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.

A SHAMELESS PLUG

It's December, and people start thinking about gifts.  Have you considered that a subscription to Urgent Agenda makes a fine gift for a person of like mind?  And, for people who disagree, it makes the kind of great punishment you've always wanted to mete out.  You win either way.

If you're a current subscriber, a gift subscription is only $21 for a year.  Just e-mail us the name and e-mail of the recipient, enter your gift by making a DONATION of $21 in the column on the right, and you're home.

If you're not a current subscriber, shame on you.  Redemption occurs when you enter a subscription in the column on the right, or enter a subscription with a gift subscription for someone else.

Subscriptions keep us going, and give you the Urgent Agenda you've come to expect.  Gift subscriptions spread the word and help us grow.   All subscribers and donators receive the Angel's Corner. 

By the way, we use PayPal for our subscription service.  If you don't like PayPal, or believe they're a threat to the Republic, just tell us and we'll give you a traditional, red-blooded American mail address

DECEMBER 7,  2010

HEY, COLLEGE KIDS, GET YOUR SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PACKETS! – AT 10:11 P.M. ET:  You aren't going to believe this.  From the Daily Caller:

Many American colleges and universities are steering their students toward a new source of “financial aid”: food stamps.

In Oregon, for instance, both Portland State and Pacific University encourage their students to apply for food stamps. “Many students are surprised to learn that they may be eligible for Food Stamps,” explains Portland State’s website.

This may be a little surprising given that food stamps were created to help struggling poor people, not heavily-subsidized and frequently-idle college kids. But have no fear, assures Portland State: “Being a college student is hard work! Not just academically, but financially too.”

Our hearts are breaking, especially at a time when some colleges charge $52,000 a year.  And for what?

Far from framing the decision to apply for food stamps as a last resort, the university’s website makes taking government handouts sound like a moral imperative. “As tuition increases, many students struggle to make ends meet,” the site explains. “Sometimes grants and loans don’t stretch far enough and students are forced to work low-paying jobs. For some, this still is not enough to get by...

...Cornell University, meanwhile, has assembled a handy instruction sheet for students hoping to get federal food assistance.

That's an Ivy League school. 

Encouraging middle class kids to sign up for welfare may seem like a quick way to overburden government services (not to mention foster dependency), but the federal government itself appears to be in favor of it. In 2008, the Department of Agriculture renamed the food stamps program, part of a rebranding effort designed to remove the stigma attached to government aid. Food stamps are now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and accepting them isn’t supposed to be embarrassing.

COMMENT:  Maybe the colleges might show some responsibility by lowering their fees.  This can be accomplished in the real world by cutting spending for frivolous items and maybe cutting some departments with the word "studies" at the end of their names.  Some chance.

December 7, 2010        Permalink

THE LUNATIC FRINGE MARCHES ON – AT 9:24 P.M. ET:  President Obama defended his tax deal with Republicans today, but the troops on his far left are very restless.

Commentators report that the votes currently aren't there to pass the plan in this lame duck session of Congress, where Dems control the House by a decisive margin.  The new neighbors don't move in until January.  And the Dems are angry.  They feel betrayed.  Obama's compromise is not what Marx would do, Karl or Groucho.

Yes, enough Dems will probably have their arms twisted to get the deal through, but the rumblings grow that Mr. Obama might be challenged from the left in the 2012 primaries.  The New York Times reports:

Of course, Mr. Obama is only the latest in a long line of Democratic presidents, going back to Franklin D. Roosevelt, to disappoint the liberal wing of his party and to at least hear rumblings of a challenge. In 1960, the hipster John F. Kennedy represented for liberals something similar to what Mr. Obama embodied as a candidate; two years later, the writer Norman Mailer acidly concluded that Kennedy stood for nothing but the pursuit of power, “without light or principle.”

Both Johnson and President Jimmy Carter faced liberal primary challenges when they stood for re-election: Mr. Johnson because of the Vietnam War and Mr. Carter because he was deemed to be ineffectual in advancing liberal ideals. Bill Clinton’s stances on issues like free trade and welfare reform similarly infuriated the left, though he managed to avoid a primary.

