William Katz  /  Urgent Agenda













Power Line
Top of the Ticket
Faster Please (Michael Ledeen)
Hudson New York

Bookworm Room
Bill Bennett
Red State
Pajamas Media
Michelle Malkin
Weekly Standard  
Real Clear Politics
The Corner

City Journal
Gateway Pundit
American Thinker
Legal Insurrection

Political Mavens
Silvio Canto Jr.

"The left needs two things to survive. It needs mediocrity, and it needs dependence. It nurtures mediocrity in the public schools and the universities. It nurtures dependence through its empire of government programs. A nation that embraces mediocrity and dependence betrays itself, and can only fade away, wondering all the time what might have been."
     - Urgent Agenda


Daily Snippets are here.

We're now on Twitter, where we'll be posting little notes.  You can go to http://twitter.com/urgentagenda

And we're now on Facebook.  You can go to:






MORE DISGRACE - AT 11:03 P.M. ET:  A number of readers have alerted us to another disgraceful action by the Obama administration.  (There are now so many that we'll soon need an index.)  Consider this, from, surprisingly, the liberal Boston Globe:

WASHINGTON - For the past five years, researchers in a modest office overlooking the New Haven green have carefully documented cases of assassination and torture of democracy activists in Iran. With more than $3 million in grants from the US State Department, they have pored over thousands of documents and Persian-language press reports and interviewed scores of witnesses and survivors to build dossiers on those they say are Iran’s most infamous human-rights abusers.

But just as the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center was ramping up to investigate abuses of protesters after this summer’s disputed presidential election, the group received word that - for the first time since it was formed - its federal funding request had been denied.

Another example of the Obama administration's commitment to human rights.

Many see the sudden, unexplained cutoff of funding as a shift by the Obama administration away from high-profile democracy promotion in Iran, which had become a signature issue for President Bush. But the timing has alarmed some on Capitol Hill.

“The Iran Human Rights Documentation Center is at the forefront of pioneering and vitally important work,’’ said Senator Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, in a statement yesterday. “It is disturbing that the State Department would cut off funding at precisely the moment when these brave investigations are needed most.’’

Hillary Clinton should be dragged before the appropriate committee, and answers should be demanded.  The problem is that the "appropriate committee" is foreign relations, headed by John Kerry, whose interest in human rights has generally been hard to locate. 

But the GOP should take up this issue and use it...loudly.

And this is deeply troubling:

...at least three other groups that received funding under Bush’s democracy program for Iran have been told they would not receive funding this year, according to Roya Boroumand, founder of the Bormound Foundation, which works against the death penalty in Iran. Boroumand said her group does not get State Department funds, but that she is in contact with other organizations who do, and all are worried.

“If the rationale is that we are going to stop funding human rights-related work in Iran because we don’t want to provoke the government, it is absolutely the wrong message to send,’’ she said. “That means that we don’t really believe in human rights, that the American government just looks into it when it is convenient.’’

COMMENT:  Isn't this an administration run by "progressives"?  I think that's what they call themselves.  They should be ashamed, but they come from a part of the political spectrum in which shame is not an approved emotion.

October 6, 2009   Permalink

OBAMA APPROVAL HOVERS AT 50% - AT 7:23 P.M. ET:  The latest Gallup tracker shows approval for President Obama at 50%, with disapproval at 43%.  The approval number pretty much corresponds with Rasmussen's findings, but Rasmussen has a higher disapproval number. 

A 50% approval is nothing to brag about, given the hype surrounding this administration and the near-religious zeal surrounding its victory last November.   It shows that even a god can lose favor.

The coming three months will be critical for the president.  There are off-year elections in November, which may be seen as a test of his political pull, especially in Virginia and New Jersey.  He will have a do-or-die moment over health care.  And his foreign policy, increasingly seen as weak and appeasement-oriented, will be tested, both in Afghanistan and Iran, not to mention North Korea.

It's harder than running for office.

