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.

TO OUR READERS:  Please click on Urgent Agenda several times during the day.  We hope, in 2011, depending on the news, to put up at least one post during the afternoon hours, so there'll always be something new to read.  So visit us regularly.

JANUARY 19,  2011

THE HOUSE ACTS – AT 8:09 P.M. ET:  The House voted to repeal Obamacare today.  But Harry Reid has already said he won't permit the matter to come to the floor in the Senate.  So, the vote is symbolic:

House Republicans passed a bill to repeal President Barack Obama’s health care plan Wednesday, taking their first major step toward rolling back the massive overhaul that has dominated the American political landscape for almost two years.

The vote was 245 to 189, and unanimous GOP support gave the vote the same partisan feel of the March vote to pass the law, underscoring once again the hardened political lines of the health care debate. Only three Democrats backed the repeal, a smaller number than Republicans had once predicted.

COMMENT:  The Democratic number is disappointing, but remember that most of the Dems who would have voted with the GOP on this one were defeated in November, leaving the Democratic House delegation even more liberal than it already is.  I wouldn't be shocked if the Dems voted to extend Obamacare protection to Karl Marx.

January 19, 2011      Permalink

THE SOCIALIST IS RIGHT! – AT 6:31 P.M. ET:  Now, how often have you read that here?  I choke on the words.  I choke and gasp.  But (teeth grinding) socialist Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont got something right today, and credit must be given, with reluctance.  From ABC News:

ABC News’ Matthew Jaffe reports: With Chinese President Hu Jintao in Washington this week for a state visit, one US senator is raising an uproar over the Smithsonian Museum selling products made in China, such as miniature sculptures of presidents.

The gift shop at the National Museum of American History – located right on the Mall in the nation’s capital – sells various miniature statues of presidents past and present, from George Washington to Barack Obama, that were manufactured in China.

“It appears that a museum owned by the people of the United States, celebrating the history of the United States, cannot find companies in this country employing American workers that are able to manufacture statues of our founding fathers, or our current president,” Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont who caucuses with Democrats, said in a letter to the museum.

“That is pretty pathetic!” he exclaimed. “I was not aware that the collapse of our manufacturing base had gone that far.”

“As a nation,” he said, “we have all got to be aware that one of the major reasons that the unemployment rate in this country is so high is because it is increasingly difficult to find products in our nation’s stores that are manufactured in this country. Our national museum should do its best to be a model in helping us address that crisis situation.”

Sanders posted pictures of the statues on his website at http://sanders.senate.gov/statues.html.

COMMENT:   A Chinese Lincoln doesn't appeal to me either.  If Abe only knew.  

We've got to put America back to work.  If we can make B-29's, we can make those statues, dammit.  But I hope they leave out Carter. 

January 19, 2011      Permalink

BUT WE MUST ASK NO QUESTIONS – AT 6:16 P.M. ET:  Have you noticed that those who thoughtfully question the "science" of climate change are called anti-science, whereas those who blindly accept the climate-change line are called pro-science?  We're glad the skeptics are keeping up the fight, despite the smears.  Consider:

WASHINGTON (AFP) – A climate change study that projected a 2.4 degree Celsius increase in temperature and massive worldwide food shortages in the next decade was seriously flawed, scientists said Wednesday.
The study was posted on the website of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and was written about by numerous international news agencies, including AFP.

But AAAS later retracted the study as experts cited numerous errors in its approach.

"A reporter with The Guardian alerted us yesterday to concerns about the news release submitted by Hoffman & Hoffman public relations," said AAAS spokeswoman Ginger Pinholster in an email to AFP.

"We immediately contacted a climate change expert, who confirmed that the information raised many questions in his mind, too. We swiftly removed the news release from our Web site and contacted the submitting organization."

Scientist Osvaldo Canziani, who was part of the 2007 Nobel Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was listed as the scientific advisor to the report.

The IPCC, whose figures were cited as the basis for the study's projections, and Al Gore jointly won the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2007 "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change," the prize committee said at the time.

