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.

TO OUR READERS:  Please click on Urgent Agenda several times during the day.  We hope, in 2011, depending on the news, to put up at least one post during the afternoon hours, so there'll always be something new to read.  So visit us regularly.

JANUARY 6,  2011

THE ASTERISK IS MISSING – AT 10:19 P.M. ET:  The first New Hampshire presidential poll, for the 2012 election, is out, but there's something missing in the reporting:

Former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney holds a commanding lead in New Hampshire in the early stages of the race for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination, according to a new survey commissioned by NH Journal and conducted by Magellan Strategies. The survey is the first statewide survey of Granite State Republicans and Republican-leaning independents in 2011.

Romney leads former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin by 23 points, with Romney earning 39% and Palin earning 16%. Mike Huckabee (10%), Newt Gingrich (8%), Texas Congressman Ron Paul (7%), former MN Gov. Tim Pawlenty (4%), Rick Santorum (3%) and MS Gov. Haley Barbour (1%) all trail significantly behind. Romney finished second to Sen. john McCain in the 2008 New Hampshire Republican Presidential primary.

COMMENT:  What's missing is that Romney, as governor of neighboring Massachusetts, was governor of a state whose TV and radio stations beam into New Hampshire.  Thus, he is, by far, the best-known of the current crop of candidates, and that often translates into tentative support.

Romney is the traditional "next man in line" in the Republican Party, which rarely demonstrates imagination in the choice of national candidates.  I have real doubts that he could defeat Obama.  These first results should be taken with a dose of Michelle Obama-approved seasoning.

January 6, 2011      Permalink

THERE IS HYSTERIA, THERE IS AGONY, THERE IS SUFFERING – AT 7:35 P.M. ET:  I urge you all to look up your local Red Cross chapter, so that you may make a contribution to the pained and frightened liberal bloggers, whose medical condition is precarious.  Why?  Because President Obama named a new chief of staff who symbolizes everything in the old Democratic Party that the libs despise.  From The Politico:

President Barack Obama on Thursday introduced William Daley as his new chief of staff, tapping a political heavyweight with an unusual combination of high-level experience both in the business world and in Washington to oversee the White House as it grapples with a more Republican Congress and prepares for the president’s expected re-election campaign in 2012.

At a brief East Room ceremony Thursday afternoon, Obama described Daley, a former Commerce secretary who currently works as a senior executive at America’s largest bank, as “an experienced public servant, a devoted patriot, my friend and fellow Chicagoan.”

He is also the brother of the mayor of Chicago, and a symbol, by name and family, of one of the most powerful, and old-fashioned, political machines in the country.

Daley’s selection was immediately hailed by business groups. But reaction among liberal Democrats was more mixed, with some predicting Daley would bring a breath of fresh air to Obama’s insular White House operation and others fretting that the new chief of staff’s centrist politics herald a shift to the right in Obama policies.

And...

“With Wall Street reporting record profits while middle class Americans continue to struggle in a deep recession, the announcement that William Daley, who has close ties to the Big Banks and Big Business, will now lead the White House staff is troubling and sends the wrong message to the American people,” Justin Ruben of MoveOn.Org said. “Americans are looking to the White House for economic plans that will create jobs and reign in Wall Street’s excesses, and it’s up to Daley to prove that he’s not carrying water in the White House for the big banks that took our economy over the cliff.”

COMMENT:  Did we ever think we'd see the day when Barack Hussein Obama Jr. would drive the left nuts?  Is this a conversion, worthy of ecclesiastical note, by our president?

I don't think so.  I think it's a maneuver, a fake to the center to position himself to win back independents for 2012.  The thinking probably is, "The left has nowhere else to go.  But without the center, we lose."  That's reasonable thinking, but, considering the adolescent nature of the left, it's also risky thinking.  They are professional whiners, who might well stay home in 2012 rather than cast their vote for the impure, Daley-whipped Obama.  They did that in 1968 and cost Hubert Humphrey, a liberal's liberal, the presidency.

The leftist Dems in Congress probably feel very much alone right now.  Their health plan covers psychiatry.

January 6, 2011      Permalink

MOMENT OF DEMOCRATIC INTELLIGENCE – TELL YOUR CHILDREN – AT 3:56 P.M. ET:  Maybe the Democrats in the House finally got the word.  Or maybe they just got the latest poll results.

