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.

PLEASE SUBSCRIBE - URGENT

(Thank you to all who subscribed or donated during the first week of our subscription drive.  Now we start our second week, and, to approach our goal, we really need to surge.)

This is our first subscription drive of 2011.  It is the most critical in our history.

After explosive growth in 2008 and 2009, we slowed a bit last year.  We have to pick up our pace, expand, and double the number of subscribers to give us the financial stability to continue and add services.

As a subscriber, you know you're making possible a site with intense reader loyalty.  Exhibit A:  Our subscriber renewal rate in the last month was 94%.  That is spectacular in any league.  Urgent Agenda has become a community of well-informed, devoted readers.

But we seriously need new subscribers and donators.  And if you're a current subscriber or donator, you are invited to add to your already valued participation.

As a subscriber (or donator) you will receive The Angel's Corner, our twice-a-week e-mailed page, featuring our Forum.  Unlike "comment" sections of some sites, the Forum allows you to write at length on any subject you wish.  We have readers with serious expertise, and the Forum has become our most popular feature.

Finances permitting, we hope to expand The Angel's Corner to three times a week this year.

At the Angel's Corner we also give out our coveted Pompous Fool Award, given only to the most pompous and most foolish in the worlds of journalism and politics.  It is a rare honor.

If you find Urgent Agenda valuable, please subscribe or donate under SUBSCRIPTIONS, in the right-hand column, right opposite these words.  Become part of our group and help us to continue and expand our work.  You won't regret it.  If you do, we offer a pro-rated money-back guarantee.

We are in critical times, and gearing up for the 2012 election.  We'll be there.  We hope you are, too.

FEBRUARY 7,  2011

JUST WHAT WE NEED – AT 8:59 P.M. ET:  The chaos in Egypt is providing a cynical opportunity for Al Jazeera, the news organization sponsored by the emir of Qatar.  Al Jazeera wants to expand its English-language "service" to the United States.  The New York Times dutifully reports:

Al Jazeera stands to benefit greatly from its protest coverage, a fact not lost on the network, which has been placing advertisements in major American newspapers. The live reports strengthen the network’s already tight grip on its Arabic-language viewing public, while bolstering its argument that cable and satellite distributors in the United States should make the English version available to American viewers.

A sense of mission — and of opportunity — permeates the Al Jazeera compound on the outskirts of Doha, where on Friday the televised cries of antigovernment protesters resounded through the hallways at all hours along with the ringing of cellphones and the shouts of news anchors. Staff members were well aware they faced stiff challenges — from opponents who wish Al Jazeera off the air and skeptics who doubt the objectivity of a network backed by the emir of Qatar.

Yeah, I'd have a problem with their objectivity.  Jimmah Carter recently announced that he watches Al Jazeera, which should convince anyone above the mental age of ten that there might be something dubious about their coverage.

Since its inception in 2006, Al Jazeera English has been fighting for access to American viewers. Distributors have been unwilling to carry the service, but Mr. Anstey, the managing director, said in an interview that renewed talks with the major distributors were now under way. “There’s a growing call for Al Jazeera. That’s clear,” he said.

I'm sure they're beatin' the drums in Berkeley.

There remains a deep suspicion of Al Jazeera’s motives, however, particularly with regard to its recent protest coverage. In an essay that appeared on The Huffington Post, Marc Ginsberg, a former United States ambassador to Morocco and a former contributor to Fox News, accused Al Jazeera of acting “more and more like a ‘Wizard of Oz’ type instrument for social upheaval in the region — whether or not it brings to power Salafi extremists is immaterial to its mission.”

COMMENT:  Observers I respect, like John Fund of The Wall Street Journal, report that Al Jazeera has improved – they once employed a spy for Saddam Hussein – but I still think they have quite a way to go.  Also, Americans would certainly feel uneasy about a news organization financed by a despot.  We're not too big on emirs here. 

