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.

OUR DAILY SNIPPETS ARE HERE.

Our great readers are reminded that it is not a crime, nor a violation of any federal or Arizona statute, to subscribe to Urgent Agenda between subscription drives, or to make a donation to our noble and peerless efforts. 

We'll have another subscription drive in the fall, but we would certainly welcome some new subscribers and donators now.  Go to the right-hand column under SUBSCRIPTIONS.  No one will think ill of you.

Great benefits, no health plan. 

(And a thank you to those who are currently joining the Crusade.)

SUNDAY,  JULY 11,  2010

I DON'T GET IT – AT 7:47 P.M. ET:  There was this soccer game on TV today.  I understand it was important to some people.

Maybe it's my action-oriented American sensibility, but I don't get that game.  I mean, consider:  A bunch of boys in silly Bermuda shorts and bright colors run onto this field.  They have this ball that they kick around, minute after minute.

Nothing happens.

Then they hit it with their heads.

Nothing happens.

You want to root for someone, but you can't because the names of their teams are printed in such small letters that you can't read a thing on TV. 

Nothing happens.

The fans in the stands blow these horns that drive everyone crazy, and no one does anything about it.

Nothing happens.

On each end of the field are these big nets large enough to capture a truck.  Yet all these boys, who are supposed to be the best, can't get that little ball into that huge net.

Nothing happens.

Then, way toward the end, after all of us have fallen asleep, one guy gets the ball into the net, scores one point, and the whole world erupts.

Whatever happened to respectable scores, like 45-33, Oklahoma; or 7-4, Yankees?  Those are games!

Look, I have a ball in my office, for exercise.  I kick it around.  I bump it with my head, although not intentionally.  I can kick it between two stereo speakers every time.  Does anyone cheer me with loud horns?  Do I get love letters from readers?  Do I get to wear the silly shorts?   Of course not.

The whole soccer thing is a fraud.  Soccer moms should be alerted.  I can do that better than those foreign guys.  I'm available.  We Americans are great.

And we can go nine innings or four quarters.

July 11, 2010      Permalink

FROM HIS MOUTH – AT 7:15 P.M. ET:  A major acknowledgment of the political trouble the Dems are in.  From AP:

WASHINGTON -President Barack Obama's party could lose its House majority in this fall's elections, his spokesman said Sunday, perhaps trying to jolt Democratic voters with the specter of GOP lawmakers rolling back White House policies.

"I think there's no doubt there are enough seats in play that could cause Republicans to gain control. There's no doubt about that," press secretary Robert Gibbs told NBC's "Meet the Press."

Democrats now hold a 255-178 edge in the House, with two vacancies in the 435-member chamber. Anywhere from 40 to perhaps 60 House seats could be competitive by the fall. Republicans would need to take back about 40 seats to slip into the majority, placing the current GOP leader, Ohio Rep. John Boehner, in line to replace Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., as speaker.

Those House Democrats who won election for the first time in 2008 in conservative leaning districts as part of the Obama wave are particularly vulnerable this fall, given that the president is not on the ballot.

Gibbs said retaining House control would depend on strong campaigns by Democrats. "I think we have to take the issues to them," he said, adding that the primary argument would be how Republicans would govern as the majority party.

COMMENT:  Essentially, Gibbs is acknowledging that the main Dem strategy will be the scare tactic, possibly reinforced by targeted use of the race card:  The Republicans are too scary to put back in power.  They will take away your Social Security, your Medicare, your mother, even your personal trainer.

That tactic has been used before, and very successfully.  It can be countered best by clear Republican proposals that the American people see as practical, fair and effective.  I don't see those proposals yet.

July 11, 2010       Permalink

WHO CARES WHAT THOSE PEASANTS OUT THERE WANT? – AT 8:15 A.M. ET:  John Fund of The Wall Street Journal reports that Democrats, bracing for a major defeat in November,  are preparing for a lame-duck session of Congress to enact their pet legislation, regardless of the will of the people.  The arrogance is breathtaking:

"I've got lots of things I want to do" in a lame duck, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D., W. Va.) told reporters in mid June. North Dakota's Kent Conrad, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, wants a lame-duck session to act on the recommendations of President Obama's deficit commission, which is due to report on Dec. 1. "It could be a huge deal," he told Roll Call last month. "We could get the country on a sound long-term fiscal path." By which he undoubtedly means new taxes in exchange for extending some, but not all, of the Bush-era tax reductions that will expire at the end of the year.

