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.

SECOND SUBSCRIPTION DRIVE – 2014 – WEEK TWO

The first week of our new subscription drive went quite well.  In fact, it was one of the best first weeks of a subscription drive that we've had at Urgent Agenda.  Thank you to new subscribers and to our old reliables.  But this is just the start.  More is needed.  Please help keep Urgent Agenda running by subscribing or donating.

Last week we began our second subscription drive of 2014.  This is a critical year for Urgent Agenda – perhaps the most important midterm election year in America's recent history.  But maintaining our daily, day and night, coverage of this year is costly.  It is subscribers and donators who keep us going.

Like all political sites, we face increasing competition each week as more bloggers join the internet.  As a site in our sixth year, we face the reality that some subscribers will drop out, and some will pass.  We've had several sad moments in the last few months.  Our retention rate is still spectacularly high, but there will still be a certain amount of slippage.

Please consider subscribing or donating by going to the right-hand column of this page, under SUBSCRIPTIONS.  You can subscribe through PayPal, or use several other methods that are listed.  If you wish to use regular mail, just let me know at service@urgentagenda.com, and I'll give you a traditional brick-and-mortar address.

Subscribers and donators receive our Angel's Corner twice a week by e-mail.  Any subscriber can tell you how spirited it is.  Where else do you get to write at any length, on any subject, and see your work published?

But the main purpose of subscribing or donating is supporting our work.  If you like what you're reading, please consider joining us.

JULY 2,  2014

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:31 P.M. ET: 

DISGRACE – From Fox:  "A government-contracted security force threatened to arrest doctors and nurses if they divulged any information about the contagion threat at a refugee camp housing illegal alien children at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas, sources say.  In spite of the threat, several former camp workers broke their confidentiality agreements and shared exclusive details with me about the dangerous conditions at the camp. They said taxpayers deserve to know about the contagious diseases and the risks the children pose to Americans. I have agreed to not to disclose their identities because they fear retaliation and prosecution."  Your tax dollars at work.

AFTER ALL, THINGS ARE GOING SO WELL – from The Hill:  "The White House is not planning to reassess its strategy for handling thousands of unaccompanied minors streaming across the border amid mass protests.  White House press secretary Josh Earnest said he had not spoken to President Obama about protests in California that blocked buses full of immigrant detainees from reaching a processing station. But Earnest said there was no expectation of changing strategies to deal with the flood of minors 'at this point.'" Obama does not seem at all concerned about this new flood of undocumented immigrants, including thousands of children.  I mean, why keep out potential Democrats?

TARGET ON TARGET – From The Wall Street Journal:  "Target Corp. on Wednesday said it would 'respectfully' ask customers to not bring guns into its stores, 'even in communities where it is permitted by law,' responding to a month-long campaign from a gun-control group.  The retailer was pushed into the national debate after Texas gun-rights groups posted photographs of their members carrying rifles through the aisles of stores near Dallas."  Target is reasonable on this point.  I'm a gun owner, as readers know, but the safe and courteous display of arms is part of the legitimate gun owner's creed.  A group of gun guys barreling through a department store with AR-15s strapped around them will do nothing to advance the cause of responsible gun rights.  It's just rude.

GETTING TO THE BOTTOM OF THINGS – NOT – From Fox:  "U.S. Army soldiers who were serving with Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl when he left his post and wound up in the hands of the Taliban say no one has contacted them, even though military brass are currently conducting a new investigation into the case.  Several soldiers who immediately came forward after Bergdahl was released on May 31, in a swap for five Guantanamo Bay detainees, have accused the 28-year-old Idaho native of deserting. But even though the Army is probing that very charge, investigators have not reached out to at least two former Army sergeants — including the platoon’s leader — who served alongside Bergdahl on June 30, 2009, when he disappeared from his post in eastern Afghanistan’s Paktika province."  Does the term "cover-up" come to mind?

