SUBSCRIPTION DRIVE - SLUGGISH AGAIN

HELP! 

Our subscription drives usually go well, with some slow spots.  This one got off to an awful start, but rallied on Thursday, only to fall sluggish again.  Most of the subscriptions and donations we're receiving are still from loyal readers who have ALREADY subscribed.  Their devotion is deeply appreciated, but we need NEW subscribers.  If we don't double our subscription base, we'll be in trouble, and service may have to be cut back.

It is costly to run an all-day website.  Subscriptions make it possible. 

We want to keep Urgent Agenda as a daily, high-quality site.  Our readership has grown every month since May, but subscriptions must also grow.

So, if you intended to subscribe, please do so today.  If you're on the fence, give it a shot.  The weekly cost of a subscription is less than a candy bar.   Pro-rated money-back guarantee.  You can't go wrong.

By subscribing or donating, you keep Urgent Agenda alive, and you get our twice-weekly e-mailed publication, The Angel's Corner, where you can participate in our great forum, and learn of our latest Pompous Fool Award, almost as coveted as the Nobel Peace Prize.

Please subscribe or donate in the right-hand column.  You're not really getting Urgent Agenda unless you do.  A credit card works.  Or, we can send you a mail address.

SUNDAY,  NOVEMBER 8,  2009

TIME WAS FINALLY FOUND - AT 8:45 P.M. ET:  We're happy to announce that President Obama has agreed to meet with the head of an allied nation:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The White House announced Sunday that President Barack Obama would be meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu during the Israeli prime minister's trip to Washington to address Jewish groups, ending days of uncertainty.

Netanyahu was to arrive in the U.S. capital Sunday night for a speaking engagement at the three-day 2009 General Assembly of The Jewish Federations of North America. He will meet with Obama on Monday evening.

COMMENT:  The prime minister of Israel, like other friendly leaders, was hung out to dry for weeks.  The last leader so snubbed was President Sarkozy of France.  Before that came the insulting treatment of the prime minister of Great Britain.  And Angela Merkel of Germany was turned down when she asked Obama to attend ceremonies marking the 20th anniversary of the collapse of the Berlin Wall.

Compare please with Obama's treatment of enemies, especially his groveling to the government of Iran and his deep bows to the demands of Russia.

Did you ever think you'd see this?

November 8, 2009   Permalink

EXTRAORDINARY PIECE - AT 8:02 P.M. ET:  If there's required reading for today, this is it.  We've written here before that British writers have done some of the best reporting in the last year on America politics, as many of their American counterparts have remained deep in the tank.

This piece, by Tony Harnden of London's Telegraph, is making its way around the internet, and has already been quoted by some of the more courageous American writers.  It deals bluntly with Obama, and his problem connecting with his own country.  Expect more like this: 

During the election campaign, Barack Obama's cool detachment was a winning quality, the "No Drama Obama" a welcome contrast with the "Mr Angry" John McCain, never mind the hot-headed "I'm the decider" President George W Bush.

A year into his presidency, however, Mr Obama seems a curiously bloodless president. If he experiences passion, he seldom shows it. It is often anyone's guess as to whether an event or issue truly moves him.

Ah, well said.  The only thing that moves him is something about...him.

In a sign that the Obama honeymoon truly is over, I began to hear this week the first stirrings of a wistfulness about Mr Bush. "I never thought I'd hear myself say it," one Democrat told me. "But Obama makes you feel that at least with Bush you knew where he was on something."

The light goes on over American heads:  President Bush, despite his failings, stood for something.  And, you know, maybe it was even something noble.

When Mr Bush's Republicans were defeated in the 2006 mid-term elections, it was the President himself who stepped up and declared that his party had received "a thumpin'". The Democratic defeats on Tuesday were not on anything like the same scale but Mr Obama acted as if nothing at all had happened.

The president has the same talent as the old Soviet leaders - the ability to airbrush unpleasantries right out of the picture.