Echoing his Democratic predecessors, Mr. Obama seemed frustrated at a news conference on Tuesday about being pilloried by liberals who haven’t had to wrestle with the realities of governing. “I’ve got a whole bunch of lines in the sand,” Mr. Obama protested.

Mr. Obama will not lose the nomination to a leftist challenger.  No way.  But a challenge could hurt him:

...Mr. Obama must be aware that not all primary challenges to sitting presidents are about winning. Some, like Edward Kennedy’s in 1980 and Ronald Reagan’s in 1976, are in fact designed to unseat the incumbent and capture the presidency. But other ideological challengers, like Eugene J. McCarthy in 1968 and Patrick J. Buchanan 24 years later, measure their success not by where they’re standing on Inauguration Day, but by whether they have changed the trajectory of their parties.

Such protests candidates don’t have to win more than a state or two to have an impact; they merely have to show up and sow division. It probably isn’t coincidental that none of the last four American presidents to face primaries while seeking re-election — Johnson, Gerald R. Ford, Carter and George H. W. Bush — survived to serve another term.

In other words, should the president’s progressive critics warm to the idea, it might not take a particularly credible primary challenge to weaken Mr. Obama’s chances for re-election. It might only take a challenge designed to do exactly that.

COMMENT:  Ah, the kamikaze mentality is alive and well on the left.  What really baffles me is the failure of leftists, and occasionally of hard-line rightists, to understand that they don't command a majority in this nation, or anything near it.  They live in their delusional world, and are pleased by where they live.

December 7, 2010      Permalink

WHY PEARL HARBOR HAPPENED, AND A REPEAT PERFORMANCE – AT 10:13 A.M. ET:  As we commemorate Pearl Harbor day (see post just below), let us not forget why Pearl Harbor happened:  Appeasement and lack of preparation.  The free nations had appeased Nazi Germany and imperial Japan, doing little about their aggression in Europe and Asia respectively, except for throwing out some words and trying some occasional sanctions.

Sound familiar?

History doesn't repeat itself.  The psychology of history repeats itself.  And we are seeing it with Iran, which is not a small country, and which, if equipped with nuclear weapons, could become a major power, reckless and fanatical:

GENEVA (AP) — Iran and six world powers concluded talks Tuesday with an agreement to reconvene early next year, suggesting Tehran may be willing to address concerns about its nuclear program. But Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned that unless they lift U.N. sanctions the six face failure in the next round.

Diplomats from delegations at the table with Iran said Tehran made no commitments to talking about U.N. Security Council demands that Tehran freeze uranium enrichment — which has both civilian and military uses.

"We didn't get anywhere on substance," said one of the officials. "It was an exchange of views."

A senior U.S. administration official, in a similarly sober assessment, said: "Our expectations for these talks were low, and they were never exceeded."

Iran's chief negotiator, Saed Jalili also sought to dampen expectations.

"I am telling you clearly and openly that halting uranium enrichment will not be discussed at the Istanbul meeting," he told reporters.

So, they're having meetings to plan other meetings.  How typical.  And this new round of "negotiations" is being pushed by the usual suspects, the Europeans.  Their foreign ministries continue to hire the same kind of people they hired in the 1930s, and with the same result.  If it were not for the United States, Western Europe may well have fallen into the old Soviet orbit. 

We have gotten nowhere with the Iranians.  They'll have nuclear weapons.  Think of the world five years from now.

December 7, 2010       Permalink

DECEMBER 7TH – AT 9:12 A.M. ET:  This, of course, is the date that will live in infamy.  For those of a certain age, December 7, 1941, was one of those days that defined a generation and its struggles. 

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that Sunday morning ended America's debate over isolationism.  War had come to us.  We didn't have to come to the war.

And yet, the only things that many young Americans know about World War II is that we interned the Japanese on the West Coast and that we used the atomic bomb against Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  The leftist control of American education has stolen our history, twisted it, and used it as a weapon to indoctrinate the young.  A recent "academic conference" in Hawaii, centering on the Japanese attack, was an academic scandal itself.  It was dominated by leftists, who informed us that Pearl Harbor was all America's fault.  One "scholar" announced to the brilliant assemblage that he had turned down an academic assignment because he would have had an office overlooking an American naval base, and that he had found the sight repugnant. 

