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.

NEW SUBSCRIPTION DRIVE - WE NEED A BOOST!

Our new subscription drive has slowed. We must do better to maintain our service level.   You're not getting all you should from Urgent Agenda unless you're a subscriber. 

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.

SUNDAY,  FEBRUARY 28,  2010

OH, YEAH...ACCOUNTABILITY – AT 10:14 P.M. ET:  Frank Miele is an excellent editor and writer, with the Daily Inter Lake in northwest Montana.  There is a long tradition of fine journalism in smaller American newspapers, and Miele continues it.   Here he looks at one of the major stories of the day – the Iranian nuclear program - and wonders about something many of us have wondered about:  Why is there no accountability about the way our intelligence services have botched the issue?

Two years ago, the Democrats and their friends in the liberal media were patting themselves on the back because of a National Intelligence Estimate that baldly stated, "Iran halted its nuclear weapons development program in the fall of 2003."

This was thought to make President George Bush look bad because he was insisting that Iran was a rogue nation that presented a growing threat in the Mideast and throughout the world.
Since it made George Bush look bad, it was therefore considered of major significance...

...The only problem was that the sum total of evidence in the National Intelligence Estimate that supported the proposal that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons development program in the fall of 2003 was the sentence that declared it so.

Yeah, we've kind of wondered about that.

This month, the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency issued its own report and warned that Iran may indeed be working on building a nuclear warhead.
Right on schedule.

The IAEA is under new management.  Its previous chief fronted for the Muslim world and is now a candidate for president of Egypt.  No conflict of interest there, I guess.

So...where is the accountability now that the United Nations has confirmed the danger presented by the Iranian nuclear program?

It doesn't exist. This story, although reported extensively, has not been properly used to gauge the earlier befuddlement of both the U.S. intelligence operations and the major media outlets in their blithe acceptance of incredibly incompetent analysis.

And...

We also found out from the new report that part of the evidence the U.S. had to ignore to write its tepid 2007 report was documentary evidence smuggled out of Iran in a laptop computer filled with smoking guns and burning fuses, figuratively speaking.

The people who wrote the 2007 report had a political agenda, and saw what they wanted to see.  One of the original purposes of the CIA was that it would be a central intelligence agency, not attached to any other department of the government, and without its own policies to push.  That has clearly not worked out.

Between the Mr. Magoo glasses and the Pinocchio nose, America's spies are starting to stick out in a crowd. Move over, Inspector Clouseau; there's a new bumbling cop in town.

One of the great unexplored stories of the last nine years is the degree to which agencies of the United States Government worked covertly against Bush administration polices, and the degree to which Bush overlooked it. 

We should have had, by now, a complete investigation of that 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, which mislead us.  But there is little chance of such a probe.  It isn't in the interest of either the Democratic Party or its camp followers in the media.  Thus, it won't be done, and we will be weaker as a nation for the lack of accountability.

February 28, 2010   Permalink

SCIENCE QUESTION FOR THE TEACHER – AT 7:13 P.M. ET:  From AP:

HONOLULU — The warning was ominous, its predictions dire: Oceanographers issued a bulletin telling Hawaii and other Pacific islands that a killer wave was heading their way with terrifying force and that "urgent action should be taken to protect lives and property."

But the devastating tidal surge predicted after Chile's magnitude 8.8-earthquake for areas far from the epicenter never materialized and by Sunday, authorities had lifted the warning after waves half the predicted size tickled the shores of Hawaii and tourists once again jammed beaches and restaurants.

Scientists acknowledged they overstated the threat, but defended their actions, saying they took the proper steps and learned the lessons of the 2004 Indonesian tsunami that killed thousands of people who didn't get enough warning.

COMMENT:  If they can't accurately predict a tsunami a day in advance, how can they predict global warming a half century in advance?  Just asking.

February 28, 2010   Permalink

OLYMPIC VERDICT – AT 6:59 P.M. ET:  In a superb column in the Washington Post, Sally Jenkins says what a lot of us have been thinking – there need to be big changes in the international Olympic "movement."

I love the Olympics, always have.  My wife and I are big figure skating fans.  But the International Olympic Committee has always been a farce, and a farce that doesn't do its job:

The IOC, confronted in Vancouver with a couple of lethal issues and fresh human rights concerns at the next Winter Games in Sochi, Russia, instead reserved some of its toughest words for this late-breaking scandal: the drinking of champagne by women in public.

The IOC's treatment of the Canadian women's hockey team as scandalous for being photographed swilling from bottles of bubbly after winning a gold medal was typical of the organization's recent fecklessness. Gilbert Felli, the IOC's executive director for the Olympic Games, a man apparently devoid of humor except for the jokes he perpetrates unwittingly, said, it was "not what we want to see." He intoned, presumably between bites of scallops, "I don't think it's a good promotion of sport values," and promised, "We will investigate what happened."