More serious perhaps was Mr Obama's strange disconnectedness over the Fort Hood massacre of 13 soldiers by an Army major and devout Muslim who opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, had praised suicide bombing and shouted "Allahu Akbar" as he opened fire.

Maybe Mr Obama had been reading the American press, much of which somehow contrived to present the atrocity as a result of combat stress due to soldiers going on repeated war deployments (though Major Nadal Hasan had not been on any) and therefore, no doubt, Mr Bush's fault.

Of course.  It was caused by BUSH (!!).  No doubt about it.

When the television networks cut to the President, viewers listened to him spend more than two surreal minutes talking to a gathering of Native Americans about their "extraordinary" and "extremely productive" conference, pausing to give a cheery "shout out" to a man named Dr Joe Medicine Crow. Only then did he briefly and mechanically address what had happened in Texas.

This has now become, on the internet at least, one of the most famous incidents in the Obama presidency.  But the networks hurried to edit the tape to make it appear that Obama had addressed Fort Hood first.  it was deceptive editing.

It was a reminder that for the past 16 years Americans have had two Presidents who would often extemporise and express emotion. President Bill Clinton could certainly "feel your pain" while Mr Bush sometimes struggled to hold back tears. Mr. Obama is more like President George Bush Sr., who famously communicated his concern for people by blurting out: "Message - I care."

And the unkindest cut of all regarding Obama:

It could do him good to show he has a bit of fire in his belly. Perhaps he might make a decision or two based on gut instinct and deep conviction. In other words, maybe he should try being a bit more like Mr Bush.

COMMENT:  There, he said it.  He actually said it.  Be more like Bush.  It's time someone said it.  Some of the British journalists are doing great work.

November 8, 2009   Permalink

JUST A COINCIDENCE - NOTHING TO SEE HERE, NOTHING TO SEE - AT 5:58 P.M. ET:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The alleged Fort Hood shooter apparently attended the same Virginia mosque as two Sept. 11 hijackers in 2001, at a time when a radical imam preached there.

Whether the Fort Hood shooter associated with the hijackers is something the FBI will probably look into, according to a law enforcement official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing.

The family of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist who killed 13 and wounded 31 at the Texas military base, held his mother's funeral at the Dar al Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Va., on May 31, 2001, according to her obituary in the Roanoke Times newspaper.

At the time, Anwar Aulaqi was an imam, or spiritual leader, at the Washington-area mosque. Aulaqi told the FBI in 2001 that, before he moved to Virginia in early 2001, he met with 9/11 hijacker Nawaf al-Hazmi several times in San Diego. Al-Hazmi was at the time living with Khalid al-Mihdhar, another hijacker. Al-Hazmi and another hijacker, Hani Hanjour, attended the Dar al Hijrah mosque in Virginia in early April 2001.

COMMENT:  I'm sure this is just a cultural misunderstanding.  The president will clear it up.

November 8, 2009   Permalink

A TALE OF TWO LEADERS - AT 5:39 P.M. ET:  We see a contrast between two leaders, one an experienced pro, one an inexperienced ego-tripper:

LONDON (AP) -- Queen Elizabeth II led Britain's annual ceremony for the country's war dead Sunday, honoring them with a moment of silence as the military reported that more than 200 British soldiers have been killed in combat in Afghanistan.

As Big Ben chimed 11 a.m., the queen joined thousands of troops, veterans and civilians in the traditional two-minute silence on Remembrance Sunday beside London's major war memorial, the Cenotaph. The silence was broken by a single artillery blast and the sound of Royal Marine buglers playing ''Last Post.''

COMMENT:  The president of the United States, several days after the costliest attack on U.S. soil since 9-11, spent the weekend at Camp David.  His predecessor, with Mrs. Bush, paid a quiet visit to Fort Hood.

Maybe the president should call the Queen and former President Bush, and ask them how it's done.

November 8,  2009   Permalink

 
GREAT - AT 11:44 A.M. ET:  Joe Lieberman once again proves his value.  He will not let Fort Hood drop.  From The Politico:

Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut independent who chairs the the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, plans to begin an investigation into the killing of a dozen soldiers and a civilian at Fort Hood, Texas, to see if the Army "missed warning signs."

