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.

PRE-ELECTION SUBSCRIPTION DRIVE – IMPORTANT!

This message is especially for readers who've joined us recently:

Do you like Urgent Agenda?  Would you like to see us survive and grow?  Would you like to have special Urgent Agenda features delivered right to your computer?

If the answer is yes, please become a subscriber. 

Subscriptions are the life blood of Urgent Agenda.  Without them, we vanish.  We have a superb subscriber base whose support is vital, and we have many, many new readers, but we need more subscribers to maintain our level of service and expand beyond it.

As a subscriber you 1) support our work and 2) become a member of the Angel's Corner.  Members receive a private e-mail twice a week with features not published on the free site.  Members also participate in our Forum, which we think is the most provocative on the web.  You can write at length on anything you wish.  There are special essays.  And it's at the Angel's Corner where we give the coveted Pompous Fool Award, every bit as revered as the Worst-Dressed Actress Award. 

Unless you subscribe, you're only getting half of Urgent Agenda, and missing a good part of the fun.  We hope, in the future, to expand the Angel's Corner to three times a week.

So please subscribe through PayPal in the right-hand column under SUBSCRIPTIONS.  Or, in that same place, you can donate what you please.  If you don't like PayPal, let us know and we'll send you a mail address.

This election is crucial.  Your support is vital if we're to be there every step of the way.  Help us see the fight through.

Note:  Our subscription drive picked up a bit of speed.  We really must make progress if we're to sustain and enlarge our work.  If you are, in particular, a new reader, please consider subscribing.  If you decide you don't like your subscription, we'll gladly return the unused portion.

We call readers' attention to our first post this morning, commemorating September 11, 2001.

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2010

9-11, THE MIXED MESSAGES – AT 10:33 P.M. ET:  By reasonably common consent, today's was the most contentious of the 9-11 commemorations.  Is it entirely coincidental that division has increased on the watch of Barack Obama?  I don't think so.

The Politico, which tilts somewhat left, tries to put the best face on Obama's performance today:

President Barack Obama used the ninth anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to try to reduce the temperature on a pair of heated controversies over Islam and religious tolerance, even as others staged rallies that could further inflame the very tensions Obama tried to avert.

Speaking at a memorial service Saturday morning, Obama seemed eager to stem what some polls show is rising anti-Muslim sentiment in the United States, nine years after Islamic terrorists affiliated with al Qaeda hijacked four passenger planes, crashing two into the World Trade Center in New York, the third into the Pentagon, and plunging the fourth into a field in rural Shanksville, Pa.

What polls are those?  The polls I've seen show opposition to the building of the mosque at Ground Zero, but no great wave of anti-Muslim hatred.  This is an example of a generation of reporters trained to believe that America is a racist society.  Even after the election of Barack Obama, the party line remains. 

After a week in which an obscure Florida pastor drew his attention for his plans to desecrate Qurans - stoking a still-simmering controversy over plans to build an Islamic community center and mosque near ground zero in New York - Obama called for national unity.

If Obama really wants unity, he might do a little work toward that end.  Insulting the 70% of Americans who oppose the location of the mosque doesn't lead to unity.  Declaring that America is at war only with Al Qaeda, when we know that Al Qaeda is only the tip of the terror iceberg, also doesn't lead to unity.  Nor does going around the world bowing to Saudi potentates and apologizing for the United States.

Obama is reflecting the behavior of America's chattering class in his patronizing comments about unity.  It has now become trendy among the drawing room/faculty room axis to say that America overreacted to 9-11, that we have temper tantrums, that we really aren't sophisticated enough for this world.  There are probably plenty of people around Obama, like Samantha Power, who think that.

And, of course, TIME, one of the kingpins of establishment journalism, has pretty much declared America to be Islamophobic.  You may be sure that TIME's writers and editors will now get even more party invitations. 

I'm afraid unity is a long way off.  But if you want to look at the major source of disunity, look no further than the man in the White House, and the establishment he leads.

