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 DAILY SNIPPETS ARE HERE.

NEW SUBSCRIPTION DRIVE - SLUGGISH

Where are the new subscribers?

We launched our second subscription drive of 2010 on Tuesday.   First results:  sluggish.  Old friends have come through spectacularly, as they always do.  What we need are new subscribers!!   We know we have many new readers.  We hear from you all the time.  Now, come on new readers – it's unfair to place the burden for financing Urgent Agenda almost entirely on our original, core readership.  We must grow, and that means new readers must subscribe.   

Subscriptions are our lifeblood. Without them, we cannot function. With them, we can continue the fight against flaming Barackism.

Because of subscriptions, we're about 65% of our way to financial stability.  But we're still not home.  No, we're not in danger of going dark.  But, unless we expand our subscription base, we are in danger of reducing our service.

You can subscribe by going to the column on the right, just opposite these words.

By subscribing you keep Urgent Agenda alive. You also get The Angel's Corner, our twice-a-week e-mailed publication.  At The Angel's Corner you can join our Forum, which has become the most popular feature at Urgent Agenda.  Write on anything you wish, and you're not limited to 140 characters.   Did you know that some Angel's Corner pieces are used in college classrooms? 

And, at The Angel's Corner, we give the very coveted Pompous Fool award, bestowed, after intensive review, on those who meet the very highest standards of absurdity and leftist immaturity.  Recipients have wept at the news that they've won.  We have had death threats from some who have not.  

Subscribe for a year, or six months, or donate what you wish.  We also have a family plan.  For little more than a year's subscription, you can have a second sent to someone else - like a loved one you want to save from political correctness.

We have a very high subscriber retention rate, but, if you want to drop your subscription, the unused portion will be refunded with only a few insults and strange phone calls.

Subscribe today. A credit card will do it. Or, we can send you a mail address, if you prefer.

SATURDAY,  JUNE 5,  2010

ROTTEN, MISERABLE, FASCISTIC, HITLERITE, ISRAEL-LOVING SWINE!! – AT 7:34 P.M. The Associated Press, in an orgy of biased journalism, reports on a new, grave threat to civilization, a party in Sweden that believes its country has the right to a culture.  Stop them!  Stop them now before they jack-boot all over Europe.  I'm exhausted. 

STOCKHOLM - From his party's office in the basement of a Stockholm parking garage, Jimmie Akesson is running for Parliament, preaching sharp cuts in immigration and calling Islam the greatest threat to Swedish society.

That message until now has gained little traction in Sweden, but polls are predicting gains for Akesson's far-right Sweden Democrats that could give them a king-maker role in national elections this year if neither mainstream bloc wins an outright majority.

Note the term "far-right."  How often have you seen the term "far-left" used in mainstream journalism?  These are the journalists who refer to terrorists as activists and Islamic extremists as militants. 

It's an unnerving scenario for Swedes and their self-image of being more tolerant of outsiders than the rest of Europe.

Tolerant?  What's tolerant about allowing into a tiny country hundreds of thousands of people who have no intention of becoming Swedes?  That's not tolerance, that's madness...exception to the fashion plates of the Swedish left.

"In Sweden, if you voice criticism against the immigration policy, you are viewed as a racist or xenophobe," Akesson said. "It's difficult to get people to stand up and say 'Here's what I think.'"

Swedes have allowed themselves to be intimidated by the left, which hurls the charge of racism against anyone who dissents.  Ditto leftists in the United States.  Note how the Arizona illegal-immigration law is being chalked up to "racism."  It's the only game they know.

In some cities immigrants are nearly 40 percent of the population, and in certain neighborhoods nearly 90 percent.

What worries many Swedes is the clustering of immigrants in neighborhoods with nicknames such as "Little Baghdad." Few native Swedes ever set foot in these districts, viewing them as dangerous slums infested with criminal gangs and Islamic fundamentalists.

In Malmo, Sweden's third largest city, firemen must have police escorts to answer fire calls because local Islamists pelt them with stones.  If anyone objects to this behavior, they're called intolerant or fascist.