July 2, 2014       Permalink

SUCKED IN AGAIN – AT 10:09 A.M. ET:  A new announcement of additional troops sent back to Iraq has us concerned.  From Fox: 

President Obama announced Monday that he is sending approximately 200 American troops to Iraq to reinforce security at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and the Baghdad International Airport, as the country wages a bloody battle against jihadists.

The troops will serve a different mission in Iraq than the 275 advisory troops sent to Iraq earlier this month in response to advances by the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant/Syria (ISIS). The additional troops will serve to solely augment security.

“The presence of these additional forces will help enable the Embassy to continue its critical diplomatic mission and work with Iraq on challenges they are facing as they confront (ISIS),” Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Admiral John Kirby said in a statement.

Obama notified House and Senate leaders in a letter on Monday. Obama said the additions include security forces, rotary-wing aircraft, and support for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.

COMMENT:  We should be looking at this very closely.  That is a commitment of 475 Americans.  What happens if they're attacked, or some become casualties?  Do we send more? 

And how can we be sure of the loyalties of the Iraqis that they will train and work beside? 

We should do what we can to save Iraq – having departed the country without leaving behind a stabilization force – but the strategic negligence of this administration is a matter of record.  Congress should be involved at every step of this new commitment.

July 2, 2014       Permalink 

INCREDIBLE INCOMPETENCE – AT 9:44 A.M. ET:  This is a perfect example of why Americans' trust in government has declined so much.  From the New York Post: 

WASHINGTON — Federal officials can’t resolve 85 percent of 2.9 million “inconsistencies” on applications for ObamaCare even after nine months of trying, according to new data provided by the administration.

Most of the problems involve certifying citizenship and income, key components of the national health plan.

But some of the problems are downright nutty.

One unidentified state-run marketplace cited situations in which infants and young children were “erroneously identified as incarcerated, according to federal data,” the inspector general for the Health and Human Services Department revealed Tuesday.

You gotta watch those toddlers.  Some have been known to crawl into bank vaults.

Just 425,000 problematic applications have been resolved out of 2.9 million that states and the federal exchange reported, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services told The Post.

Only citizens are eligible for ObamaCare, and only people at certain income levels are eligible for tax credits and subsidies.

But in 77 percent of the applications under scrutiny, federal records differed from what applicants submitted on those two key qualifications.

The CMS responded that the agency is “committed to verifying the eligibility of consumers who apply for enrollment in qualified plans.”

COMMENT:  There will probably be widespread fraud that will never be resolved because fraud is a sensitive issue.  Some group leaders and "representatives" will protect their groups, no matter what the facts.

July 2, 2014       Permalink

LAND OF THE FREE? – AT 9:18 A.M. ET:  The poll cited in the post below has good entertainment value, but is hardly a historic view of presidents.  But another poll is more serious, and should have us concerned, as Americans, especially as we prepare to celebrate our independence.  From the Christian Science Monitor: 

This Independence Day, Americans will celebrate the nation’s core values, especially freedom. But according to a new international poll, Americans have become significantly "less satisfied with the freedom to choose what they want to do with their lives."

Seventy-nine percent of US residents are satisfied with their level of freedom, down from 91 percent in 2006, according to the Gallup survey, released Tuesday.

That 12 point drop pushes the US from among the highest in the world in terms of perceived freedom to 36th place, outside the top quartile of the 120 countries sampled, trailing Paraguay, Rwanda, and the autonomous region of Nagarno-Karabakh.

Only 10 nations experienced as sharp a drop as the United States in terms of the satisfaction of citizens with their level of freedom: Egypt, Greece, Italy, Venezuela, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Romania, Yemen, Pakistan, and Spain.

And...

“Although unclear, the decline in perceived freedom could be more than just economics,” such as how Americans view their government, writes Mr. Clifton.

Since June 2013, confidence of Americans in their government has dropped significantly. In a poll released Monday, Gallup reports a 7 point drop in confidence in the presidency (to 29 percent), a 4 point drop for the Supreme Court (to 30 percent), and a 3 point drop for Congress (to 7 percent, a record low.)