September 11, 2010     Permalink

BEST SHOW IN TOWN – AT 8:37 A.M. ET:  The town is Chicago, and the best show is politics.  Chicago will soon crown a new mayor – and crowning is what they do there. 

Rahm Emanuel wants the job, but arms in Chicago are less than open.  Emanuel has the warmth of Don Rickles and the gentleness of Sylvester Stallone.  Not everyone is an ally.  And there are some other famous names waiting to get into the race.  From The Hill:

Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-Ill.) and his wife Sandi, a Chicago alderman, are considering entering the city's open mayoral race.

Sandi Jackson told NBC Chicago that both she and her husband are weighing a bid in the race to replace six-term Mayor Richard Daley (D), who decided this week not to seek reelection.

"I'm considering it," she said. "I love campaigns."

She said that she and her husband would sort out any potential conflict over the matter.

"My husband and I will sit down and decide if either of us will run," she said.

I'm not quite getting this.  Are you?  I get the sense that both of them could run.  Now that would be fascinating.

Rep. Jackson, the son of civil rights leader the Rev. Jesse Jackson, is among several Washington politicians who are reportedly thinking about running for Chicago mayor, first among them being White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), who represents parts of the Chicago's south side, is also reportedly weighing a mayoral bid. Gutierrez has been a critic of the Obama administration, especially on immigration policy.

You can see immediately that race and ethnicity will overshadow the campaign.  Emanuel is Jewish, the Jacksons are African-American, and Gutierrez is Hispanic...and they're all quite prepared to knife each other.  What a country!

For entertainment value alone, the Chicago mayoralty race will be one of the most fascinating to watch.  And to think, it will probably be decided by voters whose funerals were held years ago.  What a city!

September 11, 2010      Permalink

THE DEBATE – AT 8:34 A.M. ET:  One of the most fascinating elements of today's political picture is the debate within the Republican Party.  Should it be a true conservative party, or should it try to be a larger tent, with, theoretically, a greater chance of victory at the polls.

No one symbolizes that debate better than the new governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell, who has worked wonders in stopping his state's drift toward the left.  He is a credentialed conservative, who doesn't look back, and he has advice for his party.  From The Politico:

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) described himself Friday as “the tip of the spear” in a “conservative renaissance” that he predicts will soon sweep the country.

Ten months after he and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie won their off-year elections, an early warning sign of trouble for Democrats, McDonnell suggested that the national mood is so favorable now that Republicans can win by running as true conservatives.

That itself is a controversial idea.  Remember, in 1980 there were many Republicans who thought Ronald Reagan was too conservative to win, and wanted to surround him with more "respectable" people.  You know, the civilized type, like George Bush the elder.  Indeed, some in the party proposed a co-presidency with Reagan and former President Gerald Ford, to keep Reagan under control.

“So it is the time where you should be unashamed and unabashed to stand up for those principles in the public square, and I really think –if you do that—that you will get the results that you want on Election Day,” he told hundreds of enthusiastic activists at the Faith and Freedom Conference in Washington. “And then the challenge is to hold your officials accountable to govern like they campaigned.”

That is becoming a big theme on the GOP right – demanding that conservaitve candidates govern the way they campaign.  Governor Chris Christie, elected a conservative Republican governor last year in the Democratic state of New Jersey, has won wide praise from conservatives for sticking to his principles. 

McDonnell’s obviously trying to build up a brand as a conservative reformer with results. And, on Friday, he happily engaged on issues far outside his bailiwick. He went after government’s bailout of General Motors, criticized recent changes to federal student loan programs and blasted the financial reform bill for “regulating Wall Street like never before.”

He saved some of his strongest ire for the new health care law, which he calls unconstitutional.

“We’ve got this one-size-fits-all, big government, womb-to-tomb, Washington-knows-best approach in this Congress that is, I believe, trampling on the 10th Amendment,” McDonnell said. “It’s why we see states like Virginia standing up for the 10th amendment by suing the federal government in federal court over this health care mandate.”