Akesson also points to attacks against artist Lars Vilks, who drew the prophet Muhammad with a dog's body. Last month furious protesters chanting "God is Great" in Arabic disrupted Vilks' guest lecture at Uppsala University and vandals tossed firebombs at his home.

The party's views have provoked fierce reactions. Some high schools have prohibited party members from handing out flyers on school grounds. In 2007 the party struggled to find a venue for its annual meeting when several conference centers turned it down, citing security concerns.

COMMENT:  It may seem incredible that a man who stands up for his own culture, and against violence, can't find a place to speak.  But it's happening in American colleges and universities.  Yes, it can happen here, and under Barack Obama and Eric Holder, it probably will.

June 5, 2010      Permalink

WATCH THE OIL AND THE HYPOCRISY FLOW – AT 7:17 P.M. ET:  Brazil, now run by a kind of Marxist style government, has made a major oil find...offshore.  From AP:

SAO PAULO -- Brazil's state-run oil company says it has found a new offshore oil reserve that could hold nearly 400 million barrels of oil equivalent.

Petroleo Brasileiro SA ( PBR - news - people ) says in a statement that the pre-salt reservoir was discovered 14,633 feet (4,460 meters) below the ocean floor off the coast of Rio de Janeiro.

The statement Friday said the reserve could produce as much as 380 million barrels of oil equivalent, a measurement indicating the amount of energy in a barrel of crude that also includes potential natural gas production.

COMMENT:  Oh, oh, what's an environmentalist to do?  Criticize a Marxist workers' government?  Criticize a state-owned oil company?  Why, that's heresy, punishable by being disinvited from parties from Cape Cod to Malibu. 

Now, you watch the silence of the world's "deeply concerned" environmentalists over this.  Oil spills are only an issue if the drilling occurs off America's shores.

Maybe Fox News will stick a microphone in some wavy-haired environmentalist's face and ask whether he's flying down to Rio to protest.  Don't be silly.

June 5,  2010     Permalink

SORRY STATE – AT 11:58 A.M. ET:  President Obama continues to demonstrate how a ship sinks.  His standing in the Rasmussen poll is delightfully abysmal:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that 25% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -17.

That 25% "strongly approve" number is pretty close to the bottom for this president.  He's really down to his base on that one.

Overall, 45% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. Fifty-four percent (54%) disapprove.

Political reports indicate that many Democrats are distancing themselves from the president, whereas a year ago they would have welcomed his presence.  My own sense, and I stress that this is speculation, is that the president's numbers will get worse, not better, for there appear to be no victories for him on the horizon.

June 5, 2010     Permalink

GREAT LEADERSHIP AT WORK (CHOKE) – AT 10:17 A.M. ET:  The president of the United States, the man sent by the Chicago political machine to save us from our sins, is upset.  He is angry.  He is outraged.  He is morally offended.  From The Politico:

An angry President Barack Obama slammed BP Friday for spending $50 million on a TV ad campaign, saying he didn’t want the company “nickel and diming” residents and businesses in the Gulf so that it could burnish its own image.

Obama — who has been criticized for not showing enough emotion — channeled his inner Hulk during his visit to the oil-fouled Louisiana coast, his third foray to the region since an explosion on a BP oil rig killed 11 workers and touched off what has become one of the nation’s most devastating environmental disasters.

"My understanding is, is that BP has contracted for $50 million worth of TV advertising to manage their image during the course of this disaster. In addition, there are reports that BP will be paying $10.5 billion — that's billion with a B — in dividend payments this quarter," said Obama.

COMMENT:  The cynicism of Obama's behavior is magnificent.  He pretends to be angry and distraught, but was able to overcome his agony to attend a Paul McCartney concert a few nights ago.

As for BP, Obama's comments reflect the true demagogue in him.  No matter what one may think of the company, or its actions, the last time I looked we had a Constitution, under which BP has the same freedom of expression as anyone else.  The company has a perfect right to present its point of view.  We then have a perfect right to denounce it, if we wish.  Will someone explain this concept to the "Constitutional law professor" in the White House. 