There's the problem, as Jenkins points out.  Trivial issues are treated with great gravity.  Major issues, like the death of the Georgian luger at the start of the Vancouver games, are wished away.

Kumaritashvili's death requires a serious investigation, and it should include deep internal soul-searching by the IOC about its leadership. Are the Winter Games pushing athletes too far? How did the track get 20 mph faster between its design and construction? It was designed by the International Luge Federation and built to specifications by Vancouver organizers, neither of which has incentive to investigate itself, or to admit that athletes voiced serious fears and complaints about the course for a year. Oversight is surely the role of the IOC, especially when something goes wrong.

There will be no serious investigation.  The IOC has always been a political, not an athletic organization.  Its record of collaboration with Nazi Germany before World War II is notorious.  That record of casualness about fascism continued after the war.  Strangely, until recently, IOC presidents always seemed to have some relationship to fascist regimes.

But they don't even try. They abdicate, and that abdication has been a huge moral failure. It's a cold hard fact that the Olympics have become vehicles for evil, partly thanks to their scale. In 2007 and 2008, Human Rights Watch documented scores of human rights abuses directly linked to the Beijing Games. From forced evictions to the arrest of dissidents, the Olympics led to "an overall deterioration of human rights in China." The Olympics are leaving huge debts -- of all sorts -- in their wake. In some cases, they left men and women broken and in jail. For the moment, this is the IOC's real legacy.

Finally...

It shouldn't be to much for the IOC to demand that host countries sign contracts guaranteeing they won't perpetrate naked evils in the name of the Olympics, the charter of which insists on "human dignity."

If the Olympics aren't ruined yet, it's only because they are indestructible. Each quadrennial, the athletes deliver competitive masterpieces, spectacles so dazzling that we forget the problems that went into making them. In the end, that's what the Olympics are really about...But the danger is that under this IOC, they are turning into the ultimate political cover.

COMMENT:  Well said.  The athletes are the show, but some of the producers should be retired.

February 28, 2010   Permalink

"CRAZY" – AT 5:01 P.M. ET:  Ah, I can hear Patsy Cline singing it now, right at Nancy Pelosi:

WASHINGTON — The White House called for a "simple up-or-down" vote on health care legislation today as Speaker Nancy Pelosi appealed to House Democrats to get behind President Barack Obama's chief domestic priority even it if threatens their political careers.

COMMENT:  Huh?  The only way it could threaten their political careers would be if their constituents are overwhelmingly against it.  So what Queen Nancy is saying is, "Who's more important, the American people or us, your leaders here in Washington?"  She certainly is blunt about it. 

I can understand risking your political career over a national-security issue, and members of Congress have done so.  But over a particular health-care plan?  When others are available?  When your own party has made a mess of it?

Nancy, of course, comes from a safe district in the People's Multicultural Republic of San Francisco, and Bar & Grill, so she has nothing to fear but smear itself.  Others are in greater jeopardy.

February 28, 2010   Permalink

FROM THE WONDERFUL GUYS WHO GAVE YOU MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD – AT 10:51A.M. ET:  I guess they felt they weren't making themselves clear.  From Reuters:

Iran could make European countries suffer by cutting off energy supplies and can target any adversary with its missiles, a senior Iranian military official said on Sunday.

Iran is locked in dispute with the United States and its allies over its nuclear energy program which Western countries fear is aimed at allowing Iran the chance to develop nuclear weapons. Tehran says it is only interested in electricity.

"Iran is standing on 50 percent of the world's energy and should it so decide Europe will have to spend the winter in cold," Hossein Salami, deputy commander of the elite Revolutionary Guards, said in a meeting with war veterans and volunteers in Kerman, according to Fars news agency.

"Our missiles are now able to target any spot in which the conspirators are in, and the country is making advances in all fields," he said.

COMMENT:  Let's see how the Europeans react to this direct threat, a threat of a missile attack.  Europe doesn't have a great record of reacting firmly, unless the United States is holding its collective hand.  And the American grip, under Obama, has become weaker.

This is a direct challenge.  The Iranians are probing Western intentions and strength.

February 28, 2010   Permalink

MAYBE SOME PROGRESS – AT 10:33 A.M. ET:  While Al Gore continues to argue that nothing is wrong in the global-warming kindergarten – just a few student crayon drawings out of place – more serious people are starting to move...maybe, maybe.  From today's Wall Street Journal:

The world's leading authority on climate change announced Saturday it is appointing an independent committee to investigate whether it needs to change its procedures to ensure it practices rigorous science.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, beset in recent months by a string of allegations of factual mistakes and improper scientific behavior in the preparation of its high-profile reports, said it will share details of how the independent review will work in early March.

