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.

A SHAMELESS PLUG

It's December, and people start thinking about gifts.  Have you considered that a subscription to Urgent Agenda makes a fine gift for a person of like mind?  And, for people who disagree, it makes the kind of great punishment you've always wanted to mete out.  You win either way.

If you're a current subscriber, a gift subscription is only $21 for a year.  Just e-mail us the name and e-mail of the recipient, enter your gift by making a DONATION of $21 in the column on the right, and you're home.

If you're not a current subscriber, shame on you.  Redemption occurs when you enter a subscription in the column on the right, or enter a subscription with a gift subscription for someone else.

Subscriptions keep us going, and give you the Urgent Agenda you've come to expect.  Gift subscriptions spread the word and help us grow.   All subscribers and donators receive the Angel's Corner. 

By the way, we use PayPal for our subscription service.  If you don't like PayPal, or believe they're a threat to the Republic, just tell us and we'll give you a traditional, red-blooded American mail address

We are traveling in the Southland, on a traditional family trip, back tomorrow, Monday.  Urgent Agenda will continue to publish normally during this time, as we have mobile equipment that connects wirelessly to the internet.  If you suddenly see that we've stopped updating for a day, it means we've suffered a catastrophic technical failure and will be back online when we return, but that is highly unlikely.  We use good stuff.

DECEMBER 5,  2010

I NEVER WOULD HAVE SUSPECTED – AT 10:37 P.M. ET:  You know, when most of us add two and two, we come up with four.  This formula does not seem to apply to much of mainstream journalism, which has, apparently, great difficulty figuring out simple things...unless informed by a leak.

The New York Times reports the "news" today, gleaned from Wikileaks, that Washington is having problems with Arab states that allow the funding of terrorists.  I am so shocked:

WASHINGTON — Nine years after the United States vowed to shut down the money pipeline that finances terrorism, senior Obama administration officials say they believe that many millions of dollars are flowing largely unimpeded to extremist groups worldwide, and they have grown frustrated by frequent resistance from allies in the Middle East, according to secret diplomatic dispatches.

Allies?

While American officials have publicly been relatively upbeat about their progress in disrupting terrorist financing, the internal State Department cables, obtained by WikiLeaks and made available to several news organizations, offer a more pessimistic account, with blunt assessments of the threats to the United States from money flowing to militants affiliated with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas, Lashkar-e-Taiba and other groups.

Those bad boys.  And we thought they were so decent.  After all, isn't that what Middle East Studies departments in our colleges teach to our kids?

A classified memo sent by Mrs. Clinton last December made it clear that residents of Saudi Arabia and its neighbors, all allies of the United States, are the chief financial supporters of many extremist activities. “It has been an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority,” the cable said, concluding that “donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.”

Maybe the fashion plates of the liberal press, long obsesssed with the "Israel lobby," will now spend a bit of their yoga time probing the vast Saudi lobby in the United States, which has tens of millions of dollars to spend each year polishing the Saudi image and rewarding friends with lavish gifts. 

The dispatch and others offered similarly grim views about the United Arab Emirates (“a strategic gap” that terrorists can exploit), Qatar (“the worst in the region” on counterterrorism) and Kuwait (“a key transit point”). The cable stressed the need to “generate the political will necessary” to block money to terrorist networks — groups that she said were “threatening stability in Pakistan and Afghanistan and targeting coalition soldiers.”

COMMENT:  All those warm friends.  How can anyone think ill of them?  And how much did it cost us to "liberate" Kuwait in the first Gulf War? 

Our country has done a great deal for the Muslim world, and some of it has involved bloodshed.  An occasional thank you would be nice.  It would be even nicer if some of those countries helped us end the money flow to the suicide bombers and other scholars.

But why did it take an illegal leak to inform us of what common sense tells us has been happening all along?