In the House, Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told reporters last month that for bills like "card check"—the measure to curb secret-ballot union elections—"the lame duck would be the last chance, quite honestly, for the foreseeable future."

Can you imagine making the elimination of a secret ballot for workers a priority?  What has happened to the Democratic Party?

Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, chair of the Senate committee overseeing labor issues, told the Bill Press radio show in June that "to those who think [card check] is dead, I say think again."

He must be so proud.

Other lame-duck possibilities? Senate ratification of the New Start nuclear treaty, a federally mandated universal voter registration system to override state laws, and a budget resolution to lock in increased agency spending.

Hooray for progress.

It's been almost 30 years since anything remotely contentious was handled in a lame-duck session, but that doesn't faze Democrats who have jammed through ObamaCare and are determined to bring the financial system under greater federal control.

Get this one:

Mike Allen of Politico.com reports one reason President Obama failed to mention climate change legislation during his recent, Oval Office speech on the Gulf oil spill was that he wants to pass a modest energy bill this summer, then add carbon taxes or regulations in a conference committee with the House, most likely during a lame-duck session. The result would be a climate bill vastly more ambitious, and costly for American consumers and taxpayers, than moderate "Blue Dogs" in the House would support on the campaign trail.

Finally...

Desperate times may be seen as calling for desperate measures, and this November the election results may well make Democrats desperate.

COMMENT:  Pretty chilling, huh?  The people be damned.  Election results be damned.  My question is:  If they're willing to do these things, what else are they willing to do to restrict democracy and expand government power?

One could argue that at least FDR had a public mandate for great social programs, and we can debate the value of those programs.  There is no mandate today.  But there is a very arrogant party, based largely on the coasts, that has its own vision of society, and will try to impose it.

And be scared, be very scared, if Republicans do not gain enough votes in the Senate this November to block the next Supreme Court nominee.  True, the next resignation will probably be Ruth Ginsburg, to be replaced by another liberal.  But swing vote Anthony Kennedy is 74.  And among the four solid conservatives on the Court, Antonin Scalia is also 74.  It is quite possible for Barack Obama, if elected to a second term, and with a Democratic Senate, to push through three more appointments, and change America for the next 25 years.

July 11, 2010      Permalink

IN THIS DAY AND AGE – AT 8:09 A.M. ET:  Given the well-publicized agony of liberals (see the post just below), let's see how much anguish they can work up over this absolute outrage:

Head of Human Rights Headquarters of Iran's Judiciary, Mohammad Javad Larijani slammed Western protests against stoning emphasizing that stoning exists in Iran's constitution and it is "legal."

He responded to the recent campaign in international media backed by Western politicians to stop the stoning sentence of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, saying that Iran's judicial system will not change its direction because of "Western attacks" and "media pressures."

These statements come after that Iranian Embassy in London issued a statement saying that the stoning sentence of Sakineh Mohammadi will not be carried out.

Mohammad Javad Larijani backed the stoning sentence of Sakineh Mohammadi claiming her judicial file has gone through its "natural" course and there is no "point of doubt" about anything in her file.

He states that she was sentenced to 90 lashes in one trial and "stoning" in another trial.

Larijani told IRNA that in recent years "the sacred sentences of Islam" have been the subject of "Western attacks" but Iranian judges continue to issue their sentences according to the "law" despite all these pressures.

COMMENT:  Unbelievable.  And just as unbelievable is the silence of so-called "feminist" groups in the West, many of which are just extensions of old socialist and red groups.  They remain silent because speaking out against this barbarism might "offend" the multicultural crowd and aid what they consider Western imperialism.

What sickness.

July 11, 2010      Permalink

OH JEEZ – AT 8:04 A.M. ET:  This is what passes for interpretive journalism these days.  Is there a sixth-grade editor in the house?  From The Politico:

For many liberals, it is the summer of their discontent.

When have they ever been happy?  They're professional sad sacks.

Already disappointed with President Barack Obama’s ability to deliver on campaign promises, they now contemplate a slowing economic recovery and a good chance of Republican gains in November. Such developments would make enacting Obama’s agenda even more difficult.

I would imagine so.

Two recent essays framed the debate raging within the progressive community over why the promise of Obama’s candidacy has not lived up to their expectations — and how liberals should proceed in what they fear will be difficult months ahead.

In a 17,000-plus word piece published in The Nation on Thursday, journalist Eric Alterman calls the Obama presidency “a big disappointment” for progressives and blamed a broken system in Washington that he says allows the minority party to rule with impunity, and special interests and big money to dictate legislative policy.