Ah yes, the Nobel Peace Prize.  Yasir Arafat, Jimmah Carter, Al Gore...  What an embarrassment.

Canziani's spokesman said Tuesday he was ill and was unavailable for interviews.

Probably got a bad cold from the sub-freezing temperatures.  Oh, they're caused by global warming.

COMMENT:  Dwight Eisenhower, in his farewell address delivered 50 years ago this week, warned of the influence of governmental grants on science.  He also warned about scientific elites with undue power.  We still have to worry about both.  It's time for first-class scientists with impeccable reputations to step forward and demand a Challenger-like investigation into the whole area of climate change, determining what is known and what is not. It's remarkable that this has not been done, but, alas, there's a lot of money involved in the climate-change industry.

January 19, 2011     Permalink

TODAY'S THE DAY – AT 9:26 A.M. ET:  Republicans in the House today will begin their control of that body in earnest by voting to repeal Obamacare.  It is only a symbolic vote, as Fox News reports, but it begins the long crusade to reform that pathetically flawed piece of legislation:

WASHINGTON -- The new Republican-controlled House of Representatives is certain to vote Wednesday to repeal President Barack Obama's health care reform. The Democratic-controlled Senate is just as certain to let the measure die.

Republicans and Democrats adopted a more civil tone without angry shouts as they debated the repeal legislation on the House floor Tuesday just 10 days after the shooting rampage in Arizona that left a Democratic congresswoman wounded and lawmakers of both parties stunned.

COMMENT:  Republicans must proceed with extreme caution here.  Americans don't like Obamacare, but they do want reform of the health-care system.  Republicans must come up with alternatives to replace unpopular provisions of the current law, while keeping the parts that are popular, like preventing people with preexisting conditions from being turned down for health insurance.  Republicans will not win public favor, and reelection in 2012, if they simply oppose. 

January 19, 2011      Permalink 

INDIGESTION AT THE WHITE HOUSE – AT 8:42 A.M. ET:  And it isn't coming from the state dinner for the visiting head of China.  It's coming from a hard-hitting piece by the great Fouad Ajami in today's Wall Street Journal, linking Hillary Clinton to the policies of...George W. Bush, and dissing President Obama at the same time: 

"In too many places, in too many ways, the region's foundations are sinking into the sand," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned Arab autocrats in a remarkable speech in Qatar last week.

The Arab landscape all around her provided ample confirmation. In Tunisia, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, a despot who has been in power for nearly a quarter-century, was reeling. His people had conquered their fear and had taken to the streets. In Cairo, the Pharoah the Pax Americana has indulged through five American presidencies appeared to be losing his touch, his once-tolerant country engulfed by sectarian troubles between Muslims and Copts. Lebanon, which had once been a showcase of American success in the region, was once again in the throes of a political crisis.

But there was a truth that our secretary of state glided over. Sinking into the sand, too, is the worldview that informed President Obama's approach to the Middle East.

Ouch.  Major ouch. 

...the word went forth to the despots in the region that the American campaign on behalf of liberty that Mr. Bush had launched in 2003 had been called off. A new Iraqi democracy, midwifed by American power, was fighting for its life. The Obama administration would keep Iraq at arm's length.

This break of faith with democracy was put on cruel display in the summer of 2009, when the Iranians rose in revolt against their rulers. True, American diplomacy was not likely to alter the raw balance of power between the regime and its democratic oppositionists. But the timidity of American power, and the refusal of the Obama administration to embrace the cause of the opposition, must be reckoned one of American foreign policy's great moral embarrassments.

And...

It took the embattled Muslim liberals a while to catch on to the moral indifference of the Obama administration. But catch on they did, and in their unequal struggle with the tyrannies in their midst they have operated on the reasonable assumption that the leading liberal power in the world order had no interest in the promotion of their liberty.

But...

