all the time, is arguing otherwise – that we face grave danger from the mullahs because of who they are, and because of something that we aren't aware of about Iran.  David Goldman, who wrote under the name "Spengler," and made quite an impression in the years after 9-11, has written a new book called "How Civilizations Die (and why Islam is dying too)."  Having heard David speak, I would say that anything he writes is worth reading.

Goldman makes the point that the birth rate in Iran is declining rapidly, even alarmingly.  In more enlightened Arab and Muslim populations (not governments), the birth rate is in similar, rapid decline, to European or American levels.  What does that mean for the mullahs of Tehran?  Goldman paints a chilling picture:

The foreign policy establishment has always seen Iran as a rational player. That was the view that Robert Gates brought into the Bush administration, and the reason that the Obama administration refused, disgracefully, to support the democracy movement that erupted in Iran in the summer of 2009.

An individual, or a country, that knows it has no future has no rational self-interest. You can’t invert the population pyramid in a poor country within a single generation without economic collapse. Iran knows its time is running out. Ahmadinejad is giving speeches calling the low birth rate a “genocide against the Iranian nation,” and Iran’s press is warning of a “tidal wave of elderly.” That feeds the apocalyptic impulse of Iran’s leaders. There weren’t a lot of Communists in Russia outside the Politbureau, we discovered in 1989, and there may not be a lot of Muslims in Iran. But the Russian danger peaked in the early 1980s when the Politbureau realized that time was running out to make their move.

Demographic decline tells the ayatollahs that their window of opportunity is closing. But there’s a big difference. Deterrence worked with a nuclear-armed Russia. It won’t work with the apocalyptic Shi’ite leadership of Iran. As a practical matter, we must stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, no matter how great the cost.

COMMENT:  Excellent point.  We, in this country, do not understand ideology, passion, fanaticism.  During the later phase of World War II our naval leaders could not understand how Japanese pilots could crash their planes into American ships.  Even after 9-11 we could not quite grasp why 19 men would commit suicide in airliners, while killing thousands of innocent victims. 

But an Iran that believes it is in decline might well try for the defiant stroke.  The Iranian people might be horrified by it, but the government in Iran is not run by the Iranian people, but by a cult.  Their attitude might well be to strike a blow for Islam.  We must prevent them from having the means to do so.

November 14, 2011       Permalink

GLAD YOU NOTICED, MR. PRESIDENT – AT 7:33 A.M. ET:  President Obama has made almost a complete fool of himself in the last three or four days by saying, and saying it out loud, that we would consult with Russia and China on what more could be done to stop the Iranian nuclear program.

As we noted here, Russia builds reactors for Iran.  Russia opposes sanctions on Iran.

China is a major trading partner with Iran.  China opposes sanctions on Iran.

We can't get further action through the UN Security Council because both Russia and China have made it clear they'd veto anything significant.

And these are the people the president is looking to for help.  That's like looking to fascist Spain the 1930s for help against Hitler.  Or looking to the red groups of Europe during the Cold War for help against Russia. 

Now the president, possibly notified that adolescence is not appreciated in a world leader, is at least speaking a bit differently.  From Fox:

HONOLULU - President Obama didn't rule out a military option with Iran to deal with its nuclear program at a press conference Sunday. He said that sanctions have had "enormous bite and scope" so far and vowed to pursue diplomatic avenues but re-emphasized that all options are available.

"We are not taking any options off the table. Iran with nuclear weapons would pose a threat not only to the region but also to the United States," Obama said.

Hey, let's applaud.  It's finally recognized that an Iranian bomb poses a threat to the U.S.  Two bombs sailed into two American harbors and set off on the same day would produce devastation the likes of which we've never experienced.

The comments came after wrapping up a weekend at the Asia-Pacific economic summit where he met with world leaders to address economic and security issues.

Russia and China doubted a recent IAEA report and said they weren't on board for more sanctions. Obama met with Russian President Dimtri Medvedev and Chinese President Hu on Saturday. In the meetings Obama said the countries don't disagree on the outcome, even if the IAEA report doesn't hold credence for them. He noted they'd be looking at other options on how to move forward with them.

