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.

SECOND SUBSCRIPTION DRIVE – 2016 – DAY SEVEN – HELP NEEDED!

(Results are so-so; maybe it's the weather; we need a boost!)

We're ending the first week of our second subscription drive for 2016.  Subscriptions are the lifeblood of Urgent Agenda.  Without the assistance of our subscribers and donators, we'd be gone.  We need new subscribers.  But if you're already one, please consider additional support.

This year has been especially draining.  Covering a presidential election requires greater resources and briefings for us, and they are expensive. 

Most subscribers join to support our work.  But there are also benefits.  Subscribers and donators receive a private e-mail, the Angel's Corner, twice a week.  The Angel's Corner contains our Forum, where members can write on any subject they wish, at any reasonable length.  It is our most popular feature.

To subscribe or donate, just go to SUBSCRIPTIONS, on the right-hand column of this page, opposite these words, and follow the instructions.   You can assist us through any of the methods, including PayPal, but we especially recommend SENDINC, which has become a hit with our audience.  You open a free Sendinc account, which takes a minute, and send us the information we list through the ultra-secure Sendinc system.  It's the same info you'd give any merchant.  We process your payment here, destroy your information, and remind you when your subscription expires. 

With any method you choose you can even give a gift subscription.

Please subscribe or donate.  You'll feel good about yourself, just like a liberal. 

JUNE 19,  2016

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

SAY IT AIN'T SO, JUSTICE THOMAS – FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER:  Justice Clarence Thomas, a reliable conservative vote on the Supreme Court, is mulling retirement after the presidential election, according to court watchers.  Thomas, appointed by former President George H.W. Bush and approved by the Senate after a bitter confirmation battle, has been considering retirement for a while and never planned to stay until he died, they said. He likes to spend summers in his RV with his wife.  His retirement would have a substantial impact on control of the court.  It would be a disaster, if Hillary is in the White House.  Thomas's replacement would probably be wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt.

HOW PRECIOUS – FROM THE COLLEGE FIX:    The elite Sidwell Friends School, the institution from which Malia Obama just graduated and where the younger Obama, Sasha, is still enrolled, will ban any clothing with “Redskins” on it this coming school year.  Head of School Bryan Garman says the ban came about partly due to “some prodding” by the school student government, but the administration “fully supports” the idea.  “Our student government passed a resolution stating that the mascot of the District’s National Football League team is offensive and antithetical to the values of the community,” Garman writes.  Many surveys show that the great majority of Native Americans do not consider "Redskins" offensive.  But what do they know compared with Washington liberals?

THIS IS RIDICULOUS – FROM REALCLEARPOLITICS:  In an interview with NBC's Chuck Todd, Attorney General Loretta Lynch says that on Monday, the FBI will release edited transcripts of the 911 calls made by the Orlando nightclub shooter to the police during his rampage.  "What we're not going to do is further proclaim this man's pledges of allegiance to terrorist groups, and further his propaganda," Lynch said. "We are not going to hear him make his assertions of allegiance [to the Islamic State]."  That is crazy, but typical of this administration.  Play down the fact that the shooter was an Islamic terrorist.  That's the part that Americans must hear, but it will be suppressed to protect our little ears.

June 19,  2016     Permalink

FACTS ARE SO ANNOYING – AT 12:52 P.M. ET:   Donald Trump recently revoked the campaign press credentials of the Washington Post.  The reactions from the press went from medical shock to fears of Nazism.

Uh, just a sec.  We are reminded that one Barack Hussein Obama Jr. did the same thing, and the sky remained firmly in place.  From American Thinker: 

Joe Concha of Mediaite remembers what happened 8 years ago, and contrasts the media response in the two instances:

The year was 2008. The candidate had a big lead in the polls going into election day. And in a preview of how petulant he would be act as Commander-in-Chief as it pertains to his treatment of the press, Barack Obama decided he didn’t like what three newspapers were writing about him, so he kicked its reporters off his campaign plane.

