54%

We are at 54% of goal in our subscription drive.  Unless you subscribe, you're only getting a fraction of Urgent Agenda.

FOURTH SUBSCRIPTION DRIVE

Subscriptions are the lifeblood of Urgent Agenda.  Without them, we cannot function.  With them, we're in the fight.

By subscribing you keep Urgent Agenda going.  You also receive The Angel's Corner, our twice-a-week e-mail publication dealing with all kinds of things - politics, show business, even tech stuff.  At The Angel's Corner we also give the very coveted Pompous Fool award, bestowed on those who meet the highest standards of mediocrity.  And at the Angel's Corner forum you can publish your thoughts on anything.

Subscribe for a year, or six months, or donate what you wish.  At the request of readers, we're also launching a family plan.  For little more than a year's subscription, you can have a second sent to someone else - like a kid at school whom you want to save from sinful ideas.

So please subscribe in the column on the right.  Should you ever want to drop your subscription, the unused portion will be refunded with only a few insults and comments about your ancestors.

By the way, you don't need a PayPal account.  When you click on one of our subscription buttons, look toward the bottom of the first screen.  There's a choice for standard credit-card subscriptions. 

You're needed.  I think we are too.

WEDNESDAY,  JUNE 10,  2009

ANOTHER PROMISE UNKEPT - AT 7:22 A.M. ET:  During the campaign, President Obama promised to repair our relations with the universe, claiming that President Bush had destroyed them.  Why, why, even the people of Mars were angry with us, as our NASA probes apparently learned. 

Well, it turned out our relations were actually in pretty good shape.  Mr. Bush had produced a better relationship with India, the world's largest democracy, than we'd ever had.  Nations of Africa admired him for his AIDS program.  Japan had become an even closer ally.  Eastern Europe was in the pro-American camp.

But then there was Western Europe, playground of the political elites.  The Europeans were frowning, but Barack would wave his wand and cure that problem.  After all, he drew big crowds over there.

But, as Ralph Peters points out, the only thing Obama has produced among the governments of Western Europe is dismay:

WHEN Europeans wish upon a star, they get an American president with a huge Third World chip on his shoulder.

Those "sophisticated" Europeans dismissed "cowboy" Bush as a rube beneath their contempt. If the continent's opinion-makers could've changed their voter registrations, they would've flown to Chicago to vote for Barack Obama last fall.

And Chicago would have registered them.  But what did the European elites get?

President Obama may be the least Europe-friendly occupant of the White House since James Monroe (the guy who put up a "Keep Out!" sign on our hemisphere). Bam clearly doesn't like Europeans.

A big chill has hit the trans-Atlantic atmosphere.

Of course, the Europhiles in the mainstream media haven't noticed, so in love with The One are they.

In France, Obama brushed off Nicolas Sarkozy, the most pro-American president to occupy the Elysée Palace in my lifetime. Sarkozy had to beg for a meeting.

And Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown has been treated as though the British just burned the White House -- or a Kenyan village -- last week.

And...

Even in his blame-us Cairo speech, Obama's mention of women's rights was aimed not at Middle Eastern savagery, but at France -- where headscarves can't be worn in public schools.

That's rich. Our president praised the "wisdom" of King Abdullah, ignoring Saudi Arabia's hideous treatment of women, but whacked Europeans for insisting that heads -- and identities -- should go uncovered in free societies.

Oh, I'm liking this.

In the past, our policy often has been too Euro-centric. But we need a useful balance, not a trans-Atlantic Cold War.

Obama just seems to have it in for Europe on a personal level.

Much of our president's youth was spent in the Third World; his closest relatives viewed events through a wacky leftist lens -- and he sat for decades in a church whose pastor ranted against Jews, "racist" America and our foreign policy. It would be astonishing if Obama hadn't internalized such views by sheer osmosis.

By the way, that pastor - Rev. Wright - just surfaced again today, charging that Jews would prevent him from speaking with Obama.  What a great man of God.

Our president not only identifies with the Third World, but with a romanticized Third World whose failings are all the West's fault. It's the typical view of an undergraduate leftist -- in 1979.