October 6, 2009   Permalink

TAX ALERT - AT 6:45 P.M. ET:  They're scheming again.  From The Hill:

A new value-added tax (VAT) is "on the table" to help the U.S. address its fiscal liabilities, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Monday night.

Pelosi, appearing on PBS's "The Charlie Rose Show" asserted that "it's fair to look at" the VAT as part of an overhaul of the nation's tax code.

"I would say, Put everything on the table and subject it to the scrutiny that it deserves," Pelosi told Rose when asked if the VAT has any appeal to her.

The VAT is a tax on manufacturers at each stage of production on the amount of value an additional producer adds to a product.

COMMENT:  There will be new taxes, but probably not until new "services" are put in place.  That's the way the game is played.  Put the "services" in place, and then say they'll have to be cancelled unless there's a tax increase to pay for them.  People panic because they've come to depend on those services, and so the increase goes through.

No one ever asks if the "services" are worth what we're paying for them, but that's another story. 

October 6, 2009   Permalink

DEMS GET IT WRONG AGAIN - AT 5:58 P.M. ET:  There was a big meeting at the White House on Afghanistan.  The president invited both Dem and GOP leaders, who dutifully attended, and then made the usual statements to the press afterward.

But the Dems blew it by committing the Republicans to things they'd never agreed to.  When amateurs are at work, it's not a beautiful site to see. 

WASHINGTON (AP) - The top Senate Democrat says lawmakers of both parties assured President Barack Obama on Tuesday that they will rally behind whatever decision he makes on Afghanistan.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that both Democrats and Republicans told the president, basically, "Whatever decision you make, we'll support it."

Uh, apparently not.  Reid may be a good candidate for remedial English when this is over.

Top Senate Republican Mitch McConnell put it differently. In his words: "I think Republicans will be able to make the decisions for themselves." But he did say a significant number of Republicans would back Obama's next move if U.S. military commanders from the region are truly on board.

COMMENT:  That's an awfully huge "if," especially as members of the Obama secretariat have been trying to push our Afghanistan commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, under the bus all week, where he'd join several hundred other expendables. 

It may be unfair (not really), but when the president has leaders from both parties to the White House, I get the feeling he's planning something that will make Slick Willie look like Honest Abe.

October 6, 2009   Permalink

QUICK, GET THE BUS! - AT 10:18 A.M. ET:  Looks like another Obaman is going the same route as Rev. Wright, grandma Obama, Bill Ayers, Van Jones, and anyone else who proved an embarrassment to The One in his path to the Divine.  Right under the bus.  From The Politico:

Greg Craig, the top in-house lawyer for President Barack Obama, is getting the blame for botching the strategy to shut down Guantanamo Bay prison by January — so much so that he’s expected to leave the White House in short order.

But sources familiar with the process believe Craig is being set-up as the fall guy and say the blame for missing the deadline extends well beyond him.

Instead, it was a widespread breakdown on the political, legislative, policy and planning fronts that contributed to what is shaping up as one of Obama’s most high-profile setbacks, these people say.

The White House misread the congressional mood – as it found out abruptly in May, when the Senate voted 90-6 against funds for closing the base after Republicans stoked fears about bringing prisoners to the U.S. The House also went on record last week opposing bringing Gitmo detainees here.

COMMENT:  Doesn't matter, doesn't matter.  Someone has to take the blame.  They need a name, a face, so that no one blames Obama.  The deity must never be blamed.

So get that bus ready.  Greg Craig is coming.  Plenty of space underneath, near the rear left axle. 

After the failure at the Bay of Pigs, President Kennedy was asked at a press conference who was at fault.  His reply:  "I am the responsible officer of the government."  Can you imagine this current president saying that?

