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

LAST SUBSCRIPTION DRIVE OF 2011 – PLEASE HELP!

We're in our final subscription drive of 2011. 

We're making progress in our second week, but it's been sluggish for the past few days.  We want this drive to end successfully to maintain Urgent Agenda, as we go into the most critical election year of modern times.

The sales pitch will be brief:  Urgent Agenda depends on subscriptions and donations to keep going.  While we still have an impressive retention rate among our subscribers, we need new subscribers to replace the few who drop out, and to help us build an even larger base of support to take into the future.

Current subscribers and donators can help by adding to their participation.

If you like what you see, and want it to continue, please subscribe or donate by going to the SUBSCRIPTIONS section in the right-hand column of this page.  It's right opposite what you're reading now.  You can subscribe or donate there, using PayPal.  If you don't like PayPal, send us an e-mail at
service@urgentagenda.com and we'll give you a traditional mailing address.

As a subscriber or donator, you'll receive The Angel's Corner, our twice-a-week e-mailed page.  The Angel's Corner contains the Forum, the most popular feature at Urgent Agenda.  Readers get to write, at length if they wish, on any subject they choose.  This goes well beyond the "comments" section of most websites.

So please subscribe or donate.  You'll join a community of exceptionally well informed readers, and help to sustain a website that many have come to depend on each day. 

DECEMBER 10,  2011

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 7:47 P.M. ET:

WHAT?  YOU DON'T LOVE ME?  – It isn't easy being Vladimir Putin.  In the biggest Moscow demonstration in 20 years, some 50,000 Russians turned out to protest the fraud-infested vote that just took place in their country.  By extension, they were protesting the influence of Putin, who is presumably behind the fraud and is expected to regain the presidency of Russia next year.  Even with all the vote tampering, Putin's party only managed to squeeze out a small victory.  An honest vote might well have put the former KGB agent in the minority.  Stay tuned.  More instability is coming to Russia, just as that country is reasserting itself as a world power.

DISGRACEFUL – One of the saddest aspects of America's important civil rights movement was the way in which it was infiltrated by the left.  When he was attorney general, Robert Kennedy warned Martin Luther King Jr. about this, and King appeared to take the warning seriously.  But little was done to separate the movement from the fringe.  Now, the NAACP, once an important organization, is taking its grievances against America to the America-hating United Nations, even to the dictator-dominated UN Human Rights Council.   The big beef is about attempts to impose new, perfectly reasonable proof-of-ID standards within states so people must present valid ID to vote.  Gee, what a human rights violation!  The president of the United States had the clout to make a phone call and stop this attempt to humiliate the United States, but chose not to.

THREAT FROM THE SOUTH – Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit reports that news media in Latin American countries are focusing on the infiltration of those nations, especially Mexico, by Middle Eastern terror groups, who are using Latin America as a launching pad for future attacks on the United States.  The US press has largely ignored this threat.  Univision, a major Spanish-language TV outlet, has just aired a documentary entitled "Iranian Threat," which illustrates the Iranian threat from south of our border.  With tensions between the US and Iran rising rapidly, this threat clearly requires much greater attention from our media.

December 10, 2011       Permalink

ASSESSING THE DAMAGE – AT 9:52 A.M. ET:  This story has not received anywhere near the attention it deserves.  As you know, Iran claims that it downed an American drone, and has shown pictures of what it says is the drone it brought down.  This is a major intelligence loss for the U.S.  Our side is assessing the potential damage, as Bloomberg Business Week reports:

Dec. 9 (Bloomberg) -- The unmanned RQ-170 Sentinel is still highly classified, yet since one came down in Iran five days ago, it’s a lot less secret.

Three U.S. defense officials said the plane the Iranians displayed on television yesterday appears to be the Lockheed Martin Corp. RQ-170 that controllers lost contact with on Dec. 4. The Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency have declined to comment on the matter.

Three U.S. intelligence officials said the greatest concern now is that the Iranians will give Russian or Chinese scientists access to the aircraft, which is designed to be virtually invisible to radar and carries advanced communications and surveillance gear.

Studying it may give two technologically sophisticated potential adversaries insight into the unmanned spy plane’s flight controls, communications gear, video equipment and self- destruct, holding pattern or return-to-base mechanisms, officials said. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the RQ-170 is part of a Secret Compartmented Intelligence (SCI) program, a classification higher than Top Secret, and because the investigation into the loss of the drone is also classified.

