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.

I was pleased once again to appear on Silvio Canto Jr.'s excellent talk show last night, with Urgent Agenda reader Chris Corbett.  To listen to the broadcast, please go here.

MONDAY,  JULY 19,  2010

THE WRONG WAY TO DO THINGS – AT 10:37 P.M. ET:  Cruising under the radar is a national campaign to change the electoral-college system of electing presidents by changing the voting laws in each state.  No great public discussion.  No national debate.  Just back-room politics.  Massachusetts in the next focus.  From the Boston Globe:

The state Legislature is poised to give final approval this week to a new law intended to bypass the Electoral College system and ensure that the winner of the presidential election is determined by the national popular vote.

Both the House and Senate have approved the National Popular Vote bill. Final enactment votes are needed in both chambers, however, before the bill goes to the governor's desk, the Globe reported last week.

Governor Deval Patrick's press office didn't immediately return a message this morning seeking comment on whether he would sign the bill, if it makes its way to his desk.

Under the proposed law, all 12 of the state's electoral votes would be awarded to the candidate who receives the most votes nationally.

Supporters are waging a state-by-state campaign to try to get such bills enacted. Once states possessing a majority of the electoral votes (or 270 of 538) have enacted the laws, the candidate winning the most votes nationally would be assured a majority of the Electoral College votes, no matter how the other states vote and how their electoral votes are distributed.

Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland, and Washington have already adopted the legislation, according to the National Popular Vote campaign's website.

Supporters of the change say that the current Electoral College system is confusing and causes candidates to focus unduly on a handful of battleground states.

Confusing?  We've been using it since the dawn of the republic, and Americans seem to have figured it out.  Who's confused?

And it doesn't focus only on a handful of states.  In fact, one of the strengths of the current system is that it forces candidates to run campaigns in small states.  A few of them, together, can make or break a presidential candidate.

Critics say the current system is not broken. They also point to the disturbing scenario that Candidate X wins nationally, but Candidate Y has won in Massachusetts. In that case, all of the state's 12 electoral votes would go to Candidate X, the candidate who was not supported by Massachusetts voters.

The proponents of the change don't care.  This is another attempt to weaken the state system.  Sometimes we forget that the name of the country is the United States of America.  We vote by state in presidential elections, and it's a great reminder of who we are. 

A little discussion please.  A little coverage by the mainstream media.  Is that too much to ask?

July 19, 2010      Permalink

THE DIVIDE – AT 7:31 P.M. ET:  A new Gallup poll plainly shows the divide that has developed over the Obama administration:

Where is the president's approval highest?  In the District of Columbia, at 85%, which is overwelmingly African-American.  Second highest:  Hawaii, at 68%.  (Note the dramatic difference between first and second place.)

Lowest?  Wyoming, at 29%.  Second lowest:  Utah, at 34%.  Another poll has Obama at 28% in Arizona.  I'm surprised it's that high in that state.

There's no doubt the president is in trouble. A "reelect" poll, as discussed by Democratic strategist Mark Penn, underlines that trouble:

By far, the most alarming numbers this poll presents for President Barack Obama are the reelection figures; against a generic Republican candidate, he loses by 5 points, 37-42. In general, when an incumbent’s reelect numbers fall below 50 percent, it’s a sign of trouble to come — and Obama’s inability to break even 40 percent may be the most telling indicator to come out of these data.

COMMENT:  But remember that Obama retains substantial strength in the largest states, in part because of their loyal minority populations.  Nothing is going to be easy for the Republicans. 

Midterms will soon be upon us.  Remember, there is no prize for second place in politics.

July 19, 2010     Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 9:51 A.M. ET:  From Kevin D. Williamson, at NRO:

Just as state schooling is not about education, but about the state, gun control is not about guns: It’s about control. A citizen who can fend for himself when the predators come or the schools fail is less inclined to look to the state for sustenance and oversight in other areas of life. To progressives, that’s an invitation to anarchy. To the men who wrote the Second Amendment, it was a condition of citizenship in a free republic. It’s what free men did, and do.

COMMENT:  Well said.  The obsession with state control on the part of the Obama administration has reached a level we haven't seen since the late sixties, when the American left had its last great fling.   That sure ended well, didn't it?  Our cities were awash with crime, and the American military was regularly trashed.  Ah, wasn't it a time, wasn't it a time. 

The fact is that many on the left really don't believe in individual freedom.  They have contempt for the very "masses" they claim to serve.  Thus, anything that gives power to the individual is considered a threat to "the collective," especially if that power is held by one of those dumb, uninformed, ill-bred Americans, the kind who watch Fox News and eat meat. 