December 5, 2010      Permalink

ANOTHER FINANCIAL CRISIS? – AT 10:55 A.M. ET:  There is another, looming financial crisis, this time in the states.  State governments are literally failing, especially in the profligate, liberal states.  Warnings are being sounded.  From The New York Times:

The State of Illinois is still paying off billions in bills that it got from schools and social service providers last year. Arizona recently stopped paying for certain organ transplants for people in its Medicaid program. States are releasing prisoners early, more to cut expenses than to reward good behavior. And in Newark, the city laid off 13 percent of its police officers last week.

While next year could be even worse, there are bigger, longer-term risks, financial analysts say. Their fear is that even when the economy recovers, the shortfalls will not disappear, because many state and local governments have so much debt — several trillion dollars’ worth, with much of it off the books and largely hidden from view — that it could overwhelm them in the next few years.

“It seems to me that crying wolf is probably a good thing to do at this point,” said Felix Rohatyn, the financier who helped save New York City from bankruptcy in the 1970s.

If Rohatyn is worried, we should all be worried.  He's one of the smartest financiers around, and a reasonable guy.  He doesn't cry wolf easily.

It is the long-term problems of a handful of states, including California, Illinois, New Jersey and New York, that financial analysts worry about most, fearing that their problems might precipitate a crisis that could hurt other states by driving up their borrowing costs.

COMMENT:  Those "progressive" chickens are coming home to roost.  Rohatyn says he doesn't see where all this ends.  States may well come to Washington for a bailout, almost a mission impossible in the current climate.

New York is already the largest out-migration state in the nation.  More people leave New York each year than any other state.  California is facing outmigration of some of its most talented people.  Citizens vote with moving vans.  Who wants to live in a failing state?  Indiana, here we come.

December 5, 2010       Permalink

OH, JUICY – AT 10:40 A.M. ET:  The British spy scandals are the best, aren't they?  They're so much more intriguing than our bland, routine scandals.  There's a new one, and the usual statements are being issued.  From London's Telegraph: 

Katia Zatuliveter, a researcher for an MP on the influential defence select committee, is to be expelled from Britain after being questioned on suspicion of espionage by security services.

How did she get to such an influential committee?

Mr Hancock has recently asked sensitive questions in Parliament about the quantities of radioactive materials held by the country and the future of its nuclear deterrent.

Miss Zatuliveter has also worked for a defence think-tank and written articles that criticised Nato while defending military action by Russia.

And no one noticed?  Check out the photo with the story.  All good spy scandals have pretty girls?  Who have we had?  The Walker family?  Aldrich Ames?  Shame on us.

However Mr Hancock, the Lib Dem member for Portsmouth South, denied she was a sleeper agent for Moscow and insisted the authorities had never raised their concerns with him.

Considering the next paragraph, we can understand why they'd never trust him.

Mr Hancock, who is presently on police bail over an alleged indecent assault against a female constituent, said: “She is not a Russian spy. I know nothing about espionage, but she has been subjected to a deportation order.

"She is appealing it, because she feels - quite rightly - that she has done nothing wrong."

COMMENT:  So, we have a member of Parliament on police bail for a sex charge, and an employee who poses on beaches in a bikini and grass skirt, and who writes loving articles about Russian military adventures.

Start casting the movie.  James Bond, we need you.

December 5, 2010        Permalink

MORE ON TAXES – AT 10:21 A.M. ET:  The signs of some compromise on extending the Bush tax cuts are taking shape, with some public negotiating taking place on interview shows.  But beware the monkey wrench.  Some in each party are ready to throw it.  From The Politico:

Negotiating over the extension of Bush-era tax cuts played out live on the TV talks shows Sunday, with Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) saying he favors permanent extension of the tax cuts but would accept two years and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) calling for a one-year extension.

"We're going to have to kick it over" for two years," Hatch said on CNN's "State of the Union." He said Republicans would agree to extend the expiring tax cuts and expired unemployment insurance payments as part of that deal, but would not be willing to add in any other sweeteners for Democrats. "Beyond that, then I think things break down," he said.

Hatch, however, also said it would be "disastrous" for Congress to leave town without a deal - allowing the higher, Clinton-era tax rates to return.