For days many leading House Dems, and their interns in the pundit class, have been ridiculing the Republican plan to read the Constitution aloud in the House chamber on the first day of business.  But ridiculing the Constitution is not generally a good idea, and maybe some adult came by and hinted that the Dems might change course.

Boy, did they ever change course.

The Constitution was read this morning, with an unexpected cast of characters.  From The Politico:

The new Congress kicked off with a reading of the Constitution on the floor of the House today, a first in the chamber’s history.

Republicans proposed the reading, but it turned into a rare moment of true bipartisanship on the floor.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) went first, followed by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

House Republicans made the reading a requirement as part of the new Congress’ rules. Initially, there were questions about who would read the “three-fifths” compromise section, which counted three-fifths of the slave population for apportionment of members of Congress in the original document. The House skirted the issue by reading the amended version of the constition.

Republicans and Democrats alternated reading passages from the document.

Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a civil-rights era activist, read the 13th amendment, which abolished slavery. Members from both sides of the aisle applauded, while Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), who ran the reading, shook Lewis's hand after he finished.

In the immortal words of Staples, that was easy.

We hope this is the start of a great tradition.  We also hope that schools will pick up that tradition, and make certain that their students know what is in the Constitution.  It is somewhat more important than knowing the lyrics to a Lady Gaga song.

January 6, 2011      Permalink

MR. PRESIDENT, WE BRING GOOD NEWS.  MR. PRESIDENT, WE BRING ROTTEN NEWS – AT 3:36 P.M. ET:   From Andrew Malcolm at the L.A. Times's Top of the Ticket blog: 

Finally, some good news to please President Obama in a new Gallup Poll.

The survey finds that more Americans still identify themselves as Democrats (31%) than call themselves Republicans.

Now, the bad news:

That 31% ties the lowest annual average of Democrats since 1988, when fellow Harvard Law alum Michael Dukakis got thumped by the first Bush to become president.

In fact, in the 717 days since Beyonce sang "Moon River" or something to this dancing Democrat, the percentage of Americans identifying as members of his party has declined five points, or almost 14 percent, from where it was. No wonder he smokes cigarettes.

Worse, Gallup finds that the percentage of Democratic-identifiers has fallen to where it's now only two points above (whisper) Republicans.

Additionally, things have gone so well changing the harsh partisan tone of Washington, as Obama promised, that more folks are fleeing into calling themselves "independents" (38%). That's what Americans do when they're too embarrassed to say what party they secretly favor.

COMMENT:  The really grim news for the Nancy and Barack Party is that independents have been tilting heavily Republican in their actual votes cast. 

Obama is still the slight favorite, by virtue of incumbency and rhetorical skill, to be reelected in 2012.  But he will have to face far worse numbers than he did in 2008.  And he'll have to face his record. 

There are retirement villages available.

January 6, 2011     Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 9:02 A.M. ET:  From Victor Davis Hanson, at RealClearPolitics, about the growth of a new generation of sophists who ply their trade between New York and Washington.  (I'd include Boston in that.)  As usual, Hanson nails it:

There is also a new generation of young, sophistic bloggers who offer their wisdom from the New York-Washington corridor. They are usually graduates of America's elite colleges and navigate in an upscale urban landscape. One, the Washington Post's 26-year-old Ezra Klein, recently scoffed to his readers that a bothersome U.S. Constitution was "100 years old" and had "no binding power on anything."

Perhaps Mr. Klein might examinine whether the First Amendment has any binding power on protecting his right to publish.  Hmm.  I hear Mr. Klein reconsidering.

One constant here is equating wisdom with a certificate of graduation from a prestigious school. If, in the fashion of the sophist Protagoras, one writes that record cold proves record heat, or that record borrowing and printing money will create jobs and sustained economic growth, or that a 223-year-old Constitution is 100 years old and largely irrelevant, then credibility can be claimed only in the title or the credentials -- but not the logic -- of the writer.

America is huge and diverse, but the world of our credentialed experts is quite small, warped and monotonous -- circumscribed largely by the prestigious university and an office in the incestuous Washington-New York corridor. There are plenty of prizes, honors and degrees among our policy setters and experts, but very little experience in running a business in Oklahoma, raising a large family in Kansas, or working on an assembly line in Michigan, a military base in Texas, a boat in Alaska or a ranch in Idaho.