For a fleeting moment in Qatar, George W. Bush seemed to make a furtive return to the diplomatic arena. He was there, reincarnated in the person of Hillary Clinton, bearing that quintessential American message that our country cannot be indifferent to the internal arrangements of foreign lands. The Arab world presents a great strategic and moral challenge. These are states with a broken compact between rulers and ruled. The rulers produce the very terror and rage they propose to hold back. The oppositionists, meanwhile, are a great, troubling unknown.

COMMENT:  Fouad Ajami is a national treasure, a professor at Johns Hopkins who refuses to bend to the trendy thinking of the moment.  His whole column, one of the most important pieces of recent months, is worth reading.

The question, of course, is whether Hillary's speech in Qatar marks a change of policy, or was merely a case of her speaking out of turn.  We're being told this week that Mr. Obama will be taking a tougher line with China, during that country's leader's current visit, than he's taken before.  We'll see, and we'll see how long it lasts.

Obama is gearing up for the 2012 election, and his previous appeasement policies will not help him with the great American center.  Further, the far left in his party, which adores appeasement, really has nowhere else to go.

But if Obama is reelected, and no longer needs the voters...then what in foreign policy?  Do you feel a chill?

January 19, 2011     Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 8:30 A.M. ET:

From the Toronto Sun:  Funnyman Seth Rogen was left stunned by a recent encounter with his moviemaking hero George Lucas - because the Star Wars director spent 20 minutes telling him the world would end in 2012...He recalls, “George Lucas sits down and seriously proceeds to talk for around 25 minutes about how he thinks the world is gonna end in the year 2012, like, for real. He thinks it."

Hollywood is taking careful notice, realizing what the end of the world would do to the "Star Wars" franchise.

January 19, 2011      Permalink

HERO BILL? – AT 8:14 A.M. ET:  When the term "political courage" is used, the name Bill Clinton doesn't usually come to mind.  But the former prez is showing some real guts this week by campaigning for his former aide, Rahm Emanuel, who's running for mayor of Chicago:

Washington (CNN) - Former President Bill Clinton came to Chicago on Tuesday to give a strong endorsement to his one-time aide Rahm Emanuel, who is the frontrunner in a heated primary race to determine who will be the next mayor.

"You need a big person for the job. Now Rahm is not even six feet tall. He probably weighs about 150 pounds...but in all the ways that matters he is a very big person for this job," Clinton told a crowd of several hundred.

Clinton's campaigning took courage because the black establishment in Chicago, which is stuck in the 1960s, resented the former president's endorsement of a white candidate.

"Bill Clinton doesn't live or vote in Chicago. He's an outsider parachuting in to support another outsider. For Clinton to come to Chicago on the day after Dr. King's birthday to insert himself into the middle of a mayoral race with major black and Latino candidates is a betrayal of the people who were most loyal to him. It's a mistake," Renee Ferguson, a spokeswoman for Carol Moseley-Braun, told CNN.

Absolutely disgraceful.  I think Dr. King would have been appalled by a statement like that, using his name.  As for Rahm Emanuel being an "outsider," he is a former congressman from...Chicago.

Good on you, Bill Clinton.  And we don't say that here too often.

January 19, 2011      Permalink

CORRECTION AND UPDATE – AT 8:00 A.M. ET:  Yesterday we reported on legal questions regarding Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and her seat in Congress.

It turned out that the article we quoted contained an error.  We said that, under Arizona law, Congresswoman Giffords's seat in the House can be declared vacant if she cannot perform her duties for 90 days.  A subsequent article pointed out that this only applies to state and local officeholders.  Only the House of Representatives can declare a seat vacant...and that ain't gonna happen in the Giffords case. 

UPDATE:  Regarding the shooting yesterday at a Los Angeles high school, there seems to be some tentative acceptance by authorities that it was, somehow, an accident, although I still hope that claim is challenged and investigated.  What wasn't an accident was the student's bringing a pistol to school.  Apparently, screening of packages and backpacks at the school is haphazard.  The gun will probably be blamed.  It's a complicated story, as the L.A. Times notes:

Friends of the suspect said he was not known as a violent boy, but had brought the gun to school for his own protection.