This is what's teaching our kids.

Those who are old enough, or informed enough, mark each December 7th, mindful of the fact that we suffered another December 7th on September 11, 2001, with even greater casualties.  December 7, 1941, marked the start of America's entry into World War II, a war which ended in total victory.  Nine-eleven marked the start of a longer, twilight struggle, still to be resolved.

Even during World War II, President Roosevelt worried that Americans might not remember Pearl Harbor, although they were on all the fighting fronts.  He asked Hollywood to create a song to remind the nation of the day of infamy, which is how "Remember Pearl Harbor" came to be written.

Now, too many Americans have forgotten Pearl Harbor, or have not even been taught about it.  And we are starting to forget September 11th.  I wonder how much passion will be attached to the tenth anniversary of the terrorist attacks next year.

It is bad enough to forget our history.  To have it replaced by a corrupt narrative dictated by radical professors and their disciples, is worse still.  If we do not confront the damage done to our educational system, nothing else will save us.

December 7, 2010       Permalink

THE DAMAGE THUS FAR – AT 8:57 A.M. ET:  The German magazine, Spiegel, has a well-reported piece about the damage to American diplomacy that WikiLeaks has caused so far.  At the center is Hillary Clinton, who is on a repair mission.

Over the weekend, Clinton said that secretary of state would be her last public position.  Maybe this time she actually meant it.  She cannot enjoy the mess, and the strain, that the WikiLeaks leaks have caused.

Her face has seemed frozen in place for days. She looks peaked, thin-lipped and serious, very serious. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is currently enduring the consequences of what is probably the biggest indiscretion in the history of diplomacy, and it shows.

Clinton, who has embarked on a damage-control trip around the world, sharply condemned the publication of the embassy cables by the website WikiLeaks, calling it a "very irresponsible, thoughtless act that put at risk the lives of innocent people all over the world."

"Secretary Clinton is literally working night and day in conversations with countless leaders around the world to try as best we can not only to express regret but to work through these issues," Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns told US lawmakers. Her husband, former President Bill Clinton, said he would be "very surprised if some people don't lose their lives" as a result of the leaks.

And get this:

Apologies, professions of solidarity and efforts to make amends: Is this what American foreign policy will look like for the next few months?

"We cannot, of course, put the toothpaste back in the tube," writes former CIA case officer Robert Baer in an opinion piece for the Financial Times. "The credibility of the State Department as a reliable interlocutor has evaporated, and no doubt for a long time."

And once again, there are questions, serious questions, about the role of the president of the United States, who was, not long ago, the darling of the world:

One leading politician who hasn't said much is President Barack Obama, whose handling of the WikiLeaks affair thus far only confirms his political adversaries' criticisms. Just like with the controversy over an Islamic center in New York and the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Obama is once again being accused of not taking decisive action, showing weakness and putting America's superpower status at risk. Obama's inaction in the WikiLeaks case was the focus of conservative criticism in the second half of the week.

Commentator Ann Coulter calls Obama a hesitant, powerless leader who is stuck in the White House, incapable of doing anything to defend his country. While Interpol is looking for Assange, she says, the US government isn't doing everything in its power to apprehend him. She characterizes the United States as "a helpless, pitiful giant."

A few days ago, a group of Latin American nations, led by leftist Brazil, announced that it was preparing to recognize Palestine as a nation within the 1967 borders that prevailed just before the Six-Day War.  The reckless announcement, which can destroy the peace process, is being widely seen by diplomatic observers as a slap in the face to the United States, which is laboring to bring the parties back to the peace table.  Obama brings us, not respect and admiration, but weakness and ridicule.  His response to WikiLeaks is more proof, as if any were needed.