I'd imagine that some systems in the U.S. will start to carry Al Jazeera, and it will be watched by the same crowd that watches the BBC on public television, and thinks it's getting the news because the accents are so neat.  But I wouldn't want democracy's future dependent on Al Jazeera's reporting.

February 7, 2011       Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 7:52 P.M. ET:  A few days ago, British Prime Minister David Cameron severely criticized the cult of multiculturalism, which has allowed Islamic extremists to live comfortably in Britain while polite society looks the other way to avoid "offending" Islam.  The left unleashed a flood of abuse against Cameron.  The Jerusalem Post comments:

If Cameron’s speech was fair, then, what explains the broadside against him?

WHILE BRITAIN’S hard Right has deteriorated toward crude fascism, large swathes of the Left seem to have adopted a policy of cultural masochism that advocates what Christopher Hitchens has called a “one-way multiculturalism.”

Amidst a hypersensitive desire not to offend, coupled with an embarrassing, terribly self-defeating willingness to relinquish Western values, all manner of antisocial practices – such as the wearing of veils, forced marriages, even genital mutilation – are rationalized, and sometimes validated, in the name of religion, even when none of these practices is necessarily dictated by the Koran. Even honor killings, in some marginal circles, can be regarded as something less than murder because of an ostensible religious imperative. At the same time, the demand that Muslims respect British cultural norms is sometimes presented as an untenable intrusion.

Cameron was trying to articulate a sensible middle ground. The attack on him from some on the Left represents the kind of response that has thus far prevented the formation of a broad non-partisan coalition in Britain, dedicated to reasserting the values at the heart of the country’s illustrious history of democracy and liberalism.

This does not bode well, and demographics are only further complicating the cultural conundrum. The Muslim population in the UK will almost double to 5.5 million – or 10 percent of the national total – within 20 years, according to a recent Pew Research Center forecast. The Islamists’ threat itself may be crude, but fighting it entails adopting intricate cultural and political distinctions, bolstered by the firm conviction that Western ideals of freedom and liberty truly are superior. The climate of response to David Cameron’s speech suggests that many in Britain are not convinced.

COMMENT:  Wonderfully stated, with considerable application to the United States, especially our pampered, overfed universities. 

As Charles Krauthammer pointed out, Barack Obama would never have the courage to denounce the one-way multiculturalism that is practiced here, especially in our coastal liberal enclaves.  But just as Britain, under Mr. Cameron, will be expected to hoist British values, we must defend American values and never again elect a president, like Obama or Carter, who is ashamed of them.

February 7, 2011      Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 8:51 A.M. ET:

WASHINGTON —  Michelle Obama, the first lady and a healthy-eating advocate, has her sights set on a new target: the nation’s restaurants.   A team of advisers to Mrs. Obama has been holding private talks over the past year with the National Restaurant Association, a trade group, in a bid to get restaurants to adopt her goals of smaller portions and children’s meals that include healthy offerings like carrots, apple slices and milk instead of French fries and soda, according to White House and industry officials.

Think of the good side.  It keeps her out of foreign policy. 

February 7, 2011      Permalink

POLITICAL EARTHQUAKE – AT 8:39 A.M. ET:  The Democratic debacle, which started on election day, continues.  Many don't realize, with so much attention paid to congressional races, how much damage is being done to Democrats at the state level.  The Los Angeles Times, quite a liberal paper, has a devastating report: 

Reporting from Atlanta — For Democrats, Ashley Bell was the kind of comer that a party builds a future on: A young African American lawyer, he served as president of the College Democrats of America, advised presidential candidate John Edwards and spoke at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston.

But after his party's midterm beat-down in November, Bell, a commissioner in northern Georgia's Hall County, jumped ship. He joined the Republicans.

Bell, 30, said he had serious issues with the healthcare law and believed that conservative "blue dog" Democrats in Congress who shared his values had been bullied into voting for it.