As Concha points out, the Obama campaign claimed that there simply wasn't enough space, instead of being honest, as Trump has been, about the unfavorable coverage being the root of the matter. Somehow, on the Obama plane there was room for Glamour, Ebony, and Jet, but no room for the Dallas Morning News, New York Post or Washington Times.

COMMENT:  I get so much serious international stuff from Glamour, so I do understand.  All those inside stories of haircuts. 

But the fact is, as Concha points out, that there was virtually no press reaction to Obama's 2008 tantrum.  Only when the Republican slapped the wrist of a journalist was there warning of impending fascism.

There is no bias in the press.  And the Sun did not come out this morning.

June 19, 2016       Permalink 

PRINCELY THOUGHTS – AT 11:55 A.M. ET:  Prince Charles of Britain speaks about the responsibility of immigrants.  Can we allow this?  Should he ever be invited here?   From London's Express: 

The heir to the throne railed against the radicalisation of young British men by Islamist extremists as he launched an impassioned defence of Britain's "Christian" heritage.

Telling British muslims that they should show more respect for "the values we hold dear," the Prince revealed that he was terrified by the influence of radical preachers who spread their teachings on the internet.

In an unprecedented outburst, he said: "The radicalisation of people in Britain is a great worry, and the extent to which this is happening is alarming, particularly in a country like ours where we hold values dear.

"You would think the people who have come here, or are born here, and go to school here, would abide by those values and outlooks."

He added that it was "frightening" that young British Muslims were being radicalised by "crazy stuff on the internet".

The outspoken comments are a further sign that the Prince is not prepared to keep quiet on political causes close to his heart, despite assuming more and more responsibility from the Queen.

They came as he started a six-day tour of the Middle East in his mother's place, during which he has been urged to speak out against the barbaric practises of some Gulf states.

It is understood that the Prince will challenge new Saudi king Salman bin Abdulaziz al Saud over the terrible punishment handed down to blogger Raif Badawi when the pair meet face to face this week.

The free-speech champion was sentenced to a thousand lashes and ten years in jail after being convicted of insulting Islam over comments he made on his website which were critical of the autocratic Saudi regime.

COMMENT:  Good for Charlie.  He has more guts than our president.  We in America have a long tradition of immigrants coming here to become Americans.  That, apparently, is out of style in some "sophisticated" circles, and it's time the style changed back.  We have a right to expect that immigrants, including Muslims, live by American social standards.  Prince Charles has stated a good case.  Someone should anonymously send a clipping of his comments to the White House.

June 19, 2016       Permalink

A RARE BIRD SPEAKS – AT 11:21 A.M. ET:  The rare bird is a moderate, rational Democrat.  In this case it is Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, who is giving some sane advice.  From The Hill: 

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) called for the next president to instill a renewed sense of bipartisanship in government so Congress can be more productive and less contentious.

Warner, a supporter of presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, laid out his vision for the next administration in a radio interview with John Catsimatidis on "The Cats Roundtable" on New York's AM 970.

“Those first few months of the next president’s administration is gonna be really important to set a new tone,” Warner said. “It’s gotta be bipartisan. It’s gotta recognize that the best policy is made not by the people with the loudest voices on either end of the political spectrum.

“We’ve gotta put some points on the board for our country,” he continued. “And that’s gonna require somebody who’s gonna be willing to compromise.”

Warner added that the next president shouldn’t try to rehash old arguments on which the two parties can’t find middle ground. He also lamented the unpopularity in both parties of reaching across the aisle.

COMMENT:  He speaks wisely.  Clearly, there is a place for partisanship – that's why we have two parties – but there is also an honorable place for compromise and mutual respect.  The art of government, it is often said, is the art of compromise.  President Reagan used to say that if he got 80% of what he wanted in a negotiation, he'd have a very good deal.

Things are more contentious today, and the worst offenders, by far, are the left-wing Berniephiles in the Democratic Party. 