COMMENT:  Don't be shocked if McDonnell, despite limited experience, emerges as a presidential candidate.  The conservative wing of his party is growing in power.  If it can pull off some major wins in November, and even engineer some upsets, it may well name the presidential candidate in 2012. 

September 11, 2010       Permalink

ON THIS DAY – AT 8:32 A.M. ET:  We had settled into a kind of routine in commemorating the attacks of September 11, 2001.   This year it's different.

Incredibly, unbelievably, the accusing finger this year isn't pointed at Al Qaeda, or Islamists, or the teachings of radical Islam.  No, under the leadership of the president who promised to unite us, we have become more divided than ever before during the war on terror, and we, as a people, are being accused of bigotry, racism, Islamophobia, and just about every sin that the far left and its accomplices in the press can muster from their remarkably limited vocabulary.

Who would have thought, nine years ago today, that America would have a president on September 11, 2010, who didn't care much for his country, who considered himself a citizen of the world, and who would not say a word, not a word, in defense of those who ask for a little sensitivity toward the victims of the terrible day? 

We are now instructed, by TIME magazine and other self-appointed members of the ethnicity police, to reflect on ourselves.  As women wait to be stoned to death in Iran, as suicide bombers threaten civilization in Afghanistan, as Christians and Jews are still labeled as human vermin in many Muslim countries, we are informed that, in reality, it's all our fault, and that we are inherently racist.

Thus, the dream of many in power today is being fulfilled – a return to the 1960s, and that adolescent mentality that paralyzed our effort in Vietnam and brought forth Jimmah Carter not many years later.  Think about it:  If it were not for Ronald Reagan, what would have happened to our country?

So on this September 11th, let us pledge to restore our society, something that can begin through the most noble of our traditions, a free election in less than two months.  We have a clear choice, between the drift toward mediocrity and regimentation inherent in our current course, or a restoration of the nation that we fear we are losing.  It will either be morning in America again, or it will be an America that many of us will be embarrassed to leave to our children.

September 11, 2010     Permalink

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2010

WHAT DECADE IS THIS? – AT 7:35 P.M. ET:  Journalists like to think of themselves as ahead of the curve, on the cutting edge, people who know more than the rest of us do.  In fact, it's been my experience that many journalists are behind the times, often stuck in the world of their youth, or the world they wallowed in while at university. 

In part, this is because the craft of the "reporter" has given way to the presumption of the "analyst."  While truly first-class journalists have deep respect for the discipline of the reporter, some others consider that work beneath them, and consider the title an embarrassment.   They prefer to contemplate the world, the better to rub shoulders with intellectuals, professors, and UN diplomats.

To demonstrate what happens when reporting caves in to contemplating, consider this fantastic remark by Roger Cohen of The New York Times, a recent recipient of Urgent Agenda's prestigious Pompous Fool Award:

The Sept. 11 attacks, seen now with a little perspective, shattered America’s self-image. A continent-sized sanctuary, flanked by the shining waters of two oceans, was no longer. A hideous neologism, the “homeland,” was coined to describe a country that now needed vigilant protection from within and without. Two wars, one longer than any in the nation’s history, deepened the trauma.

Huh?  What decade is this man living in?  America hasn't thought of itself as a sanctuary, protected by two oceans, since before the Second World War.  Indeed, we learned the lessons of that war better than anyone else, and maintained, throughout the Cold War, a vigorous national defense precisely because we knew there was no longer a sanctuary.  Mr. Cohen is 70 years out of date.

And since when has "homeland" had such an evil connotation?  The word is commonly used.  In Cohen's universe, everyone is presumably entitled to a "homeland" except Americans. (Just as, among so-called "multiculturalists," everyone is entitled to cultural respect except Americans.)  And Cohen writes that America, after 9-11, "now needed vigilant protection from within and without."  Just wait a second.  Isn't "vigilant protection" exactly what we were doing during all those years of facing down the Soviet Union? 