Bell's defection is one of dozens by state and local Democratic officials in the Deep South in recent months that underscore Republicans' continued consolidation of power in the region — a process that started with presidential politics but increasingly affects government down to the level of dogcatcher.

"I think the midterms showed you really can't be a conservative and be a member of the Democratic Party," Bell said.

Since the midterm election, 24 state senators and representatives have made the switch in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and Texas.

In some cases, the ramifications have been profound: In Louisiana, defecting Democrats gave Republicans a majority in the state House for the first time since Reconstruction; in Alabama, they delivered the GOP a House supermajority. Republicans have 65 votes to the Democrats' 39, enough to pass constitutional amendments over Democratic opposition.

COMMENT:  Parties are built at the state level.  The South is truly rising again...for the party of Abraham Lincoln.

February 7, 2011       Permalink

MARINES TO MIDEAST? – AT 8:30 A.M. ET:  Business Insider has a report on deployment of more U.S. Marines to the Egyptian area:

A senior member of the US Marine corps is telling people "multiple platoons" are deploying to Egypt, a source tells us.

There is a system within the US Marines that alerts the immediate families of high-ranking marines when their marine will soon be deployed to an emergency situation where they will not be able to talk to their spouses or families.

That alert just went out, says our source.

This senior Marine told our source that the Pentagon will deploy "multiple platoons" to Egypt over the next few days and that the official reason will be ‘to assist in the evacuation of US citizens."

Our source was told that "the chances they were going over there went from 70% yesterday to 100% today."
We're keeping these people anonymous because both would get in trouble for sharing this information with the press.

COMMENT:  It's entirely legitimate to have assets in place to evacuate Americans, although Americans who want to leave seem to be getting out with no great difficulty.  The Marines, of course, might have other functions if Egypt falls apart.  This is just a preliminary advisory.

February 7, 2011      Permalink

EGYPT UPDATE – AT 8:02 A.M. ET:  Things are remarkably calm in Egypt.  Even Anderson Cooper is coming home.  The regime, which we certainly don't look upon with love, seems to be surviving, giving hope that an orderly transition to democracy can occur:

Cairo, Egypt (CNN) -- As protesters maintained a human chain at Cairo's Tahrir Square on Monday -- giving no indication of budging until President Hosni Mubarak steps down -- the country's new Cabinet is set to have its first meeting, according to state-run TV.

Meanwhile, as some signs of normalcy spread in shops and banks, the Egyptian finance minister said Monday that the country will auction as much as 15 billion Egyptian pounds (about $2.5 billion) in treasury bills. Samir Radwan also said the stock market could open on Wednesday.

And...

The 14th day of protests comes after Egypt's vice president, Omar Suleiman, met with representatives of key opposition groups Sunday and offered concessions -- including some that, if enacted, could bring dramatic change to the country.

Among the ideas agreed to by the two sides at the meeting, according to a report on state-run television, was a future end to the military emergency law that has been in place since President Hosni Mubarak came to power in 1981...

...The two sides also discussed steps to ensure free media and communication, and plans to form a series of committees that would oversee changes aimed at bringing about a representative government.

COMMENT:  We get the sense that many of the international celebrity reporters will soon depart.  Then we'll find out what the future really holds.  We produced a fledgling democracy in Iraq (at great cost), but we saw how hard it was to introduce democracy to a culture that had no democratic norms.  The situation in Iraq is still uncertain. 

The same problem exists in Egypt.  Will there be a truly free election?  Even more important, will there be freedom after the election?  And just as important as that, will any new Egyptian government be friendly to the U.S., and maintain the Israel-Egypt peace treaty?

But don't worry.  Barack Obama is on the case, with vast years of experience at handling crises (choke). 

February 7, 2011      Permalink

THE VIRTUE OF SILENCE – AT 7:51 A.M. ET:  Did you ever entertain the thought that Mr. Obama should occasionally avail himself of the right to shut up?