"I'd be willing to go along with a one-year extension," Wyden said. "Washington is all driven by a culture of procrastination," he said in explaining why he opposes a longer extension.

COMMENT:  We've echoed Hatch's logic here.  It would indeed be disastrous for Congress to leave town without deciding the tax issue.  The uncertainty would damage the economy still further.

And, yes, with all the faults inherent in the system, the GOP should go along with an extension of unemployment benefits.  There is, no doubt, plenty of cheating and manipulating in the unemployment insurance system, but there is also plenty of legitimate need.  We have 9.8 percent unemployment, and a much higher rate of underemployment.  Ronald Reagan often spoke of the need for a social safety net.  As a governor, he'd seen it work.  I think Hatch's stand is correct.  Agree to the extension of benefits, but not to any other Democratic programs that the libs will try to sneak into a tax bill.

December 5, 2010     Permalink

DECEMBER 4,  2010

TAXES, THE WHOLE ROTTEN STORY – AT 11:53 P.M.   Sorry for the late posting.  We're in central Virginia, and it is snowing.  I am being blamed for the snow by local liberals.  They're comparing me to Christopher Columbus, who brought disease with him to the New World.  I have accepted blame for bringing the snow, and have attributed it to global cooling. 

President Obama's tax plan went down to defeat in the Senate.  As of now, the Bush tax cuts will expire on December 31st.  That is simply unacceptable.  Mr. Obama wanted to extend middle-class cuts but let cuts for the well-to-do expire.  Republicans want all the cuts extended, and their view prevailed, with the help of some moderate Democrats.

The problem for Republicans here is appearances.  No matter how our side spins it, it's going to look like the GOP is once more favoring the rich.  Mr. Obama's position here is the more popular one.  The GOP, following its smashing victory, is in a tough spot and must come up with a creative proposal that will avoid a December 31st tax hike for Americans.  One idea floating around is to extend all tax cuts, but for only a limited period, like two years.  Sounds reasonable to me.  It kicks the can down the road, with the ultimate decision to be determined by the outcome of the 2012 election.

The new, far more Republican Congress, comes in during January.  It would be a politcal setback if it came in with the party blamed, rightly or wrongly, for a tax hike.

December 4, 2010      Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – THIS MAN IS NUTS – at 11:57 A.M. ET:  Michael Lerner is one of those sixties radicals who never changed, and who believes the national anthem of the United States should be "I Won't Grow Up," from "Peter Pan."

Now Lerner, who calls himself "Rabbi Lerner," having been ordained in one of those storefront seminaries of the kind that made Al Sharpton a "reverend," has some sixties-style advice for the president.  We reprint it to show what happens to a person who loses touch with reality.  From WaPo:

...there is a real way to save the Obama presidency: by challenging him in the 2012 presidential primaries with a candidate who would unequivocally commit to a well-defined progressive agenda and contrast it with the Obama administration's policies. Such a candidacy would be pooh-poohed by the media, but if it gathered enough popular support - as is likely given the level of alienation among many who were the backbone of Obama's 2008 success - this campaign would pressure Obama toward much more progressive positions and make him a more viable 2012 candidate. Far from weakening his chances for reelection, this kind of progressive primary challenge could save Obama if he moves in the desired direction. And if he holds firm to his current track, he's a goner anyway.

COMMENT:  Read the whole column.  Our readers are entitled to a good weekend laugh.

December 4, 2010      Permalink

ANOTHER FREE PASS FOR OBAMA – AT 11:28 A.M. ET:  We've said before, we say again, that some of the British columnists have provided the sharpest commentary on the Obama administration.  It was some of these same Brits who first identified flaws in this administration that our our mainstream media ignored.

And the mainstream media is in the "ignoring" mode again.  Nile Gardiner notes it in London's Telegraph:

...the WikiLeaks scandal to date has not resulted in demonstrable consequences for the Obama presidency or for the president himself. This despite the fact the Obama administration appears to have done little to halt the latest leak, even though this is the third unlawful disclosure of government documents this year.
The Obama team has been spectacularly caught napping by America’s enemies like a deer in the headlights. As Marc Thiessen noted in a superb piece earlier this week:

Because of its failure to act, responsibility for the damage done by these most recent disclosures now rests with the Obama administration. Perhaps this latest release crosses a line that will finally spur the administration to action.