According to another poll also released by Gallup on Tuesday, the portion of Americans who believe there to be “widespread corruption” in the US has jumped from 59 percent in 2006 to 79 percent in 2013.

COMMENT:  We might actually find this poll somewhat encouraging – it indicates that Americans are paying attention, and that they understand the seriousness of at least some of our problems.  Now they have to resolve to do something about them, which begins by not electing another president with few visible qualifications or who, like Hillary Clinton, wallows in corruption. 

July 2,  2014     Permalink

HOW DO WE TELL THE PRESIDENT? – AT 8:58 A.M. ET:  Uh, Mr. Obama, there's a new poll out.  Now, sir, polls change from day to day.  This is just one measure.  Uh, no sir, don't jump out the window...  From Newsmax: 

President Barack Obama is the worst president since World War II, and the United States would have been better off if his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, had won the election in 2012, a new Quinnipiac University national poll released today reveals.

The best president? Ronald Reagan.

"Over the span of 69 years of American history and 12 presidencies, President Barack Obama finds himself with President George W. Bush at the bottom of the popularity barrel," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

"Would Mitt have been a better fit? More voters in hindsight say yes," Malloy said.

Out of 1,446 registered voters surveyed nationwide from June 24-30, 33 percent deemed Obama as the worse president, while another 28 percent picked former President George W. Bush as the worst, Quinnipiac reported Wednesday.

In addition, 45 percent of the voters said the country would be better off if Romney won in 2012, and 38 percent said the country would be worse off.

The choice was sharply divided among party lines, with Republicans choosing Romney by 84 percent to 5 percent and Democrats choosing Obama by 74 percent to 10 percent. Independent voters came in with a 47 percent to 33 percent nod to Romney.

Love that independent vote.  Love it.

Overall, Reagan topped voters' pick for the best president since World War II, with 35 percent of the voters choosing him. Trailing Reagan were former presidents Bill Clinton at 18 percent, 15 percent for John F. Kennedy and just 8 percent for Obama. Among Democrats, 34 percent picked Clinton as the best president, followed by 18 percent each for Obama and Kennedy.

Meanwhile, among the Republicans polled, an overwhelming 66 percent chose Reagan as the best president. He was followed distantly by former President George H.W. Bush and Kennedy, with 6 percent each, and Obama and Dwight D. Eisenhower, who tied at 4 percent each.

George W. Bush and Obama, compared side-by-side, came out very closely matched among the voters polled. Thirty-nine percent said Obama has been a better president than Bush, while 40 percent said he was worse.

COMMENT:  Okay, it is certainly true that memory plays a role in polls like that, and most Americans don't go back very far.  I mean, Kennedy gets only 6, Eisenhower 4, and Truman wasn't even in the running. 

But still, the verdict on Obama is disastrous.  The nation has turned against him, and I don't see why it would turn back.

July 2,  2014     Permalink

JULY 1,  2014

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:55 P.M. ET: 

(Thank you, readers, for your kind messages regarding my medical "event.") 

BUT STILL STRUGGLING – From Business Insider:  "...but just how much has Clinton earned in the years since her husband, former President Bill Clinton, left the White House? Financial disclosures filed by Clinton when she served as New York's junior senator and as secretary of state in the Obama administration show her family earned more than $163 million from 2001 until 2012. The disclosures also detailed the taxes paid by the Clintons and how much they gave to charity during those years.   During Clinton's years in the Senate the disclosures, which were published by OpenSecrets.org, included full tax returns filed by her and her husband. These returns detailed the Clintons' total income, charitable gifts they made, and their total taxes paid from 2001 through 2007. For those seven years, the Clintons earned total income of $108,817,646, the vast majority of which came from Bill Clinton's speaking fees. They paid over $33 million in federal income taxes for an effective tax rate of about 31%. The Clintons also gave more than $10 million to charity from 2001 through 2007, which is about 9% of their total income from this period."  This exploitation of public office for profit will not go down well with the American people.

