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.

SUBSCRIPTION DRIVE - DRAGGING

Our subscription is almost half over, and the statistics are worrying.  We have barely reached 30% of our goal.

Subscriptions are our lifeblood. Without them, we cannot function. With them, we can fight off all evil. 

We started taking subscriptions about 18 months ago.   As a result, we're about 60% of our way to financial stability.  But we're still not home.  We're not in danger of going dark.  But, unless we expand our subscription base, we are in danger of diminishing our service.

You can subscribe by going to the column on the right, just opposite these words.

By subscribing you keep Urgent Agenda alive. You also get The Angel's Corner, our twice-a-week e-mailed publication.  At The Angel's Corner you can join our Forum.  Write on anything you wish, and you're not limited to 140 characters.   Did you know that some Angel's Corner pieces are used in college classrooms?  

And at The Angel's Corner we give the very coveted Pompous Fool award, bestowed on those who meet the highest standards of absurdity.  Recipients have wept at the news that they've won.

Subscribe for a year, or six months, or donate what you wish.  We also have a family plan.  For little more than a year's subscription, you can have a second sent to someone else - like a loved one you want to save from political correctness.

We have a 91% subscriber retention rate - almost unheard of - but, if you want to drop your subscription, the unused portion will be refunded with only a few insults.

Subscribe today. A credit card will do it. Or, we can send you a mail address, if you prefer.

------------------

I have a new piece up at Power Line today on the death of Kathryn Grayson.  For those who may be interested, it's here.

------------------

TUESDAY,  MARCH 2,  2010

TEXAS RESULT – PERRY WINS EASILY – AT 11:25 P.M. ET:  From the L.A. Times:

Incumbent Texas Republican Gov. Rick Perry scored an easy primary victory Tuesday against two women, GOP Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and businesswoman Debra Medina, a favorite of Tea Party supporters.

Even before all the votes were counted Hutchison called Perry, a longtime intra-party foe, to concede, as it became apparent within minutes that he was going to achieve more than the 50% necessary to avoid a runoff with Hutchison.

with nearly three-quarters of a million votes already counted, Perry was pulling in nearly 53% while Hutchison had 31% and Medina only 17%.

The race drew special attention because of the intra-party competition and the third-wheel element of Medina as a measure of the Tea Party threat to Republican incumbents. If those numbers hold up, they show Perry having gained strength in the campaign's closing days, while his two opponents remained where recent polls put them.

COMMENT:  Perry had been expected to win, but was said to be in danger of coming in at slightly below 50%, forcing a runoff.  The runoff now won't be necessary.

Hutchison's poor showing does not bode well for her future.  She retains her Senate seat, although, as we reported earlier, she pledged to relinquish it whether she won or lost the primary.  Watch that pledge melt away.

March 2, 2010   Permalink

PLAYING WITH FIRE – AT 7:54 P.M. ET:  This isn't being discussed nearly enough:  President Obama, dancing with his party's left wing, wants drastic cuts in the nation's nuclear arsenal.  Given Obama's general foreign-policy views, would you trust this man with your nuclear future?  Australia's Sydney Morning Herald reports:

WASHINGTON: The US President plans ''dramatic reductions'' in the US nuclear weapon stockpile as part of a sweeping review designed to prove his commitment to the goal of global nuclear disarmament.

The news of Barack Obama's review emerged as negotiations to complete a US-Russia nuclear arms treaty stalled over a Russian demand for the option to withdraw unilaterally if Moscow determines that US missile defence would threaten its intercontinental nuclear missile force, a senior US official said.

The Obama administration, however, has rejected the Russian demand, fearing it could make it harder to win the Republican votes needed for Senate ratification of the new nuclear arms pact.

Huh?  Did we read that right?  The only reason the Obamans turned down the Russian demand is that it could complicate Senate ratification?  Are they serious?  It should be turned down because it's absurd.

