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.

FIRST SUBSCRIPTION DRIVE – 2016 – HELP!

(The second week of our drive is very sluggish.  So we once again must put out the call for help.  Please subscribe or donate, and make our drive successful.  The future of our work depends on it.)   

Urgent Agenda depends on subscriptions and donations to stay in business.  Without them, we'd be gone.  We are now in one of the most critical election years in modern history.  We'll be there every day, seven days a week.  It is expensive, and we ask for your backing.

You can subscribe or donate in the right-hand column under SUBSCRIPTIONS, opposite these words.  You can use PayPal or the other methods given.  We strongly recommend SENDINC, which has been a hit with our readers, and is simple to use.  Your information is secure.   If you prefer to use regular mail, let us know at service@urgentagenda.com, and we'll give you our address.

WHAT YOU RECEIVE:  Aside from the satisfaction of supporting our work, you'll receive, twice a week, an e-mailed page called "The Angel's Corner."  It contains our Forum, where subscribers and donators can write on any subject, at any reasonable length.  The Forum is unique to the internet, and is one of our most popular features.

We look forward to your joining us as subscribers or donators.

JANUARY 20,  2016

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

MAJOR BLAME NEWS – From Fox:   The world’s first farmers and their slash-and-burn agriculture may have set off global warming.  A new analysis of ice-core climate data, archaeological evidence and ancient pollen samples is being used to suggest farming some 7,000 years ago helped put the brakes on a natural cooling process of the global climate, possibly contributing the warmer climate seen today.  But the study is expected to raise a few eyebrows, given there were far fewer people on Earth back then and industrialization -- and the coal-fired power plants that come with it -- was still a long ways off.  So now we know the truth about global warming, at least the truth until next week.  Watch this space for next week's truth.

THIS IS TOO MUCH – From The Hill:   President Obama says he's not willing to give a speech at his daughter Malia's high school graduation ceremony.  The reason: He expects to be too emotional, according to ABC.  “Malia's school asked if I wanted to speak at commencement and I said no,” the president was overheard saying during a lunch stop in Detroit on Wednesday.  “I'm going to be wearing dark glasses ... and I’m going to cry.”  Oh please.  What an act.  A lot of us should be crying because the mess this country is in as a result of Obama's policies.

CLINTON CASH – From The Hill:   Despite Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's lead in national polls, her campaign is worried about getting "outraised" by rival Bernie Sanders.  "Here's the truth: We know we have more supporters than he does. But a higher proportion of his supporters have stepped up to fund his campaign," campaign manager Robby Mook wrote in an email to Clinton supporters with the subject line "This is what being outraised looks like."  The email said Sanders's campaign is outspending them on TV in Iowa and New Hampshire "just as voters are starting to pay attention, and the polls are incredibly tight."  It asked for supporters to give funds — just $1 — to "help close the gap."   Clinton didn't expect this, and doesn't seem to know how to battle Sanders.  She may well break his momentum once they get beyond Iowa and New Hampshire.  I still maintain that her real hurdle will be the FBI investigation.  If that produces evidence of crimes, Bernie's fundraising can become a minor annoyance.

January 20, 2016       Permalink

UTTERLY FASCINATING – AT 12:48 P.M. ET:  A postscript to last week's supposed "prisoner swap" with the Iranians.  From ABC News: 

It turns out that so-called “prisoner swap” with Iran didn’t involve much of a swap. When given the chance, none of the Iranians freed from U.S. custody chose to return to Iran, according to U.S. officials familiar with the negotiations.

As the United States and Iran secretly negotiated the terms of a deal that culminated with a “prisoner swap” this weekend, both parties agreed they would fly their prisoners to Geneva, Switzerland, for the exchange – a neutral country that for years has worked as a diplomatic mediator between the two adversaries.

After an hours-long and nerve-wracking delay, a Swiss plane took off Sunday from a military base in Tehran just before 7 a.m. ET carrying three long-held American prisoners: journalist Jason Rezaian, former U.S. Marine Amir Hekmati and Christian pastor Saeed Abedini.