In his interview with Bill O'Reilly before yesterday's Super Bowl game, the president rambled from point to point, saying nothing much, but too often sounding foolish.

For example, regarding the Muslim Brotherhood, a fierce, anti-American, fundamentalist organization that gave birth to Al Qaeda, we got this:

"The Muslim Brotherhood is one faction in Egypt. They don't have majority support in Egypt, but they are well organized and there are strains of their ideology that are against the U.S., there's no doubt about it," Obama said. "But here's the thing that we have to understand, there are a whole bunch of secular folks in Egypt, there are a whole bunch of educators and civil society in Egypt that wants to come to the fore as well. So it's important for us not to say that our own only two options are either the Muslim Brotherhood or a suppressed people."

Yeah, that guy Hitler, he's just one fella.  Doesn't have much support.

Letting the Muslim Brotherhood into the Egyptian government is like letting a rattlesnake into your living room, with the hope it stays in a corner.  This fascistic organization has its tentacles all over the world, and has no interest in democracy.  It wants to impose Sharia law, but Mr. Obama seems unconcerned.

And those Japanese ships approaching Pearl Harbor are filled with tourists.

The president also downplayed talk that he's moved to the center, claiming he's the same guy he always was.  That's frightening enough, but it was the perception that he'd moved centrist that gave him a recent boost in the polls.  That boost is easing back, now that the truth is coming out.

Oh, do we need candidate Reagan now.

February 7, 2011     Permalink

FEBRUARY 6,  2011

EGYPT UPDATE – AT 8:21 P.M. ET:  There is some sporting contest going on, but I understand there's an intermission of a sort, so we'll use this time to update readers on the situation in Egypt.  We'll of course have more tomorrow morning.

It appears the regime may have made some progress toward staying in power during the transition to what is being sold as a more democratic form of government.   From WaPo:

CAIRO - The main Egyptian opposition groups eased up on their insistence that President Hosni Mubarak step down immediately, agreeing instead on Sunday to join in talks toward overhauling the country's political system at a more gradual pace while Mubarak remains in office.

The shift suggested that Mubarak and his allies may have succeeded in defusing the fiercest of cries from opponents who had insisted that the president resign as a precondition for any talks. It followed the clearest signals yet from the Obama administration that its call for a quick transition in Egypt did not include a demand that Mubarak step aside before elections this fall.

It is impossible to know whether the opposition is sincere, or whether it's some kind of tactic.  Included in the opposition talks with the government are leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, an outlawed organization.  There is now a concerted effort among the Western mainstream media to sanitize the Brotherhood and assert that it has become more moderate.  That is nonsense.  Its tactics may have become more sophisticated, but its fundamentalist, extremist views have not changed.  It still favors the spread of Sharia law, even to the United States, and favors scrapping the Egyptian peace treaty with Israel, which could plunge the region into another war.  Some moderates.

At the same time, Egyptian street demonstrators are poised to enter day 14, although they're showing signs of weariness.  Regimes can sometimes wait out these revolts. 

More coming.

February 6, 2011       Permalink

WHERE OBAMA STANDS – AT 11:01 A.M. ET:  Scott Rasmussen reports that President Obama, during the last week, has begun to slip back again in public approval.  And early matchups with some Republican presidential candidates are not encouraging for the incumbent:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 24% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Thirty-eight percent (38%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -14 (see trends).

And...

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

Obama is slipping back to where he was most of last year.  And get this:

An early look at potential 2012 match-ups indicates that the election is likely shaping up as a referendum on President Obama. That’s typical when an incumbent runs for reelection.

The numbers show that Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee essentially run even with Obama at this point. Romney is nominally up two points, 44% to 42%, while Huckabee is tied with the president at 43% apiece.

Three other well-known potential candidates, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul trail the president. Palin is down by 11 points, 49% to 38%, Gingrich by eight, 47% to 39%, and Paul by nine, 44% to 35%.