Once again we see how naive these people are.  Or, maybe they're not naive.  Maybe this is what they really believe, which is just as chilling.

''The issue here is what do the Russians feel they need, but also keeping an eye on not trying to complicate the ratification process,'' said a senior US official.

How about what we need?  Do these Ivy League "sophisticates" ever consider that?  Geez.

Mr Obama discussed the review with his Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, on Monday. The review is due to be published in December but was delayed reportedly because Mr Obama did not consider it radical enough.

Set off the alarm bells.  Right now.  We hope that by December we'll have enough Republicans in the Senate to block any nutty treaties.  Treaties require two-thirds for ratification.

The latest complication centres on Mr Obama's decision to deploy US anti-missile interceptors in Romania as part of a plan to defend Europe against medium-range missile attacks from Iran.

''Russia has serious questions regarding the true purpose of the US missile defence in Romania,'' a Russian foreign ministry spokesman, Andrei Nesterenko, said on Friday.

COMMENT:  We must insist that the administration maintain its commitment to Romania.  If we start selling out small countries to feed the Russian bear, it will never end.  Ronald Reagan walked away from a treaty with Russia because Gorbachev insisted that we give up missile defense.  Reagan refused, and history has proved him right.

March 2, 2010   Permalink

TEXAS VOTES - AT 7:32 P.M. ET:  Today is Texas primary day.  We should have results within hours. 

The key race, for the GOP gubernatorial nomination, pits incumbent Governor Rick Perry against Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison.  There is a third candiate - Debra Medina, more or less representing some of the Tea Partiers. 

Hutchison started well, but it's been mostly downhill.   She must keep Perry, the favorite, under 50% to force a runoff.  Medina also started well, and her support seemed to grow, but she weakened after seeming to imply that there might be some truth to the 9-11 truthers.  She backtracked, but the damage was done. 

The big surprise has been how poorly Hutchison's campaign has gone.  She will probably lose, diminishing her political standing generally, and in the Senate.  But, Texas being very red, the winner of the primary will probably win in November.

Hutchison promised that she would resign her Senate seat whether she won or lost in the gubernatorial race, but the betting is that she will withdraw the promise and rebuild her legacy.

March 2, 2010   Permalink

THE HEAT IS ON THE WARMERS – AT 7:16 P.M. ET:  In what could be a devastating blow to the global-warming establishment, a prestigious British society speaks out. 

The Institute of Physics, which represents 36,000 physicists across Britain and the world, has told a Commons inquiry into Climategate that the controversial emails at the centre of the storm represent "prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions".

In short, the IoP has called into question the integrity of the entire field of climate change.

The Commons science and technology committee is interviewing key climate scientists and global warming sceptics. The standard of the interrogation on the first day was tame and the protagonists merely restated their arguments.

The star witness, Professor Phil Jones - the CRU's head and the sender of most of the hacked emails - was let off particularly lightly, his most damning admission probably being: "I have obviously written some really awful emails."

Far more interesting are the written submissions to the inquiry, including that from the Institute of Physics.

Although it has been made abundantly clear that the inquiry is not about whether global warming is actually happening, the IoP criticises one of the fundamental slices of evidence behind the assertion that we are currently experiencing a period of unprecedented global warming.

COMMENT:  I'm sure the global warmers will charge that all 36,000 members of the Institute of Physics work for oil companies.  That's been the standard line.

We need more scientific bodies like the Institute to speak out and demand a full inquiry, by unimpeachable investigators, into the "science" of global warming.

March 2, 2010   Permalink

FASCINATING – AT 10:16 A.M. ET:  Barbara Boxer, running for reelection in California, may face a bit of bother, as the Capital Hill blog reports:

Mickey Kaus, neoliberal blogger at kausfiles, will take on Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., in the Democratic primary, according to LA Weekly. Kaus is a strong supporter of national health care, though he harshly criticized the White House "cost control" marketing strategy. However, he is a harsh critic of labor unions, a skeptic of affirmative action and an opponent of amnesty for illegal immigrants. Kaus is known for his honesty about the motivations of his allies, his opponents and himself. He’s also the pre-eminent user of exclamation points that are simultaneously ironic and nonironic. Kaus will have a hard time taking on Boxer and her union allies. But her poll numbers aren’t that hot. He might have a chance!