"This was an attack on American troops," Lieberman said on " Fox News Sunday."

Lieberman -- who was briefed after the shooting on Nidal Hasan, the Army psychiatrist who allegedly killed the 13 at Fort Hood -- said "there are very, very strong warning signs here that Dr. Hasan had become an Islamist extremist and therefore that this was a terrorist act."

"We don't know enough to say now, but there are very, very strong warning signs here," Lieberman said. "The U.S. Army, the Department of Defense has a real obligation to convene an independent investigation to go back and look at whether warning signs were missed, both the stress he was under, but also the statements he was making that have led people to believe he was an Islamist extremist."

COMMENT:  Good for Joe.  He isn't afraid to use the right vocabulary.  Of course, this will be one more reason for the liberal Dems to try to strip him of his committee chairmanship.  He represents our neighboring state of Connecticut, where the wine and Brie crowd despises him.  I hope that gives him joy.

November 8, 2009   Permalink

IN OUR DIRECTION - AT 10:41 A.M. ET:  Maybe the American voters are starting to catch on, and are realizing that a new kind of change - not the kind Obama stood for - must come.   From Scott Rasmussen:

Fifty-eight percent (58%) of likely voters say it is at least somewhat likely the next president of the United States will be a Republican, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

The number has been trending in this direction since Democrat Barack Obama took office in January and is up 14 points since then.

Thirty-one percent (31%) of voters see it as Very Likely that the next president will be a Republican.

The survey was taken on Tuesday and Wednesday nights of this past week, but the question did not specify whether the next president will be elected in 2012 or 2016. Republicans recaptured the governorships of New Jersey and Virginia in elections on Tuesday.

And...

Looking less far ahead, a plurality (49%) of voters now say it is at least somewhat likely that Republicans will win control of Congress next year. Fifty-two percent (52%) say Republicans are the party most likely to gain seats in Congress in next year’s mid-term elections.

COMMENT:  From their mouths to you-know-whose ears.  This is the most reckless government I've seen in America in my lifetime, and it must be voted out - president and Congress.

November 8, 2009   Permalink

OH PLEASE - AT 10:26 A.M. ET:  The Army chief of staff gives us the benefit of his wisdom about Fort Hood.  Wasn't this the guy who was kicked upstairs after having gotten pretty low grades in Iraq?

WASHINGTON – The Army chief of staff says it's important for the country not to get caught up in speculation about the Muslim faith of the alleged Fort Hood gunman.

Gen. George Casey says he's instructed his commanders to be on the lookout for that reaction to the killings at the Texas post.

He says focusing on the Islamic roots of the suspected shooter, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan (nih-DAHL' mah-LEEK' hah-SAHN'), could "heighten the backlash" against all Muslims in the military.

Casey says diversity in the military "gives us strength."

Casey declined to answer questions about the investigation into the shooting, but said evidence to this point shows that Hasan acted alone. He toured Fort Hood on Friday with Army Secretary John McHugh.

COMMENT:  Maybe a little more concern about the victims and their families, especially from the commander in chief, would be in order, and a little less concern about a backlash.

There is no backlash against innocent Muslims, but there damn well sure is a backlash against an ideology that has led to one incident after another in this country, and a series of recent arrests, and there should be. 

Political correctness in the Army - and I received an e-mail just recently from a serving officer, complaining about it - may well have led directly to this mass murder.  What was a man like Hasan doing in the Army at all?  Why was this wacked-out crazy allowed to treat our soldiers? 

Casey's remark pretty much guarantees that we won't get an honest investigation, at least from the Army.  And there are now reports that the Department of Homeland Security is also on the case - to protect against a backlash.  (Maybe an actual interest in security would be a good use of their time.)  The U.S. Government is also assuring Muslim countries that we're working to prevent bad feelings.  Of course, no questions are being asked of these countries about what's being taught in their schools.  Mustn't be insensitive.