On BP's paying a dividend:  While explaining the First Amendment to Mr. Obama, please throw in an explanation of dividends.  Companies pay dividends as an economic incentive to investors.  Investors invest their private money in the company.  That money, and the company's earnings in the marketplace, make possible the massive amounts being spent by BP on the Gulf disaster...negating the need for more public funds.

Now, maybe Mr. Obama doesn't understand that much is possible without government funding, but most of us do understand it.  It is absolutely right for BP to pay its dividend, to help retain investors. 

Obama, the leftist that he is, will use the Gulf oil spill to try to enact a radical environmental agenda that, in the end, will do more harm than good.  He is Jimmy Carter on steroids.  At least BP is trying to do something to cap the leak.  I don't see what Obama is actually doing, except posing.

June 5, 2010     Permalink

YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK – AT 9:54 A.M. ET:  Reader Joseph J. Gallick alerts us to the latest sparkling example of good, efficient government.  Naturally, it originates right here in New York, a state, like its golden counterpart on the West Coast, which is on the verge of bankruptcy:

Another shocking report by SeeThroughNY reveals that 8,074 Metropolitan Transportation Authority employees earned $100,000 last year. Fifty MTA employees earned more than $200,000 last year. And salaries are rising.

This is at a time when the New York City and State are struggling with a gaping budget deficit and billions in debt. Meanwhile, the MTA is cutting costs by reducing service and may remove cars to save electricity.

Past reports by the non-profit group include a list of 899 state employees who earn more than Governor David Patterson.

COMMENT:  There are now reports of outrages like this all over the country, like the report of a fire commissioner in California who will retire with a pension of a quarter of a million dollars a year. 

Next time I see a conductor, I'll ask for a loan.

One of the things that makes this profligacy possible is the power of public-employee unions, which are plugged into the Democratic Party. 

We want public employees to do their jobs and be adequately paid, but examples like this are going to create a voter backlash and demands for budget cuts.  Maybe we needed a shock like this to realize where some of our money is going. 

June 5, 2010     Permalink

THIS JUST IN – AT 9:40 A.M. ET:  White House reporter Helen Thomas has issued an apology for demanding that Jews get out of Palestine and go back to Poland and Germany.  She now says she wishes for mutual respect in the Middle East.  Boy, am I glad that misunderstanding is over.

I'm always amused when public figures say something ugly and then "apologize."  Does the apology mean that hellish Helen actually hadn't meant what she'd originally said?  Of course not.  She meant it.  It's just that she got caught at it.  Hence, the "apology."

Given the standards in journalism, the incident will quickly be shoved under the rug by other news people, the better to prop up their beloved Helen.  President Obama will no doubt call on her at his next press conference, in 2014. 

But we know what she believes, and I suspect that her belief is far more widespread in the media, especially the European media, than we'd like to think.

June 5, 2010   Permalink

FRIDAY,  JUNE 4,  2010

GALLUP SURVEY BRINGS NO SMILES TO DEMS – AT 10:01 P.M. ET:  A new Gallup poll, measuring attitudes toward issues, cannot possibly bring happiness to the president or his party.

PRINCETON, NJ -- Terrorism and federal government debt tie as the most worrisome issues to Americans when they consider threats to the future wellbeing of the U.S. Four in 10 Americans call each an "extremely serious" threat, with healthcare costs ranking a close third.

And those issues are not being handled well by this White House.  Ditto for the two issues that follow:  employment and illegal immigration. 

It is striking to see the way terrorism remains at the top of the list.  It shows, once again, the wisdom of the American people, who understand that the threat of terrorism can only grow in the face of this administration's weakness, and the increasing technological expertise of terror groups and nations, like Iran, who support them.

This administration deserves to have its clock cleaned.  We hope that will happen in November, if Republicans can run a halfway-decent campaign.

June 4, 2010     Permalink

DISGRACEFUL – AT 7:58 P.M. ET:  Nutbag White House reporter Helen Thomas, who sits in the most honored position at presidential news conferences, is known for her out-of-control craziness and liberal crackpotism. 

But now Ms. Thomas, who is of Lebanese heritage, embarrasses her fellow Lebanese Americans, by saying that Jews should get out of "Palestine" and go back to...Germany and Poland.  The video is here.