October 6, 2009    Permalink

LIBERAL COLUMNIST SKEWERS OBAMA - AT 9:33 A.M. ET:  Despite the continuing and overwhelming bias toward The One in the mainstream media, a few courageous liberal columnists, especially at the Washington Post, are starting to jab at Obama and his pretensions.  It's surprising to see Richard Cohen on this list, but he's doing some good work in examining what we, in the election of 2008, did to ourselves.  He focuses on Afghanistan:

Barack Obama's trip to Copenhagen to pitch Chicago for the Olympics would have been a dumb move whatever the outcome. But as it turned out (an airy dismissal would not be an unfair description), it poses some questions about his presidency that are way more important than the proper venue for synchronized swimming. The first, and to my mind most important, is whether Obama knows who he is.


This is the president we now have: He inspires lots of affection but not a lot of awe. It is the latter, though, that matters most in international affairs, where the greatest and most gut-wrenching tests await Obama. If he remains consistent to his rhetoric of just seven weeks ago, he will send more troops to Afghanistan and more of them will die. "This is not a war of choice," he said. "This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al-Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans." 

And, rather devastating...

...the ultimate in realism is for the president to gauge himself and who he is: Does he have the stomach and commitment for what is likely to continue to be an unpopular war? Will he send additional troops, but hedge by not sending enough -- so that the dying will be in vain? What does he believe, and will he ask Americans to die for it? Only he knows the answers to these questions. But based on his zigzagging so far and the suggestion from the Copenhagen trip that the somber seriousness of the presidency has yet to sink in, we have reason to wonder.

COMMENT:  We certainly do.  But the time for wondering was during the election campaign, when the mainstream media refused to wonder at all.  Now we are stuck with a weak, indecisive president who's starting to inspire derision in the foreign ministries of the world.

But don't worry.  He'll give us the public option.

October 6, 2009    Permalink

THERE IS NO BIAS IN MAINSTREAM JOURNALISM - AT 8:21 A.M. ET:  Keep repeating that phrase as you read the opening paragraph of a book review by By Michiko Kakutani, published in The New York Times:

The Iraq war in David Finkel’s heart-stopping new book is not the Bush administration’s misguided exercise in hubris, incompetence and ideological fervor meticulously chronicled by Thomas Ricks in his benchmark 2006 study, “Fiasco.” It isn’t the bungled occupation run out of the Green Zone bubble, depicted with such acuity by Rajiv Chandrasekaran in his 2006 book, “Imperial Life in the Emerald City.” And it isn’t the foreign-policy imbroglio debated year after year by neoconservatives and liberals, by politicians, Pentagon officials and pundits.

COMMENT:  Yes, I know, I know, it's a book review.  But the sheer arrogance of that paragraph, its sureness about being right, is the attitude that dominates American journalism, the arrogance that allowed the press to openly side with Barack Obama in 2008, and never believe there was anything wrong with its obscenely slanted journalism.

And now that Obama is proving to be the small-time Chicago politician, with a silver voice, that he is, the same press explains away his failures and warns that much of the opposition is "racist."

If you want to know the origins of that arrogance and narrowness, you must examine the schools and universities that produce it.  May I recommend a superb piece published by American Thinker.  It's by Professor Ron Lipsman about his experience in teaching at a major state university.  This is one of the best articles I've read reporting on what goes on in America's halls of "higher learning."  Must reading.  It's here.

October 6, 2009   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE MORNING - AT 7:58 A.M. ET:  From Wesley Pruden, in the Washington Times:

Barack Obama, like the "progressives" he represents, is proud of a mind so open that his brains are forever at risk of falling out.

Uh, yeah. 

I'm always amused at how this crowd calls itself "progressive."  What progress have they ever achieved?  Some of them, especially on the Democratic Party's fringe left, openly support some of the world's worst dictatorial regimes, especially the one in Cuba.  Nothing progressive there.

Pruden also says this, worthy of note:

The war in Afghanistan is in its ninth year, and Americans are impatient. Maybe in the end the president will decide to cut and run. Maybe that will be the popular decision. Maybe "narrowing the focus" is a better strategy. Maybe sending more troops is even better. But further dithering won't impress anybody, and asking an American soldier to be the last man to die in an abandoned cause is too much for any president, no matter how pretty the speech, to ask.