In addition, they said, the remains of the RQ-170 could help the Russians, Chinese, Iranians or others develop Infrared Surveillance and Targeting (IRST) or Doppler radar technology that under some conditions are capable of detecting stealth aircraft such as drones and the new Lockheed Martin F-35s.

There also is a danger that the fallen Sentinel’s shape, special coatings, control surfaces, engine inlet and other unique qualities could help other countries develop or improve their own radar-evading aircraft, such as China’s J-20 stealth fighter.

COMMENT:  Obviously, something went very wrong here, with potentially catastrophic results for the United States.  An aircraft like this almost certainly had a self-destruct system.  Why didn't it work?

The Iranians claim that they hacked into the drone's control system and guided it down, a claim that some unnamed American experts say might be true.  The capability for the Iranians to do that might have come from Russia or China.  But haven't we reset our relations with Moscow?  Yeah, ask Hillary.  Another one of her successes.

And for real pain, get this:

Nevertheless, the Obama administration didn’t seriously consider bombing the wreckage or sending special operations forces into Iran to destroy or retrieve it because either would be an act of war, two U.S. officials said.

Unbelievable.  That's thinking right out of the Clinton administration...and we wonder if Hillary was involved in this decision.  Bill Clinton had a chance to get bin Laden, who was trapped in the Sudan, and rejected it because he wasn't sure it was legal.

Iran has been organizing terror around the world, and organizing Iraqi groups to kill American soldiers, and we're worried about the legality of destroying one of our own drones. 

Why aren't the Republicans on this story? 

My pills, my pills!

December 10, 2011        Permalink

AMERICANS GLUM ABOUT THEIR FUTURE – AT 9:43 A.M. ET:  Americans are an optimistic people.  It is normally part of our character.  But the Obama administration's impact has turned optimism on its head, and now Americans have turned glum about the future of their country, as The Weekly Standard reports:

During the Obama presidency (still less than three years old), the number of Americans who think their country’s best days are in the future, rather than in the past, has taken a 33-point turn for the worse, according to a newly released Rasmussen poll. The weekend before President Obama took office, Americans remained optimistic — by a margin of 13 percentage points — that America’s best days were still to come: 48 percent then said America’s best days were in the future, while only 35 percent said its best days were in the past. Such optimism prevailed despite the fact that the question was asked a year into a recession and hot on the heels of a financial crisis that had resulted in Congress’s passage of a $700 billion financial bailout. Despite these worrisome events, Americans remained relatively hopeful.

Now, by a margin of 20 percentage points, Americans think their country’s best days are no longer in the future but are in the past — as only 32 percent now say America’s best days are still to come, while 52 percent say their country’s best days have passed her by. That’s a swing of 33 points (from +13 to minus-20 percent) during Obama’s tenure. Among independents, the swing is slightly greater still — 35 points (from +10 to minus-25 percent).

What has sapped the hope of so many Americans? The answer would seem to be the changes that Obama has wrought: a $787 billion “stimulus” that has stimulated only deficit spending; a failure to ensure the passage of a federal budget for the past 31 months; a $5 trillion increase in the national debt; by far the worst economic “recovery” from a lengthy recession in the past six decades; rhetoric that promotes envy rather than unity and prosperity; rhetoric that condemns, rather than celebrates, the idea of America abroad — and, of course (worst of all), Obamacare.

COMMENT:  We never want to see Americans pessimistic, but the cure for today's doldrums certainly is change at the top, made possible by next year's election, an election that is the Republicans' to lose.  The opportunity is there.  The issues are there.  The timing is there.  All that is needed is a candidate who can carry the ball over the line. 

December 10, 2011       Permalink

COULD A DARK HORSE STILL EMERGE? – It's pretty clear that many Republicans are still dissatisfied with the party's presidential field.  We've been assuming that the field is complete, but in Larry Sabato's excellent Crystal Ball blog, columnist Rhodes Cook points out that new rules make it possible for someone else to jump in:

Conventional wisdom is that the Republican presidential field is set, and that it is much too late for a new candidate to enter the race.

In years past, that would be absolutely correct. Over the last few decades, dozens of primaries and caucuses have been shoe-horned into the opening weeks of the election year, with the tendency on the Republican side for the front-running candidate to score a quick knockout.

But next year, the arrangement of the primary calendar is much different. It is less condensed at the front, much more loaded with events at the back, with the prospect of a viable, late-starting candidate quite real.