In classical sophistic fashion, rhetoric is never far from personal profit. Multimillionaire Al Gore convinced the governments of the Western world that they were facing a global-warming Armageddon, then hired out his services to address the hysteria that he helped create.

COMMENT:  One serious threat to this country is that the painstream media is now loaded with members of this "credentialed" class.  At one time you didn't even need a college degree to work for a newspaper.  Now the "leading" news organizations require it, and they prefer the "names," the Ivies and their equivalent.  Notice the improvement.

So how much enthusiasm do you think there is, in journalism or government, to really challenge the credentialed society and its implications?  Not much.  I recall some years ago the head of one of Hollywood's leading talent agencies boasting that half his interns were from Ivy League schools.  I wondered at the time how this related to anything of importance.

Abraham Lincoln had one year of schooling.  Ronald Reagan went to a tiny college in Illinois.  I certainly don't wish to demean any university, and I respect fine education (to the extent that it exists in many places).  In my own immediate household we have five so-called "prestige" degrees.  We've seen the good and the not so good.  But we as a society must get past this idea that going to a particular school makes you a better, wiser or more talented person.  It does not.  Believe me, some of the dreariest, most untalented people I met in Hollywood had "Ivy League" next to their names.

There's an old saying in show business that there isn't a single Juilliard graduate who wouldn't give everything to be able to write one Irving Berlin song.   Irving Berlin had virtually no education, and couldn't even read music.

And we recall the famous story of a meeting between Lyndon Johnson, who'd just become vice president, and Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn.  Johnson had just attended his first Kennedy administration cabinet meeting, and he told Rayburn – this is an approximate quote – "Sam, you should've seen it.  There were three people from Harvard, two from MIT, and a couple from Yale..."  Rayburn stopped LBJ, thought for a moment, and replied, "Lyndon, I wish just one of them had run for sheriff."

Indeed. 

January 6, 2011      Permalink 

INCREDIBLE UNDERREPORTING – AT 8:25 A.M. ET:  What was the most underreported story of 2010?  Each of you will have a selection.  You could choose, say, the collusion between the far left and Islamic extremism.  Or, you might select Barack Obama's international contempt for democracy.  Good choices, both of them.

But here's my choice:  Stuxnet.  Stuxnet is computer malware so powerful that it has, according to authoritative reports, severely damaged Iran's nuclear program and set it back a few years.  The educated guessing is that Stuxnet was sent into cyber-battle by Israel, or a combination of Israel, the CIA and possibly another intelligence organization.  If the stories are correct, this is huge news, virtually ignored by the painstream media.  From InfoSecurity.com:

The Stuxnet worm likely took out around 1000 centrifuges at the Iranian nuclear fuel enrichment plant at Natanz, according to a recent report by the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS).

In late 2009 or early 2010, Iran decommissioned and replaced 1000 IR-I centrifuges at Natanz. “Although mechanical failures or operational problems have often been discussed as causing problems in the IR-1 centrifuges, the crashing of such a large number of centrifuges over a relatively short period of time could have resulted from an infection of the Stuxnet malware," the report judged...

...While the Iranian government has not said that Stuxnet attacked the Natanz plant, it has acknowledged that its nuclear facilities came under cyber attack. “They succeeded in creating problems for a limited number of our centrifuges with the software they had installed in electronic parts," President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said at a recent press conference.

That's the good news.  Here's the bad:

The Stuxnet malware is able to be used against industrial facilities in Western countries, including the US. “Countries hostile to the United States may feel justified in launching their own attacks against U.S. facilities, perhaps even using a modified Stuxnet code. Such an attack could shut down large portions of national power grids or other critical infrastructure using malware designed to target critical components inside a major system, causing a national emergency," the report warned.

COMMENT:  It's incredible that Stuxnet, a major technological development, hasn't gotten more press coverage.  You'll be hearing the name in the future.  Guaranteed.  I just hope it's when our side scores a victory. 

January 6, 2011       Permalink

IT'S SO HARD BEING A PROGRESSIVE THESE DAYS – AT 8:09 A.M. ET:  Just when liberals thought it was safe to go back into the political waters, now shielded from the L-word by calling themselves progressives, the American people are making it so hard for them.  It's unfair, I tell you.  From the Washington Examiner:

Uh oh, this is bad news for folks formerly known as "liberals," then as "progressives." Seems Rasmussen Reports finds that "conservative" is the most positively viewed political label, while "liberal" and "progressive" are in the negative.