I am not a gun nut.  I think there are reasonable standards that can be applied to society to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them, like criminals or the insane.  But I'm also a strong believer in the Second Amendment because it is the consummate statement in the Constitution of the supremacy of the people over their government.  In America we trust the people so much that we permit them to keep and bear arms.  Contrast that with the situation in every dictatorship I can think of.

I fear that our fundamental freedoms are in great danger, greater than at any period in my lifetime.  The danger is from within, not from without.  And it comes from the self-appointed "good people." who only want a better society, and will destroy everything we have in order to get it.

It's not the first time this has happened.

July 19, 2010      Permalink

YOU MEAN THEY'RE NOT JUST LIKE US? – AT 8:10 A.M. ET:  The Politico, which leans left, goes surprisingly straight-shooter in describing the growing gap between Barack Obama's Washington and the rest of the country.  Are they out of touch in D.C.?  Do you have to ask?

America is struggling with a sputtering economy and high unemployment — but times are booming for Washington’s governing class.

The massive expansion of government under President Barack Obama has basically guaranteed a robust job market for policy professionals, regulators and contractors for years to come. The housing market, boosted by the large number of high-income earners in the area, many working in politics and government, is easily outpacing the markets in most of the country. And there are few signs of economic distress in hotels, restaurants or stores in the D.C. metro area.

As a result, there is a yawning gap between the American people and D.C.’s powerful when it comes to their economic reality — and their economic perceptions.

A new POLITICO poll, conducted by market research and consulting firm Penn Schoen Berland, underscores the big divide: Roughly 45 percent of “Washington elites” said the country and the economy are headed in the right direction, while roughly 25 percent of the general population said they felt that way.

And, of course, when big government lives well, you can be sure there'll be more big government.  The people who make the laws dream of a lifelong gravy train.  As we've reported before, public employees are now paid more, on average, than their civilian equivalents.  The economy is capsizing.

The economic crisis has been a job creator for those outside government, too. Many New York firms have opened new offices and created new jobs in D.C. to deal with the growing web of regulations. Northrop Grumman — one of many contractors profiting from government growth — is moving its operations from Southern California to Northern Virginia. Several other firms have moved here of late, too.

COMMENT:  Who owns this country anyway?  Didn't I once learn that the people owned the government?  When did that change?

More important, will the growing class of citizens dependent on the government want to change back?

July 19, 2010      Permalink

FOR THE OPTIMISTIC AT HEART – AT 7:51 A.M. ET:  There is some guarded discussion about the possibility that the GOP can take the Senate in November.  I think it's a stretch, but we report it.  The Senate, in my view, is more important than the House because the Senate confirms Supreme Court justices, and thus can influence their selection.  So far, Obama has given us two card-carrying liberals.  The libs need one more vote on the Court to start a legal revolution...in the wrong direction.  From Fox:

WASHINGTON—Democrats for the first time are acknowledging that Republicans could retake the Senate this November if everything falls into place for the GOP, less than two years after Democrats held a daunting 60-seat majority.

Leaders of both parties have believed for months that Republicans could win the House, where every lawmaker faces re-election. But a change of party control in the Senate, where only a third of the members are running and Republicans must capture 10 seats, seemed out of the question.

That's no longer the case. The emergence of competitive Republican candidates in Wisconsin, Washington and California—Democratic-leaning states where polls now show tight races—bring the number of seats that Republicans could seize from the Democrats to 11.

Democrats now control the Senate 59-41—after the death of Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, who was replaced by Republican Sen. Scott Brown—including two independents who usually vote with them. That means Republicans need 10 seats to take a 51-49 advantage.

COMMENT:  We really have to be careful about this.  Yes, some new possibilities for Republicans have opened up, but some earlier possibilities may be closing.  Sharron Angle, the borderline nutty candidate the GOP nominated for the Senate in Nevada, is now behind Harry Reid, who was considered dead meat just months ago.  Marco Rubio is having a tough time against newly independent Governor Charlie Crist in Florida.  And Rand Paul, no favorite of mine, is starting to slide in Kentucky, a state that should be a sure thing for sane Republican candidates...which is where the problem lies. 

I still don't see the fight in Republicans that I'd like to see, and I certainly don't see an alternative platform that they can claim as their own.  The election is three and a half months away.  The Dems are turning up the heat, and the hate, and they can be effective.

Be optimistic, but let's back that optimism by real action and solid candidates.  I'm not interested in being "close" on election day.  "Close" is for people who retire and write their memoirs.