Barack, give it up.  We're not going to get anything effective out of the Russians or the Chinese.  We may have to impose the kind of economic sanctions, especially on Iran's oil sector, that could create some pain here, but we should be willing to pay that price if it means breaking Iran's back and forcing it out of the nuclear weapons business.  (And even that might not work.)  In recent days we've backed away from tough economic sanctions on grounds that they may affect the West.  But, if the American people had the importance of those steps explained to them, they would suck it up and accept the need.  They always do.

And if further sanctions don't work, the military option must realistically be pursued, for the sake of our own civilization.

November 14, 2011     Permalink

NOVEMBER 13,  2011

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:46 P.M. ET;

OBAMA TALKS TOUGH, OTHERS LAUGH – President Obama told China today that it had to follow international trade rules and stop infringing on US intellectual property.  Notice the difference?  There was little indication that China had any interest in the president's warning.  After all, what is he going to do to a country that holds so much US debt?  It is reported that, as the president spoke at an international economic summit in Hawaii, President Hu of China didn't even look him in the eye.  So much for hope and change.

BUDGET GLOOM IN WASHINGTON – This is a serious countdown.  A week and a half remains before automatic budget cuts, including catastrophic cuts to the defense budget, go into effect if a supercommittee of the Congress cannot agree on new budget reforms.  There is absolute pessimism right now, despite a Republican concession on taxes.  As the deadline approaches, of course, differences can narrow.  But if there is failure, there could be an immediate hit to markets and the economy generally.  And the Pentagon would look into a dangerous abyss.

November 13, 2011    Permalink

RIGHT ON TIME – AT 11:35 A.M. ET:   Does it ever fail?  Whenever a Republican rises to prominence, or threatens to, The New York Times runs a hit piece on him, or her.  (And the her was either Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann.)  And so The Times, having run hit pieces on Herman Cain and Rick Perry, now turns to Mitt Romney. 

This is the same paper, located a subway ride away from Columbia University, that apparently couldn't afford to send a reporter uptown in 2008 to find out why nobody at Columbia remembered Barack Obama, who graduated from the place in 1983.   This is the same paper that did no investigative vetting of Obama, setting the standard for one of the most disgraceful episodes in modern journalistic history.

But it has plenty to say about Romney:

By the green-hued yardsticks of Wall Street, the 1990s buyout of an Illinois medical company by Mitt Romney's private equity firm was a spectacular success.

Romney's company, Bain Capital, sent in a team of 10 turnaround experts from Boston to ferret out waste, motivate executives and study untapped markets.

By the time the Harvard MBA's from Bain were finished, sales at the medical company, Dade International, had more than doubled. The business acquired two of its rivals. And Romney's firm collected $242 million, a return eight times its investment.

But an examination of the Dade deal shows the unintended human costs and messy financial consequences behind the brand of capitalism that Romney practiced for 15 years.

At Bain Capital's direction, Dade quadrupled the money it owed creditors and vendors. It took steps that propelled the business toward bankruptcy. And, in waves of layoffs, it cut loose 1,700 workers in the United States.

Romney's career at Bain Capital, which he owned and ran as chief executive, is a cornerstone of his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination -- a credential, he argues, that showcases the management skills and business acumen America needs to revive a stalled economy. Creating jobs, Romney said, is exactly what he knows how to do.

The White House, though, is already preparing a less flattering portrayal, trying to frame Romney's record at Bain as evidence that he would pursue slash and burn economics and that his business career thrived by enriching the elite at the expense of the working class.

COMMENT:  Should investigative reports like this be done?  Of course.  I have no problem with a serious probe into the background of any presidential candidate.  But each Times piece on a Republican candidate comes out negative.  And in 2008 The Times tried to destroy John McCain with an ultimately false story about an alleged affair McCain had. 

I would certainly like to know more about Mitt Romney's business career.  But I would have also liked to know more about Barack Obama, either from The Times or from some other source.  Even today we know so little about Obama.  Some 450 members of the Columbia class of 1983, Obama's class, were surveyed, and no one remembered him.  He still refuses to release his academic records.   And Percy Sutton, the late, respected African-American borough president of Manhattan, said in the last years of his life that he had known Obama in Obama's youth, and knew that his education at the Harvard Law School was paid for by an Islamic supremacist.  The press buried the story, which never even appeared in Sutton's obituary.

The double standard is one of the factors destroying the credibility of American journalism.  And yet, no one learns, no one changes.  You'd think mainstream news organs would try to improve their product to compete with the new media dominating the internet.  But fear of crossing the political powers-that-be is apparently too strong in our major newsrooms.  The disservice continues.