COMMENT:  But pretty speech is what this president is about, and he believes it can move mountains, even if it can't move the International Olympic Committee.

October 6, 2009    Permalink





GOP GAINS IN VIRGINIA GOV RACE - AT 10:21 P.M. ET:   There'll be two major governorships decided next month - Virginia and New Jersey.  In Virginia, the Republic candidate, Bob McDonnell appears to be pulling ahead.  Three late polls show McDonnell leading his Democratic opponent, Creigh Deeds, by five to eleven points.

New Jersey is tighter.  Democratic Governor Jon Corzine is intensely unpopular, but New Jersey is a Democratic state and Corzine's opponent, Chris Christie, is singularly unexciting.  Still, Christie is ahead by three or four points.  His lead continues to shrink, however, and the race is too close to call.  My hunch is that Corzine will pull it out.

A Republican win in Virginia, though, will be a jolt to the Democrats, who have been celebrating, prematurely it appears, Virginia's drift leftward in recent elections.

October 5, 2009   Permalink     

IT'S NOT ABOUT ME, AND I'M VERY SINCERE ABOUT MY FEELINGS ABOUT MYSELF - AT 7:14 P.M. ET:  The White House would love to forget last week's Olympic fiasco in Copenhagen, but George Will reminds us that both Obamas gave speeches to try to bring the games home.  Those speeches were revealing:

Both Obamas gave heartfelt speeches about . . . themselves. Although the working of the committee's mind is murky, it could reasonably have rejected Chicago's bid for the 2016 Games on aesthetic grounds -- unless narcissism has suddenly become an Olympic sport.

In the 41 sentences of her remarks, Michelle Obama used some form of the personal pronouns "I" or "me" 44 times. Her husband was, comparatively, a shrinking violet, using those pronouns only 26 times in 48 sentences. Still, 70 times in 89 sentences was sufficient to convey the message that somehow their fascinating selves were what made, or should have made, Chicago's case compelling.

Ouch.  But Will has done his homework.  The Obama self-love is remarkable.

The president told the Olympic committee that: "At this defining moment," a moment "when the fate of each nation is inextricably linked to the fate of all nations" in "this ever-shrinking world," he aspires to "forge new partnerships with the nations and the peoples of the world."

Good grief. The memory of man runneth not to a moment that escaped being declared "defining" -- declared such by someone seeking to inflate himself by inflating it.

But enough of philosophy:

But Obama quickly returned to speaking about . . . himself:

"Nearly one year ago, on a clear November night, people from every corner of the world gathered in the city of Chicago or in front of their televisions to watch the results of the U.S. presidential election. Their interest wasn't about me as an individual. Rather, . . ."

Yuch.  Such phony modesty.  Of course he thinks it was about him, and him, and maybe a little about Michelle.  But mostly him, or maybe Him.

Presidents often come to be characterized by particular adjectives: "honest" Abe Lincoln, "Grover the Good" Cleveland, "energetic" Theodore Roosevelt, "idealistic" Woodrow Wilson, "Silent Cal" Coolidge, "confident" FDR, "likable" Ike Eisenhower. Less happily, there were "Tricky Dick" Nixon and "Slick Willie" Clinton. Unhappy will be a president whose defining adjective is "vain."

COMMENT:  A great column, well presented.  But there is danger for the president here.  If a president loses favor because of his policies, those policies can be adjusted.  But if a president becomes personally disliked, the damage is likely permanent.  And that, I believe, is what's happening with Barack Obama.  It is his character that is under scrutiny, his vanity and his conceit.  If he can't shake this, it'll be one-term Barack.

October 5, 2009   Permalink

THE ASSAULT ON McCHRYSTAL - AT 5:54 P.M. ET: The Washington campaign against our Afghanistan commander, General Stanley McChrystal, escalated today with a thinly veiled slap by the secretary of defense, as The New York Times reports:

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates appeared to subtly rebuke America’s top commander in Afghanistan on Monday for publicly speaking out against calls for scaling back the war effort there.