December 7, 2010       Permalink

WIKILEAKS TOP GUY IS ARRESTED IN LONDON – AT 8:29 A.M. ET:  A number of news sources are reporting the arrest of Julian Assange.  From The New York Times:

LONDON — Police in Britain arrested Julian Assange on Tuesday on a Swedish warrant issued in connection with alleged sex offenses, British police officials said, the latest twist in the drama swirling around the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks and its beleaguered founder.

But his associates said his detention would not alter plans for further disclosures like those it has made in recent months relating to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and, over the past 9 days, disclosing confidential diplomatic messages between the State Department and American representatives abroad.

“Today’s actions against our editor-in-chief Julian Assange won’t affect our operations: we will release more cables tonight as normal,” a posting on the WikiLeaks Twitter account said.

COMMENT:  Isn't it remarkable, and perhaps it's a sign of the decadence of Western Civilization, that it took a sex charge to bring Assange in.  All the damage he has done to American interests apparently counted for nothing. 

But, as the story notes, the leaks will continue.  Apparently, Assange has arranged for more disclosures in the event of his arrest.  You may be sure that he's holding back some bombshells, to be burst over us if he gets into real legal trouble.  Indeed, he could conceivably use his power over classified documents as a bargaining chip to make his legal woes disappear. 

Damage has already been done by this creep.  He had to have help.  Is Washington on this case, or away for the holidays?

December 7, 2010     Permalink

DECEMBER 6,  2010

GALLUP BRINGS A FEW SMILES – AT 10:35 P.M. ET:   Ah, the ability of some good polls to enliven the day and make politics bearable.  Gallup reports that George W. Bush's approval rating is now higher than Barack Obama's.  Rehabilitation has quickly come.  From The Politico:

George W. Bush’s job approval rating as president has spiked to 47 percent, according to a Gallup poll released Monday.

That’s 1 point higher than President Barack Obama’s job approval rating in a poll taken the same week.

This is the first time Gallup asked Americans to retrospectively rate Bush’s job performance. And it was a stunning turnaround from his low point of 25 percent in November 2008. The 47 percent number is 13 points higher than the last Gallup poll taken before Bush left office in 2009 and the highest rating for him since before Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Clearly, Mr. Bush's recent appearances in connection with his new book have helped.  The contrast between the decisive Bush and the meandering Obama is substantial, and it's showing up in the numbers.

And there is this, also from Gallup:

Jimmy Carter’s job approval rating as president has nosedived during the past decade, according to a Gallup Poll released Monday.

Asked to reflect on his single term, only 52 percent of those surveyed approved of his performance — down from 61 percent in 2006 and 69 percent in 1999.

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

Carter’s numbers collapsed among Republicans (down from 42 percent in 2006 to 34 percent in 2010) and independents (57 percent to 47 percent in the same period).

History has not been particularly kind to the former Democratic president, now linked in the American consciousness with malaise, stagflation and the relative decline of American power. He was defeated for reelection by Republican Ronald Reagan in 1980.

Bush up, Carter down.  I will sleep soundly tonight, confident in the wisdom of the American people. 

December 6, 2010       Permalink

TAX DEAL REACHED – AT 10:09 P.M. ET:  I've now returned to New York.  As I crossed the border into New York State, my car received an immediate cost-of-parking adjustment.

I return to the news that President Obama and the Republicans have reached agreement on a tax plan.  The white smoke was seen rising from the White House a little while ago.  Nancy Pelosi condemned it as another source of pollution.  From Fox News:

Obama outlined a deal with congressional leaders that would extend the expiring tax cuts for all Americans temporarily for two years. Unemployment benefits for long-term jobless would extend through next year. The estate tax rate would be renewed at the previously lower rate temporarily.

And Obama shrewdly added something else:

The Obama administration also is proposing a one-year payroll tax reduction that sources say would cut the amount contributed to Social Security from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent.

"I have no doubt that everyone will find something in this compromise that they don't like," he said, but "we cannot play politics at a time when the American people are looking for us to solve problems."
House Republican Leader John Boehner's office hailed the announcement.

"It’s encouraging that the White House is now willing to stop all of the job-killing tax hikes scheduled for January 1," Boehner spokesman Mike Steel said. "We look forward to discussing this proposal with House Republican members and the American people."