If he proves more than an irritant to Boxer, and forces her to emphasize her left-liberal viewpoints, Kaus could damage Boxer’s prospects in the general election.

COMMENT:  It's about time Boxer, whose brain is rarely bothered by facts or subtety, had some real competition.  She thinks she has a lifetime job.

March 2, 2010  Permalink

BULLETIN:  EVERYTHING OLD IS NEW AGAIN – AT 9:29 A.M. ET:  Why do we hear the same story about Iran over and over?  Do we have a policy, or is it just the old game of kicking the can down the road?   From AFP:

BUENOS AIRES — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Monday it could take months for new UN sanctions against Iran, as she prepared for talks in Argentina and Brazil about the perceived Iranian nuclear threat.

Speaking on the plane to Buenos Aires, the chief US diplomat appeared to back away from her contention before the US Senate last week that a new resolution could be obtained in the "next 30 to 60 days."

We always seem to be backing away.  The administration's policy on Iran has, in more than a year, produced nothing.  China will not back strong sanctions, and the Russians are expressing deep skepticism.

"We are moving expeditiously and thoroughly in the Security Council. I can't give you an exact date, but I would assume sometime in the next several months," she said before landing in the Argentine capital..

...Clinton told reporters traveling with her that she expected to discuss Iran with for talks with Argentine President Cristina Kirchner, praising her stand on Iran.

"The Argentines have a very clear understanding of the dangers of the proliferation of nuclear weapons," Clinton said.

Boy, that's a relief.  I was really worried about the position of Argentina. 

Look, China is the key.  We may get a resolution in the Security Council, but it's likely to be watered down and ineffective.  Meanwhile, the Iranian nuclear program goes forward, uninhibited by anyone, and unhindered by a weak American government.   More change we can believe in.

March 2, 2010   Permalink

SOME GOOD NEWS ABOUT THE YOUNG, FOR A CHANGE – AT 9:02 A.M. ET:  The stereotype is that young people are radical, filled with contempt for their elders, and are ready to start a revolution in the name of Che, or whatever hero catches their fancy on Thursday.

But some anecdotal evidence is surfacing that suggests that conservatism is making a comeback among the young.  From the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

Civic involvement among politically aware young people is growing, based on attendance at the Feb. 18-20 Conservative Political Action Conference in the nation's capital.

Elementary, high school and college students who pre-registered for the conference accounted for 60 percent of the crowd, up 10 percent from 2009, said the event's director, Lisa De Pasquale. They wore business attire, but many could be seen connecting to social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook while mingling.

A recent Pew Research Center report said 40 percent of voters ages 18 to 28 lean Republican, up from 30 percent last year. Fifty-four percent of those voters said they lean Democratic, down from 62 percent last year.

That's very good, and probably based on disappointment that Obama didn't cure the world at one sitting.

Most people associate political activity and energy among young people with liberal candidates and causes, said Todd Gitlin, a Columbia University professor of sociology.

And a committed leftist.

Gitlin said it's hard to gauge from the Pew survey what is intensity and what is a trend toward conservatism. But he acknowledges the Obama administration isn't doing a good job of keeping young people engaged.

They're not doing a good job at keeping anyone engaged.

In the 2008 presidential election, voters ages 18 to 29 backed President Obama over Arizona Sen. John McCain by a 2-1 ratio. But that demographic did not show up to vote in the 2009 gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia. ABC News exit polling showed people younger than 30 accounted for 9 percent of the voters in New Jersey, down from 17 percent in November 2008, and 10 percent in Virginia, down from 21 percent in 2008.