Europe is going to miss George W. Bush.

COMMENT:  And not just Europe.  Imagine what the South Koreans and Japanese must think of our tough-as-marshmallows response to North Korea. 

People are noticing.

June 10, 2009   Permalink

SICKENING - AT 6:31 P.M. ET:  Andrew Malcolm at Top of the Ticket reports on a David Letterman political "joke" that has to win some award in the bad taste category:

Noting that Alaska's Republican Gov. Sarah Palin and her daughter attended a New York Yankees game over the weekend with famous Yankee fan Rudy Giuliani, Letterman said:

"One awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game, during the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez."

When I worked in TV the networks had something called Standards and Practices.  Maybe they still do, but you'd never know it.  Anyone telling a joke like that would have been hustled out the door in three seconds.  And the joke, if on tape, would have never made it to air.  Standards today have been adjusted downward.

Fortunately, Sarah Palin is every bit the pit bull she claims.  She struck back:

In a statement to Fox News, Palin called the comments "inappropriate" and "sexually perverted" and ones Letterman would not "dare make" about anyone else's daughter.

The governor added:

"Acceptance of inappropriate sexual comments about an underage girl, who could be anyone's daughter, contributes to the atrociously high rate of sexual exploitation of minors by older men who use and abuse others."

COMMENT:  Good for Sarah.  The "feminist" movement has yet to be heard from.  Don't hold your breath.  But where is the outrage at CBS, once the "family network"?

June 10, 2009   Permalink

STUNNING - AT 6:24 P.M. ET:  You read this and wonder if it can be serious.  Apparently, it is.  From Steve Hayes at the Weekly Standard:

...the Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high value detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan, according a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. “The administration has decided to change the focus to law enforcement. Here’s the problem. You have foreign fighters who are targeting US troops today – foreign fighters who go to another country to kill Americans. We capture them…and they’re reading them their rights – Mirandizing these foreign fighters,” says Representative Mike Rogers, who recently met with military, intelligence and law enforcement officials on a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan.

Rogers, a former FBI special agent and U.S. Army officer, says the Obama administration has not briefed Congress on the new policy. “I was a little surprised to find it taking place when I showed up because we hadn’t been briefed on it, I didn’t know about it. We’re still trying to get to the bottom of it, but it is clearly a part of this new global justice initiative.”

COMMENT:  Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought the U.S. Constitution applied only to American citizens.  Is the Obama administration arguing that it applies to foreigners as well?  Weren't the Obamans the ones who ridiculed George W. Bush for trying to spread democracy?  What do you call this?  Oh, Obama is trying to spread democracy, but only to captured terrorists.  Now I understand.  I guess I was just a little slow.

June 10, 2009   Permalink

CAUTION!! - AT 8:57 A.M. ET:  From Britain's Sky News:

Two passengers with names linked to Islamic terrorism were on the Air France flight which crashed with the loss of 228 lives, it has emerged.

This may get some play today, but it's a story to be read very carefully.  When you scroll down below you get this:

Agents are now trying to establish dates of birth for the two dead passengers, and family connections.

COMMENT:  The same name does not mean the same person.  There are common Arabic names, the equivalent of John Smith.  This story is premature.  If the identities are confirmed as two people actually linked to Islamic terrorism, there's a real story.  Even then, it might be a bizarre coincidence.  And I find it difficult to believe that two people on a watch list would fly under their own names, when false papers are easily obtainable.  Let's wait on this one.

June 10, 2009   Permalink

VIRGINIA STUNNER - AT 8:21 A.M. ET:  Three candidates ran for the Democratic nomination for governor.  Who won?  The most conservative of the three:

R. Creigh Deeds will celebrate his come-from-behind victory in yesterday's Democratic gubernatorial primary by appearing this morning with Gov. Timothy M. Kaine and the two opponents he trounced at the polls, former delegate Brian Moran and longtime Democratic operative Terry McAuliffe.

Deeds, a longtime state legislator from rural Bath County, beat the better-funded Moran and McAuliffe in every region of the state, including vote-rich Northern Virginia, despite a pro-gun stance and relatively conservative positions that are out of line with many of the area's voters.