Sounds like a reasonable plan, and the temporary reduction in the payroll tax is good for the economy.  Obama outclassed the GOP on that one

But there are problems.  Mr. Obama's leftist allies, or former allies, and not happy with reasonableness.

"We oppose acceding to Republican demands to extend the Bush tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires," Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., said in a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Obama "should not back down. Nor should we."

The renewal of the estate tax also could be tough to swallow for liberal Democrats, who have argued for the higher pre-Bush rate.

Annd Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's office released a statement saying only that Reid "plans on discussing it with his caucus tomorrow."

Remember that the new Congress won't be sworn until January.  What we have meeting now is the heavily liberal Congress elected with Obama in 2008.  Wouldn't it be a gas if the liberals refused to go along with the deal and destroyed the whole thing? 

I don't think that will happen.  I'd imagine that enough Dems will defect from liberal orthodoxy to make sure that the middle-class tax cuts continue beyond January 1st.  But I'd also imagine that there will be many symbolic votes against the plan.

December 6, 2010         Permalink

ON LEAVING VIRGINIA – AT 8:05 A.M. ET:  We return to New York today from central Virginia.  Some observations:

Regular gasoline down here is about $2.89 a gallon.  In White Plains, New York, it's about $3.25.  One station near us charges $3.47, but they throw in clerks who can't speak English.  You pay for benefits.

The difference in price is symbolic.  People are leaving New York in droves because of inflated living costs, high taxes, and poor services.  We find the spirit here in Virginia far higher.  Employees of stores are endlessly courteous, and knowledgeable.  There are major stores in New York where you can't even find an employee.

In New York there is a constant sense of looming doom.  Everyone knows the state is almost bankrupt.  Yet, people see billions being made once more on Wall Street.  The contrast is enraging.  Apartments in Manhattan are selling in the millions while the state goes under, and small businesses close. 

Virginia is a conservatively run state.  New York is liberal wild.  Do you think there's a lesson here?

And yet, Virginians and other Americans will, in all probability, be asked to bail out New York and California, and will be told that those states are "too big to fail."  Advice to Virginians:  Just say no. 

December 6, 2010       Permalink

WHAT ILLEGAL LEAKS CAUSE – AT 7:48 A.M. ET:  We don't normally quote Britain's fashionably left newspaper, the Independent, but this story seems well reported, and reflects information that I've seen from other sources as well.  Worth reading:

Battered by a scandal which seems to provide a fresh wave of embarrassment with each passing day, the US government is being forced to undertake a major reshuffle of the embassy staff, military personnel and intelligence operatives whose work has been laid bare by the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks.

The Obama administration was yesterday facing a crisis in its diplomatic service, amid growing evidence that the ongoing publication of a tranche of supposedly-confidential communiqués will make normal work difficult, if not dangerous, for important State Department employees across the world.

A mere 1,100 of the roughly 250,000 secret documents obtained by the website have so far been published, leading to fears that the unhelpful revelations will continue for months to come, destabilising US relations with almost all of its key allies and inflaming tensions with already-hostile governments in the Middle East and beyond. "In the short run, we're almost out of business," a senior US diplomat told the Reuters news agency, saying it could take five years to rebuild trust. "It is really, really bad. I cannot exaggerate it. In all honesty, nobody wants to talk to us ... Some people still have to, particularly (in) government but ... they are already asking us things like, 'Are you going to write about this?'"

COMMENT:  I hope The New York Times is proud of itself.  I'd imagine that in trendy journalism schools all over the country, instructors are telling their students what a great moment in journalism this is.  Ah yes, just like the Pentagon Papers leak during Vietnam.

But the leak of the Pentagon Papers was small change compared to WikiLeaks, which has done untold damage to American diplomacy and defense.

Several observers have noted that it is highly unlikely that the Army Pfc charged with aiding WikiLeaks was responsible for all the leaking.  He must have had help.  There is informed speculation that much higher individuals fed some of the material either to him, or to WikiLeaks directly.