The conservative values that attract young people appear to include limited government, with less emphasis on social issues, and a strong military.  That's why it's critical to keep the conservative movement clear of the crackpot fringe, which can only repel the young.

One young conservative activist said it best:

"It is not against Obama; it is for something better."

And that's the point.  Conservatives must stand for something.  It's not enough to be against the Obama health plan.  It's time for a new contract with America.  Let's spell it out.

March 2, 2010   Permalink

AL IS BACK, LET THE YAWNING BEGIN – AT 8:34 A.M. ET:  Little noticed, and for good reason, Al Gore surfaced over the weekend on The New York Times's op-ed page, arguing that nothing has changed in the science of global warming.

Not so fast, says Investors Business Daily.  Gore's "truth" may be inconvenient, but it isn't the truth:

If hyperbole and chutzpah had a child, it would be the opening paragraph of Gore's op-ed in Sunday's New York Times. Gore surfaced from the global warming witness-protection program to opine that despite admissions of error and evidence of fraud by various agencies, we still face "an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it."

Perhaps he's trying to protect his investments as he knows them, for he is heavily involved in enterprises that deal with carbon offsets and green technology. If the case for climate change is shown to be demonstrably false, a lot of his green evaporates like moisture from the ocean.

Wonderfully stated.  "Follow the money" used to be a principle of journalism.  Today it's "Follow the conservative money."

Interestingly, it's that moisture from the ocean that he uses to defend his failed hypothesis. The blizzards that have buried the Northeast, he writes, are proof of global warming because record evaporation due to warming is what produces record snows. Except that supporters of his theory not long ago argued exactly the opposite.

Hey, what's a little contradiction?  It's what makes a Georgetown party interesting.

He speaks of "recent attacks on the science of global warming." These presumably include the unearthing of e-mails between researchers associated with Britain's Climatic Research Unit that revealed an effort to discredit skeptics and deny them peer-review, the destruction and manipulation of data, and the use of "tricks" to "hide the decline" in global temperatures.

When you're saving the world, you have so little time for these obstructionists.

Exposure of the CRU e-mails was not an attack on science but an attempt to restore science to its rightful place.

Gore says the e-mails were "stolen." The New York Times used to call such revelations investigative journalism worthy of a Pulitzer Prize. We guess it depends on whose ox is, uh, gored. He says the CRU scientists were "besieged by an onslaught of hostile, make-work demands from climate skeptics." That used to be called defending your thesis and proving your facts.

Finally...

As for the Himalayan fraud, Gore says it's one of "at least two mistakes in thousands of pages of careful scientific work" from the IPCC and its chief, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri. Yet Dr. Murari Lal, an editor of IPCC's Fourth Assessment report, has admitted to the London Daily Mail that he knew the 2035 data were false, but included them in the report "purely to put political pressure on world leaders."

That's what it was all about, the creation of scary scenarios based on flawed computer models and manipulated data to promote government action and control. Now the curtain has been pulled back to reveal Al Gore shivering in the cold like the rest of us.

COMMENT:  As we've said here many times, what we too often get from the global-warming "community" isn't real science, but political science. 

The whole thing cries out for a major, neutral investigation of the "science" of global warming.  Considering who's in power in Washington, we're unlikely to get it.

March 2, 2010   Permalink

NO FORD IN OUR FUTURE – AT 7:41 A.M. ET:  Former Tennessee Congressman Harold Ford Jr., now residing in New York, has decided against challenging incumbent Senator Kirsten Gillibrand for the Democratic nomination for her Senate seat this year. 

Gillibrand was appointed by now scandal-scarred Governor David Paterson, who replaced scandal-scarred Governor Eliot Spitzer.  Gillibrand replaced scandal-scarred Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who became secretary of state in the mediocrity-scarred Obama administration.  Let's all put on a happy face.