This is not to say that it will happen, but simply to note that it could. Such a scenario could not have unfolded in 2008, when the early January events were followed in short order by an early February Super Tuesday vote-fest that involved nearly half the country.

But the elongated layout of the nominating calendar this time provides the opportunity for a late-starting candidate to emerge. Should Mitt Romney stumble badly in the January events in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida, another establishment Republican could enter the race in early February and still compete directly in states with at least 1,200 of the 2,282 or so GOP delegates. Many of them will be up for grabs after April 1 when statewide winner-take-all is possible.

And...

To be successful, a late-starting campaign needs to feature a candidate with considerable fund-raising and organizational ability who is capable of quickly grabbing national attention. Charisma helps, as does a campaign message that can evoke widespread support. Robert Kennedy fit the bill in 1968, and there are arguably a few prominent Republicans on the sidelines this time who could mount a competitive, late-starting candidacy in 2012. These could include one of the establishment non-candidates who Republican elites pressured to enter the race earlier this year, such as Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, Rep. Paul Ryan (WI), ex-Florida Gov. Jeb Bush or New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (although Christie has already endorsed Mitt Romney). The entry of any of these Republicans would cause waves, and because of their high profiles they would have little trouble raising money or attracting establishment support.

COMMENT:  I'd add to that list Senator Marco Rubio of Florida or even Rudy Giuliani.  Or, two candidates can emerge, who've agreed to run as a team, for president and vice president.  Donald Trump makes noises, but I just don't think he has the credibility.

I urge you to read this article for its excellent reporting on the nominating process.  You just never know what can happen in American politics.  One Republican dream, of course, was that David Petraeus would emerge, Eisenhower-like, and save the Republican Party.  But he has just become head of the CIA and that dream is effectively gone.  It would look awful for him to suddenly resign to seek political office unless some traumatic event occurred.

Who said this race is dull?

December 10, 2011     Permalink

DECEMBER 9,  2011

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 9:39 P.M. ET:

MAJOR LEGAL NEWS – There's a working draft among the UN's climate "experts" calling for the establishment of an international climate court, which would compel Western nations to pay ever-larger sums to the "third world" as part of our "climate debt."  The court would have no power over third-world countries.  I want you to know right now that I'd be in favor of it if the court was televised, had Judge Judy presiding, with each program introduced by Cole Porter's "It's Too Darned Hot," from "Kiss Me, Kate."  What do you think are the chances?

MAJOR ACADEMIC NEWS – New York University will offer a course next semester on Occupy Wall Street, and may even offer two.  The course will be offered by NYU's Department of Social and Cultural Analysis.  We think this is a wonderful idea.  The course could begin with a social and cultural analysis of the federal education budget, and what percentage goes to make courses like this possible.  It could excitingly continue with readings from longshoreman/philosopher Eric Hoffer, who wrote that all movements begin with high ideals, become businesses, and then become rackets.  Why do I think I wouldn't be welcome to take this course?

PATH TO CITIZENSHIP FOR ILLEGALS? – A new Fox poll reveals that most Americans believe there should be a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, as long as they meet certain requirements, like paying back taxes and learning English.  Even a majority of Republicans, 57%, agree with that position.  From what I've seen, this is now the trend in public opinion, and the GOP must recognize it.  Simply being against "illegal immigration," (as am I), or securing the border (which I surely favor) are no longer enough.  An immigration policy must be thoughtful and practical, and recognize that we're just not going to deport 12 million people. 

BROWN DOWN IN MASS. – Republican Senator Scott Brown, whose victory in the Senate race to replace the late Senator Ted Kennedy was heralded as one of the great moments in modern Republican politics, is falling behind Democrat Elizabeth Warren.  The two will compete next November in an election to a full Senate term.  A new poll has it Warren, 49%, Scott, 42%.  Warren, a Harvard law professor and self-described consumer-rights advocate, has turned out to be an effective, down-to-earth candidate.  Brown's tenure in the Senate has been less-than-distinguished, and he hasn't emerged as the national figure we'd hoped for.  We have to fight for this seat, but I wouldn't be shocked to see Warren win.

