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.

JANUARY 4,  2014

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 9:01 P.M. ET: 

A BILL FOR OUR KIDS – From CNS:  "Uncle Sam—AKA the federal government—went on a New Year’s Eve binge, adding a net of $125,202,709,546.99 to its total debt in just the one day of Dec. 31, 2013, according to the U.S. Treasury.  That equals approximately $1,088.60 for each of the 115,013,000 households the Census Bureau currently estimates there are in the United States."  Disgraceful.

PATHETIC – From AP:  "GLEN RIDGE, N.J – Some schools want to end their traditional role as polling places because of security concerns since the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, leaving their communities without easy alternatives for voting sites.  A presidential commission has been hearing from election officials across the country worried about schools trying to move balloting out of their buildings. Among them is the Glen Ridge School District, a prosperous community less than 20 miles from Manhattan where the Linden Avenue and Forest Avenue Elementary Schools are now closed to balloting."  What a great lesson for children.  No voting here because we can't protect the school.  If Glen Ridge is "properous," how about hiring some trained, armed guards to secure the school on voting days.  But that may violate the precious ideologies of the community leaders.

FASCINATING – From London's Daily Mail:  "Contact lenses that allow the wearer to see high-definition virtual screens are to be unveiled in Las Vegas next week.  Dubbed iOptik, the system allows the users to see projected digital information, such as driving directions and video calls.  The tiny 'screens', which are the invention of Washington-based group Innovega, sit directly on a users' eyeballs and work with a pair of lightweight glasses."  I'm not so sure I want an Obama speech that close to me.  We'll take a look and see what this is. 

January 4, 2014      Permalink

A PAINFUL VOTE – AT 11:53 A.M. ET:  One of the most important union votes in recent history has just taken place in the state of Washington.  Members of the machinists union, defying their local leadership, voted to accept a contract that will reduce their benefits, but presumably guarantee that a Boeing assembly line will be kept open.  From Fox:

SEATTLE – Boeing machinists approved a contract Friday that would concede some pension and health care benefits in order to secure assembly of the company's new 777X airplane for the Puget Sound region, solidifying the aerospace giant's presence in the Seattle area for many years to come.

The offer fractured the union and drew unusual pleas from politicians who said the deal was necessary to support the area's economic future. Boeing has been exploring the prospect of building the 777X elsewhere, a move that could trigger a steady exodus of aerospace jobs from the place where Boeing was founded.

Local union officials, meanwhile, urged their 30,000 members to oppose the deal, arguing that the proposal surrenders too much at a time of company profitability. They had opposed taking a vote at all but were overruled by national leaders in the Machinists union.

Tina Shrader, a Boeing worker for eight years, said she was voting no.

"I don't want to mess with my pension. I'm here for my paycheck and for my pension," Shrader said.

Bob Dennis, an inspector at Boeing for six years, said he was voting for the contract because it represented the best chance to keep the 777X jobs in Washington state.

COMMENT:  As readers of Urgent Agenda know, I'm a union member.  It may only be the Writers Guild, but it's an AFL/CIO union.  Ronald Reagan was not only a union member, he was a union president.  I am pro-union, as long as that union delivers, in an honest way, for its members. 

The vote was correct.  The most important goal is to keep Boeing in the area, then work on building the company so profits can be used to provide better lives for union members.  I understand the pain of the vote.  Givebacks are always painful, especially when measured against the outrageous, sometimes obscene salaries paid to "executives," many of whom fail to deliver. 

So let's give a hand to the machinists who voted to make sacrifices to achieve a larger objective.  And let's remember that they build our planes, military and civilian, and are as important a part of the company as the shareholders and executives.

January 4, 2014       Permalink

FIGHTING BACK – AT 10:32 A.M. ET:  The New York Times, now going hard left, created an uproar this week with an editorial advocating clemency for turncoat Edward Snowden.   The Times got support from the usual suspects, but others are fighting back.  That includes former secretary of homeland security, Janet Napolitano, now head of the University of California system.  At least she has some common sense.  From The Hill:

Former Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Friday that she “would not put clemency on the table” for NSA leaker Edward Snowden.

“I think Snowden has exacted quite a bit of damage and did it in a way that violated the law,” Napolitano said in an interview airing on "Meet the Press" this Sunday.

She said damage from Snowden’s actions will be seen for years to come.