With Ford parked in the political garage, Gillibrand has a clear field.  New York is a blue state, and she is almost a shoo-in for election, although very few people know her.  As usual, the moribund Republican Party of New York has yet to put forward a credible Senate candidate.  Rudy Giuliani has passed, apparently because his wife wants him at home.  And former Republican Governor George Pataki can't seem to decide whether to paint the bedroom or run for the Senate.  Theodore Roosevelt was considered, but is dead, although that may be an asset. 

So the GOP will probably forfeit a shot at a Senate seat.  It would be a long shot, but nowhere near as long as Scott Brown's shot in Massachusetts.  You know what happened there.

Does anyone know how to start a political party?

March 2, 2010   Permalink

MONDAY,  MARCH 1,  2010

PRAISE FOR A PUBLISHER – AT 7:49 P.M. ET:  At a time when some book publishing houses overdose on cynicism, and often defend the indefensible, Henry Holt and Company is to be praised for taking a financially painful step that maintains high publishing standards. 

NEW YORK (AP) -- Publication has been halted for a disputed book about the atomic bombing of Japan in 1945, The Associated Press has learned.

Charles Pellegrino's ''The Last Train from Hiroshima'' had received strong reviews and had been optioned for a possible film by ''Avatar'' director James Cameron. But publisher Henry Holt and Company, responding to questions from the AP, said Monday that Pellegrino ''was not able to answer'' several concerns, including whether two men mentioned in the text actually existed.

When a publisher pulls a book that has been optioned by Hollywood's hottest director, that is news.

''It is with deep regret that Henry Holt and Company announces that we will not print, correct or ship copies of Charles Pellegrino's `The Last Train from Hiroshima,''' the publisher said in a statement issued to the AP.

Many "publishers" today are just marketing operations, with few real editors or interest in editorial quality.  Often, authors have to hire their own editors to polish their texts.  At least Holt is showing some respect for the profession. 

Doubts were first raised about the book a week ago after Pellegrino acknowledged that one of his interview subjects had falsely claimed to be on one of the planes accompanying the Enola Gay, from which an atom bomb was dropped by the United States on Hiroshima in 1945. Holt had initially promised to send a corrected edition.

But further doubts about the book emerged. The publisher was unable to determine the existence of a Father Mattias (the first name is not given) who supposedly lived in Hiroshima at the time of the bombing, and John MacQuitty, identified as a Jesuit scholar presiding over Mattias' funeral.

''I read a number of books on this period of time and none of them mentioned Mattias or MacQuitty. I knew there was no way those people could have been omitted if they were real,'' said history professor Barton Bernstein of Stanford University.

Bernstein has, over the years, been a pain in the neck, but he's gotten this one right.

Pellegrino's own background was also questioned. He sometimes refers to himself as Dr. Pellegrino, and his Web site, http://www.charlespellegrino.com, lists him as receiving a Ph.D. in 1982 from Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. But in response to a query from the AP, the school said it had no proof that Pellegrino had such a degree.

COMMENT:  Let us hope that Dr. Pellegrino, or Mr. Pellegrino, isn't now invited to make the rounds of talk shows as a "victim" of a "witch-hunt." 

Let us also hope that no other publisher, believing it can benefit from the publicity, picks up the book.

And let us hope that James Cameron abandons the film project.

March 1, 2010   Permalink

PROGRESS? – AT 7:38 P.M. ET:  According to the Jerusalem Post, a fatwa is about to be issued in London that can be a step forward, and away from terrorism, for Islam:

LONDON – A revered mainstream Muslim scholar is set to announce in London on Tuesday a fatwa (Muslim ruling) against terrorism and suicide bombing in the name of Islam.

Sheikh Dr. Tahir ul-Qadri, a widely recognized and respected authority on Islamic jurisprudence, will issue a comprehensive fatwa prohibiting terrorism and suicide bombing at a press conference in Westminster, central London.