November 13, 2011       Permalink

AT LEAST THEY'RE DOING IT IN LONDON – AT 10:58 A.M. ET:  I am always amazed at the talent displayed by the American film industry in its quest to exhibit the worst possible taste.  That extends to expressing its political views and trying to impose them on audiences who just want a few hours of entertainment.

Now, the industry that produces one failed "anti-war" movie after another, and gave an Oscar to Jane Fonda, while Fonda's treasonable activities were fresh in the audience's mind, goes a step further to honor a woman who has spent her life promoting absolute evil:

LONDON -- Hollywood's film academy is honoring acting icon Vanessa Redgrave at a star-studded ceremony in London.

Meryl Streep, Ralph Fiennes and James Earl Jones are scheduled to join Sunday's Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences tribute to Redgrave's 50-year career.

A member of a famous British acting dynasty, Redgrave is also known for her left-wing political activism.

That is a clear understatement.  Her loyalty was to the Soviet Union and she has always sided with those who want to harm America and its allies, especially Israel.

The 74-year-old actress has been nominated for six Oscars and won for her supporting role as an anti-Nazi activist in 1977's "Julia."

In her acceptance speech, she praised the academy for not bowing to "Zionist hoodlums" who had objected to the nomination because of her support for the Palestinian cause.

COMMENT:  There is no doubt that she's a fine actress.  And we should not, in general, judge artists by their political views.  However, we are permitted to make exceptions.  And an exception should have been made this time.  This woman has fronted for regimes that put artists to death.  In an industry that claims it opposes blacklists, she has maintained blacklists of Israeli actors and campaigned against their being employed.  In Vanessa Redgrave's political world, some of the people honoring her would suddenly disappear.  I simply don't know why the Academy would want to honor someone who opposes its basic values. 

But of course, I do know.  Honoring hardened leftists is a Hollywood tradition.  At least they're having the ceremony in London, possibly to avoid the publicity, and embarrassment, in the States.  But it is a disgrace, although no greater a disgrace than what Hollywood has become in recent years. 

I'm sure, in her acceptance speech, Redgrave will ridicule the United States, and receive applause.

November 13, 2011       Permalink 

DID YOU EVER THINK YOU'D SEE THE DAY? – AT 10:27 A.M. ET:  We can count the ways in which Barack Hussein Obama Jr. has weakened this country, and we can only imagine what he has planned for his second term.  Some of the things Obama has done are dangerous, placing this country in a position of subservience.  Consider:

A Russian Soyuz rocket with three astronauts — two Russians, one American — is set to lift off from Kazakhstan on Monday morning, ferrying the men to the International Space Station.

Ordinarily, the launching of a Soyuz, Russia’s workhorse rocket for decades, is a mundane event. But this time the future of the space station — and, indeed, the space programs of Russia and the United States — may be riding on the mission’s success. There are now three crew members living on the space station, and they are scheduled to return to Earth this month; if the three relief astronauts do not arrive before then, the space station will be empty for the first time in more than a decade.

The flight is also the beginning of a new chapter for NASA, which ended its space shuttle program in July and is now turning to foreign governments and commercial enterprises for space transportation. Monday’s launching will be the first trip by astronauts to orbit since the retirement of the shuttles.

COMMENT:  This is just awful.  The title of the article is "NASA Hitches a Ride on a Russian Craft, and Begins a New Dependent Phase," and that is precisely accurate.  The word "dependent" is the painful one.  Why is it that Russia, with all its economic problems, could maintain operational space vehicles and we could not?  And, most important, how will our dependence, at least for a time, on Russian rockets affect our approach to Russian foreign policy, which is distinctly hostile to many American interests?

It is true that we have other space vehicles under development.  But we could have easily kept some shuttles in operation, if only for appearances – and appearances count in international relations.  But I suspect that the kind of people around Obama see nothing wrong with dependence on Russia, just as they see nothing wrong with the emergence of the Muslim Brotherhood in Arab countries.  Why, why, who are we to question other cultures?

We are trying to get Russia's cooperation in a number of critical foreign-policy areas, especially Iran, and they now see us as partly dependent on them.  What a great position to be in.  Thank you, Barack Hussein, and thanks to the multiculturalists who inform your world.

November 13, 2011     Permalink