"Forty-two percent (42%) of Likely U.S. Voters say they view it as a positive if a candidate is described as politically conservative. Twenty-one percent (21%) say it’s a negative description, and 36% rate it somewhere in between the two," Rasmussen said.

Wasn't that long ago that being seen as a progressive was equally as positive as being called a conservative, according to Rasmussen.

"Being described as a progressive, on the other hand, is a positive for 22% of voters and a negative for 34%, with 41% seeing it in between," Rasmussen said.

"But in the previous survey, voters were evenly divided, with 29% saying progressive was a positive description and 28% describing it as a negative.

COMMENT:  Liberals never understood that the American people can figure out a label change.  How long did liberals think it would take before voters realized that progressives were just old liberals with a new name tag?  Liberals will blame Fox News.

January 6, 2011       Permalink

THANK-YOU NOTE REMINDER – AT 7:57 A.M. ET:  Urgent Agenda readers tend to be civilized and well-mannered people, so you'll certainly want to take out the traditional stationery today and write a thank-you note to Hugo Chavez, proprietor of Venezuela, for making our selection of an ambassador to his country so easy.  Rarely do we get this kind of help at no charge.  From The Politico:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, drawing more attention to his standoff with the White House over President Obama’s pick to be an ambassador to Caracas, is suggesting alternate candidates, including Sean Penn and Bill Clinton.

"I hope they name Oliver Stone. I'll suggest a candidate ... Sean Penn, or [Noam] Chomsky. We have a lot of friends there. Bill Clinton!" Chavez said in a televised speech on Tuesday, Reuters reports.

He also mentioned that when he met Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff’s inauguration ceremony over the weekend, he asked about her husband.

Chavez rejected Obama’s nomination of Larry Palmer to be the American envoy in Caracas after the nominee raised concerns about the low morale of the Venezuelan government.

COMMENT:  I don't know how Bill Clinton made the list, but I'm curious.  As for the others, it's a very solid list of qualified applicants.  Sean Penn, Oliver Stone and Noam Chomsky are crazed American leftists who would make America a better place just by leaving, or being sent abroad.

I'm surprised Chomsky didn't mention Danny Glover, one of his most enthusiastic Hollywood supporters.  And then there's Harry Belafonte, who sang those Caribbean songs and doesn't think much of the country that made him successful.  At least he'd know a bit of the culture.

We thank Chairman Hugo for his assistance. 

January 6, 2011     Permalink

JANUARY 5,  2011

PELOSI FLOPS ON LAST DAY AS SPEAKER – AT 9:24 P.M. ET:  Reviews are pouring in from theater critics all over the world, and it appears that Nancy Pelosi has a flop on her hands.   They haven't even been able to sell the movie rights.

Pelosi, in an act of extreme ungraciousness, made an overly partisan speech as she handed over the gavel to John Boehner.  By tradition, the incoming and outgoing speakers make restrained, patriotic speeches.

As often happens, a British columnist, Janet Daley of London's Telegraph, makes the sharpest observations on our latest embarrassment:

Watching Nancy Pelosi’s startlingly inappropriate farewell as House Speaker, in which she turned what should have been a gracious constitutional ceremony into a blatantly partisan defiance of the electorate’s judgement, I wondered whether her fingers were actually going to have to be peeled off the Speaker’s gavel. She really is a piece of work: unrepentant and self-congatulatory to the end, even in the face of overwhelming repudiation by the voters. It was left to John Boehner, the new Republican speaker, to make the generous, bipartisan speech that was fitting for the occasion. How long that bipartisanship can last in a Congress so bitterly divided remains to be seen – but at least he behaved well at the outset.

Brit Hume, on Fox News, said this:

It was perhaps fitting that it took Nancy Pelosi longer to say her piece in surrendering the House gavel to John Boehner than it took Boehner to say his.  It was as if the nation’s first woman speaker could not quite believe today was not about her. She used her remarks to list the wonders of her party’s record, never mind that that record had led to one of the most decisive electoral repudiations in modern history.