December 9, 2011       Permalink

ANOTHER GREAT MOMENT IN JOURNALISM – AT 9:24 A.M. ET:  Reader Errol Phillips alerts us to another journalistic adventure guaranteed to run the profession deeper into the ground:

NBC-owned television stations in cities across the nation just teamed up with a nonprofit "journalism" group funded by a billionaire husband-and-wife team who not only spent millions campaigning for President Obama but also topped donor lists to groups such as ACORN and MoveOn.org.

The nonprofit, ProPublica, will contribute to the news operations of all NBC-owned-and-operated stations, including those in such cities as Los Angeles, Chicago and Philadelphia, the network announced Monday.

The NBC affiliates will get early access to investigative reports from ProPublica, which describes itself as an "independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest."

And...

On its website, Pro Publica describes itself as championing the values of the "weak" against the "strong."

States the website: "Our work focuses exclusively on truly important stories, stories with 'moral force.' We do this by producing journalism that shines a light on exploitation of the weak by the strong and on the failures of those with power to vindicate the trust placed in them."

Controversial Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., a friend of Obama who was embroiled in a national race scandal in 2009, sits on the board of ProPublica.

ProPublica was founded with a $10 million yearly grant from Herbert and Marion Sandler, the former chief executives of the Golden West Financial Corporation, which was one of the nation's largest mortgage lenders and savings and loans.

Just before the financial crisis, the Sandlers in 2008 sold their business to the Wachovia Corporation for about $26 billion, a deal which valued their personal shares at about $2.4 billion.

The Sandlers are major donors to the Democratic Party and are top funders of ACORN, MoveOn.org, the American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights Watch and other far-left groups

The billionaire couple donate major sums to the Center for American Progress think tank, which is reportedly highly influential in helping to craft White House policy.

The center is directed by John Podesta, who served as co-chairman of Obama's 2008 presidential transition team.

COMMENT:  This will certainly work wonders for NBC's credibility, already facing considerable strain over the behavior of its MSNBC division.  You'd think some common sense would have prevailed here, with NBC trying to forge links with organizations of impeccable neutrality.  There is a mindset in mainstream journalism that just doesn't see the pitfalls, and mainstream journalism is paying the price.

December 9, 2011       Permalink

DANGER TIME – AT 9:05 A.M. ET:  This story is neither shocking nor surprising.  It follows a dangerous trend:

The Obama administration says a meeting in Washington next week seeks to make progress in combating religious intolerance, but critics say the U.S. is pandering to an ideological agenda aimed at restricting speech critical of Islam.

According to the State Department the aim is to find ways to combat religious hate without compromising freedom of expression. Detractors are skeptical that this can be done, and they suspect that free speech will end up the loser.

The skeptics are right.

Among those criticizing the event are GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, the Traditional Values Coalition, and scholars at the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom.

The State Department-hosted meeting is the latest step in a process stemming from a resolution on “combating intolerance based on religion,” adopted by consensus at the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC) last March.

The Human Rights Council , which the Obama administration mistakenly rejoined, regularly gives important roles to dictators.  Hey, they're all in the club.

The move marked the first time in more than a decade that the U.N.’s top human rights body did not pass an annual “defamation of religion” resolution, sponsored by the bloc of Islamic states, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

Many rights advocacy groups regard the OIC campaign as an attempt to outlaw valid discussion of Islamic teachings – to extend to democratic societies the type of blasphemy provisions enforced in some Islamic states.

COMMENT:  This is creeping restriction on free speech, and why should we be surprised?  There is today an informal alliance – we see it regularly – between Islamists and the Western left.  And the Western left is exactly that grouping that has invaded college campuses and imposed speech codes and other restrictions, all in the name of promoting a more "civil" society and protecting against "hate speech." 

The Obama administration is filled with trendy leftists.

Some years ago a civil liberties lawyer I knew worried about what was being taught on college campuses, particularly the imposition of restrictions on speech.  He felt, correctly, that these practices would become public policy in 20 years, when college students became national and international leaders.  His prediction has come true, as political correctness has crept even into our Defense Department. 

Words are weapons.  And restrictions on words can leave us at a disadvantage.  Many colleges have been forced to drop or amend "speech codes" under assault by true civil libertarians.  Now we must be on guard against similar efforts, always draped in the "respect" agenda, to prevent discussion of religious movements and their implications. 