That same day, a plane took off from somewhere on the East Coast of the United States, carrying the seven Iranian-Americans freed from U.S. custody who wanted to return to Iran (or so everyone believed). But not one of them boarded the plane, according to the U.S. officials familiar with the process. The plane left anyway because it was designated to bring the freed Americans on to their second destination in Landstuhl, Germany.

COMMENT:   I don't know how the front operators for the Iranian regime will explain this.  People made a choice.  They didn't choose Iran. 

That's why "progressives" hate democracy.  People make these wrong choices.  Terrible, terrible.  Kerry probably thinks these Iranians were brainwashed by Laura Bush.

January 20, 2016       Permalink

YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS UP – AT 12:30 P.M. ET:  Government incompetence on the march.  From Daily Caller: 

General Services Administration (GSA) officials designed a $75 million federal law enforcement facility so unsuited to what the intended occupants needed that they couldn’t use the building when it was completed, according to the Government Accountability Office.

GSA, already notorious for wasteful spending on conferences and employee videos, didn’t talk to the Federal Protective Service (FPS) during design phase of the more than 180,000 square foot building, the congressional watchdog agency said in a report made public Tuesday.

“As a result, FPS said that no law enforcement agencies were able to use the facility and that GSA invested resources for a facility that is not suitable for its intended tenants,” GAO said.

Officials at GSA thought the new facility was for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ district headquarters so they consulted with the FPS on perimeter security. But GAO said GSA’s failure to coordinate with FPS before constructing a nearly $75 million building is evidence of a serious lack of communications between two agencies according to GAO.

Officials with both agencies told GAO investigators they experienced a bomb threat at another GSA-owned facility with 3,000 tenants, but they didn’t know who was responsible for things like when to evacuate.

COMMENT:  Who will be punished.  Probably no one.  Your tax dollars at work. 

January 20, 2016       Permalink

UPDATE – NEW TERROR ATTACK – AT 10:58 A.M. ET:  We started reporting on this last night, a new terror attack at a Pakistani university.  This is the latest, from CNN:

Islamabad, Pakistan (CNN) Militants raided a university in northwest Pakistan on Wednesday, timing their attack to a ceremony at the school to ensure maximum casualties.

After security forces combed the campus block by block after the massacre, Mehmood Khan, provincial home minister of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, said 19 civilians were killed, along with four terrorists. He expects the number of civilian deaths to increase.

Earlier, an army spokesman said that 21 civilians had been killed.

The attack took place at Bacha Khan University in Charsadda, Peshawar, less than 40 kilometers (25 miles) from where the Pakistan Taliban slayed 145 people, including 132 children, in a school attack in December 2014.

It's unclear whether the group was responsible for the Wednesday incident.

One Pakistan Taliban spokesman, Umar Mansoor, said the attack was in retaliation for military operations against the group. Mansoor was also the mastermind behind the December 2014 attack, Pakistan's DawnNews reported.

But another spokesman, Mohammad Khurrassani, from the Pakistan Taliban's central organization, disavowed any role.

COMMENT:  I can only guess, but I doubt that a Taliban spokesman would claim credit unless authorized to do so.  But I stress that's a guess.

Clearly, though, it's a Taliban-style terror attack on innocent students.  And once again we note the sheer number of terror attacks recently.  Just a minor problem, says our president.  Exaggerated.

January 20, 2016       Permalink

FREE AT LAST, FREE AT LAST – AT 9:55 A.M. ET:  Well, not quite.  But it is noteworthy that Barack Hussein Obama Jr. leaves office a year from today.  We will have a new president. 

I think any of the people running, including Hillary Clinton, would be better than Obama, with the possible exception of Bernie Sanders, who actually believes what he says. 