While these early numbers are just vague indicators at this moment, they do point to a vulnerable president, and yet a president who will be hard to defeat.  I wouldn't take the Ron Paul number seriously.  Once people get a whiff of his real politics, he'll be down to eight percent. 

Election year is only 11 months away.

February 6, 2011      Permalink

OUTRAGE – AT 10:46 A.M. ET:  There's another former president we have a right to be proud of, and he's being treated rather badly by the usual suspects.  From Fox News:

GENEVA — A visit former U.S. President George W. Bush planned to make to Switzerland next week has been canceled because of security concerns, after left-wing groups called for mass protests and rights activists proposed legal action against him for allegedly ordering the torture of terrorism suspects.

Bush's spokesman David Sherzer said the two-term president was informed Friday by the United Israel Appeal that his Feb. 12 dinner speech in Geneva had been called off.

"We regret that the speech has been canceled," Sherzer told The Associated Press in an e-mail Saturday. "President Bush was looking forward to speaking about freedom and offering reflections from his time in office."

Saturday's edition of Swiss daily Tribune de Geneve quoted the Jewish charity's lawyer, Robert Equey, as saying the visit was canceled because of the risk that protests by left-wing groups could result in violence.

"The calls to demonstrate were sliding into dangerous terrain," Equey told the newspaper. "The organizers claimed to be able to maintain order, but warned they could not be held responsible for any outbursts."

The creeps are out in force:

Several human rights groups, including Amnesty International and the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, had planned to ask Swiss prosecutors to open a criminal investigation against Bush over the admission that he personally authorized the waterboarding of terrorism suspects.

I object when news organizations, including Fox, refer to rackets like this as "human rights groups."  The Center for Constitutional Rights is a Marxist organization, and Amnesty International, while occasionally doing some good work, is essentially a leftist stalking horse.  The ACLU was, naturally, also involved in this.

I wonder how many of these "human rights" activists showed the slightest interest in the rights of the Egyptian people before, say, two weeks ago.  Hmm.

February 6, 2011       Permalink

ONE HUNDRED YEARS – AT 10:24 A.M. ET:  Ronald Reagan would have been 100 today.  You will read many articles about him, some knowledgeable, some not, some favorable, some not.  This is a day when die-hard liberals stay indoors and hope there's something on TV besides the Super Bowl.

I won't write a long philosophical essay here.  Let me just recall for you the only time I saw Ronald Reagan "in person," and up close.  My wife, younger daughter, and I attended a Broadway musical in 1993 called "Crazy for You," based on the songs of George and Ira Gershwin.  We were sitting in the audience, waiting for the show to begin, when in walked Ronald and Nancy Reagan, two friends, and a bunch of Secret Service Guys.  Mr. Reagan had been out of office almost four years.  There was no announcement of his arrival, no "Hail to the Chief" from the orchestra, just a gasp from the audience, followed by wild applause.  It was a mixed New York and tourist audience, so I assume the applause came mostly from the tourists.

The Reagans didn't sit in a special box, but in an ordinary row in the orchestra, with everyone else.  We were directly behind them, about four rows back.  And as the musical proceeded, you could see members of the audience glancing back, trying to catch the former president's reaction to a particular song or line.

It was, however, during the intermission, that we got a glimpse of the Reagan magic.  Mr. Reagan never left his seat, instead greeting each member of the audience who came up to say hello.  He never seemed to tire.  And he had about him a kind of American openness, a graciousness.  The guy seated next to me mentioned, with a grim face, that he'd never liked Reagan policies.  You can always tell the liberals.  They never smile.  This gent could have taken a lesson from the president sitting four rows ahead.

To watch Mr. Reagan interact with his fellow citizens was one of the great pleasures of a lifetime.  He was indeed "different."  He was different because he was us, not above us.  He was part of the American people, and he was proud of it.  And we were proud of him.

February 6, 2011     Permalink