December 9, 2011        Permalink

REPUBLICAN TAX STRATEGY MAKING DENTS – AT 8:35 A.M. ET:  The Republican strategy of tying an extension of the Social Security tax break and extension of unemployment benefits to approval of the Keystone pipeline from Canada is making dents among the Democratic opposition.  This could be a fascinating fight...if the Republicans can articulate their views to the public.  From The Politico:

The White House and congressional Democratic leaders are of one mind in opposing Republican efforts to combine the Keystone XL oil pipeline in a year-end payroll tax holiday and unemployment insurance bill.

But the question is less clear-cut for dozens of Democrats that have backed quick approval of the project in the past.

President Barack Obama twice in two days has threatened to “reject” a plan extending payroll tax cuts and unemployment insurance if it includes Republican language to speed up a decision on the Keystone pipeline.

“The president has said he will veto a bill that has the Keystone pipeline in it,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Thursday. “That doesn’t make a decision as to whether you’re for it or against it, it has no place on this bill. Let’s get serious.”

But to some House Democrats, getting approval for the $7 billion, 1,700-mile pipeline from Alberta oil sands to Texas refineries is a serious effort that should hitch a ride in a must-pass payroll tax cut extension.

Rep. Mike Ross of Arkansas — one of 47 Democrats that supported a House bill this summer to require a decision on the pipeline project by Nov. 1 — counted more than 20 Democrats who would likely support adding the Keystone language to the payroll tax package.

And he said he disagreed with Obama's threat. "Look, I think that'd be a mistake on the president's part," Ross said. "That's the kind of economic activity we need. It's a win-win. It reduces our dependence on foreign oil and creates jobs here at home."

Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas) said he’s not swayed by Obama’s veiled veto pledge.

“For the president, that’s a negotiating technique. And if you issue that veto threat, you better live through it. Because the next one then nobody will believe you if you don’t,” Green said. “But that doesn’t give me any pause.”

COMMENT:  I like the Republican plan.  Keystone must be approved.  It is in our national interest, and our national security interest, and is being held up only by the demands of radical environmentalists in the President's base.  We care about the environment, but believe any environmental concerns can be alleviated effectively. 

Republicans must do much more to publicize their plan, their benefits/pipeline package, and must do so imaginatively, possibly a first for the party.  I believe many Democrats can be swayed, including Democrats in the Senate, making the president think twice about a veto and possibly forcing him into negotiations.

December 9, 2011       Permalink

WHERE OBAMA STANDS – AT 7:58 A.M. ET:  A new Fox poll shows that Mitt Romney would do better than Newt Gingrich in a general election run against Barack Obama.

Newt Gingrich has increased his lead over Mitt Romney in the race for the Republican nomination, yet the former House speaker is weaker than Romney with the general electorate.

In a hypothetical matchup, Barack Obama is just 2 percentage points ahead of Romney (44-42 percent), according to a Fox News national poll released Thursday.

Three weeks ago, Romney had a narrow 2-point edge over Obama in the head-to-head matchup (44-42 percent). In every other matchup of the two candidates over the past year, Obama has topped Romney by between 1 and 7 points.

Meanwhile, Obama tops Gingrich by 46-40 percent in the new poll. That’s mostly unchanged from last month when Obama was up 5 points over Gingrich (46-41 percent, November 2011).

President Obama’s advantage over Romney is within the poll’s margin of sampling error and it is at the edge of the error margin against Gingrich.

Among independents, Obama edges Romney by only 1 point and Gingrich by 5 points. In both of these theoretical matchups, about a quarter of independents do not support either candidate -- they are either undecided, would vote for someone else or wouldn’t vote at all.

COMMENT:  The poll was conducted among randomly selected registered voters.  The GOP candidates probably would do better among likely voters.  But still, these are not spectacular numbers for the Republicans, and they show how tough this race will be.  True, Obama's policies are not popular, but Obama personally is still liked by the public, and that counts for a great deal in politics.  Polls showed that many Reagan policies, especially those dealing with the economy, were not popular, but Americans liked the man, and liked him considerably more than the incumbent he ran against, Jimmy Carter.

And this Fox poll was taken before the Democrats rev up their attack machine.  

I am not enthusiastic about any of the leading Republican candidates, but we have to choose among them.  I believe Romney is the more electable, and wears better over time.  Gingrich is sharper on policy.  Romney would have more appeal, over time, to the critical independents, and that appeal is likely to hold.  Gingrich clearly appeals more to the Republican base. 

This is not a pleasant choice.  There is an enthusiasm deficit in the Republican Party, and deficits like that don't win elections.

December 9,  2011     Permalink