Obama, a shallow, often infantile man, has weakened this country, damaged its international credibility, run down its military, snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq, appeased Iran, strapped the domestic economy with the regulatory state, exacerbated race relations, and wrecked national morale.  He has also imposed a health system that is heading for bankruptcy, and requiring another federal bailout.  Further, he lies regularly or lives in his own fantasy world, whichever is worse.  And he never seems to know very much.

Other than that, Obama has been a great president.  I know.  Chris Matthews will tell me.  At the end of Obama's term you are likely to hear, "Hey, Obama's ready for Mount Rushmore."  Yeah, as a tourist.

So we have to wait a year.  It's a long time.  But we can start marking the days on our calendars.

January 20,  2016     Permalink

JANUARY 19,  2016

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:48 P.M. ET:

AND AGAIN – Apparent new terror attack.  From CNN:   Islamabad, Pakistan (CNN) A university in the northwest of Pakistan has come under attack by armed militants, and at least seven people have been killed, with a further 20 injured, an official told CNN. It's not yet clear how many of the dead are attackers and how many are civilians but the death toll is expected to rise.  Gunfire and explosions were heard Wednesday morning local time from within Bacha Khan University in Charsadda, northwestern Pakistan.  There are still dead inside and the operation is ongoing, Bilal Faizi, a local emergency service spokesman told CNN.  The relentlessness of terror attacks is remarkable.  It seems there's one every few days.  We have a right to be alarmed, despite Obama's smug assurances that this is a small problem.  Not small for those involved.

WILL IT MATTER? –  As the whole political world knows, Sarah Palin just endorsed Donald Trump.  Palin is still a political force among evangelicals in Iowa, and it's possible her endorsement may have some meaning in that state.  Iowa will be the first state to vote.  Its caucuses are scheduled for February 1st, with Trump and Cruz neck-and-neck in most Iowa polls.  Trump is ahead in the New Hampshire primary to follow Iowa.  The key test, and a test of Palin's influence, may well come in the South Carolina primary on February 20th, where Trump, and his booster Palin, will be up against the formidable opposition of Republican Governor Nikki Haley, who has made clear her dislike of Trump.  There could be sparks. 

THE END OF HUMANITY? – From London's Daily Mail:   It won't be war, politics or poverty that eventually wipes out humanity.  According to Seth Shostak, our end will come about as a result of designer babies and artificial intelligence.  The outspoken director of the Search for extraterrestrial intelligence (Seti) Institute believes developments in these areas will lead to new 'alien' species.  We already have alien species.  Hasn't this guy ever seen a Democratic Party convention?

ROGER WHO? – From The Wrap:   Michael Moore plans to join the boycott of this year’s Academy Awards organized by Spike Lee and Jada Pinkett Smith, the Oscar-winning filmmaker told TheWrap on Monday night.  “I absolutely support what they are doing, and I will be happy to join them,” the “Bowling for Columbine” and “Fahrenheit 9/11” director said in a passionate late-night phone call. “I thought about this all day, and I don’t plan to go to the show, I don’t plan to watch it and I don’t plan to go to an Oscar party."  I'm sure he'll be deeply missed, if anyone remembers who he is.

January 19, 2016        Permalink

RACE IN AMERICA – AT 11:21 A.M. ET:  This isn't what we were promised by Barack Obama.  From Rasmussen: 

Confidence in race relations in America continues to fall, with hopes for the future at their lowest level yet.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 50% of American Adults now think race relations in this country are getting worse, up from 44% a year ago and 30% as recently as January 2014. Only 20% believe race relations are getting better, a new low that compares to 38% five years ago. Twenty-six percent (26%) say race relations are staying about the same. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Only 18% rate race relations in America today as good or excellent, unchanged from last year at this time but down from 34% two years ago. Thirty-three percent (33%) now consider race relations poor, up from 15% in 2011 and 29% last January.

Interestingly, unlike most questions related to race, there isn’t a wide difference of opinion on these questions between blacks and whites. Other minority Americans are the least pessimistic.