This is what happens when the reporter is crushed and the pompous fool emerges.  Accurate history goes right out the energy-effient window.  Jack Webb said it best:  "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."  I wish my profession would go back to that basic theme.

September 10, 2010      Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 8:37 A.M. ET: 

BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) - A Baton Rouge Metro Council member wants the parish to support a public awareness campaign against men who wear their pants so low that their boxer shorts show. Councilwoman C. Denise Marcelle has a slogan for the campaign: "Low pants, no chance."

"I hate to see it and I see so much of it in my district," Marcelle said. "It's disrespectful to the elderly, to young kids and to women."  Her resolution, on the agenda for discussion Wednesday, says wearing saggy pants creates negative stereotypes and that "those who wear saggy pants are hurting their chances of becoming employable, educated and productive citizens."

Give the lady a round of applause, and pass her resolution. 

September 10, 2010      Permalink

WISE THINKING – AT 8:16 A.M. ET:  We have repeatedly warned here about over-optimism in Republican ranks, and wild predictions of a GOP tsunami.  Fortunately, the real pros are thinking the same way, as Byron York reports in the Washington Examiner:

Things have gotten out of hand when it comes to predictions of a Republican victory in the upcoming midterm elections. In recent days, talk of a GOP edge has turned into talk of a GOP blowout. Prognosticators have upgraded the coming political storm from Category 4 to Category 5. Republican control of the House has gone from possible to inevitable.

Dick Morris, in particular, has been on Fox every night virtually assuring us of a Republican blowout in both houses of Congress.

But Republicans don't believe it, or at least the insiders involved in the midterm effort don't believe it. As they see it, they're in a good position to pick up the 39 seats needed to win control of the House, but polls showing a huge GOP lead are simply wrong. "I'm assuming that Cook and Rothenberg and Rove and the others have got different indications from what we've got," says one member of the House GOP election team. "I don't want to overestimate what's out there."

It could well be that, privately, the pros also see the possibility of a landslide, but know that it could be taken away by the indifference (and non-voting) that comes from overconfidence. 

Some of the talk downplaying the GOP lead may be counterspin to ensure Republicans don't become overconfident. "We don't want to cause our voters to get lax and think we've got it," says the member of the election team. But Republicans are also genuinely concerned about peaking too soon.

And...

Perhaps the best way to characterize the GOP election team now is confident but nervous -- confident that the basic trends of the election are going their way but nervous at the talk of a runaway victory. Be on guard against irrational exuberance, they're telling supporters -- and be sure to vote on Nov. 2.

Those are grown-ups talking.

September 10, 2010      Permalink

THE COMMON-SENSE NATION – AT 7:58 A.M. ET:  I always find myself so impressed by the way Americans handle complex moral issues.  Churchill remarked that the American people really do care about getting things right, about the moral core of society. 

Contrast that please with some of the more cynical nations, with their amoral elites spouting bromides while sending electronic equipment to Iran.

In the last few weeks we have seen, once again, that Americans aren't the hickish dullards portrayed in leftist Hollywood movies and on the "prestigious" campuses of the northeast.  Yes, they say, Muslims have a right to build their mosque near Ground Zero.  But no, they say, it's an insensitive idea, and the group behind the mosque (and community center) should reconsider.

Yes, they say, that whacked-out pastor in Florida has the right to burn the Koran.  But no, they say, it's a very bad and harmful thing to do, and shouldn't be done.  The right is there, but it isn't right.

Contrast again please with the stunning comments by the imam behind the Ground Zero mosque, who said on TV over the weekend that if the mosque issue isn't handled "right," there could be repercussions around the world.

Where I come from, that's called blackmail, and Americans know it.  I wish a reporter had confronted this chap with that word, and asked his reaction.

Isn't it strange:  From the president on down, leading Americans have pleaded with that pastor not to burn the Koran because of the insensitivity of the act.  For this, our leaders are called statesmen.  But when an overwhelming majority of Americans ask that the mosque not be built at Ground Zero, to show sensitivity to the horror that was committed there, they're called bigots and Islamophobes.  I can think of no greater example to mark the hypocrisy of elite opinion in America today.