COMMENT:  I love that last line.  How dare these mere voters choose someone with those views!  Why, the nerve of these peasants. 

There is a moderate wing of the Democratic Party, and, increasingly, it's asserting itself  That is good because the alternative wing within that party is so bad. 

We reported yesterday that Rasmussen's survey shows an increase in support for the GOP's handling of some key issues, like the economy.  That may extend to greater support for Democratic moderates, who know how to read a budget report. 

Next year is shaping up to be a major political battle, the most critical midterm election in modern history.

June 10, 2009   Permalink

A WARNING WE CAN BELIEVE IN - AT 8:06 A.M. ET:  Yes,it comes up all the time, but we tend to forget it.  The rising debt the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress is inflicting on Americans is unsustainable, and threatens, not only the nation's economy, but national security, as foreign nations increasingly control our economic fate.  From Fortune, which notes that liberal economist Paul Krugman and the conservative Congressman Paul Ryan normally disagree, but on this they agree:

So when the two combatants agree on a fundamental threat to the U.S. economy, Americans should heed this alarm as the real thing. What's worrying both Krugman and Ryan is the rapid increase in the federal debt - not so much the stimulus-driven rise to mountainous levels in the next few years, but the huge structural deficits that, under all projections, keep building the burden far into the future to unsustainable, ruinous heights. "The long-term outlook remains worrying," warned Krugman in his New York Times column. Krugman strongly supports President Obama's spending plans but bemoans the shortfall in taxes to pay for them.

And...

What the Obama administration isn't telling Americans is that the only practical solution is a giant tax increase aimed squarely at the middle class. The alternative, big cuts in spending, aren't part of the President's agenda. To keep the debt from wrecking the economy, the U.S. would need to raise annual federal income taxes an average of $11,000 in 2019 for all families that pay them, an increase of about 55%.

COMMENT:  What we're looking at is potential national trauma, social disruption, and revolt.  Eventually, Americans are going to realize what's been done to them.

Of course, if the economy grows dramatically, the issue may ease, as more taxes, in total dollars, are paid.  But the current administration isn't pursuing high-growth policies, and it will be around for a time.

Of course, another way of getting out of this is through inflation, paying back the debt with cheaper dollars.  But that will destroy the new generation, as inflation always does.  However, I suspect that, out of selfishness and the need to cover up its mistakes, those who influence the economy will see inflation as the solution.  It never is.

June 10, 2009   Permalink

BARONE ON GLOBAL WARMING - AT 7:39 A.M. ET:  Following on our first story, just below, the great Michael Barone, who has more common sense in his little finger than most pundits have in their entire brains, provides a gem about the mentality of some global warmists:

I have compared global warming alarmism as a kind of religion, complete with its own versions of sin, repentance, atonement, ritual (kids go through recycling drills) and indulgence (purchase carbon offsets to compensate for your private jet travel). Now it turns out that there’s another element: a desire to kill heretics. Here’s a collection of calls for executions of “global warming deniers.” I don’t see any specifics on what method should be used. Burning at the stake, an old favorite, might produce too much in the way of carbon emissions. Lethal injection might require use of petrochemicals produced from carbon-emitting fossile fuels. Perhaps hanging by the neck until dead with a noose made of natural fibers produced on a certified organic farm which was not reclaimed from rain forest.

COMMENT:  Well done.  If you go to the link Barone provides, and read down, you find this observation:

As the science behind man-made global warming fears utterly collapses, many of the biggest promoters of the theory and environmental activists are growing increasingly desperate. Looming Question: If the promoters of man-made climate fears truly believed the "debate is over" and the science is "settled", why is there such a strong impulse to shut down debate and threaten those who disagree?

Wonderful question.

June 10, 2009   Permalink

GRAIN OF SALT DEPARTMENT - AT 7:25 A.M. ET: 

BONN, Germany (AP) -- A report says climate change is becoming a major driver in the migration of tens of millions of people battered by storms, droughts and the inundation of their lands by sea water.