Asked if the administration should consider a deal that would allow Snowden to avoid jail time in return for unreleased documents, Napolitano said she couldn't judge without knowing what information the former defense contractor still had.

“But from where I sit today, I would not put clemency on the table at all,” she said.

The New York Times and another former Obama administration official are among the voices calling for Snowden to be given a break.

On Thursday, Anne-Marie Slaughter, the former State Department director of policy planning, tweeted that she agreed with an editorial in the Times that argued Snowden was “clearly justified in believing that the only way to blow the whistle on this kind of intelligence-gathering was to expose it to the public and let the resulting furor do the work his superiors would not.”

“Considering the enormous value of the information he has revealed, and the abuses he has exposed, Mr. Snowden deserves better than a life of permanent exile, fear and flight,” the editorial says. “He may have committed a crime to do so, but he has done his country a great service.”

Last month, Richard Ledgett, who heads an National Security Agency task force handling unauthorized disclosures, suggested in a “60 Minutes” interview that the U.S. should consider a deal offering Snowden amnesty in exchange for returning additional documents outlining the government's top-secret surveillance programs.

“My personal view is, yes, it’s worth having a conversation about,” Ledgett said. “I would need assurances that the remainder of the data could be secured, and my bar for those assurances would be very high. It would be more than just an assertion on his part.”

But White House press secretary Jay Carney dismissed the suggestion, saying that the administration's position on Snowden's need to return home to face justice had not changed “at all.”

“Mr. Snowden has been accused of leaking classified information and he faces felony charges here in the United States,” Carney said.

COMMENT:  Here is one case (rare) where I side with the White House.  Snowden is no whistleblower.  Whistleblowers don't run to China, then Russia, and negotiate with Venezuela for asylum. 

Snowden has committed awful acts for which many might die.  The self-appointed intellectual classes don't care about things like that, any more than they care about victims of crime.  They care only about their posturing, their ideology, and their acceptable by other members of the club.

No deal for Snowden.  If he had any character, which he doesn't, he'd accept the consequences of his actions.

January 4, 2014       Permalink

WHAT A TRAGEDY – AT 10:01 A.M. ET:  President Obama's hasty, disorganized pullout from Iraq, without negotiating a continued American presence, has dishonored the American troops who fought so bravely here, and this is the proof, if any were needed.  From WaPo:

BEIRUT — A rejuvenated al-Qaeda-affiliated force asserted control over the western Iraqi city of Fallujah on Friday, raising its flag over government buildings and declaring an Islamic state in one of the most crucial areas that U.S. troops fought to pacify before withdrawing from Iraq two years ago.

The capture of Fallujah came amid an explosion of violence across the western desert province of Anbar in which local tribes, Iraqi security forces and al-Qaeda-affiliated militants have been fighting one another for days in a confusingly chaotic three-way war.

Elsewhere in the province, local tribal militias claimed they were gaining ground against the al-Qaeda militants who surged into urban areas from their desert strongholds this week after clashes erupted between local residents and the Iraqi security forces.

In Fallujah, where Marines fought the bloodiest battle of the Iraq war in 2004, the militants appeared to have the upper hand, underscoring the extent to which the Iraqi security forces have struggled to sustain the gains made by U.S. troops before they withdrew in December 2011.

The upheaval also affirmed the soaring capabilities of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the rebranded version of the al-Qaeda in Iraq organization that was formed a decade ago to confront U.S. troops and expanded into Syria last year while escalating its activities in Iraq. Roughly a third of the 4,486 U.S. troops killed in Iraq died in Anbar trying to defeat al-Qaeda in Iraq, nearly 100 of them in the November 2004 battle for control of Fallujah, the site of America’s bloodiest confrontation since the Vietnam War.

Events Friday suggested the fight may have been in vain.

COMMENT:  No, it was not in vain.  It was our current president who destroyed the gains.  Obama, the most left-wing member of the Senate when elected president in 2008, had always opposed our action in Iraq.  He did not end the Iraq war, as he grandly claims to his cheering worshipers, he simply pulled American troops out.  Today's tragedy is the result.  Obama's ego, not the American interest, consumed him.

January 4,  2014     Permalink

JANUARY 3,  2014

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 10:40 P.M. ET:

EGYPT ERUPTS AGAIN – BBC reports that 11 people have been killed in a new outbreak of fighting between Egyptian police and the Muslim Brotherhood.  Expect more of this.   The Egyptian military regards the Brotherhood as a subversive terror group, but is getting no support in this view from the Obama administration, which seemed not-at-all disturbed when a Brotherhood government led Egypt briefly.  Combined with the growing power of Assad in Syria and the increasing strength of Al Qaeda in Iraq, we're in a fine mess.