This is sickening, but let's see the reaction from those on the left who endlessly scream "racism" at any and all conservatives.  It's time for Helen Thomas to resign, and take her bigotry with her.  I doubt very much if it will happen.  Instead, we will probably be told that we must understand her cultural perspective and her "frustration." 

Wonder what White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs will say.

June 4, 2010     Permalink

A DISAPPOINTMENT – AT 7:43 P.M. ET:  Ah, the fortunes of politics.  I went into this political season so enthusiastic about the candidacy of Republican Congressman Mark Kirk of Illinois, running for the Senate seat formerly held by retired public servant Barack Obama. 

Kirk has been doing well in the polls in this normally Democratic state.  But it was recently revealed that he misstated his military-service record.  We came down on him for that.  Now it turns out that this was one of a number of misstatements.  How sad, how sad: 

CHICAGO (AP) -- Senate candidate Mark Kirk apologized Thursday for making inaccurate statements about his service in the Navy Reserves, while acknowledging more discrepancies.

''I apologize to everyone for these errors,'' the Illinois Republican said. ''They were my responsibility entirely and I will fix them.''

The five-time U.S. representative, who is competing with Democrat Alexi Giannoulias for the Senate seat once held by President Barack Obama, also acknowledged new incidents where public statements didn't match reality about his service.

Kirk said a letter sent by his congressional district office last year described him as a veteran of Operation Desert Storm, the first Persian Gulf war, but he did not participate in that operation.

Kirk later flew over Iraq for intelligence reconnaissance missions in 2000. He said Thursday he does not recall coming under enemy fire on those flights and added it was sometimes hard to tell whether his plane was being targeted.

But C-SPAN video shows Kirk on the House floor saying he was fired upon.

''The last time I was in Iraq I was in uniform flying at 20,000 feet, and the Iraqi air defense network was shooting at us,'' Kirk said in the undated video, which was posted online by the Giannoulias campaign.

Kirk also said last year that he once saw anti-aircraft flack when flying an intelligence mission over Kosovo and thought he might be killed.

COMMENT:  Well, what do we do now?  We know there'll be a double standard.  Connecticut Democratic Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, also a Senate candidate, was recently caught lying about his own military record.  He has since recovered in the polls, despite his outrageous claim that he'd been in Vietnam during the war, when in fact he hadn't been.  But Blumey is a Democrat, and the lying didn't seem to bother his party, which is too "sophisticated" to worry about stuff like this.

But Kirk is a Republican, a member of a party that reveres military service.  Do we accept his apology, or ask him to withdraw?  What do you think?  I'd love to hear from readers.

June 4, 2010     Permalink

THE DEFENSE-CUT SCAM – AT 9:38 A.M. ET:  Add to this administration's perfidy its attitude toward national defense.  As a leftist, Barack Obama has always had a hostility to the defense strategy that grew out of the failures of the 1930s – to be strong enough to deter major aggression, to be powerful enough to fight two wars at once if necessary, and win them. 

That realistic view of the world wasn't developed by idiots.  At one time it had the bipartisan support of both parties.  Increasingly, though, the Democratic Party, at one time truly the "national defense" party, drifted to the left, and some of it drifted to the fringe left.  There is no longer a true bipartisan support for a powerful national defense.

Defense is being cut, which leads us to our quote of the day, from the Weekly Standard:

Defense spending has gone up. But never in our history have we fought wars of this magnitude as cheaply. Take, for example, the percentage of the federal budget allocated to defense: In 1994, two years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Pentagon spending amounted to slightly more than 19 percent of the budget; in 2010, it is the same. And if the administration has its way, that figure will drop to 15.6 percent by 2015. Is any other part of the federal budget getting similarly whacked?

The budget increases that have occurred, moreover, are largely tied to fighting the wars. When Bill Clinton left the White House and Dick Cheney told the military that “help [was] on the way,” the defense burden stood at 3 percent of GDP—a post-World War II low. When George W. Bush headed out the door, the figure for the core defense budget was about 3.5 percent. This is an increase, to be sure, but not one to make the military flush after a decade of declining budgets and deferred procurement.