July 19, 2010      Permalink

TO THE WOODSHED, JOE – AT 7:33 A.M. ET:  Just as the Dems turn their attention to rallying their 2008 base, which includes a sizable contingent of "anti-war" types (anti any war America has a chance of winning), Joe Biden inadvertently speaks some truths that can drive them into not voting:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. is taking a more cautious approach when it comes to next summer's planned military U.S. troop drawdown in Afghanistan.

He once predicted the drawdown next July would mean "a lot of people moving out," but he told ABC's "This Week" on Sunday that the number of U.S. troops leaving Afghanistan "could be as few as a couple of thousand troops."

President Obama ordered 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan last December, bringing the U.S. total to about 100,000.

Mr. Biden said it's too early to judge whether the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan will succeed, but he said there is progress.

A record 103 NATO troops were killed in June, the deadliest month of the nearly 9-year-old war for international forces.

COMMENT:  As Michael Barone has pointed out, the Dem base once thought of Afghanistan as possibly a good war, only because it viewed Iraq as bad, and therefore had to show a contrast with George W. Bush's priorities.   But the "goodness" has slowly faded, and the Dem left is back to its traditional role of opposing any U.S. war.

Afghanistan is going to be an enormous problem for the Obamans.  Obama can hardly deny what Gen. Petraeus says is needed for victory, but that may mean staying long after next summer's target for withdrawal. 

And if Obama succumbs to pressure from the base, the war can be lost, and he can be tagged as the man who lost it, unless he tries once again to blame BUSH (!!).  If he tries to blame Petraeus, he can wind up facing Petraeus in the 2012 election.

It looked so easy in 2008, ay Barack?

July 19,  2010     Permalink

SUNDAY,  JULY 18,  2010

IN JUST A FEW WORDS – AT 6:02 P.M. ET:  I'm not comparing Sarah Palin to Lincoln, but I'm reminded of the comment of Edward Everett, the great orator, who'd spoken for two hours at the dedication of the Gettysburg military cemetery.  After then hearing Lincon's comments, now known as the Gettsyburg Address, Everett sent a note to Lincoln saying that the president had gotten closer to the spirit of the occasion in a few words than he, Everettt, had in two hours.

There's a great debate over whether a Muslim group with a controversial history should be permitted to build a mosque at Ground Zero in New York, the site of the 9-11 attacks.  The debate has raged with speeches, columns, and petitions. 

But now Sarah Palin, in just a few words on her Facebook page, has come closer to the issue than all the debaters put together:

"Peace-seeking Muslims, pls understand, Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts. Pls reject it in interest of healing." 

No one has said it better.  At her best, this woman has a touch that no one else has.  The idea is to keep her at her best.

July 18, 2010      Permalink

I'M SHOCKED, SHOCKED, THAT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WOULD PROPOSE NEW TAXES – AT 5:36 P.M. ET:  What strikes me is the utter relentlessness of this administration.  We are in desperate economic trouble, and still the ideology keeps flowing.  From Fox:

The Obama administration has a plan to expand online innovation and boost national public safety. And it wants to do it with more taxes and higher fees.

The massive national broadband plan the Federal Communications Commission released last month proposes creating a national framework for the taxation of digital goods and services and imposing a fee to establish and maintain a national public safety wireless broadband network.

The FCC says the national tax would eliminate the headaches that come with varying state and local taxes on digital goods and services. And the public safety network would help avoid the communication failures among first responders to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

The opposition:

"Americans already suffering from a recession prolonged by Mr. Obama's policies are being asked to concur that raising – yes, raising – taxes on a nationwide basis will somehow 'reduce uncertainty and remove one barrier to online entrepreneurship and investment,'" Timothy Lee, vice president of legal and public affairs for the Center for Individual Freedom, wrote in an opinion article published in the Washington Times.

Lee said the FCC's agenda echoes Ronald Reagan's portrayal of government logic: "If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it."

And...

FCC spokesman Robert Kenny told FoxNews.com that the actual fee would be less than a dollar per month for broadband consumers.

Am I seeing ten dollars a month within five years?  Why would I think that?  Am I seeing massive government forms?  Am I seeing new regulations to make the internet, gosh darn, a better place for us ignorant types who need government help to show us how to be just like Cambridge, Mass.?

Did anyone vote for this?

July 18, 2010     Permalink

AND NOW FOR THE REAL WORLD – AT 10:48 A.M. ET:  We are starkly reminded that the fight against terrorism goes on, and that our work in Iraq, though remarkably successful, goes on:

BAGHDAD (AP) -- Twin suicide bombings killed 48 people on Sunday, including dozens from a government-backed, anti-al-Qaeda militia lining up to collect their paychecks near a military base southwest of Baghdad, Iraqi officials said.