"I think he was just scared," classmate Para Ross said, "Scared of what was going to happen when he left school and took the bus home. There are a lot of gangs around here. People are dying."

What a tragedy.  But race is involved, so authorities are treading carefully.  As I said, the gun will probably be blamed.

One of the wounded students was shot in the head and is critical.  The other student's wound, a neck wound, is not considered life-threatening.

January 19, 2011     Permalink

JANUARY 18,  2011

A GOOD GUY LEAVES – AT 7:14 P.M. ET:  From The New York Times:

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman will announce on Wednesday that he will not seek a fifth term, according to a person he told of his decision.

Mr. Lieberman, whose term is up in 2012, chose to retire rather than risk being defeated, said the person, who spoke to the senator on Tuesday.

“I don’t think he wanted to go out feet first,” the person said.

A longtime Democrat who lost a bitter primary battle to Ned Lamont in 2006, Mr. Lieberman won re-election as an independent that year, largely benefiting from a weak showing by the Republican candidate, who received less than 10 percent of the vote.

But Linda McMahon, the wealthy pro-wrestling tycoon who spent $50 million on an unsuccessful Senate race last year, has already signaled she may run again in 2012.

COMMENT:  Senator Lieberman is part of a dying breed, the national-defense liberal.  He was severely punished by his party, which had nominated him for vice president in 2000, for his strong pro-defense views, and his understanding that politics stops at the water's edge.

I'm sure the hard-left liberals will now rejoice.  They won't thank Joe Lieberman for the support he has given some of their causes over the years.  These people never thank anyone.  They have no idea what graciousness is.  But they know how to hate, and they sure practiced what they knew on Joe Lieberman.

Lieberman's decision to address the Republican National Convention last year probably doomed any chance he had for reconciliation with his own party.  But, like many things Joe has done in life, it was a decision of conscience.

The Senate will miss Joe Lieberman, just as it missed Barry Goldwater.  There are some public servants who are valuable just because you know they'll tell you what they actually believe.

January 18, 2011       Permalink

OBAMA UP IN RASMUSSEN POLL – AT 5:36 P.M. ET:  All data reported in today's Rasmussen presidential survey was acquired in polling done after the president's Tucson speech, and it appears that Mr. Obama has indeed gotten a bump:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 27% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Thirty-seven percent (37%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -10.

And...

Overall, 48% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. Fifty-one percent (51%) disapprove.

That's the president's best showing since the exact same numbers were reported on December 27th.  There's no guarantee, of course, that this halo will last, and please note that the numbers are still in negative territory.  They're just a little less negative than usual.

At the same time, Republicans lead in the generic congressional ballot, although the lead has narrowed:

New Rasmussen Reports telephone polling finds that 46% of Likely U.S. Voters nationwide say they would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate, while 38% would choose the Democrat instead.

Last week, Republicans posted a 47% to 36% lead over Democrats. The week before Election Day last November, support for Republicans peaked at 51%, the highest level of support either party has enjoyed in the last two years, but it has tapered off slightly since then.

And...

Republicans lead by 16 points among men but run even with Democrats among women. The GOP holds a 22-point lead among voters not affiliated with either major political party.

The Democratic collapse among independents is stunning.  If Republicans can hold the indies, there may be reason for optimism for 2012, if the GOP can find a candidate who is breathing, and has a normal pulse.

January 18, 2011       Permalink

A TALE OF TWO SHOOTINGS – There was another shooting today, this one at Gardena High School in California, which is part of the Los Angeles school district. 

The facts are confused.  We know that an African-American male student had a gun in a backpack and that two students have been wounded, one in the head.

A school spokesman says the shooting was accidental.  In this scenario, the kid with the gun dropped his backpack and the pistol inside went off, with the bullet striking the two students.  A second report has it that the sweet, innocent child pulled the gun from the backpack and that it went off, striking those two students.

Fox News is, from what I can see, the only news source reporting that the police are highly skeptical of the "accident" accounts.  Yeah, I'd imagine. 