Hmm.  Sounds serious...until you get to the next paragraph:

Estimates of the number of climate migrants are difficult to assess, but the new report by CARE International and the U.N. University cites estimates by the International Organization for Migration that 200 million people will be driven from their homes by mid-century for environmental reasons, including climate change.

Ah yes, some truth telling:  Estimates are difficult to assess.  And the report is based on projections, the lifeblood of the global-warming religion.  And millions will be driven from their homes by environmental reasons, including climate change.

But people have always moved because of climate and environmental factors.  How many people do you know who've moved south, especially as they age, because they like the weather down there.  And they often do it after a particularly bad winter.

More brilliance from the U.N.  The reporter should have asked some very tough questions.  Apparently that did not happen.

June 10, 2009   Permalink

TUESDAY,  JUNE 9,  2009

HEALTH CARE - THE NIGHTMARE - AT 5:50 P.M. ET:  It's sneaking up on us, with very little discussion and very little detailed analysis from the mainstream media, but health care "reform" is high on the Dem agenda.  One possible "model" being looked at is the Canadian system. 

Stop looking.  Right now.

Reader Abigail Revan alerts us to a great piece in the Wall Street Journal, written by a Canadian-born doctor, relating some of the horrors of the Canadian plan:

Yes, everyone in Canada is covered by a "single payer" -- the government. But Canadians wait for practically any procedure or diagnostic test or specialist consultation in the public system.

The problems were brought home when a relative had difficulty walking. He was in chronic pain. His doctor suggested a referral to a neurologist; an MRI would need to be done, then possibly a referral to another specialist. The wait would have stretched to roughly a year. If surgery was needed, the wait would be months more. Not wanting to stay confined to his house, he had the surgery done in the U.S., at the Mayo Clinic, and paid for it himself.

And...

Only half of ER patients are treated in a timely manner by national and international standards, according to a government study. The physician shortage is so severe that some towns hold lotteries, with the winners gaining access to the local doc.

I want that system.  I want it desperately.  Don't you?  We'll feel so good about ourselves, participants in a great social adventure.  Oh the equality of mediocrity!

The author of the piece points out that Canada, as well as other countries that adopted socialized medicine, are now allowing some privatization because the utopian system they thought they were installing has failed.  And he concludes:

Americans need to ask a basic question: Why are they rushing into a system of government-dominated health care when the very countries that have experienced it for so long are backing away?

Hmm. 

June 9, 2009   Permalink

DO WE HAVE ROYALTY? - AT 5:08 P.M. ET:  Look, I don't want to be small time about this.  The president and his family are entitled to some time off, and we do understand that there will be some bills charged to us during vacations and travel.  But I do think the Obamas may be abusing the privilege.  Several weeks ago the president took Michelle on a date to New York...because he'd promised to.  There were plenty of places to go in Washington, but it had to be New York.  Cost to taxpayers:  $26,000 for the night.

Now we find that Michelle Obama and the two delightful daughters did not accompany Mr. Obama on his recent trip to the Mideast and Europe, but traveled separately.  Traditionally, when the president travels and the first lady is to be with him, the first lady travels on Air Force One, with the president.

So Michelle and the kids went to Europe, then stayed on after the president went back to Washington.  Michelle traveled around Paris, and is now seeing London.  The New York Daily News reports:

An aide to the First Lady called the travel in London "purely vacation" and told the Daily News that the Obamas are "paying for that themselves."

It was unclear Monday exactly what portion of the entire trip would be paid for by the Obama family. No price tag was available, either.

"The First Lady's office is following all the relevant rules and regulations regarding the reimbursement for travel expenses, as previous administrations have done," the aide said. "It's a military flight."

COMMENT:   What does, "It's a military flight" mean?  Does that mean the Air Force considers this a training mission for the crew of the big Boeing that is taking the first lady around?  What about the expenses for the plane?  And what about all the security, and the hotel and travel expenses for the Secret Service detail?

I think, in the midst of this deep recession, that we're entitled to an accounting.  Again, not to be small, but the White House is supposed to set an example.  It has provided no figures.  This is not the transparency we were promised.