COMMENT:  At least she's gone now.  She is, isn't she?  Check under your beds, your desks.

January 5, 2011      Permalink

ABSOLUTELY AWFUL – AT 6:35 P.M. ET:  Is there any end to the awfulness, the mindlessness, of radical Islam?  This updates our first story today, about the praise being given in Pakistan to an extremist thug who murdered a moderate, modern regional governor.  It's hard to make this stuff up.  From the Washington Times:

LAHORE, Pakistan | Lawyers showered the suspected killer of a prominent Pakistani governor with rose petals when he arrived at court Wednesday, and an influential Muslim scholars group praised the assassination of the outspoken opponent of laws that order death for those who insult Islam.

Mumtaz Qadri, 26, made his first appearance in an Islamabad court, where a judge remanded him in custody. Mr. Qadri is accused of spraying automatic gunfire at the back of Punjab province Gov. Salmaan Taseer while he was supposed to be protecting him as a bodyguard.

A rowdy crowd slapped him on the back and kissed his cheek as he was escorted inside the court. The lawyers who tossed the rose petals were not involved in the case.

As he left the court, a crowd of about 200 sympathizers chanted slogans in his favor. The suspect stood at the back door of an armored police van with a flower necklace given to him by an admirer and repeatedly yelled, "God is great."

COMMENT:  And we're being told, by our leftist fringe in journalism and the academy, that it's all our fault.

January 5, 2011       Permalink

INSIGNIFICANT PERSON OF THE DAY AWARD – AT 3:36 P.M. ET:  We hereby establish a new award at Urgent Agenda – The Jimmah – named for Jimmah Carter and given to the most insignificant public figure of the day.  Like our Pompous Fool Award, the Jimmah will be given only after stringent standards are met.

Our first winner:

Former US Attorney-General Ramsey Clark is in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip on a solidarity mission.

Clark met with Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh on Wednesday to kick off a three-day visit. He'll also meet with human rights activists and visit relatives of people killed during Operation Cast Lead two years ago.

Clark did not comment to reporters, but Haniyeh's office says the two discussed Israel's blockade of Gaza and recent escalations in Israeli-Palestinian fighting.

The visit places Clark at odds with American foreign policy, which shuns Hamas as a terrorist group. A longtime critic of US military policy in the Middle East, Clark served on Saddam Hussein's defense team.

COMMENT:  Congratulations, Ramsey Clark.  The rusted statuette of Jimmah is on its way.  I won't say anything more because I don't use that language with women present.

January 5, 2011      Permalink

OUR GREAT NATIONAL NIGHTMARE IS OVER – AT 3:28 P.M. ET:  It is done.  The symbolic gavel has been transferred.  Nancy will rap it no more:

Rep. John A. Boehner of Ohio was elected speaker of the House Wednesday in an historic vote that saw a significant portion of the Democratic caucus vote for someone other than outgoing Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Mr. Boehner received 241 votes, all Republicans, to capture the gavel and become third in the line of presidential succession, following only the vice president.

Mrs. Pelosi, meanwhile, received 173 votes, but watched as 19 Democrats from her caucus either opted for another candidate or merely voted "present."

The 19 will henceforth be known as "The Guantanamo 19." 

It was the most defections from a party caucus's candidate in at least the last two decades, and underscored the simmering tensions among House Democrats who suffered staggering losses in last year's midterm elections.

I'm glad something about them simmers.

Republicans gained more than five dozen seats, and will control the House 242-193 in the 112th Congress. In a show of just how much Republicans' numbers have grown, they spilled across the aisle into the traditional Democratic seats on the chamber's East side.

COMMENT:  We must arrange more spillage in 2012...if they do the job. 

January 5, 2011       Permalink

BRILLIANCE OF THE DAY – AT 10:19 A.M. ET:  From, no surprise, the great Tom Sowell, who has provided us with some of the most thoughtful columns of recent years.

Today, Mr. Sowell decries the tendency of "elites" to regard members of "third world" communities, in the U.S. and elsewhere, as mascots, playthings to be indulged, the better to make the elites think well of themselves.  I strongly recommend this column to all readers.  Mr. Sowell says:

What is going on? These and other groups, here and abroad, are treated as mascots of the self-congratulatory elites.

These elites are able to indulge themselves in non-judgmental permissiveness toward those selected as mascots, while cracking down with heavy-handed, nanny-state control on others.