The bombings were the deadliest in a series of attacks across Iraq on Sunday that were aimed at the Sons of Iraq, Sunni groups also known as Awakening Councils that work with government forces to fight al Qaeda in Iraq.

The attacks highlighted the stiff challenges the country faces as the United States scales back its forces in Iraq, leaving their Iraqi counterparts in charge of security.

The first attack Sunday morning -- the worst against Iraq's security forces in months -- killed at least 45 people and wounded more than 40. It occurred at a checkpoint near a military base where the Awakening Council members had lined up to collect their paychecks in the mostly Sunni district of Radwaniya, southwest of the capital.

COMMENT:  It's noteworthy that those killed included fighters who were battling al Qaeda.  Gee, I thought al Qaeda was finished, or minimized, or just a few guys in a cave. 

We are in the process of leaving Iraq.  The key will be whether the democratically elected government there will survive, or whether the country will give in to the rise of another dictator. 

As we ramp up our military efforts in Afghanistan, it's entirely logical for al Qaeda and its franchises to step up attacks in Iraq, believing there may be a military vacuum there.  One of Obama's blunders is to give these timelines about when we're leaving places, providing the enemy with a road map of our intentions.  In fairness, the Bush administration initiated the timeline in Iraq.   Publicly declared timelines are always bad, and provide information to adversaries that we should never be furnishing.

July 18, 2010       Permalink

FIGHTING THE PC MENACE – AT 10:17 A.M. ET:  I hope readers have been following the case of a University of Illinois adjunct professor of religion who has been fired because his comments in class upset some students.

Apparently, the professor's sin was to agree with Catholic doctrine in a course on...Catholicism.  Whoever thought you can agree with a major Western religion?  Silly people.

Now, though, the forces of rationality are striking back.  From Fox:

Faculty and students are rallying behind a University of Illinois professor whom they say was fired simply because of his religious beliefs.

Dr. Kenneth Howell, an adjunct professor who taught courses on Catholicism, was told recently that he could no longer teach in the university's Department of Religion. A student at the university accused Howell of engaging in hate speech when he stated in a class review session that he agreed with the Church's teaching that homosexual sex is immoral.

But Howell refused to leave without a fight, and now he has over 3,100 supporters fighting with him -- via a Facebook group called “Save Dr. Ken.”

“It’s turning into a whole movement for freedom of speech in the classroom,” said senior Tim Fox, a member of the group and former resident at the university’s Catholic student Newman Center.

The “Save Dr. Ken” Facebook group includes alumni, current students and outside supporters who are familiar with Howell through his books or his appearances on EWTN, a Catholic television network. Howell is actively involved in the group and has written personal responses to some of his Facebook supporters.

Whether you agree or disagree with Dr. Howell's views, firing him for stating that he agrees with his Church is pretty outrageous.  Oh, by the way, the University of Illinois is also the employer of Bill Ayers, former and unrepentant terrorist, and mentor to Barack Obama, who doesn't seem to remember him.  There are no moves to fire Ayers. 

After years of intimidation, maybe the adults are striking back at the way universities in this country are run these days.

A student questioned the university's apparent double standard:

"Professor Howell didn’t mean to insult homosexuals; he was just stating the Catholic position,” said Mike Hamoy, a senior chemistry major who took Howell’s class in fall 2009. “I’ve had multiple professors who have mocked how much Catholic families reproduce or who have implied to the class that God is a joke. Why aren’t these professors fired for their open insults?” 

Excellent question.  You may be sure the university won't answer it.

July 18, 2010      Permalink

THE RACIAL DIVIDE – AT 10:04 A.M. ET:  The NAACP did not help racial matters this week when it branded the tea partiers as "racist," an absurd charge.  But the sad fact is that there's now a pronounced racial divide  in the way Americans perceive President Obama.  From Scott Rasmussen:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 27% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-three percent (43%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -16 (see trends).

The president earns an Approval Index rating of -28 among men and -6 among women.

Eighty-five percent (85%) of African-American voters Strongly Approve of Obama’s performance while 52% of White voters Strongly Disapprove.

COMMENT:  This is what every person of good will wanted to avoid when Obama was elected in 2008.  He was supposed to be our first "post-racial" president, but decisions by, especially, Attorney General Eric Holder, have increased rather than decreased racial suspicions. 

Obviously, there will always be some white racists.  But, in doing things like refusing to prosecute the New Black Panther voting intimidation case, and going after the state of Arizona, the administration bears some real responsibility for the increasing racial divide.

July 18, 2010     Permalink