There is no discussion about an "atmosphere" of violence, about heated rhetoric, or much of anything else.  The story is being downplayed.

However, I find the "accident" thing a bit hard to take.  I'm speculating now, but dropping a soft backpack shouldn't be enough to make a gun go off.  As far as the "he pulled it from the backpack and it went off" story, that's equally hard to accept.  The gun was obviously pointed at someone's head, since that's where the bullet went. 

The issue is whether any of the witnesses to the shooting would be willing to tell the truth.  There is a heavy penalty for "snitchin'" in some communities.

We'll follow it, but skepticism is the order of the day.

January 18, 2011      Permalink

BAD TASTE AWARD FOR THE DAY – AT 9:53 A.M. ET:  Maybe it's time for the former governor of California to avail himself of the Constitutional right to shut up.  Ahnold, take a vacation. 

LOS ANGELES (CBS) —Arnold Schwarzenegger is pulling no punches in his first formal interview since leaving office, claiming that the highest office in the state left him “addicted” to its power.

An Austrian addicted to power is not a good thing.  Been there, done that.

In a recent sit-down the former governor granted to the Austrian newspaper Krone, Schwarzenegger estimates that his seven years as governor cost him about $200 million – $70 million of that in lost movie roles.  Schwarzenegger also laments the fact that Hollywood salaries have dropped since he left the business.

My heart breaks.  I weep. 

He said his abysmal popularity rankings were “just a snapshot” and that “they would have rocketed to the top” had he not been forced out of office by term limits.

Today low numbers, tomorrow the world.  Isn't that the way it went?

Nowhere in the transcripts from the interview posted on the newspaper’s website did Schwarzenegger face any questions about alleged favoritism in his decision to grant clemency to the son of former Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez.

Bad move, and will hurt him if he tries to return to politics.  Is there a bodybuilding commissioner?

January 18, 2011      Permalink

A LEGAL POINT  – AT 9:25 A.M. ET:  A delicate point has been raised about Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who is, thankfully, recovering from her gunshot wound at an Arizona hospital:  What happens if se cannot quickly resume her duties?  Can she remain in Congress?

CNN has done a well-reported story on the subject, and it's here.  It seems that, under Arizona law, if a public official cannot perform his or her duties for three months, the seat can be declared vacant.  In that case, a special election would be called.

Would this happen in the case of Congresswoman Giffords?  Well, let's put it this way:  Anyone who tried to invoke that statute would become the most unpopular politician in America within minutes.  So I don't think it will happen unless the congresswoman takes a dramatic turn for the worse, and we pray that doesn't happen. 

I would imagine that Gabby Giffords will be given far more than three months to demonstrate that she can get back to work, if only in a limited way.  If she cannot return to her position, I think she has the dignity to withdraw.  But I want to see her back on the House floor.

January 18, 2011       Permalink

VULGAR, JUST VULGAR – AT 8:44 A.M. ET:  Didn't President Obama ask us to tone down the rhetoric?  I think I heard that in the Tucson speech.  Apparently, the word didn't travel to his chief groupie at the Washington Post, Eugene Robinson. 

In an outlandish column, Robinson lashes out irrationally, and with meanness, at Sarah Palin, who has been smeared in the last week in a manner that makes Joe McCarthy look like an amateur. 

To give just a sample of the bizarre craziness in Robinson's attack, consider this:

The way Palin portrayed herself as not only a popular champion but also a martyr reminded me - not for the first time - of Eva Peron. If she chooses this unpromising route to higher political office, I suggest she find a suitable balcony from which to deliver her next address to the nation.

Or perhaps - solely in the interest of civil discourse - that there be no next address.

COMMENT:  Sweet of you, Eugene - comparing an elected American governor to the wife of a Latin American fascist.  Wonder how much you know about the Perons?

And that last line is chilling.  Sarah Palin gives strong speeches, to be sure, but they're mild compared to some of the wild rhetoric of the left, such as calling President Bush a Nazi, and members of the Tea Party racists.  It is appalling that a journalist would ask that someone leave public life simply because he doesn't like her remarks. 