June 9, 2009   Permalink   

RASMUSSEN ON THE ISSUES - AT 10:12 A.M. ET:  Although Rasmussen's daily presidential tracking polls have been erratic recently, and have jumped around, his survey on issues seems to reflect what we're seeing daily in public reaction.  The results:

Voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats on six out of 10 key issues, including the top issue of the economy.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 45% now trust the GOP more to handle economic issues, while 39% trust Democrats more.

This is the first time in over two years of polling that the GOP has held the advantage on this issue. The parties were close in May, with the Democrats holding a modest 44% to 43% edge. The latest survey was taken just after General Motors announced it was going into bankruptcy as part of a deal brokered by the Obama administration that gives the government majority ownership of the failing automaker.

Voters not affiliated with either party now trust the GOP more to handle economic issues by a two-to-one margin.

And...

For the eighth straight month, Republicans lead on national security. The GOP now holds a 51% to 36% lead on the issue, up from a seven-point lead in May. They also lead on the war in Iraq 45% to 37%, after leading by just two points in May and trailing the Democrats in April.

COMMENT:  Some caveats:  This is one poll, and it's trends over time that will tell the story.  Also, the Democrats have three things working for them:  1) President Obama, who, in an age of celebrity, continues very popular because he is, as they say, a "rock star";  2) The press, still very much in the tank for the left, although there are, as we've reported, some cracks in the armor; 3) The Dem programs are giveaway programs.  When people get cash back, or extra services, they are likely to reward the giver.

Still, the survey is encouraging.  The key question is whether the GOP can build on the momentum.  I don't think it's coincidental that these numbers improved as some Republicans, especially Dick Cheney, started fighting back.  The Democrats are very vulnerable on the issues.  But Republicans must pounce, and keep pouncing...always, at the same time, coming up with alternatives.

June 9, 2009   Permalink

MORE ON THE SINS OF THE PRESS - AT 8:33 A.M. ET:  The late media critic, A.J. Liebling, called it "The Wayward Press."  In an excellent piece at The Politico, journalism teacher Richard Benedetto contrasts the press coverage of the murder of abortion doctor George Tiller by a religious extremist and the murder of an American soldier, on American soil, by a Muslim fanatic:

Here’s how the media played the two stories:

• Murder of abortion doctor on Sunday — front-page news in most major newspapers and a lead story on network TV news shows on Sunday and Monday

• Murder of one Army recruiter and wounding of another on Monday — buried inside the same papers and newscasts on Tuesday

Meanwhile, follow-up stories and columns on the abortion doctor still got bigger play in at least four major newspapers — The Washington Post, USA Today, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal — than the shooting of the soldiers got on its first day.

And...

One might conclude that news editors, the gatekeepers who choose how to play stories, are more attuned or more sympathetic to the views of the liberal left than the conservative right and make news placements accordingly.

Moreover, many news stories, editorials, columns and TV talk shows last week were devoted to trying to place blame for the abortion killing on Christian extremists and conservative commentators who condemned late-term abortions performed by the murdered doctor. There was little similar media finger-pointing at militant Muslims for the shooting of the Army recruiters.

Yeah, we noticed.  The bias continues.  It's protecting President Obama and the left.  But there are some brave journalistic souls, including, surprisingly, some at the AP, who are trying to punch through with the truth.  And The Washington Post has been improving, under its new editorial management.  There's hope, there's hope.

June 9, 2009   Permalink

WERE THEY AT THE SAME DINNER? - AT 7:53 A.M. ET:  This is what drives us crazy about journalism.  Yes, reporters will have different takes on events. That's legitimate.  What's not legitimate is when they come in with their own sets of facts:

Story one, from The Politico:

Ending weeks of she-said, they-said drama, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin turned in a cameo appearance at the gala fundraising dinner for her party's House and Senate candidates in Washington Monday night.

But in spite of all the back-and-forth between her camp and dinner

organizers leading up to the event, Palin's presence went little-noticed.

The Alaska Governor sat next to her husband, Todd Palin, at the table of National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn, but she didn’t make any public remarks.