And...

There will certainly be Congressional hearings into the leaks, and the US administration’s handling of it, with both the House and Senate seeking answers to a massive security breach. Should these hearings produce clear evidence the Obama administration was culpably negligent, the administration will then no longer enjoy the benefit of the doubt, and will suffer the political consequences it is due.

No such benefit of the doubt would have been accorded to the previous president of the United States, however. Imagine what the response would have been if George W. Bush was president and not Barack Obama? The Left would have been up in arms with pitchforks at the ready, demanding the resignation of his Secretary of State and key intelligence officials, and all but putting the administration on trial.

You can, if you close your eyes, almost hear those voices:  Couric, Olbermann, Matthews, and the ever-boring Christiane Amanpour. 

President Obama, on the other hand, has been given a free pass so far, and has not even felt the need to comment personally on this latest scandal, which happened directly on his watch. Is there a blatant double standard which the Left, and the overwhelmingly liberal “mainstream” media, applies in the United States? Absolutely. And the WikiLeaks fiasco just further confirms it.

COMMENT:  Nile is right, as he usually is.  Despite all the failures of this administration, the double standard still exists, and will be reinforced in time for the 2012 election.  The mainstream media reflects the last gasp of the sixties generation, and will not give up its illusions easily.

I suspect that there are a number of thoughtful people in the media who are troubled by the leaks, and the way The New York Times has exploited them.  But there is fear in media, as in any other business.  There is careerism.  There is a "go along" mentality, the better to assure one's future. 

My dean at Columbia's Graduate School of Journalism, Edward W. Barrett, once recommended that journalists try to establish a "go to hell" fund, so they could resign in protest if they saw something they couldn't accept.  It's a good idea.  But don't look for too many resignations in protest, even among those who might have such a fund.  Life in some institutions is just too cushy to allow for much dissent.

December 4, 2010       Permalink

GOP GAINING, BUT LOOK AT THE NUMBERS WITH CAUTION – AT 11:06 A.M. ET:  Scott Rasmussen reports on dramatic Republican gains in voter party identification, but adds a note of caution:

In November, 36.0% of American Adults identified themselves as Republicans; 34.7% considered themselves Democrats, and 29.3% were not affiliated with either major party. That’s the largest number of Republicans since February 2005 and the first time ever that Rasmussen Reports polling has found more people identifying as Republicans than Democrats. Permalink...

...In each of the recent election cycles, the victorious party has gained in net partisan identification over the course of the election year.

It is worth noting, however, that the gains are often short-lived. Following Election 2004, the Republican partisan decline began in February 2005. In 2006, the Democratic edge began to decline as soon as they actually took control of Congress in January. Following President Obama’s victory in November 2008, the Democrat’s advantage in partisan identification peaked in December before declining.

Another point worth noting is that the GOP has the edge today partly because the number of Democrats is barely above the lowest level ever recorded in eight years of monthly tracking by Rasmussen Reports. This supports the conclusion that Election 2010 was less a victory for the Republicans than a defeat for the Democrats.

COMMENT:  In other words, Republicans should take only a brief bow, then get to work.  The party must build a positive image, and come up with proposals that excite the American people.  It must think of itself as a governing party, not just an opposition party.  And it must resist the temptation toward ideological rigidity. 

Can the GOP do it?  Can it build enough of a base to win the 2012 presidential election and end the age of Obama before more damage is done?  Replies:  It will be difficult, especially with a hostile press.  But this last election showed, as Ronald Reagan's election in 1980 showed, that a party, or a candidate, can speak above the press to the American people.  And, despite all the ridicule of our citizens that you hear from the self-appointed intellectual elites, they do listen and they do understand.

December 4, 2010     Permalink