SOCCER IS FOR LIBS! – Well, at least that's what a poll shows.  From the Washington Examiner:  "Partisan politics seems to be everywhere, even when watching soccer and this year's World Cup.  And according to YouGov.com poll published hours before the U.S. played Belgium on Tuesday, liberals and moderates are tuning in far more than conservatives.  YouGov reports that 35 percent of liberals, 34 percent of moderates and just 27 percent of self-described conservatives are watching the World Cup.  As for soccer viewing when the World Cup is not being played, 24 percent of liberals, 21 percent of moderates and a tiny 14 percent of conservatives watch the sport.  Overall, 28 percent of the nation considers the sport the 'most boring to watch.'  Strip politics out of the equation, and just 30 percent of the nation is paying attention to the World Cup, with 70 percent watching it 'not closely' or 'not at at all.'"  I did watch a few matches.  It can be exciting at time, but soccer just doesn't seem to appeal to most Americans, the way football or baseball do.  Why?  I think our favorite sports involve much more strategy.  Just my theory.

WEIRD – There is little that is easy or logical about the Mideast.  From AFP:  "French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said Monday that jihadists spearheading a militant offensive in Iraq have sold oil from captured areas to the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.  Fabius said the sale was evidence of the 'confusing' nature of the escalating conflict in the Middle East in which Assad and the jihadists are in theory on opposing sides.  The rebels, previously known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), declared a 'caliphate," or Islamist state, straddling Iraq and Syria at the weekend.  'We have proofs that when ISIL has taken over oil it has sold oil to the (Assad) regime,' Fabius told a news conference in New Delhi, without elaborating."  Trading with the enemy is a felony here.  I guess in the Mideast it's a pastime.

NEW RELIGIOUS DISCOVERY – From The Politico:  "Rep. Luis Gutiérrez said Tuesday that President Barack Obama has the power to 'heal' undocumented immigrants.  'If [Republicans] want to come back and discuss [reform], fine,' the Illinois Democrat said on MSNBC. 'But in the interim period, I believe the president of the United States has already in statute, in the law, the ability to heal and put in a safe harbor millions of undocumented immigrants while the Congress of the United States finally decides it’s going to take action.'"  Next, Obama walks on water.  After that, maybe Thursday, he converts water to wine.  Check it out.

July 1, 2014       Permalink

ADVANTAGE TO THE CRAZIES – AT 11:21 A.M. ET:  The jihadists in Iraq and Syria have a new supply of weapons.  From the Los Angeles Times:

Six months ago, Sunni Arab militants faced a daunting firepower imbalance in their uprising against the U.S.-equipped Iraqi army west of Baghdad.

But once their campaign for the city of Fallouja was launched in January, their lethal capabilities were bolstered from the stockpiles of the Iraqi armed forces.

Many soldiers fled, throwing down their weapons, which were picked up by the insurgents. Police stations and security posts overrun by Sunni militants yielded more martial booty to be turned against the forces of Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's Shiite Muslim-led government.

"Praise God, we soon had enough weapons to fight for one or two years," said Ahmad Dabaash, spokesman for the Islamic Army, a Sunni rebel faction, who spoke in a hotel lobby here in Iraq's northern Kurdistan region. "And now? Don't even ask!"

By "now," he was referring to the current ground assault by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, the Al Qaeda breakaway group that in the last two weeks has seized large swaths of northern and western Iraq, including Mosul, Iraq's second-most populous city. Fighting alongside ISIS formations are other Iraqi Sunni Arab factions such as the Islamic Army, which rose against the U.S. occupation a decade ago.

As the Iraqi government mobilizes to halt the insurgents' advance toward Baghdad, the capital, there is no full accounting of the stocks of plundered arms, ordnance and gear. But experts agree that the haul is massive, with implications for the merging wars in Iraq and neighboring Syria.