ANTARCTICA – It is reported that the vessel that came to rescue the global-warming worshippers in Antarctica from their ice-bound ship has itself become trapped by ice.  It is also reported that the actual rescues were carried out by carbon-fuels-burning helicopters, but that the saved warmers raised no objection.  Of course not.  When it's their lives involved, anything goes.  Green energy is for the peasants.

NO MORE FUN – From The Hill:  "According to a new study, 54 million self-driving cars will be sold in the U.S. by 2035.  USA Today reports that the study, which was conducted by IHS Automotive, finds that annual self-driving auto sales will jump from 230,000 in 2025 to 11.8 million per year in 2035.  The study predicts nearly all cars on the road in 2050 will be self-driving."  Where's the fun?  How do you take it for a test drive?  Who puts the pedal to the metal?  I say BORING.

TOUGH TALK FROM DETROIT'S POLICE CHIEF – From the Detroit News:  "Detroit— If more citizens were armed, criminals would think twice about attacking them, Detroit Police Chief James Craig said Thursday.  Urban police chiefs are typically in favor of gun control or reluctant to discuss the issue, but Craig on Thursday was candid about how he’s changed his mind.  'When we look at the good community members who have concealed weapons permits, the likelihood they’ll shoot is based on a lack of confidence in this Police Department,' Craig said at a press conference at police headquarters, adding that he thinks more Detroit citizens feel safer, thanks in part to a 7 percent drop in violent crime in 2013."  Whether you agree or disagree, it's refreshing to hear some straight talk from a police chief, who usually has to answer to an elected politician.

January 3, 2014       Permalink

LEGAL PUSHBACK ON OBAMACARE – AT 10:33 A.M. ET:  There are several legal pushbacks underway against Obamacare.  The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to exempt religious organizations from the contraception and abortion mandates, and the Obama administration, naturally, is asking that these groups be forced to go against their conscience.  This will be a fascinating fight.

At the same time, Republican attorneys-general are taking on the administration, in a new move.  From The Hill:

Eleven GOP attorneys general say the Obama administration is breaking the law by repeatedly making changes to ObamaCare without going through Congress.

The attorneys general specifically criticize President Obama's executive action that allowed insurance companies to keep offering health plans that had been canceled for not meeting ObamaCare's more rigorous standards.

“We support allowing citizens to keep their health insurance coverage, but the only way to fix this problem-ridden law is to enact changes lawfully: through Congressional action,” the attorneys general wrote in a letter to Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “The illegal actions by this administration must stop.”

They say the healthcare fix was “flatly illegal under federal constitutional and statutory law.”

HHS did not respond to a request for comment.

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey wrote the letter, which was signed by his counterparts in Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas and Virginia.

COMMENT:  I don't know, though, what legal recourse the states have.  How do you challenge a president who is exceeding the law?  I'll follow this.  I'm aware that many other legal challenges are being contemplated.  The key issue is what the Supreme Court is willing to do in response. 

January 3, 2014       Permalink

OH, MORE COMPETENCE – AT 9:59 A.M. ET:  And we have to read this in a London paper, the Daily Mail:

Hospital staff in Northern Virginia are turning away sick people on a frigid Thursday morning because they can't determine whether their Obamacare insurance plans are in effect.

Patients in a close-in DC suburb who think they've signed up for new insurance plans are struggling to show their December enrollments are in force, and health care administrators aren't taking their word for it.

In place of quick service and painless billing, these Virginians are now facing the threat of sticker-shock that comes with bills they can't afford.

'They had no idea if my insurance was active or not!' a coughing Maria Galvez told MailOnline outside the Inova Healthplex facility in the town of Springfield.

She was leaving the building without getting a needed chest x-ray.

'The people in there told me that since I didn't have an insurance card, I would be billed for the whole cost of the x-ray,' Galvez said, her young daughter in tow. 'It's not fair – you know, I signed up last week like I was supposed to.'

The x-ray's cost, she was told, would likely be more than $500.

And get this:

It's unlikely that a valid insurance card would have changed Galvez's fortunes, however.

Her Carefirst plan, identified on the Obamacare website as BlueChoice Plus Bronze, carries a $5,500 per-person deductible for 2014 – an amount she would have to pay out-of-pocket before her coverage would apply to medical expenses.