COMMENT:  We are being assured that cuts in national defense will not weaken or endanger us.  That is garbage.  True, there is waste at the Pentagon.  But our military is run down from Iraq and Afghanistan, our aircraft are aging, and our fleet at sea is smaller than the minimum that has generally been considered adequate for this nation.

In addition, this reckless president refuses to modernize our nuclear arsenal, our main deterrent.  Obama can do all the photo ops he wishes with soldiers at military bases.  He has no feeling for them or the dangers the nation faces.  The cuts contemplated in defense will do damage.  We may not have the luxury, next time, of repairing the damage if conflict erupts.

This is a terrific article, well worth reading.

June 3, 2010     Permalink

JOBGATE – AT 9:06 A.M. ET:  Wouldn't it be wonderful if this White House could generate as many private-sector job offers, instead of the political job offers it makes to inconvenient Democratic politicians?

Kirsten Powers, a liberal writer, shows her integrity (once again) by exposing the dry rot inside what we're starting to call Jobgate.  From the New York Post:

After first stonewalling, the White House yesterday confirmed that it tried to lure Andrew Romanoff out of the Colorado Senate primary with an administration job, to help its preferred candidate, incumbent Sen. Michael Bennet.

Sound familiar?

The Denver Post ran a story on the rumored job offer last September -- but White House spokesman Adam Abrams said then, "Romanoff was never offered a position within the administration."

Under the Bill Clinton standard, that's true: There was no formal "offer." But Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina's e-mail outlined in great specificity three government jobs that happened to be open, should Romanoff (who'd previously been denied an administration job) decide not to run.

The White House's reasoning is migraine-inducing: It insists it didn't offer a job -- but also that the president has an interest in influencing party primaries. But if the president wasn't offering a job, then what was he doing to prevent a primary contest?

He was offering a job. Stop insulting our intelligence.

COMMENT:  Ah, Ms. Powers, but insulting our intelligence is the way this administration operates.  It represents the attitude of America's pseudo-intellectual academic elite:  We are your betters.  We have these degrees.  We eat tofu.  Don't waste our valuable time by questioning us. 

This story is growing.  Republicans are not permitting it to go away.  There may be some elements of the press that will try to bury it, doing their thing for The One, but they might not get their way this time.  It's 2010, not 2008, and at least some Americans have caught on to the fact that the Chicago way of politics in alive and living in our White House.

June 3, 2010      Permalink

NOT SO FAST, GUYS – AT 8:42 A.M. ET:  Some Dems are already touting this morning's announced drop in the unemployment rate, and the addition of hundreds of thousands of workers to payrolls, but a look behind the numbers actually shows them to be depressing, bordering on catastrophic.  From Bloomberg:

Employers in the U.S. hired fewer workers in May than forecast, showing a lack of confidence in the recovery that may lead to slower economic growth.

Payrolls rose by 431,000 last month after a 290,000 increase in April, figures from the Labor Department in Washington showed today. The gain was smaller than the 536,000 median forecast in a Bloomberg News survey and reflected a 411,000 jump in government hiring of temporary help for the 2010 census. Private payrolls rose a less-than-forecast 41,000. The unemployment rate fell to 9.7 percent as Americans dropped out of the labor force.

Staff reductions at companies such as Hewlett-Packard Co. and Citigroup Inc. indicate a slowing in the labor market that threatens to restrain consumer spending, the biggest part of the economy. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said yesterday that unemployment was exacting a heavy toll, showing why economists forecast interest rates will remain low.

“It’s going to be a long haul,” Michael Englund, chief economist at Action Economics LLC in Boulder, Colorado, said before the report. “We really aren’t adding many jobs. We’ve lost some momentum in the economy and final sales clearly aren’t enough to generate job growth.”

COMMENT:  With the Gulf spill, and proposed energy legislation that will raise costs to the American consumer and burden industry still more, the future does not look promising.  Add please the near bankruptcy of many of our states.  We are in trouble, led by a president who doesn't understand that he's got to unleash the American economy, not constrain it, to diminish that trouble.