The effect of all this on the mascots themselves is not a big concern of the elites. Mascots symbolize something for others. The actual fate of the mascots themselves seldom matters much to their supposed benefactors.

So long as the elites have control of the public purse, they can subsidize self-destructive behavior on the part of the mascots. And so long as the elites can send their own children to private schools, they needn't worry about what happens to the children of the mascots in the public schools.

Other people who cannot afford to send their children to private schools can simply be called "racists" for objecting to what the indulgence of the mascots is doing to the public schools or what the violence of the mascots is doing to other children trapped in the same schools with them.

A hundred years ago, groups who are now indulged as mascots were targets and scapegoats of Progressive era elites, treated like dirt and targeted for eradication in the name of "eugenics."

There are no permanent mascots. As fashions change, the mascots of today can become the scapegoats and targets of tomorrow. But who thinks ahead any more?

COMMENT:  Applause, and more applause.

January 5, 2011      Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 9:24 A.M. ET:

From The Hill:  President Obama’s strategy for dealing with the new Republican majority in the House is to stay above the fray and look presidential for the 2012 race.  The president gave a preview of that strategy during his trip home from his Christmas vacation in Hawaii, when he ventured back to Air Force One’s press cabin and suggested he would essentially take a spectator’s role while House Republicans beat their chests and howl.

Okay, just stop laughing.  I mean it.  It's not becoming.   After all, we're talking about the president here.  If he wants to be a spectator, who are we to judge?  And he really is working at being presidential.  After all, look at those regal vacations.  That's presidential relaxation.  Hail to the sleep.

January 5, 2011      Permalink

CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN – AT 8:47 A.M. ET:  I'm glad The New York Times was alert to this.  Apparently the Obamans are pulling back a new Medicare rule that they tried to sneak through without fanfare:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration, reversing course, will revise a Medicare regulation to delete references to end-of-life planning as part of the annual physical examinations covered under the new health care law, administration officials said Tuesday.

The move is an abrupt shift, coming just days after the new policy took effect on Jan. 1.

Many doctors and providers of hospice care had praised the regulation, which listed “advance care planning” as one of the services that could be offered in the “annual wellness visit” for Medicare beneficiaries.

While administration officials cited procedural reasons for changing the rule, it was clear that political concerns were also a factor. The renewed debate over advance care planning threatened to become a distraction to administration officials who were gearing up to defend the health law against attack by the new Republican majority in the House.

Although the health care bill signed into law in March did not mention end-of-life planning, the topic was included in a huge Medicare regulation setting payment rates for thousands of physician services. The final regulation was published in the Federal Register in late November. The proposed rule, published for public comment in July, did not include advance care planning.

An administration official, authorized by the White House to explain the mix-up, said Tuesday, “We realize that this should have been included in the proposed rule, so more people could have commented on it specifically.”

“We will amend the regulation to take out voluntary advance care planning,” the official said. “This should not affect beneficiaries’ ability to have these voluntary conversations with their doctors.”

COMMENT:  The administration's move is correct, but typically cynical.  Most people aren't opposed to end-of-life discussions with physicians, as long as they are voluntary, private, and not shaped by government.  What they are concerned about is what these discussions might evolve into – the very "death panels" that Sarah Pal in was ridiculed for warning against. 

It is hardly a secret that this administration is filled with governmental control freaks, some of whom think the government should decide what care to give to the elderly, whose life expectancy is short.  They look with envy at European-style "planning."

But America isn't Europe.  We are based firmly in a Judeo-Christian ethic that teaches us to "choose life."  Many Americans rightly fear a government that might take over decisions that are normally made by families, in consultation with physicians and clergy. 

The very cynical manner in which the new regulation, now withdrawn, was introduced, gives credence to those who believe the administration would like to sneak in those "death panels" somewhere down the line.  When a government acts dishonestly, there are consequences.  A lesson, Mr. Obama.

January 5, 2011      Permalink

FREE AT LAST, FREE AT LAST, THANK GOD ALMIGHTY, I'M FREE AT LAST – AT 8:16 A.M. ET:  This is Nancy Pelosi's last day as speaker of the House.  Today she hands the gavel to John Opener of Ohio, freeing us of the wild, spendthrift 111th Congress.