COMMENT:  More and more, President Obama's decision to get completely out of Iraq, without leaving an American stabilization force of the kind we have In Korea, has come back to haunt us.  Yes, yes, the Obamans say that they wanted that arrangement, but couldn't negotiate a Status of Forces agreement with the Iraqis, which would have provided legal protections for American troops. 

We have those agreements with many nations.  It's no secret that many of them are bought and paid for.  It wouldn't have been that difficult had the administration actually cared. 

A small number of American troops is entering Iraq to train government soldiers.  I wouldn't be shocked to learn that many of the weapons now possessed by the government's enemies are American-made.

July 1, 2014       Permalink

MS. HILLARY AND THE END OF INEVITABILITY – AT 9:58 A.M. ET:  Wes Pruden defines "crusty" in journalism.  He is blunt, he says what's on his mind, he is rare.  Now, in the Washington Times, he takes on Ms. Hillary and her predicaments (many).

Hillary Clinton needs a conscience transplant, and she needs it now. Her book tour is in a shambles, the fate of her $14 million advance from her publisher is marooned somewhere in limbo. She’s under 50 percent approval for the first time in the presidential polling for 2016, and, scariest of all, she’s having to call on Bubba for help. She knows better than to become merely “a wife of,” but 2014 is beginning to smell like 2008, and she’s Miss Inevitability once more. This is deja vu all over again.
Some of the learned pundits, who only yesterday were writing about “the five reasons why Hillary is a lock for the White House,” are writing now about “five reasons why Hillary won’t run.” The budding consensus is that (1) she’s just not very good at politics; (2) there’s no “fire in the tummy”; (3) who wants to clean up after Barack Obama, anyway; (4) the country wants real change; and (5) another round of “Clinton, Bush, Clinton” with children of both families waiting in the wings, is thrilling nobody.

The pollsters, consultants and campaign wizards who are paid to know all the answers are puzzled by Hillary’s flopping around like a hen suddenly beheaded by events she was expected to control. “Even more than her dwindling leads over Republican contenders is that while she is pretty much running against herself, in a very high-profile book tour, she is losing ground,” says pollster John Zogby. “Her biggest problem is the inevitably factor. It helped do her in in 2007-2008, and right now it looks to be her major nemesis. She has this whole playing field to herself and is declining in the polls.” That’s definitely not good.

A poll taken in 2014 is gossamer, as substantial as a cloud in a summer sky, and isn’t worth much as a projection of who can actually win an election in 2016. It can tell a lot about the strengths and weaknesses of a prospective campaigner. Since every voter already knows what he thinks of her, Mr. Zogby tells columnist Paul Bedard, there isn’t much she can do, even with Bubba at her side, to broaden her support. Her numbers should be going up, and they’re definitely going down.

COMMENT:  It's been my experience the most consistent defect that candidates and cause groups have is the inability to understand the passage of time, and what it does to political issues.  I suspect Hillary has that defective gene.  She sounds like someone right out of the 1960s, someone from another era. 

Pruden is right.  Everyone already knows Hillary.  There's very little upside left.  And people who don't know all that much about her won't be convinced by her campaign thus far.  She needs to modernize, talk about problems confronting young boys as well as girls, and show that she's learned something over the years.  She's got to show independence from Obama, and has got to stop depending on mink-coat feminists for her core of support.

Can she do it?  Depends on who runs against her.

July 1, 2014       Permalink

KERRY ON IRAN – AT 9:38 A.M. ET:  July 20th is the target date to complete a nuclear-arms agreement with Iran.  That's three weeks away.  Now Secretary of State John Kerry is warning Iran that it must make the necessary agreements.  But how much clout does a John Kerry warning have? From Kerry's own piece in WaPo: 

July 20, the deadline to negotiate a comprehensive agreement on Iran’s nuclear program, is fast approaching.