But blacks are much more likely than whites and other minorities to believe the United States is headed in the right direction.

COMMENT:  It is not helpful when colleges and universities do all they can to divide people along racial lines.  Nor is it helpful when the president adds to those divisions.

We'd hoped that the "first black president" would seek to heal.  That has not been the case. 

January 19, 2016        Permalink

SUPREME TROUBLE FOR OBAMA? – AT 10:51 A.M. ET:   Is the Supreme Court about to deliver a blow to Obama's blatant power grabs?  From NBC:

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to take up the Obama administration's proposed new immigration plan that could shield more than four million people from deportation.

If the court rules by this spring in favor of the White House, President Obama could begin putting the changes into effect during his final months in office. But if the administration loses, court battles could keep the program on hold for several more years.

The new policy would allow adults here illegally to remain if they have children who are US citizens or lawful permanent residents. It would also expand a program, begun four years ago, that allows young people to remain in the US if they were brought here under age 16, provided they meet educational or military service requirements.

Both changes have yet to go into effect, blocked by lower court rulings in a lawsuit brought by Texas and 25 other states. They said provisions of the new policy would allow people to get work permits and other benefits, resulting in higher costs of accommodating those who remain in the US.

Texas argued that it would be saddled with millions of dollars in additional expenses to issue drivers licenses to an estimated half a million parents who could be eligible in the state.

Lower federal courts last year agreed and put a hold on the new plan. The rulings said that because the changes were so significant, the administration should have sought public comment first. Failing to do so, they declared, was illegal.

At the heart of the case is this question: is the administration's proposal simply a change in priorities for enforcing immigration law or something more?

The justices also directed lawyers for both sides to address an additional question -- does the policy violate the Constitution's "take care" clause.

That's the provision that requires the president to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." The challenger states argued in the lower courts that the policy was unconstitutional, because it failed to conform to a rigorous enforcement of immigration laws.

COMMENT:  A critical case, although the end of the Obama administration will probably have more effect on immigration policy than the Supreme Court's decision.   Immigration is one of the most divisive issues in the campaign.  Whichever way the Court decides will create an uproar.

January 19, 2016       Permalink

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT? – AT 9:41 A.M. ET:  There's a serious story making the rounds that the Obama administration wants to punish retired General David Petraeus even further.  Why do I think this story has deep implications?  From Daily Beast: 

The Pentagon is considering retroactively demoting retired Gen. David Petraeus after he admitted to giving classified information to his biographer and mistress while he was still in uniform, three people with knowledge of the matter told The Daily Beast.

The decision now rests with Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, who is said to be willing to consider overruling an earlier recommendation by the Army that Petraeus not have his rank reduced. Such a demotion could cost the storied general hundreds of thousands of dollars—and deal an additional blow to his once-pristine reputation.

“The secretary is considering going in a different direction” from the Army, a defense official told The Daily Beast, because he wants to be consistent in his treatment of senior officers who engage in misconduct and to send a message that even men of Petraeus’s fame and esteemed reputation are not immune to punishment.

Pentagon spokesperson Peter Cook told The Daily Beast that Carter had requested the information ex-Army Secretary John McHugh had when he made his recommendation on the matter, before reaching a final decision. McHugh had recommended taking no action against Petraeus.

COMMENT:  Now, as Jimmy Stewart might have put it, "Just...just...just a second there."  Who else is being investigated for improper handling of classified information?  I think her name is Clinton.  Are these matters related, in some way, on a political level?

Consider:  If the administration busts Petraeus, how could it then give a pass to Clinton for the same offense?   Is Petraeus being set up by the Obamans as the example, justifying action against Clinton, if it is called for by the FBI investigation into her activities at the State Department?

I don't know the answer, but the timing here doesn't strike me as coincidental.  We have long said at Urgent Agenda that Obama would much prefer Biden, not Clinton, to succeed him.  I get the feeling that the path is being prepared.  An indictment would destroy Clinton on the spot.

January 19,  2016     Permalink