COMMENT:  We were warned weeks ago that the real test of Obamacare wouldn't occur when people tried to negotiate the website but when they actually tried to get medical care.

The crunch is here.  Take two aspirin and call the president in the morning.

January 3, 2014       Permalink

VERY BAD JOURNALISM– AT 9:31 A.M. ET:  One week after an extremely dubious "report" on Benghazi, which had the effect of exonerating Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, The New York Times does it again.

As if to show that it truly is a leftist, not a liberal, newspaper, The Times stunned the journalistic world with an editorial essentially describing Edward Snowden, the turncoat now living in Russia, as a hero and a whistleblower.  A sense of outrage is growing, since most people understand the damage Snowden has done, and understand that a whistleblower doesn't go to China, then Russia, all the while negotiating for asylum with Venezuela.  From The Politico:

Federal officials are ticked about a New York Times editorial published Thursday, not so much over its call for clemency or a plea deal for leaker Edward Snowden, but for accusing intelligence agencies of intentionally violating the law.

Drawing the particular ire of Obama administration officials is the Times's suggestion that Snowden should be off the hook because he revealed that the government set out to act illegally on a broad scale.

"When someone reveals that government officials have routinely and deliberately broken the law, that person should not face life in prison at the hands of the same government," the Times's editorial board wrote in making the case for a deal to return Snowden to the U.S.

Some practices of the National Security Agency, such as the collection of telephone metadata in the U.S., may be ultimately ruled unlawful or unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. However, that's a far cry from justifying the Times's implication that officials set out to violate the law. In this case, officials repeatedly obtained authorization from 15 federal court judges for the metadata gathering.

Spokespeople for various government entities, including the White House, declined to offer an on-the-record response to the Times editorial. Some referred questions to the Justice Department, since the central theme of the Times editorial was about Snowden's potential criminal liability.

However, one government official speaking on condition of anonymity called the editorial "frustrating."

"There's absolutely no evidence any government officials or employees violated the law," the official said Thursday. "The piece is based on an absolutely inaccurate premise and that is that laws have been broken…Snowden broke the law and the people conducting these activities were doing so in compliance with the law."

COMMENT:  The Times doesn't care what's true here.  It only cares about its ideology.  Its "report" on Benghazi has been ridiculed even by some Democrats. 

The Times has become embarrassing, but the issue is more serious than that.  It is still the world's most influential newspaper.  I do think that even some liberal journalists are becoming uneasy with the self-destructiveness of The Times, and the shallowness of some of its work.  But it will continue to do damage to the nation and to the profession of journalism.

There have always been problems at The Times.  It has never been quite the "great gray lady" that is described in fantasy.  It has had problems with left-wing journalists, problems that have intensified under its current, decidedly left-wing publisher.  The problems are getting deeper. 

January 3, 2014       Permalink

AMERICANS FAVOR ARMED NEIGHBORHOODS – AT 9:15 A.M. ET:  With all the propaganda we've been fed on gun control (from all sides), I think this new Rasmussen poll is instructive.  From the Washington Examiner:

An overwhelming seven in 10 Americans say they would feel safer living in a neighborhood where individuals could own a gun for self defense, the latest indication that support for comprehensive gun control is fading.

Rasmussen Reports found that 68 percent of voters polled would feel safer in an armed neighborhood. Just 23 percent said they'd feel safer in “a neighborhood where nobody was allowed to own a gun.”

The poll is the latest to show shrinking support for the type of gun control President Obama and Senate Democrats sought after the December 2012 slayings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. The president has put gun control on his 2014 agenda, but few in Washington expect action.

Here’s why: Support for gun control peaked at 52 percent during the president’s push last February for new rules. But support has now dipped to 47 percent in the Rasmussen Poll.

And the public is split over the need for tougher anti-gun laws, with 47 percent supporting and 46 percent opposing.

COMMENT:  I suspect that if these polls were more detailed, we'd see that the public does not oppose effective (and Constitutional) action, but is skeptical of some of the grandstanding schemes that have been proposed. 

As I've said here before, as a legitimate gun owner, I have no problem with effective, common-sense rules.  I would, for example, not oppose required safety courses and certification for gun owners.  I would also favor far more detailed mental-health information being made available for background checks.

I doubt if the administration will propose anything reasonable or thoughtful.  It's not their way.

January 3, 2014     Permalink