“I believe the decisions that the president will make for the next stage of the Afghanistan campaign will be among the most important of his presidency, so it is important that we take our time to do all we can to get this right,” Mr. Gates said at a gathering here.

“And in this process,” Mr. Gates went on, “it is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations — civilians and military alike — provide our best advice to the president candidly but privately.”

COMMENT:  Please note that no one has publicly rebuked those from the White House who leaked disparaging comments about McChrystal last week. 

Gates's comments come a day after National Security Advisor James Jones made similar remarks.  Together with the disparaging leaks about General McChrystal, they have eroded the general's authority, and must be having a devastating effect on troop morale.

There was also an article by leftist Yale Law School Professor Bruce Ackerman, accusing McChrystal of stepping over a Constitutional line.  One had the sense - and I stress that this is my own speculation - that the article was generated by the Obamans.

The administration's behavior is disgraceful.  Frankly, McChrystal should consider resigning, and saving himself from the humiliation dished out by this regime.  He is being set up to be scapegoated, and should realize it.  I suspect the White House fears he will resign, and is trying to diminish his reputation beforehand.

Despite sloppy journalistic comparisons, McChrystal's public defense of his known positions comes nowhere near the behavior of General of the Army Douglas MacArthur's antics during the Korean War, which got MacArthur fired.  MacArthur was sending letters to Speaker of the House Joe Martin, dissenting from President Truman's military policies.  The general's insubordination was clear, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff backed his being relieved of his command.

October 5, 2009   Permalink

OH, NOT AGAIN - AT 5:27 P.M. ET:  In another act of supreme courage, the Obama administration has knuckled under to the international thugocracy.  Our Iranian activist friend, Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi, refers us to the latest prank, which once again is best reported in a British paper, The Telegraph:

President Barack Obama has refused to meet the Dalai Lama in Washington this week in a move to curry favour with the Chinese.

The decision came after China stepped up a campaign urging nations to shun the Tibetan spiritual leader.

It means Mr Obama will become the first president not to welcome the Nobel peace prize winner to the White House since the Dalai Lama began visiting Washington in 1991.

The Buddhist monk arrived in Washington on Monday for a week of meetings with Congressional leaders, celebrity supporters and interest groups, but the president will not see him until after he has made his first visit to China next month.

COMMENT:  It is embarrassing.  It is just embarrassing.  Look what's becoming of our country under this dictator-appeasing administration.  George W. Bush may not have been Mr. Smoothie, but at least the man had some character.

October 5, 2009   Permalink

AHEAD OF THE POLS - AT 9:18 A.M. ET:  The American people seem to be ahead of the politicians, or at least the White House politicians, on Iran.  As David Paul Kuhn writes in Real Clear Politics...

There was a startling poll on Iran last week. Many top Iranian analysts have long believed Tehran's nuclear ambitions will, more likely than not, lead to a military confrontation. What's new, Americans now agree. Cynicism is taking hold.

Americans were asked in a Fox News poll whether: "Iran can be stopped from working on a nuclear weapons program without the use of military force, or will the U.S. eventually need to take military action to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons?"

Six in 10 Americans believe "military action will be necessary." They were not stating this view as passive observers. The same portion of Americans said they "support" the U.S. taking military action to "keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons." A majority of Independents, Democrats and Republicans came to both stark conclusions. This was one poll. But it indicates Iran cannot count on American war fatigue.

Americans are on top of the issue.  But there was a disturbing finding as well:

...not even half of the public is worried about an impending terrorist attack or a U.S. swine flu epidemic.

COMMENT:  The public is growing lax in the war on terror because of poor leadership.  The president does not project a sense of urgency.  Even the arrests of recent weeks have not woken us up.

Fortunately, enough responsible journalists have been warning about Iran, which probably accounts for the heightened public attitude.  We now have to get our groove back in the war on terror.