Warner would be a solid, and responsible, choice for vice president on Clinton's ticket.  So would Tim Kaine, his fellow senator from Virginia.  But the nutjobs in the party, having gained power through the Sanders movement, are screaming for Elizabeth Warren, a hater.  They may get her.

June 19,  2016     Permalink

JUNE 18,  2016

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:29 P.M.  ET: 

MAJOR FASHION CRISIS – FROM FOX:   A man is accusing a Chicago pizza joint of racial discrimination after he was denied entry because his pants were apparently “too street.”  The Chicago Tribune reported Thursday that Antar Jackson and his wife Christina Jacobson were looking for a place to watch the second game of the NBA Finals back on June 5. The couple settled on Parlor Pizza, but was eventually turned away because an employee told Jackson his pants were “too street.”  The couple told the paper that the pants were black herringbone wool trousers made by the Vince fashion brand. The couple claims they were victims of racial discrimination.  Parlor Pizza said in a statement Thursday that the dress code policy is displayed at the facility’s entrance and on their website. They said the policy is enforced “uniformly.”  It is high time our president spoke out against Pantsgate, a scandal of our time.

UH, I KINDA WONDER – FROM THE COLLEGE FIX:   If your son went to prison for rape, you as a parent are responsible for rape culture, or something.  That’s the muddled message peddled by protesters at St. Catherine’s University in St. Paul, Minn., a campus where 97 percent of undergraduates are women, the Star Tribune reports.  They blasted the school’s “toxic rape culture” at a Monday protest where they marched with signs including “Rape culture is here” and “We will not be silenced.”   A toxic rape culture at school were 97 percent of the undergrads are women?  At what point do we demand some maturity in discussing this important issue?

REMARKABLE, AND GOOD – FROM FOX:   The Orlando terror massacre has members of the LGBT community around the nation coming out – for Donald Trump and the Second Amendment.  Some among the reliable Democratic constituency were not persuaded by President Obama’s post-attack call for new gun control measures and renewed warning against painting Islam in a negative light.  Trump’s counter message that Americans – including those in the LGBT community - must protect themselves against the hatred of radical Muslims struck a chord with Stephen Zieman.  “I knew I had to fully support Trump because he called out the threat for what it was -- radical Islamic terrorism,” the 23-year-old from Schaumburg, Ill., told FoxNews.com. “He stood up for the LGBT community and called himself a friend. It's something we all needed and he was there — Hillary was not. She was making excuses for the religion and calling for gun control, which is not what I needed to hear.”  Fascinating.  I don't know if this is just a small boomlet, but you never know.  I've always wondered how long traditional Democratic constituencies will put up with being sold out.  There's a story there.  Don't look for it in The New York Times.

June 18,  2016     Permalink 

REQUIRED READING – AT 12:46 P.M. ET:   Britain votes this week (the 23rd) on whether to leave the EU.  In the runup to the vote, the Brits have been threatened by assorted trendies that leaving the European Union would have dire consequences.  Our own make-believe president lectured the Brits that they would go to the end of the line in trade deals if they dared trying to be British again.  The great British historian Andrew Roberts replies to that weirdness in The Wall Street Journal: 

On June 23 the British people will be going to the polls to choose whether they want to continue with the present system whereby 60% of British laws are made in Brussels and foreign judges decide whether those laws are legitimate or not, or whether we want to strike out for independence and the right to make all of our own laws and have our own British judges decide upon them.

It’s about whether we can recapture the right to deport foreign Islamist hate preachers and terrorist suspects, or whether under European human-rights legislation they must continue to reside in the U.K., often at taxpayers’ expense. The European Union is currently experiencing migration on a scale not seen since the late 17th century—with hordes of young, mostly male Muslims sweeping from the southeast into the heart of Europe. Angela Merkel invited them in and that might be fine for Germany, but why should they have the right to settle in Britain as soon as they get a European passport?

Surely—surely—this is an issue on which the British people, and they alone, have the right to decide, without the intervention of President Obama, who adopted his haughtiest professorial manner when lecturing us to stay in the EU, before making the naked threat that we would be sent “to the back of the queue” (i.e., the back of the line) in any future trade deals if we had the temerity to vote to leave.