For the last generation, our students have been taught, in too many institutions, that there really aren't any rights or wrongs, simply different "narratives."  We see that thinking reflected in the hobbled, spiritually vacant journalism we all read every day.  We're fortunate that, thus far, the American people aren't buying the line. 

Too many of our leading "intellectuals" have forgotten what it means to be human, to have human feelings.  When Sarah Palin said that the mosque at Ground Zero "tears at the heart," she spoke for a nation.  And she was laughed at by the very people who claim to be our eyes and ears.

September 10, 2010      Permalink 

WHAT?  GOOD POLITICAL NEWS FROM ILLINOIS? – AT 7:44 A.M. ET:  When anything good politically comes out of Illinois, and especially when there's no indictment involved, we check it carefully to be sure it's not an internet hoax.  This seems real:

Republican Senate candidate Mark Kirk holds a slight lead over Democratic challenger Alexi Giannoulias.
According to the latest Rasmussen Reports survey Kirk leads Giannoulias 41-37 percent, while Green Party candidate LeAlan Jones has nine-percent of the vote.

Nine-percent are undecided.

The last survey taken two weeks ago, the two frontrunners were tied at 45-percent apiece.

The survey talked to 750 likely voters and has a margin of error of plus-or-minus four-percent.

COMMENT:  This is a midterm election coming up.  Those national polls are interesting, but midterms are won state by state, district by district, so we'll try to look more closely at these local polls.

Illinois is critical.  If things go our way in the Senate race there – the race for Mr. Obama's old seat – it may well mean that our side has a good shot at controlling the new Senate...with its power to confirm Supreme Court justices. 

The Illinois race has two defective candidates running against each other.  The Dem, Alexi Giannoulias, has a truckload of financial corruption issues.  The GOP candidate, the otherwise fine Congressman Mark Kirk, has fibbed about his military record.  Even with that, he's vastly preferable to Giannoulias.

Rasmussen polls among likely voters, which is the kind of poll we prefer here.  Kirk's lead is within the margin of error, so this race is hardly in the bag.

September 10, 2010      Permalink

AS ESTIMATE DAY APPROACHES – AT 7:25 A.M. ET:  Ah yes, September 15th, another tax estimate day, is just around the corner.  I will be going online this weekend to do my monetary bit to help finance the stimulus package.  I'm so enthusiastic. 

I thought you might be interested, as citizens, in how those in the land of Obama handle their own tax obligations.  You will be bowled over with inspiration.  From Andrew Malcolm at the L.A. Times's Top of the Ticket blog:

...we do know that as of the end of 2009, 41 people inside Obama's very own White House owe the government they're allegedly running a total of $831,055 in back taxes. That would cover a lot of special chocolate desserts in the White House Mess.

In the House of Representatives, 421 people owe a total $6,524,892. In the Senate, 217 owe $2,774,836. In the IRS's parent department, Treasury, 1,204 owe $7,670,814. At the Labor Dept., where Secy. Hilda Solis' husband had some backtax problems before her confirmation, 463 owe $7,481,463. Eighty-one workers for the Federal Reserve System's board of governors owe $1,076,733.

Over at the Justice Department, which is so busy enforcing other laws and suing Arizona, 1,971 employees still owe $14,350,152 in overdue taxes.

And...

Then, we come to the Department of Homeland Security, which is run by Janet Napolitano, the former governor of Arizona who preferred to call terrorist acts "man-caused disasters." Homeland Security is keeping all of us safe by ensuring that a Dutch tourist is onboard every inbound international flight to thwart any would-be bomber with explosives in his underpants.

Within that department, there reside 4,856 people who owe the tax agency a whopping total of $37,012,174.

And they're checking our pockets for metal and coins?

COMMENT:  I hope someone asks about this at the next presidential news conference.  Aren't public servants supposed to set an example?  Look at those figures from the White House alone. 

Say it ain't so, Barack.

September 10, 2010     Permalink