October 5, 2009   Permalink

THE SPIN MACHINE RUNS OUT OF POWER - AT 8:58 A.M. ET:  After a weekend of spin regarding the great, colossal, overwhelming, beyond-all-expectations success of our first "engagement" with Iran last Thursday, the truth comes out, published in an Arab newspaper:

TEHRAN - There has been no change in the Iranian nuclear stance and the issue was not raised in the Geneva talks with the world powers, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hassan Ghashghavi said on Monday.

“We have not raised anything about our right to pursue peaceful nuclear technology in the Geneva talks,” the spokesman said.

Ghashghavi said the Geneva meeting addressed Tehran’s proposal dealing with general global issues, but not the Iranian nuclear programme.

The spokesman said agreements reached on inspecting the new uranium enrichment plant south of Tehran on October 25, and a meeting in Vienna on October 19 on enriched uranium exchange were coordinated solely with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Iran has painted the results of the Geneva talks and the visit by IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei to Tehran as Western acknowledgement of its right to pursue civil nuclear technology, including enrichment.

COMMENT:  That's the point.  We got nothing on Thursday.  Iranian concessions were somewhat like the executioner allowing you to live a few minutes longer. 

Churchill described appeasement as feeding the alligator in the hope that it will eat you last.  We are feeding the alligator.  And the alligator will eat us slowly, nibble by nibble, while those who gave us up will get honorary degrees from Harvard.

October 5, 2009   Permalink 

THE WAR OF NECESSITY - AT 8:48 A.M. ET:  Michael Barone punctures the hypocrisy of a president who, oh, five minutes ago, described Afghanistan as a war of necessity.  Now, when he actually has to make a decision, the necessity turns into...well...a maybe:

"This is not a war of choice," Barack Obama told the Veterans of Foreign Wars on Aug. 17. "This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people."

Ah yes, as Maurice Chevalier sang it, I remember it well.

But that was nearly seven weeks ago. Now it appears that Obama is about to ignore the advice of Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, whom he installed as commander in Afghanistan in May, after relieving his predecessor ahead of schedule.

To govern, in this administration, is to fudge.

During the first three weeks of September, Obama held one meeting on the "war of necessity." Then on Sept. 20, Obama appeared on five talk shows to push his health plan.

Nothing like a great set of priorities.

According to The Washington Post, "senior advisers" challenged some of McChrystal's key assumptions. "One senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the meeting, said, 'A lot of assumptions -- and I don't want to say myths, but a lot of assumptions -- were exposed to the light of day.' " Sounds just a bit condescending, doesn't it?

These people have no respect for military officers.  I heard some forgettable Democratic "expert" in national security say a few days ago on TV that suggestions about a possible blockade of Iran do not deserve replies.  The attitude of this crowd is that anyone who disagrees with them is too stupid to be taken seriously.

Among the assumptions, wrote the Post reporters, is "that the return to power of the Taliban would automatically mean a new sanctuary for al Qaeda." That's the same assumption Obama made in his speech to the VFW 44 days before.

Throw the speechwriter under the bus.

Declaring Afghanistan a "war of necessity" was a way for Obama and other Democrats to attack George W. Bush for choosing, in their view unwisely, to wage war in Iraq. But now when it comes time to wage the "war of necessity" in the way that our carefully selected general recommends, it turns out not to be so necessary any more. Not when Democratic politicians and Democratic voters are shying away from it.

Is there hope for a correct decision?

Maybe Obama will choose to wage his "war of necessity" in the way the general he selected believes is necessary for us to succeed.

But I wouldn't bet heavily on it -- not any more, in fact, than I would have bet on Chicago's chances of hosting the 2016 Olympic games.

Other nations are watching.  They are laughing.

October 5, 2009   Permalink

OUTRAGEOUS - AT 8:15 A.M. ET:  Why not start the week with another outrage committed by the Obamans, in their desire to "engage" the world?  If this "engagement" goes much further, we'll be signing a surrender document on someone else's battleship Missouri.