June 3, 2010     Permalink

IS IT POSSIBLE? – AT 8:20 A.M. ET:  Anyone reading Urgent Agenda knows that we are not, emphatically not, a red-meat site.  We try, I think with some success, to be thoughtful here, to weigh the evidence, and avoid the screaming headlines. 

Our readership would probably be larger if we went in the other direction, but I have to look at myself in the mirror every day...and a magnificent sight it is.  (Okay, laugh now.)  There's this bit known as conscience.  We avoid conspiracy theories and wild speculation.

And yet, I must ask the painful question:  What is behind Mr. Obama's stunning indifference toward the Gulf oil spill?  Oh, yes, he's attending to it now, and there's even an anemic attempt by the White House spin machine to paint the president as mad as hell.  But he isn't mad as hell, and it's been clear.  He will be returning to the Gulf to do what?  To stare out at the water and maybe pick up some votes?  To denounce BP?  To snub Governor Jindal?

Is it possible, just possible, that the president welcomes this catastrophe?  This is an administration, after all, that thrives on America's misfortunes.  For each disaster there is a radical, leftist, government-first series of proposals.  Rahm Emanuel openly said that no crisis should be left unexploited.  And of the fundamental rules of the radical classes is that catastrophes, man-made or otherwise, are actually good, for they can be used to help bring down "the system."

From the viewpoint of the leftist radical, the Gulf spill is a blessing, and the more damage the better.  This is an opportunity to shut down offshore drilling, to place higher taxes on carbon fuels, and even to nationalize still more of the economy.   No matter that thousands of drills have been dug without incident.  No matter that environmental extremism is preventing our drilling for the oil we need on our own American land, where any accident can be quickly contained. 

I am reminded of a sign placed outside Buckingham Palace in London after the death of Princess Diana, and Queen Elizabeth's seeming indifference:  "Show us that you care."  That is what Americans have been saying to President Obama since the oil started to spill, and even Democrats are expressing their amazement at how slow Obama's response has been, and how indifferent he seems.  Ah, but if he sees benefit to his leftist agenda in what is happening, his moves, or lack of them, can be explained.

I raise this as a question.  To the radical left, every tragedy has its uses, including genocide.  People are simply pawns on a board.  "The personal is political" is the slogan they like to use.

But think of who gains from this mess, and I believe my question has, as they say in Hollywood, legs.

June 3, 2010      Permalink

OBAMA AT HIS WORST – AT 8:05 P.M. ET:  The president's vulgar, pathetic remarks about the Israel raid, made on the tired old Larry King program last night, represent our leadership at its worst.

That the president is hostile to Israel, and indeed toward other American allies, can no longer be doubted by serious observers.  He's proved that hostility since his first day in office, taking periodic time out for love fests for Israel, the better to keep Israel's supporters in line.

Some pundits are openly speculating that Obama's hostility toward Israel led directly to this week's clash between the Israeli Defense Forces and that "peace" ship.  In effect, Obama has given what the late film star Joan Crawford used to call "the big okay" for the rest of the world to bash Israel.  If America won't stand up for its ally, why should they, when there is money to be made in the Muslim world, and a domestic left-wing "intelligentsia" to satisfy?

Obama had an opportunity, on the King show, to come down hard on the Islamic extremists and Western Communists who are behind the international anti-Israel campaign to, finally, exterminate Israel.  Instead, he pretty much blamed Israel for the whole affair, all the while saying the necessary things about Israel's right to defend itself.

In the meantime, Mr. Obama has, for the second time, canceled a trip to Indonesia and Australia, because of the oil leak in the Gulf.  Maybe we'd be better off if he were out of town.  I don't really care about the canceled tourist visit to Indonesia, his boyhood home.  They'll love him anyway.  But Australia is one of our closest friends, one of the few nations always there for the United States.  Like our other allies, they've been treated like a doormat by Barack Hussein Obama Jr.  Now he's wiping his shoes on them again. 

Obama is an embarrassment.  He is also the most dangerous man ever to be president.

June 4, 2010       Permalink