When has The Nation ever been a liberal magazine?  If it's liberal, what's The New Republic?  The Nation is a far-left magazine, but they're not supposed to say it in mainstream journalism.  "McCarthyism," you know.

But writing in Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, Michael Tomasky, the editor, counsels patience, arguing that American history has shown that change always takes time and continued effort against entrenched conservative opposition.

Earth to Tomasky:  The opposition isn't only conservative, it's centrist.  And it may shock you that "change" doesn't sell much any longer.  Americans would like to have the "change" spelled out.  What they've seen they don't like.

And get this:

“It’s not just really about Obama, it’s about the state of our country. Every day, you have a sense that people are wondering where this country is headed,” says Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor and publisher of The Nation.

Yes, and a lot of those people don't read The Nation and don't live in a multi-million-dollar apartment in Manhattan, as you do, honey.  If you had any idea what happens outside your neighborhood, you'd realize how ridiculous you sound.

It goes on like that, including such gems as...

“It was always naive to expect a president to start a movement,” says Michael Kazin, a Georgetown University history professor and co-editor of the liberal magazine, Dissent. “It’s a little bit like expecting a chief executive to start a union.”

Really?  Then what do historians mean by "the age of Roosevelt" or "the Lincoln era"?  But you have to have a president who's a leader.  Ronald Reagan moved mountains.  Barack Obama won't try to move a mountain because it might offend environmentalists.

July 11, 2010      Permalink

SATURDAY,  JULY 10,  2010

COMEBACK NEWS – AT 9:32 P.M. ET:  What a month for Eliot Spitzer.  The resigned, disgraced former governor of New York, outed during his term for being a paying client of certain ladies, just got a gig at CNN co-hosting a show.  Now he has even bigger dreams:

Former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer—who resigned after getting caught soliciting prostitute Ashley Dupré and violating interstate-trafficking laws—wants to be the mayor of New York City. When asked for comment about his mayoral ambitions, Spitzer’s spokesperson declined to comment.

"His plan is to run for mayor when Mike Bloomberg's third term ends in 2013," a source told the New York Post.

New York City has had some colorful, and corrupt, figures before in the mayor's chair, especially Gentleman Jimmy Walker in the 1920s.  But if Spitzer gets to be mayor – and in New York politics anything can happen – you can be sure he'll want his old job as governor back. 

His dream was to be president.  Given the gradual slippage in American politics – we forgave Clinton for his Oval Office civics lessons to a young intern – Spitzer's ambition might still burn.

We used to have an Abe Lincoln.

July 10, 2010      Permalink

REAL ESTATE NEWS – AT 6:39 P.M. ET:  There are reports that Bill and Hillary Clinton, with Chelsea soon to be out of the house, will be moving.  From the New York Post:

Looks like Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton are moving on up -- to a deluxe mansion away from prying eyes.

Sources told The Post the Clintons are planning to trade their almost-modest suburban Chappaqua home for a sprawling $10.9 million estate in the bucolic Westchester town of Bedford Hills, complete with 20 acres of gorgeous land surrounded by New York's elite.

The massive compound -- sweetly named Clover Hill Farm -- comes with high fences, two guesthouses and a mansion fit for Bubba's millionaire lifestyle.

The home -- found only after a long cruise down a private road -- is 7,000 square feet with a large foyer, wood paneled library with fireplace, chef's kitchen with fireplace, five bedrooms, six full bathrooms and two half bathrooms.

That means plenty of room for grandkids and the Secret Service.

Although it was built only 10 years ago, the entire mansion retains a rustic feel with exposed wooden support beams. The master bedroom has its own fireplace, along with his-and-hers dressing rooms and bathrooms. The "hers" room is two stories tall.

The house also features a wine cellar with a custom wet bar, an outdoor fireplace, a heated pool, artist studio and stable.

COMMENT:  And you may be sure they won't be hiring U-Haul to move.

May I ask a coarse, impertinent question, improper for a mere subject when we're talking about royalty?

Where is all this money coming from?  Hillary Clinton is the secretary of state, representing this country's interests abroad.  Yet, there have been a number of news stories suggesting that the family income, which is clearly fabulous, is coming largely from "fees" paid by foreign sources, especially in Dubai.  I cannot confirm those stories, but I do think there should be a thorough journalistic vetting of the income of a family that heavily influences our foreign policy.

We don't want another Jimmah Carter situation.  It is no secret that much of the funding for the Carter Center in Atlanta comes from Arab sources, and that Carter's peanut business was bailed out by an Arab bank.  These things were done out of goodness of heart.  Carter toes the Arab line pretty closely.