The great Anne Bayefsky, distinguished teacher, outstanding UN reporter, and mother of a newly named Rhodes scholar, exposes a disgraceful maneuver by the United States that should embarrass every one of us.  From the Weekly Standard:

The Obama administration has marked its first foray into the UN human rights establishment by backing calls for limits on freedom of expression. The newly-minted American policy was rolled out at the latest session of the UN Human Rights Council, which ended in Geneva on Friday. American diplomats were there for the first time as full Council members and intent on making friends.

President Obama chose to join the Council despite the fact that the Organization of the Islamic Conference holds the balance of power and human rights abusers are among its lead actors, including China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia. Islamic states quickly interpreted the president's penchant for "engagement" as meaning fundamental rights were now up for grabs. Few would have predicted, however, that the shift would begin with America's most treasured freedom.

Thrilled already?

For more than a decade, a UN resolution on the freedom of expression was shepherded through the Council, and the now defunct Commission on Human Rights which it replaced, by Canada. Over the years, Canada tried mightily to garner consensus on certain minimum standards, but the "reformed" Council changed the distribution of seats on the UN's lead human rights body. In 2008...various Islamic countries destroyed the consensus and rammed through an amendment which introduced a limit on any speech they claimed was an "abuse . . . [that] constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination."

The Obama administration decided that a revamped freedom of expression resolution, extracted from Canadian hands, would be an ideal emblem for its new engagement policy. So it cosponsored a resolution on the subject with none other than Egypt--a country characterized by an absence of freedom of expression.

Privately, other Western governments were taken aback and watched the weeks of negotiations with dismay as it became clear that American negotiators wanted consensus at all costs.

That's enough.  Read the piece.  It is pathetic.  We threw Canada under the bus, just as we've betrayed just about every other ally.  The reason, of course, is that Obama, a severe leftist, does not consider countries like Canada as allies, but merely as inconvenient other nations.  He seems to feel a greater affinity for the Islamic countries, democratic or not.

Five or six years ago I was speaking with a distinguished civil liberties lawyer, one of the few genuine articles remaining, who worried that we would lose our freedoms because of what was happening on college campuses - speech codes, intimidation of anyone who dissented from the multicultural party line, fear of being graded down by partisan professors.  The Obama administration is filled with people whose main influence has been the American college campus.  I'm afraid we're seeing the result.

Anne's reported that "other Western governments were taken aback" is instructive.  They may whine in public about "American power," but privately they know that it protects them and their civilization.  Now they see that power either eroded, or turned against the fundamental principles of the West.  And they're starting to get scared.

October 5, 2009   Permalink








"What you see is news.  What you know is background.  What you feel is opinion."
    - Lester Markel, late Sunday editor
      of The New York Times.



Part I of this week's Angel's Corner was sent late Wednesday night.

Part II was sent late Friday night.



Subscriptions to URGENT AGENDA are voluntary.  Why subscribe to something you're getting free?  To help guarantee that you'll continue to get it at all, and to get The Angel's Corner, which we now offer to subscribers and donators. 

Subscriptions sustain us.  Payments are through PayPal and are secure, but you do not have to sign up for a PayPal account.  Credit cards are fine.









This space will regularly raise questions that relate to the news, but transcend daily headlines.  The idea is to stimulate talk about basic issues. Our last question asked: 

Last week we asked:  (This feature is suspended until further notice.)

You can view the answers here.


(This feature is suspended until further notice.)

If you'd like to send us your thoughts, click:


(Please stay within two or three paragraphs.  We try to print every reply, if space allows.  Place your name at the end of the message if you wish your name published.  This question will stay up through Sunday.)


Search For:
From: ,
To: ,
Show:   results   summaries
Sort by: 


It's a privilege for me to post periodic pieces at Power Line. To go to Power Line, click here. To link to my Power Line pieces, go here.



If you have wonderful things to say about this site, if it makes you a better person, please click:

If you have a general comment on anything you see here, or on anything else that's topical, please click:

If you must say something obnoxious, something that will embarrass you and disgrace your loving family, click:

If you require subscription service, please click:



````` ````````