November 8, 2009   Permalink

THE MORNING AFTER - AT 10:08 A.M. ET:  How are you feeling this morning?  Be honest about it.  Reach down and feel your pulse.  A little stronger, isn't it?

Now, cover one eye and read the computer screen.  A little sharper than before, isn't it?

That morning sore throat you've been getting.  Gone, right?

And do you know why?  It's because Obamacare passed the House last night.  Already the results are being felt.  And once it passes the Senate, you'll live forever.  Guaranteed by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

So throw away those pills.  Leave the crutches at home.  No need to exercise.  You're healed, by act of Congress.

Oh, a delicate matter:  If you have them, don't throw out any of those little "male" pills.  In fact, there's been an online run on them overnight - because any man who voted for that monstrosity after Nancy ordered him to do it, or believes it will actually improve the health-care system, needs those pills...desperately.  Double the dose.

And that's liberal Health Care 101 for this morning.

November 8,  2009   Permalink

SATURDAY,  NOVEMBER 7,  2009

A REAL PRESIDENT - AT 11:33 P.M. ET: Andrew Malcolm of the L.A. Times's Top of the Ticket blog reports on the actions of a real president:

Last night former President George W. Bush and his wife Laura made a secret visit to the devastated military families at Fort Hood.

The Bushes instructed the commander of the mourning military base that they wanted no publicity. With their Secret Service detail, Bush and his wife made the 30 mile trip unannounced from their ranch near Crawford, Texas Friday evening.

Fox News broke news of the visit this afternoon. Other sources said the former first couple spent about two hours meeting with family and soldiers, talking quietly and at times hugging them as they did in private at other times of crisis such as post-9/11.

COMMENT:  When President Obama went to Dover Air Force Base, Delaware, earlier this week to be present for the return of war dead, he took his photographer with him.

There is a difference.  And it goes beyond style.

November 7, 2009   Permalink

HEALTH CARE UPDATE - AT 11:25 P.M. ET:  The final vote for the health-care bill in the House:  220 for, 215 against.  By any moral standard, a bill dealing with the life and death of virtually all our citizens should have had broad bipartisan support.  This bill did not.  A number of Democrats even voted against it.  It was strictly a liberal bill, with "moderate" Dems pressured to vote for it by a threatening leadership.  Not a happy day in the House of Representatives.

November 7, 2009   Permalink

HEALTH CARE VOTE - AT 11:06 P.M. ET:  Voting is underway in the House on the obscene health-care bill.  I think the debate lasted, oh, a day.  That's enough to change the entire health-care system, isn't it?  That's enough to take over a sixth of the American economy, isn't it?  Sure.  That's change we can believe in.

BULLETIN:  The House just passed the bill.  Only a single Republican voted in favor.  The Dems needed 218.  At this moment they have 219, the opposition has 215.

Lots of applause by the liberals in the House.

The Senate must act, of course.  This isn't law yet, thank goodness.

November 7, 2009   Permalink

THE STRATEGIST DECIDES - AT 7:32 P.M. ET:  This McClatchy newspapers report cannot be independently verified, but it generally conforms to other reports we've gotten in recent weeks:

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is nearing a decision to send more than 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan next year, but he may not announce it until after he consults with key allies and completes a trip to Asia later this month, administration and military officials have told McClatchy.

Examine the number.  Is there something wrong there?

The plan would fall well short of the 80,000 troops that Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, suggested as a "low-risk option" that would offer the best chance to contain the Taliban-led insurgency and stabilize Afghanistan.

It splits the difference between two other McChrystal options: a "high-risk" one that called for 20,000 additional troops and a "medium-risk" one that would add 40,000 to 45,000 troops.

Eisenhower once said that if you need a regiment, send a division, which is a much larger force.  General of the Army and bathtub fleet commander Barack Obama apparently says, "Hey, let's split the difference and grab an ice cream."

That doesn't mean a smaller force is automatically wrong.  I claim no expertise on Afghanistan.  But a full policy is required, based on goals and supplying the means to achieve them.  This piecemeal decision-making destroys morale and generally gets a nation nowhere. 