I want facts.

July 10, 2010    Permalink

YIKES.  AM I IN HEAVEN, OR WHAT? – AT 5:23 A.M. ET:  A new poll by the pro-Democrat Democracy Corps reveals the extent of the disillusionment with the Age of Obama.  From RealClearPolitics:

Democratic Polling firm Democracy Corps (D) has a new survey out that should send chills up the spines of Democrats. Like the recent NPR survey, there's really no good news there for Democrats. Among the findings of the poll of likely voters:

62% believe the country is on the wrong track, and it's rising. This is similar to 2006.

Republicans have a higher "thermometer" rating than Democrats.

Republicans lead by 6 in the generic ballot, 48%-42%.

On the issues, Democrats lead on the environment and (barely) raising middle class living standards.

President Obama's approval is under water, 45%-51%.

The health care bill still appears to be a net drag.

The President's personal attribute ratings (strong leader, etc.) have all slid.

55% think the label "socialist" describes the President well.

A plurality believe he's done nothing to help end the economic crisis.

A narrow majority believes that the best way to improve the economy is to cut taxes, rather than spend.

About the only good news for Democrats is that former President Bush is still viewed as being mostly responsible for the state of the economy, though that too has narrowed. Expect to see his face in a lot of Democratic ads this fall.

COMMENT:  The Dems will run against Bush, just the way they once ran against Herbert Hoover...for decades.   It may get them some votes, just as Hoover did.

The poll is encouraging, but the election is four months away.  A month is ten lifetimes in politics.  You do the math.  This election is not won.

I'm amused that 55% of the respondents think Obama is a socialist.  I doubt if that was said as a compliment.  Despite all the efforts of the "respectable" press, an increasing number of Americans seem to be "on" to Mr. Obama.  They've figured it out.  But Republicans have no obvious candidate for 2012 to run against him.  And 2012 is only two years away.

July 10, 2010      Permalink

MORE BRITISH NEWS – AT 5:19 A.M. ET:  Since we're on the subject of Britain (see post just below), we note a sharp warning issued to the UK by a major executive:

HSBC's Hong Kong-based chief executive has launched an attack on the growth of the public sector in the UK as he called on politicians to re-establish Britain's credentials as a business friendly country.

Speaking at a Chatham House meeting on Friday, Michael Geoghegan, chief executive of HSBC, said much of the growth in public sector employment relative to private was down to the move of jobs overseas to more attractive countries in Asia, such as India.

"The reality is that it may be good to have full employment, but if that employment is driven by public employment it's telling you something very clearly... something is not functioning in your society," said Mr Geoghegan.

COMMENT:  Now, what other country do you think needs a warning like that?  I'll give you a hint.  Its president was seen as godlike only a year ago, and goatlike today.  You guessed it.

The dramatic growth in public-sector jobs in the U.S., and the fact that a public employee here is now paid more than his private-sector equivalent, are causes of extreme worry.  Each day we become more and more like the nanny states of Europe.  And states like California, Illinois and New York, symbolic of liberal government, are on the verge of bankruptcy.

The problem, of course, is that much of the Obama class and its journalistic syncophants think Europe is just fine.  A message must be sent.

July 10, 2010      Permalink

BRITAIN ZIPS UP AN AMBASSADOR – AT 5:16 A.M. ET:  I love it when the Brits do something well, because they do it with such style.  Apparently, one of their Mideast ambassadors was caught, as was a CNN producer, writing a post expressing grief for a Hezbollah icon with a sordid past.  That was too much for even the Foreign Office:

The British government removed a blog post by its ambassador to Lebanon praising recently deceased Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah on Friday, Reuters reported.

Ambassador Frances Guy had expressed her sadness at the death of the early Hizbullah spiritual mentor in a blog post titled "The passing of decent men."

"When you visited him you could be sure of a real debate, a respectful argument and you knew you would leave his presence feeling a better person," Guy wrote.

Fadlallah was a Shi'ite cleric who was a known supporter of the Islamic Revolution in Iran and suicide bombings against Israel.

A British Foreign Office spokesman told Reuters that Guy's blog had been removed "after mature consideration."

COMMENT:  I love it, I love it, I love it.  "Mature consideration."  Only the Brits would use a phrase like that.  Clearly, the passionate and adolescent ambassador is out of favor with those with a bit more seasoning.

Of course, if Ms. Guy were an American, she could get out of trouble simply by saying that she wrote it "for the children."

July 10, 2010     Permalink