Republicans are in control in the House, and far stronger in the Senate.  But, sadly, the defeat of many moderate Democrats in November means the Democratic Party is even more leftist today than it was before the election.  Please notice that I say "leftist," not "liberal."  Liberalism is an honorable tradition, and I deeply respect the national-defense liberals who were instrumental in organizing this nation to fight the Cold War against Communism. 

The left, however, is something else.  It grabs power, it regards the truth casually, and it shows a contempt for democracy.  Internationally, it abandons human rights, and is often intrigued, in a sickening way, with dictators like Fidel Castro and Hugo Have.

Despite attempts by some left-wing journalists to blur the two, there is a great difference between liberal and left.

Republicans will be off and running today, as Wa Po reports:

Almost as soon as they take control of the House at noon Wednesday, Republicans will embark on a 20-day plan aimed at undoing major aspects of President Obama's agenda as they seek to take advantage of the weeks before the Senate's return and the president's State of the Union address.

The first move will come Friday, when the House begins the process of repealing the new health-care law. House leaders will then quickly begin to identify tens of billions of dollars in proposed spending cuts and to ease regulations that businesses find burdensome.

Much of what Republicans do will be symbolic, given that Democrats still control the Senate and the White House. But the quick action will allow Rep. John A. Opener (R-Ohio), the incoming speaker, and House Republicans to follow through on campaign pledges and to try to establish their party as a bulwark against what they see as an out-of-control government.

COMMENT:  The key issue initially will be health care.  The GOP will not succeed in repealing Obama care, but the repeal vote, which will succeed in the House only, will be the first step in reshaping that abominable piece of legislation, and improving it.  That will be the test:  Can Republicans improve things, not just denounce them.

Test begins right now.

January 5, 2011      Permalink

HORROR IN PAKISTAN – AT 7:47 A.M. ET:   We begin this morning with a story that illustrates what we are up against in the war on terror.   Yesterday a decent Pakistani provincial governor, a Muslim, who had spoken up in defense of a Christian woman sentenced to death for blasphemy, was assassinated.  And this is what followed, from AFP:

Hundreds of Facebook users welcomed the killing of liberal Pakistani politician Salman Taseer as a strike against reformers of the country's tight blasphemy laws. The Punjab governor was shot on Tuesday by one of his guards, 26-year-old Mumtaz Qadri, who confessed to the murder because of Taseer's vocal opposition to the law that was recently used to sentence a Christian woman to death.

Analysts say the assassination underscores how deeply religious extremism has penetrated Pakistan's conservative society, with even the Internet-literate elite resorting to Facebook to rally support for the killer.

Nearly 2,000 Facebook users joined one group on the social networking site praising Qadri, and dozens of "fans" joined other pages set up in Qadri's honour in the hours after the shooting.

All the pages had been removed by Wednesday. Facebook was not immediately reachable for comment. But other private account holders used their Facebook status updates to make comments such as: "We salute you Mumtaz Qadri," "thank God he (Taseer) is not alive (any) more" and praise for the attacker as "a soldier of Islam".

In a sign of mainstream media opposition, Pakistan's leading Urdu-language newspaper, Jang, ran a front-page story declaring: "There should be no funeral for Salman Taseer and no condemnation for his death."

"A supporter of a blasphemer is also a blasphemer," said a sub-heading, reporting that 500 religious scholars and clerics had paid tribute to Qadri.

COMMENT:  Nice, huh?  Remember, though, it's America's policies that are doing this, and those Israeli settlements.  That's all it is.  It couldn't be a corrupt, twisted ideology, could it?  Nah. 

Yes it is.   We, as Americans, have never been particularly good at understanding the way ideology can drive an entire people.  We are an idealistic, but not an ideological society.  Zealotry doesn't do too well here, we permit a variety of viewpoints, and the American people, in their practicality, tend ultimately to reject easy, ideological answers.

Not so elsewhere in the world.

We are fighting an ideology as dangerous as Nazism, yet many in our so-called "intellectual" establishment don't want to accept it.  It doesn't fit a party line that blames America for the world's ills, and it doesn't fit the simplistic teachings of an adolescent "multiculturalism," which holds that we must "respect" other cultures, and ask no questions.

We intend to ask questions, and we don't have to respect anything we don't find respectable in our moral universe.

January 5, 2011     Permalink