Eugene Robinson is a Pulitzer-Prize winner.  Jimmah Carter is a Nobel-Peace-Prize winner.  Those prizes have been debased.

January 18, 2011      Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 8:27 A.M. ET:  From Jory Goodman, M.D., distinguished psychiatrist and a regular contributor to our Angel's Corner.  Writing after the Arizona tragedy in the Psychology Today blog, Dr. Goodman reminds us of the history of those who commit massacres.  It is a pleasure to quote someone who actually does the research and knows the material:

Indeed, there is a very obvious pattern seen in the life histories, behavioral patterns, psychopathology and violent acts of the perpetrators of most of the massacres of the past decades. They all had histories. They were all known to the police, the schools, and even to the mental health systems but they were not contained, committed, incarcerated, treated or anything else useful safe and productive. They were ignored in the hope that they would just go away. 

That is correct.  It's much easier to blame the guns or political rhetoric.  And Dr. Goodman reminds us of something else:

Please don't be foolish and suggest that episodes of mass violence are more common in the United States than elsewhere because of firearms. They do occur everywhere. But, if you care to examine closely the laws, civil rights, and mental health regulations in the “enlightened European social democracies” you will see that they are dramatically different than ours. Do the homework. I don't want to take up more space with long dissertations about this. In Scandinavian countries serious sex offenders (who by definition are not truly treatable) are surgically or chemically castrated. There aren't a lot of repeat offenders. But these cultures are idealized by the left as some sort of utopian nirvanas. [Do not say I advocate this, it's simply an example.]

COMMENT:  Our national discussions are often unburdened by facts.  Please read Dr. Goodman's column, and you might also want to examine a column, "Crazy People with Guns," that he wrote on his own blog in 2009.  Again, filled with substance.  It's here.

January 18, 2011       Permalink

WHILE WE SLEEP – AT 8:11 A.M. ET:  Obama operatives, especially in the EPA, are busy drawing up new regulations they can impose themselves, without an act of Congress.  After the administration took a beating in the 2010 elections, it was widely predicted that it would try to rule by administrative fiat, since it could no longer get major legislation through the House.  The prediction has come true.  From Fox:

A move by the Environmental Protection Agency to revoke the long-standing permits for a mammoth coal mine in West Virginia sends a strong signal that President Obama plans to implement key parts of his agenda even though newly empowered Republicans can block his plans in Congress.

In the aftermath of the November elections, many political pundits predicted that the once-unchecked Obama legislative machine would turn its energies to federal rulemaking as a way to circumvent Republicans on Capitol Hill. And the EPA’s decision last week suggests that those forecasts were spot-on.

Much to the consternation of the West Virginia delegation in Congress, the coal industry, and the working people of the Mountain State, the agency took the unprecedented step of revoking a mining permit that it had issued four years ago to Arch Coal’s Spruce No. 1 Mine in Logan County, West Virginia.

The revocation prompted unusually harsh responses from West Virginia's two Democratic Senators.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller sent the president a letter which read, in part: "I am writing to express my outrage with the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) decision to veto a rigorously reviewed and lawfully issued permit at the Spruce Number 1 Mine in Logan County, West Virginia. This action not only affects this specific permit, but needlessly throws other permits into a sea of uncertainty at a time of great economic distress."

Sen. Joe Manchin issued a statement which appeared to mock the EPA's permitting process.

"According to the EPA, it doesn't matter if you did everything right, if you followed all of the rules,” Manchin wrote. “Why? They just change the rules."

COMMENT:  When two members of the president's own party harshly criticize the administration, it is news.  The president seems determined to carry out his 2008 agenda, regardless of the public will or damage to a fragile economy.  And the EPA action doesn't begin to exhaust (oh, maybe that's a bad word) the agency's potential for forcing changes that will drive people out of work.

We all want clean air, water, and soil.  But there's a right way and a wrong way, and administrative fiat is the wrong way.  Maybe the president can give a shout out to all those who'll be thrown out of work.

January 18, 2011     Permalink