Was my country at the back of the line when Winston Churchill promised in 1941 that in the event of a Japanese attack on the U.S., a British declaration of war on Japan would be made within the hour?

Was Great Britain at the back of the line when America was searching for allies in the Korean War in the 1950s?

When America decided to liberate Kuwait from Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War in the early 1990s, was Britain at the back of the line when we contributed an armored division that fought on your right flank during Operation Desert Storm?

And...

Winston Churchill was warned repeatedly by the Treasury that it was bankrupting Britain to continue her lonely and seemingly doomed struggle against the power that utterly dominated the entire European Continent in 1940 and 1941, but he treated all such warnings with his characteristically coruscating ire. That is what people do who love their country, and that is what I hope my countrymen will do on June 23.

And if we do vote to leave the EU on Thursday, I hope that Americans with a sense of history, Americans with a sense of tradition who honor friendship past and future, above all Americans who know what self-government means to a free people, will rally to the cause of an independent Britain.

COMMENT:  Terrific piece, a real rebuke to the Obama mentality. 

June 18, 2016       Permalink

CLINTON'S LEAD SLIPS POST-ORLANDO – AT 11:16 A.M. ET:  Not much of an indicator, except that the polls are not rigid, and are likely to change many times before the election.  From The Hill:

Hillary Clinton’s lead over Donald Trump with voters nationwide is eroding after Sunday’s mass shooting, according to a new poll.

Clinton’s edge over Trump has dropped 3.6 points since the massacre in Orlando, according to the Reuters survey out Friday.

Friday’s results found that 10.7 points separate Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, from Trump, her GOP counterpart.

Reuters said Clinton boasted a 14.3-point gap last Sunday, the day of the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.

Pollsters found 45.5 percent of voters now support Clinton, while 34.8 percent back Trump and 19.7 percent pick neither.

Clinton last Sunday registered 46.6 percent before the bloodshed at Pulse nightclub, versus Trump’s 32.3 percent.

Reuters also reported rising enthusiasm for Trump’s temporary ban on Muslim emigration into the U.S. since June started.

Forty-five percent back that measure after last weekend’s attack, versus 41.9 percent who supported it at the start of the month.

Reuters added that 70 percent of Americans now crave at least moderate gun control regulations, up from 60 percent in similar surveys between 2013 and 2014.

COMMENT:  I wouldn't get too enthusiastic about this mini-trend.  Trump is proving to be a very problematical candidate.  If he were more credible, he would be much closer to the highly unpopular Hillary.

June 18, 2016       Permalink 

A REMINDER OF REALITY – AT 10:46 A.M. ET:  Action in Belgium reminds us that the terrorist threat is ongoing and real.  From NBC:

Twelve people suspected of planning new terror attacks were arrested in Brussels after police raided dozens of homes overnight, prosecutors said Saturday.

Forty people were taken in for questioning and 152 car ports were also searched, the Belgium Federal Prosecutor's Office said in a statement.

The results of the investigation "necessitated an immediate intervention," it said. "In the interest of the investigation, currently no further details can be given."

Belgium is still under a "level three" terror alert — the second highest — in the wake of the March 22 attacks on the Brussels subway and airport that killed 32 people.

The terror level implies a threat of an attack "is possible and likely." The maximum level indicates an imminent threat of attack.

Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel said Saturday the terror level would remain where it was and said the situation was "under control."

COMMENT:  I'm so disappointed that Belgian authorities, unlike our president, doesn't understand that this is a gun-control issue, and one of domestic violence.  These Belgians.  So simplistic.

No, they've seen reality.  Right now the Europeans, strangely, are more realistic about terror than we are.  A new poll shocks us by pointing out that the great majority of Democrats see Orlando as an example of domestic violence, not Islamic terror, despite the clear history of the shooter.  Obama has done his work for the hard left very well.

June 18,  2016     Permalink