A story in The Wall Street Journal on Friday detailed the IPCC's current effort to resuscitate its reputation and a longstanding tension within the organization between the desire by policy makers for clear, usable conclusions about climate science and the massive complexities of that science, many aspects of which scientists continue to debate.

And now the required garbage:

In the statement, IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri said that leaders of the United Nations-sponsored organization "stand firmly behind the rigour and robustness" of the IPCC's 2007 report. That report concluded that climate change is "unequivocal" and is "very likely" caused by emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activity, notably the burning of fossil fuels.

"But we recognize the criticism that has been leveled at us, and the need to respond," Mr. Pachauri said in the statement.

COMMENT:  Announcements like this need to be looked at very carefully.  And we need especially to look at how the investigation is executed.  Organizations, including universities, investigate themselves all the time, and the result is a whitewash.  Maybe this will be different, but I have my serious doubts.  Remember, there are people who have staked their entire careers on "global warming."  And there are billions of dollars involved. 

It will take heavy lifting by journalists, who themselves might well worry about their careers, to determine whether there'll be a real investigation, or a UN-style investigation. 

At the same time, the Obama administration continues to act as if there are no questions.  What strikes us is the anti-intellectualism of this position...although anti-intellectualism is a common malady among those who call themselves intellectuals.

February 28, 2010   Permalink

A DECENT MOMENT IN JOURNALISM – AT 10:01 A.M. ET:  The New York Times, which too often has disgracefully groveled before the great god of diversity, and has done real social damage in the process, has recently had some moments of reformation.

First, The Times took on African-American Governor David Paterson.  It was revelations in The Times that forced Paterson to drop out of the gubernatorial race.  And now The Times, on its very leftist editorial page, no less, takes on another powerful African-American:

Congressman Charles Rangel was far from humbled after the ethics committee admonished him for taking corporate-paid Caribbean junkets in violation of the House ethics code. Rather, the New York Democrat berated the panel’s leaders on the House floor.

The moment was characteristic of Mr. Rangel’s arrogance throughout the investigation, which continues into more serious allegations about his official behavior. It is one more reason why Speaker Nancy Pelosi — who championed ethics reform — should stop protecting him and relieve him of his crucial role as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

COMMENT:  Hurrah.  Finally, some sense at The Times.  It does no good to the African-American community to paper over the sins of some of its leaders.  It is patronizing and bigoted. 

Maybe the current Times establishment is growing up.  Or maybe some of the editorial staff is crawling out from under the boot of the paper's maturity-challenged publisher, who rules only because he's a member of The Times's royal family.

Or maybe The Times is finally recognizing that its economic tailspin is not due to the internet, but to the fact that many, many readers lost faith in the paper.

February 28, 2010   Permalink

OBAMA DOES A TITANIC IN BELLWETHER STATE – AT 9:43 A.M. ET:  Politics Daily has a new roundup of Obama's approval ratings by state.  Some of the polls are old, but others are right up to date.

There are, in some cases, the usual results.  My own state of New York still loves Obama.  The instruction sheet we receive regularly from the Commissar of Political Correctness instructs us to love and admire The One.  Otherwise our license to attend parties on the west side of Manhattan will be revoked.

But there is a stunner:  Ohio, a bellwether state.  The latest poll was taken a week ago:

Quinnipiac says 52 percent disapprove of the way Obama is handling his job while 44 percent approve, with 5 percent undecided. This is the highest level of disapproval in the state since Obama took office. Independents disapprove by 57 percent to 38 percent, with 5 percent undecided. Last September, 53 percent approved and 42 percent disapproved. Fifty-seven percent disapprove of Obama's handling of the economy while 39 percent approve, with 4 percent undecided. The percentage of those who disapprove is up 4 points since November. Independents disapprove of his handling of the economy by 64 percent to 33 percent, with 4 percent undecided. 

COMMENT:  Given the recent Dem disasters in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts, Ohio should have the White House breaking out in a cold sweat, or a global-warming sweat.  But the president's actions, and a certain cutting arrogance, don't indicate great concern.

February 28,  2010   Permalink

SATURDAY,  FEBRUARY 27,  2010

BAD NEWS FROM BRITAIN – AT 8:06 P.M. ET:  This should serve as a warning to Americans, especially those who blindly embrace "diversity."  From London's Telegraph:

A Labour minister says his party has been infiltrated by a fundamentalist Muslim group that wants to create an “Islamic social and political order” in Britain.

The Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE) — which believes in jihad and sharia law, and wants to turn Britain and Europe into an Islamic state — has placed sympathisers in elected office and claims, correctly, to be able to achieve “mass mobilisation” of voters.