The Pakistani-born Dr. Qadri has authored an unprecedented, 600-page fatwa on why suicide bombings and terrorism are un-Islamic and scripturally forbidden. The ruling is the most comprehensive theological refutation of Islamist terrorism to date.

The fatwa will also be posted on the Internet and in English, making it readily accessible. It will also set an important precedent and allow other scholars to similarly condemn the ideas behind terrorism.

Dr. Qadri has used texts in the Koran and other Islamic writings to argue that suicide and other terrorist attacks are “absolutely against the teachings of Islam” and that “Islam does not permit such acts on any excuse, reason or pretext.”

The fatwa condemns suicide bombers as destined for hell, refuting the claim used by Islamists that such terrorists will earn paradise after death.

COMMENT:  Let's see if it has any effect, and if Tahir ul-Qadri survives.  There have been other statements by Muslim leaders condemning terrorism and suicide bombing, but they seem to have had little impact.  Extremists do their own "scholarship" and come up with their own interpretation of Islam.  But at least this new fatwa is encouraging.

March 1, 2010   Permalink

ABC NEWS TO DOWNSIZE DRASTICALLY – AT 6:58 P.M. ET:  At one time ABC News was the weak sister of the Big Three television news operations, well behind CBS and NBC. 

In recent decades the news division, thanks in large measure to the late Roone Arledge, grew substantially, although, in my view, it hitched its wagon to the wrong star – the equally late Peter Jennings, whose left-wing bias repelled many viewers. 

Now ABC is cutting way back again, and another voice, whether we like that voice or not, will be diminished.  From The Los Angeles Times:

As part of the deep cuts announced this week at ABC News, the network plans to close all of its physical bureaus around the country except Washington and halve the number of its domestic correspondents.

ABC News President David Westin confirmed in an interview Friday that the network's ranks of bureau correspondents, which currently number several dozen, would be cut in half and be replaced with "digital" journalists who would be expected to shoot and edit their own stories.

“We will have as many total journalists as we do now,” he said.

Although the network will keep a minimal staff presence in Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, Miami and Boston, it will shut down its bricks-and-mortar bureaus there and ask its remaining employees to work from the local affiliates. The Washington bureau will remain open, but its size will be substantially reduced.

COMMENT:  A lot of people will be thrown out of work.  Can this new model, using "digital" journalists, work?  No one really knows.  We do know that the "standards" that news operations brag about have become rather flabby in recent years, so maybe the digital reporters will add a breath of fresh air.  At the same time, covering major stories, which often requires large numbers of troops, will certainly suffer.

The network news operations are giving way to the cable systems, which serve viewers 24 hours a day.  I don't think the journalism has improved, but the speed certainly has.  We are a long way from the early days of television, when black-and-white film had to be flown in from overseas hot spots to be shown on nightly 15-minute news shows. 

March 1, 2010    Permalink

STOP THE PRESSES – AT 6:34 P.M. ET:  Fox News is reporting that a new, improved, Toyota-tested health plan will be unveiled by the White house on Wednesday.

The new plan, according to Head Nurse Nancy Pelosi, will be smaller than the one currently in the Dem plan, but will contain elements near and dear to the Democratic Party.

We'll see on Wednesday.  Maybe a sudden reality has overcome those who can count votes in the House and Senate, or maybe we're about to see another turkey born.

March 1, 2010   Permalink

SLAMMING IT THROUGH – AT 10:33 A.M. ET:  In defiance of public opinion, and uniform GOP opposition, the president appears determined to slam his health "reform" bill through Congress, as Bloomberg reports:

March 1 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama, taking charge of health-care legislation, is facing resistance from lawmakers in his own Democratic Party over the prospect of pushing the bill through Congress.

Obama plans to announce a way forward this week on the biggest overhaul of the U.S. health system in 45 years in a bid to break an impasse on the bill. Some House Democrats are uneasy over the likely use of a procedure called reconciliation that would sidestep Republican opposition by requiring only a simple majority vote in the Senate.