If the story is correct, then the president isn't pursuing a winning strategy, but a hold and get out strategy.  This cannot inspire others to fight with us, or even support us.

And Afghanistan, according to the long-ago Obama, is the necessary war.  Necessary no longer, apparently.

November 7, 2009   Permalink

 
TEACHING YOUR CHILDREN AT A SCHOOL NEAR YOU - AT 5:45 A.M. ET:  It's hard to believe they're this blatant about it, but the National Education Association, one of the nation's most powerful teachers' unions, has some recommended reading on its website.  Please go here.

You will find a recommendation for Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals," and "Reveille for Radicals."  I suspect it's there because it influenced Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

The NEA says that Alinsky is "an inspiration to anyone contemplating action in their community! And to every organizer!"  Of course, that only applies to left-wing organizing.  If you want to organize a rally to support American soldiers, or to lower taxes, Alinsky has no help for you.

These are teachers.  And some of these teachers may well be teaching your children.  One of the great scandals of education reporting by the media is the failure to explore exactly what's being taught.  I certainly am not claiming that Alinsky is taught in all, or even most schools.  But many schools are using books and lesson plans that teach, as fact, things that are propagandistic, inaccurate and sometimes even hateful.

And if you dare ask any questions you're a "McCarthyite" or a threat to "academic freedom."  Parents are intimidated.

November 7, 2009   Permalink

SARAH NAILS IT - AT 5:33 P.M. ET:  As readers know, I've been occasionally skeptical about Sarah Palin, believing she must prepare better on the issues.  But today she articulated an objection to Obamacare that states a life-and-death issue in an excellent, understandable way: 

WEST ALLIS, Wisc. – Sarah Palin rallied thousands of abortion opponents Friday night with a a stark warning that the same philosophy that allows abortion rights could soon be invoked to allow the government to cut off health care for the elderly or children with special needs.

Speaking to a fund-raising banquet of Wisconsin Right to Life, the former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee asserted that if policy-makers don’t believe a child in the womb is valuable, then “perhaps the same mind-set applies to other persons.”

“What may they feel about an elderly person who doesn’t have a whole lot of productive years left,” Palin asked an audience of about 5,000 who paid $30 each to hear her speak in an airplane hangar-like exhibition hall at the Wisconsin state fairgrounds just outside of Milwaukee. “In order to save government money, government health care has to be rationed… [so] than this elderly person that perhaps could be seen as costing taxpayers to pay for a non-productive life? Do you think our elderly will be first in line for limited health care?

“And what about the child who perhaps isn’t deemed normal or perfect per someone’s subjective measure of their use or questionable purpose in the eyes of a panel of bureaucrats making our healthcare decisions for us,” she continued.

COMMENT:  Good for Sarah.  In fact, many of her recent statements, often made on Facebook, have been excellent, well written and thought out. 

She will, of course, be ridiculed as dumb.  Remember that they said that about Reagan ("an amiable dunce"), Eisenhower (a "simpleton"), FDR ("a first rate temperament and a second-rate intellect"), and Abraham Lincoln ("a baboon").

Sarah watchers, stand by.

November 7, 2009   Permalink

OUR IRAN POLICY - ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE - AT 11:40 A.M. ET:  Ed Lasky, at American Thinker, reveals the background of Obama's newest diplomatic appointee.  This will make you feel oh so secure:

John Limbert will be the senior Iran official at the State Department, replacing Dennis Ross who has moved to the National Security Council (and who has not been heard of publicly since). Should America be concerned? Yes. Limbert is not a neutral arbiter; he serves on the advisory board of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), widely considered to be the de facto lobby for the Iranian regime in America.

What is the National Iranian American Council?