And yet, the indifference of official Washington to what has happened continues to astound us.  Even Republicans appear far too casual about the damage.  Major investigations are called for.  We will expect them to begin when the new, Republican-controlled House takes over in January.  If Republicans fail in this, they are not capable of governing.

People will be killed because of these leaks.  American interests will be set back.  The war on global terror will be compromised.  Anyone care?

December 6, 2010       Permalink

ERIC HOLDER, CALL YOUR OFFICE – AT 7:35 A.M. ET:  There's been a new development in the Obama administration's disgraceful handling of the Black Panther voter intimidation case.  You'll recall that members of the Black Panthers were originally charged with intimidating voters at polling places in Philadelphia in 2008.  Despite overwhelming evidence of guilt, the case was dropped by the Obama Justice Department.  From AP:

WASHINGTON – The conservative-dominated U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has published a report criticizing the Justice Department for its handling of voting rights accusations against the New Black Panther Party.

The report has been published on the commission's website. It says the department has failed to cooperate with the investigation and left open the question of whether political interference played a role in limiting action against the New Black Panther Party.

Two lawyers who formerly worked in the department's Voting Rights section have described hostility from senior officials and career attorneys to pursuing Voting Rights Act accusations against minorities who harass white voters.

The department has repeatedly denied that race played any role in its handling of the 2008 incident in Philadelphia.

The department investigated complaints that New Black Panther Party leaders King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson intimidated white voters at a Philadelphia polling place. A criminal investigation into the episode was dropped by the Bush administration, but the Justice Department under Obama obtained a narrower civil court order against the conduct than Bush officials sought.

Evidence obtained by the commission puts the department's "version of events into serious doubt," says the report. It relies heavily on the testimony of former Voting Rights lawyers Christopher Coates and J. Christian Adams.

COMMENT:  Of course, the AP spins the story to put the "blame" on conservative members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, as if this were strictly a partisan affair.  But no amount of spin can cover up the politicization of the Justice Department under Eric Holder.  This case, equivalent to cases of black voters intimidated in previous decades, should have gone forward to prosecution and conviction, if anything to show that the Justice Department is race neutral.

Don't expect the mainstream media to do much with this report.

December 6, 2010      Permalink

OBAMA'S WORST ENEMIES ARE HIS FRIENDS – AT 7:20 A.M. ET:  Each party has its kamikaze wing, but the Democratic versions are flying high and heading right for the USS White House.  From Fox:

President Obama's failure to stand his ground in ongoing negotiations with Republicans on key issues from taxes to jobless benefits has stirred howls of protest from many of his supporters on the left who are beginning to question the president's leadership skills.

Supporters say Obama should have been able to close the deal by now on extending the Bush tax cuts for only middle- and lower-income households and renewing another round of unemployment insurance.

Instead, Obama continues to extend his hand to Republican leaders who have made clear that any compromises with the White House on spending and tax cuts would have to be on their terms.

One liberal group, the Progressive Change Committee, is circulating a petition telling Obama that "Americans want him to fight the Bush tax cuts for millionaires – and that Democrats will keep losing if he keeps caving."

And get this:

Obama further enraged his supporters when he announced this week he wanted Congress to freeze the pay of civilian federal government employees as a step toward cutting the huge U.S. budget deficit. The unions have vowed to fight the proposal and Democrats have called it short-sighted.

Yup.  On the far Democratic left they really believe that even higher federal salaries are just what the public wants.

No doubt Mr. Obama is a weak personality.  He's Jimmah Carter with a bit more eloquence.  But the far left is doing to him what it did, successfully, to Lyndon Johnson in 1968. 

Only 20% of Americans now identify themselves as liberals.  And yet, the dedicated liberals believe they can win elections on their radical beliefs alone.  No doubt they're aided in this illusion by the editorial policies of newspapers like The New York Times, which believes all America lives on Manhattan's West Side, and by the fact that the survivors of last month's electoral massacre were primarily liberal Democrats in safe districts. 

We should look at the Democrats, and learn.  For there are some Republicans on the fringe right who think exactly the way the ideological liberals think.  They'll have about as much success in this fundamentally centrist nation.

December 6, 2010     Permalink