“It looks like we’re trying to cram something through,” said Representative Baron Hill, an Indiana Democrat who voted for the original House bill.

Hill said he might not back a measure if it goes through reconciliation, which is intended for budget matters. A “sizeable number” of the 54 fiscally conservative Democrats who call themselves Blue Dogs are also concerned, said South Dakota Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin.

The Dems are looking at November, when the entire House and a third of the Senate will be up for reelection.  Continued employment prospects do not look good for a number of them.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who yesterday said “time is up” for Congress to pass the legislation, can ill afford to lose votes. The first House bill passed 220-215 in November, and Democrats have lost at least three “yes” votes since then. Other party lawmakers are objecting to the substance of a new plan Obama released on Feb. 22.

COMMENT:  It's hard to remember a time when a president, and his Congressional leadership, worked so hard to push through a measure that was so unpopular with the public.  This represents a triumph of ideology over common sense, a government knows best mentality.  It's hard to see who benefits.  The public apparently thinks that it will not benefit.

March 1, 2010   Permalink

GUESS THEY HAVEN'T HEARD ABOUT AMERICA'S "OUTREACH" TO THE ISLAMIC WORLD – AT 8:56 A.M. ET:  There's a worrisome report from AP this morning, via Fox News, about the growth of Al Qaeda in North Africa.  There are possible implications for attacks on the United States:

WASHINGTON — Al Qaeda's terror network in North Africa is growing more active and attracting new recruits, threatening to further destabilize the continent's already vulnerable Sahara region, according to U.S. defense and counterterrorism officials.

The North African faction, which calls itself Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), is still small and largely isolated, numbering a couple hundred militants based mostly in the vast desert of northern Mali. But signs of stepped-up activity and the group's advancing potential for growth worry analysts familiar with the region.

Americans sometimes hear numbers like "a couple hundred" and don't stop to think what several hundred terrorists can do, especially if they're willing to return their souls to Allah in the process. 

The rapid recent rise of the Al Qaeda group in Yemen — which spawned the Christmas airliner attack — is seen by U.S. officials and counterterrorism analysts as evidence that the North African militants could just as quickly take on a broader jihadi mission and become a serious threat to the U.S. and European allies.

The Mali-based militants have yet to show a capability to launch such foreign attacks, but are widening their involvement in kidnapping and the narcotics trade, reaping profits that could be used to expand terror operations, officials and analysts said...

...Those advances have set off alarms within the counterterrorism community, which watched as Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula quickly transformed over the past year from militants preoccupied with internal Yemeni strife to a potent group recruiting and training insurgents for terror missions inside the U.S.

That threat was underscored by the failed Christmas airliner attack, which officials say was planned and directed by Yemeni insurgent leaders.

A key fear is that as AQIM expands, its criminal and insurgent operations will continue to destabilize the fragile governments of heavily Islamic North Africa, much as it has in Mali. The Maghreb includes the North African nations of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya and Mauritania.

COMMENT:  The left wing of President Obama's party wants us to wrap up the war on terror, as if the threat never really existed, and was somewhat the creation of BUSH (!!).  It's clear that the threat is expanding once again, despite outreach efforts by the administration.

We must finally realize that the jihadists are not simply "against" the United States.  They are for something, as the Nazis and Soviet Communists were for something.   They have an affirmative ideology that is too rarely discussed and presented in the American media.  (Do you ever recall a newspaper printing the Hamas charter?)  The multiculturalists believe that we must "understand" these views, "respect" them and give them validity, since all cultures are "equally valid."

No they're not.  And, while we must understand, we certainly don't have to "respect."  I find it hard to "respect" an ideology under which women aren't permitted to go to school, and can have their heads severed for defying their husbands.  What about you?