The Council serves as the blocking back for the Iranian regime in America, opposes sanctions on Iran, soft-pedals any controversial events in Iran, and counsels "patience" regarding Iran's stance towards its nuclear program; the NIAC has been at the forefront of lobbying against continued Congressional funding of the Voice of America Persia service; Radio Farad; and grants for Iranian civil society; the NIAC adamantly opposes any military attacks on Iran; and to top it off, the NIAC has reportedly received funding from anti-Israel advocate George Soros who, at the very least, was an honored guest and speaker at one its symposiums (he called for a more equitable Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and called for America to renounce regime change as a goal).

The NIAC adamantly opposes any military attacks on Iran. In other words, it all but serves as Iran's Embassy in Washington-though the NIAC vociferously dispute this characterization. However, there is very little sunlight between the views of the regime and the NIAC.

COMMENT:  This kind of thing is getting almost routine in the Obama administration, but I'm surprised that Hillary Clinton allowed it - unless she didn't have much choice. 

We're getting the distinct feeling that Obama will do nothing significant to toughen our Iran policy, and that the next president will be dealing with a nuclear-armed Iran that will buy off Americans the way Saudi Arabia has done for years.  Welcome to a peaceful world.

November 7, 2009   Permalink  

SOME FURTHER PEACEFUL ENCOURAGEMENT FROM IRAN - AT 11:18 A.M. ET:    The Obama administration's "engagement" with Iran is producing no results.  Is anyone surprised? 

Senior Iranian lawmakers rejected on Saturday any possibility of Teheran shipping uranium abroad for further enrichment, intensifying pressures on the government to reject the UN-backed plan altogether.

Prominent conservative lawmaker Alaeddin Boroujerdi said Iran will not ship its low enriched uranium abroad in a single batch or in several shipments, a compromise suggested by some government officials, under any circumstances.

"Nothing will be given of the 1,200 kilograms (of low enriched uranium) ... to the other side in exchange for 20 percent enriched fuel, not in one batch nor in several. It is out of question," the semiofficial ISNA news agency quoted Boroujerdi as saying Saturday.

COMMENT:  The American media regularly takes its eye off this story, but there's nothing more important.  Iran is moving toward an atomic bomb.  We now know that it has developed technology to mate that bomb with a missile.  We know it hides critical parts of its scientific programs.  And yet the president this week was still talking about breaking down mistrust between the United States and Iran.  Maybe he still thinks it's all our fault. 

November 7, 2009   Permalink

MORE MUSH FROM THE PRESIDENT - AT 10:53 A.M. ET:  The commander in chief spoke about Fort Hood again this morning, and we got more mush: 

He praised those who serve or have served in uniform and reminded the public of their diversity -- a move designed to calm tensions around the suspected shooter, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan.

What's a liberal speech without the word "diversity"?

''We cannot fully know what leads a man to do such a thing,'' Obama said.

Oh come on.  Of course we can fully know...if we want to.  But if the government is run by political correctness, and to this White House that's more important than the Constitution, we'll avoid the truth.

Obama's aides were working to make way for Obama to attend a still unscheduled memorial service. The White House's top spokesman said Obama would attend that service and emphasized it would take place at the families' convenience and that it will not be dictated by the president's schedule.

That's nice.  If Bush were in office, he'd be criticized for not flying to Fort Hood immediately.

November 7, 2009   Permalink

I DONT WANT TO SEEM PEDANTIC, BUT... - AT 10:17 A.M. ET:   There are some journalistic practices that drive me up a wall.  This is one of them.  You see it all the time.  From AP:

NEW YORK — The Navy is commissioning its newest battleship with a bow forged from steel that once held up the World Trade Center.

The USS New York is to be placed in active military service during a ceremony on a Manhattan pier Saturday morning. Naval officials say the steel from the trade center attacked on 9/11 symbolizes that the United States will always persevere.

COMMENT;  Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.  The United States has not commissioned a new battleship since the USS Missouri was commissioned on June 11, 1944.  We don't build battleships anymore.  A battleship is a type of warship.  But a remarkable number of journalists refer to any warship as a battleship. There are directories. 

The USS New York is an LPD (Landing Platform Dock), an amphibious assault ship.

I await a news story informing us that the ship is owned by Carnival Lines.

November 7,  2009   Permalink