If she hadn't walked quickly across the stage the outset and if her presence hadn’t been mentioned briefly in the remarks of some of the evening's speakers, it would have been hard to know that she had, in fact, shown up.

Story two, from CNN:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Newt Gingrich was the keynote speaker at Monday night's fundraising dinner for the Senate and House Republican campaign committees, but it was Sarah Palin who stole the show.

The Alaska governor's last-minute appearance at the GOP's biggest fundraiser of the year ended 24 hours of speculation that the she might skip the event. A late attempt to have her speak at the dinner fell through when organizers feared she might upstage Gingrich, the onetime House speaker.

Hours before the event was slated to begin, an aide to Palin would not confirm that she would be attending. But when Palin and her husband, Todd, sauntered across the stage with Gingrich and his wife, Callista, shortly before the program commenced, their appearance was met with cheers from the audience of 2,000 party loyalists.

And...

Palin did not speak at the event, but during a break in the program for dinner, Republicans clustered around the former vice presidential nominee's table near the front of the ballroom, eager to meet the governor and pose for pictures.

It was the only table in the vast ballroom that had a crowd gathered around it -- and despite their distance from Palin's table, multiple television cameras kept their lenses trained on the governor for much of the night.

COMMENT:  From everything else I've read, the second story is accurate.  Sarah got a huge ovation, and the main speakers made sure to mention her.  As far as the first story is concerned, editors might have a chat with the reporter.

June 9, 2009   Permalink

WHAT A DIFFERENCE - AT 7:41 A.M. ET:  Contrast this, please, with our treatment of North Korea.  From the Israeli press:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu believes that U.S. President Barack Obama wants a confrontation with Israel, based on Obama's speech in Cairo last week, Netanyahu's confidants say.

In Netanyahu's opinion, the Americans believe an open controversy with Israel would serve the Obama administration's main objective of improving U.S. relations with the Arab world, the aides say.

In his speech, Obama called for a "new beginning" in relations between America and Islam, and spoke at length about the Israeli-Arab conflict.

He demanded that Israel recognize the Palestinians' right to a state and freeze construction in the West Bank settlements.

COMMENT:  I'm inclined to agree, for these reasons:  First, this president has shown a certain nastiness toward our allies - witness Britain, Canada, and Germany.  Second, former Congressman Lee Hamilton of Indiana, one of Obama's key advisers, pretty much announced the confrontation in a statement several months ago, when he said, "Initiatives are underway that show the United States is going to have some major differences with Israel."  

Hamilton, who previously wanted us to give up in Iraq, now wants greater distance between the U.S. and Israel.  If you want to know the full range of his views, which are profoundly discouraging, see Ed Lasky's superbly researched piece on Hamilton at American Thinker.  It's here. 

June 9, 2009   Permalink

BULLIES BULLY WHEN NO ONE STOPS THEM - AT 7:22 A.M. ET:  North Korea continues its bluster, but this is a first.  From Fox:

SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea said Tuesday it would use nuclear weapons in a "merciless offensive" if provoked — its latest bellicose rhetoric apparently aimed at deterring any international punishment for its recent atomic test blast.

Pyongyang raised tensions a notch by reviving its rhetoric in a commentary in the state-run Minju Joson newspaper Tuesday.

"Our nuclear deterrent will be a strong defensive means ... as well as a merciless offensive means to deal a just retaliatory strike to those who touch the country's dignity and sovereignty even a bit," said the commentary, carried by the official Korean Central News Agency.

It appeared to be the first time that North Korea referred to its nuclear arsenal as "offensive" in nature. Pyongyang has long claimed that its nuclear weapons program is a deterrent and only for self-defense against what it calls U.S. attempts to invade it.

COMMENT:  Of course, North Korea now holds two American hostages, those reporters just convicted on trumped-up spy charges.  Our response?  So far, just words, and an assurance from our ineffective secretary of state, who never forgets for one minute that she's a lawyer, that we're working all channels to secure the release of our citizens.

That is nonsense.  If North Korea wanted to release them, it would release them.  They will be released when North Korea gets something in return.  We are losing whatever fight we've been waging against North Korea, and Americans had better understand that.

June 9, 2009   Permalink