All along, these negotiations have been about a choice for Iran’s leaders. They can agree to the steps necessary to assure the world that their country’s nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful and not be used to build a weapon, or they can squander a historic opportunity to end Iran’s economic and diplomatic isolation and improve the lives of their people.

Diplomacy and leadership are marked by tough calls. This shouldn’t be one of them.

Iranian officials have stated repeatedly and unambiguously that they have no intention of building a nuclear weapon and that their nuclear activities are designed solely to fulfill civilian needs. Assuming that’s true, it’s not a hard proposition to prove.

The United States and our partners have demonstrated to Iran how serious we are. During the negotiations to reach the Joint Plan of Action, we extended our hand to the Iranians and met with them directly to understand what Iran wanted from its nuclear program. Along with our international partners, we helped chart a path that would allow Iran to have a domestic program for exclusively peaceful purposes. We proved that we were flexible in offering financial relief.

Throughout these talks, Iran’s negotiators have been serious. Iran has also defied the expectations of some by meeting its obligations under the Joint Plan of Action, which has allowed time and space for the comprehensive negotiations to proceed. Specifically, Iran has been eliminating its stockpile of higher levels of enriched uranium, limited its enrichment capability by not installing or starting up additional centrifuges, refrained from making further advances at its enrichment facilities and heavy-water reactor, and allowed new and more frequent inspections. In exchange, the European Union and the P5+1 have provided limited financial relief to Iran, even as the architecture of international sanctions and the vast majority of sanctions themselves remained firmly in place.

Oh, come on, John.  The issue here involves how much we actually know about Iran's nuclear program.  What is being hidden from us?  From international inspectors?  Nothing?  Are you sure?  Would you bet the lives of millions on our intelligence information?

Now Iran must choose. During the comprehensive negotiations, the world has sought nothing more than for Iran to back up its words with concrete and verifiable actions. We have, over the past several months, proposed a series of reasonable, verifiable and easily achievable measures that would ensure Iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon and that its program is limited to peaceful purposes. In return, Iran would be granted phased relief from nuclear-related sanctions.

What will Iran choose? Despite many months of discussion, we don’t know yet. We do know that substantial gaps still exist between what Iran’s negotiators say they are willing to do and what they must do to achieve a comprehensive agreement. We also know that their public optimism about the potential outcome of these negotiations has not been matched, to date, by the positions they have articulated behind closed doors.

COMMENT:  All good words, but don't forget that Kerry's boss is Field Marshal Barack (where do I go to surrender?) Obama.  Obama is no man of action, and he has the spine of a jellyfish. 

Maybe Iran will be the exception.  We can hope, but don't expect.

July 1, 2014       Permalink

CONTRITION – AT 9:14 A.M. ET:   I think it's admirable when journalists admit a major mistake.  Journalism is a rather arrogant profession, filled with self-love.  But the editors of the Billings (Montana) Gazette have engaged in a notable act of contrition regarding Barack Obama: 

Sometimes, you have to admit you're wrong.

And, we were wrong.

We said that things couldn't get much worse after the sub par presidency of George W. Bush.

But, President Barack Obama's administration has us yearning for the good ol' days when we were at least winning battles in Iraq.

The latest NBC/Wall Street Journal polls show that Americans are giving Obama lower marks than in 2006 when Iraq was going poorly for Bush and a tepid response to Hurricane Katrina sunk Bush's ratings.

It's not that popularity polling should be the final or even best measure of a president. There is that old saw that points out there's a difference between doing what is right and what is popular.

For us, though, it's the number of bungled or blown policies in the Obama administration which lead us to believe Obama has earned every bit of an abysmal approval rating.

COMMENT:  Read the whole thing.  There's a bill of particulars, and any of us could add to it.  More and more, we see people coming to the same conclusion – that they'd backed the wrong horse in 2008.  But don't expect any apologies from The New York Times, or organizations in that league.  They rarely apologize for the big mistakes.  Little mistakes are easy.

July 1,  2014     Permalink