March 1, 2010   Permalink

BLUE STATES IN WORST FINANCIAL SHAPE – AT 8:30 A.M. ET:  I found this fascinating.  There is, at least according to a reporting piece in Forbes, a correlation between a state's financial condition and the number of its people identifying themselves as Democrats:

Want to know which states are in the worst financial condition? One telling indicator that might not immediately come to mind is whether most of its citizens identify themselves as Democrats.

The five states in the worst financial condition--Illinois, New York, Connecticut, California and New Jersey--are all among the bluest of blue states. The five most fiscally fit states are more of a mix. Three--Utah, Nebraska and Texas--boast Republican majorities and two--New Hampshire and Virginia--skew Democratic.

I'd have a question about Virginia skewing Democratic, given the landslide victory by Republicans in the recent statewide elections there.  But we'll let it pass.

Why do Democratic states appear to be struggling more than Republican ones? It comes down to stronger unions and a larger appetite for public programs, according to Kent Redfield, professor emeritus of political studies and public affairs at the University of Illinois' Center for State Policy and Leadership.

Yeah.  You add two and two, and it always comes out to four, except in Hollywood accounting and Democratic Party accounting...often the same thing.

Of the 10 states in the worst financial condition, eight are among a total of 23 defined by Gallup as "solidly Democratic," meaning the Democrats enjoy an advantage of 10 percentage points or greater in party affiliation. These states include the ones listed above as making up the bottom five, plus Massachusetts, Ohio and Wisconsin.

And...

Utah, the fiscally fittest state, has debt of just $442 and unfunded pension obligations of $7,272 per resident. It is also America's second reddest state with a 21-percentage-point Republican advantage in party affiliation. The Beehive state boasts a triple-A credit rating from Moody's.

Illinois is in the worst financial condition, with per-capita debt of $1,877 and unfunded pensions of $17,230. Moody's rates Illinois' general obligation debt A1, ahead of only California's.

Barack Obama represented Illinois in the Senate, and still has his home there.  Maybe someone should slip this article under his door.

March 1, 2010   Permalink

WHAT HAPPENS IN VEGAS - AT 8:01 A.M. ET:  Mr. Obama made an emergency visit to Las Vegas two weeks ago to boost the sagging political fortunes of Senate Majority Harry Reid, who is running for reelection this year, and who has lost favor with his Nevada voters.

Apparently, the president's visit didn't do the trick.  The Las Vegas Review-Journal has the story:

WASHINGTON -- During his whirlwind visit to Las Vegas two weeks ago, President Barack Obama mentioned U.S. Sen. Harry Reid by name four dozen times, gave him a big hug and talked him up as if he was a long-lost brother.

The hug is key.  They do the same thing in organized crime.

But as Reid faces an uphill path to win re-election to a fifth Senate term, Obama's enthusiastic endorsement does not appear to have improved the Senate majority leader's standing among constituents, according to a new poll conducted for the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

A larger percentage of voters surveyed (17 percent) said they would be less likely to vote for Reid following the president's visit than said they would be more likely to vote for him (7 percent). Seventy-five percent said Obama's visit would have no effect on how they vote.

"Reid was not helped, and Obama was not any more popular than he was before he came to the state," said Brad Coker, managing director at Mason-Dixon Polling & Research.

COMMENT:  Damn these voters who think for themselves!  What's a liberal to do with these people?

It wasn't very long ago that a visit from Barack Obama brought expectations of huge political dividends.  Now a yawn is the more common reaction. 

March 1, 2010   Permalink

OBAMA'S PERFECT BALANCE – AT 7:33 A.M. ET:  President Obama, who, as we've been told, is perfect in so many ways, has now achieved an even higher form of perfection, but perhaps not the kind he's been seeking in his mysterious ways.

Mr. Obama has now achieved, in the Real Clear Politics survey of presidential approval polls, essentially perfect parity between those who approve of him, and those who disapprove.  Some 47.8% approve, whereas 47% disapprove.  The report is here.

This is an emotional moment, rarely achieved this early in a presidency.  Write it down and tell your children.

March 1,  2010   Permalink