Speaking to The Sunday Telegraph, Jim Fitzpatrick, the Environment Minister, said the IFE had become, in effect, a secret party within Labour and other political parties.

“They are acting almost as an entryist organisation, placing people within the political parties, recruiting members to those political parties, trying to get individuals selected and elected so they can exercise political influence and power, whether it’s at local government level or national level,” he said.

“They are completely at odds with Labour’s programme, with our support for secularism.”

Mr Fitzpatrick, the MP for Poplar and Canning Town, said the IFE had infiltrated and “corrupted” his party in east London in the same way that the far-Left Militant Tendency did in the 1980s. Leaked Labour lists show a 110 per cent rise in party membership in one constituency in two years.

COMMENT:  Of course, Mr. Fitzpatrick will be called a racist.  That is standard fare. 

The reason that sharia groups have been able to infiltrate is because leftists believe that Islamists are natural allies.  Both have the same enemy - the United States.  The leftists are delusional, of course, because the Islamists will have them for lunch if they ever gain real power.  But leftists are usually delusional.

Don't think what's happening to Labour can't happen here.  Already we see a pattern of vast expenditures by Saudi Arabia to buy influence in the United States, starting with our universities.  It can happen here.

February 27, 2010    Permalink

BULLETIN:  WE FOUND A USE FOR THE CENSUS – AT 7:45 P.M. ET:  Leave it to colleges and universities to find a unique way to raise funds.  From AP: 

ST. PAUL, Minn. – It was 5 p.m. in the lobby of the library of Metropolitan State University, and Clara Ware was sitting behind a table covered with pens, notepads and buttons with the Census 2010 logo, calling out like a sideshow barker.

"Here comes a prospect," she said as a student walked up.

Ware explained that filling out the census form this spring could mean more money for the university and the surrounding neighborhood, one of the oldest and most diverse in the city. The student took some knickknacks and promised to fill out her form. Ware smiled.

"If we could get some more of that funding back, we could get some more services," said Ware, 48, a member of the commuter school's Student Senate who is among a group that has been pushing the census in classrooms, lobbies and hallways.

Colleges, universities and their surrounding communities have a financial interest in making sure all of their students get counted in the census, so public relations campaigns like the one at Metropolitan State are popping up all over the country.

The stakes are high. The government uses census data to apportion seats in Congress and dole out about $400 billion annually in federal funds. It's also used in federal tuition grant and loan programs, so a thorough count of college students in 2010 can mean more money for higher education in the state down the road.

COMMENT:  I wonder, though, how many students will also be counted at home.  There are real concerns that we won't get an honest count this year, as interest groups organize to insure "participation" in the census from their favored constituents.  You can be sure that the Obamans will make the census as political as possible, as they do with everything else.

February 27, 2010   Permalink

ANOTHER ONE?  WEREN'T WE FINISHED WITH THIS? – AT 7:15 P.M. ET:  From AP:

BOSTON – A top Massachusetts Democrat said Saturday that one of Robert F. Kennedy's grandsons is considering carrying on the family's vaunted political tradition by running for the U.S. House of Representatives.

Joseph P. Kennedy III, one of the twin sons of former Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy II, may run this fall if Democratic Rep. William Delahunt decides against seeking re-election in his South Shore and Cape Cod district.

Kennedy, 29, "has been considering it but he hasn't made a decision," said the Democrat, who demanded anonymity to speak about private conversations with the father and son.

The younger Kennedy did not immediately respond to a request for comment. He is a graduate of Stanford University and Harvard Law School who works as a prosecutor in Barnstable County, near his family's Cape Cod compound.

Delahunt has served in Congress since 1997, but Massachusetts incumbents were shocked in January when a little-known Republican state senator, Scott Brown, claimed the U.S. Senate seat held for nearly a half-century by Edward M. Kennedy.

COMMENT:  Scott Brown did very well in Delahunt's district.  Delahunt will probably retire.  Question:  Will a young Kennedy automatically get the Democratic nomination just by asking for it?  Second question:  Will voters automatically pull the Kennedy lever in the general election, the way they used to do? 

We tend, as a nation, ultimately to reject political dynasties.  There aren't many people in high places named Adams or Jefferson, or even Roosevelt.  This can get very interesting.

February 27, 2010   Permalink

APPLAUSE, APPLAUSE – AT 11:14 A.M. ET:  One of the most honorable things you can do in politics is to keep your movement, or party, honest and decent.  It can be painful, as you sometimes have to oppose old friends and supporters.  But it's necessary.

William F. Buckley Jr. worked tirelessly to separate fringe elements from the new conservative movement.  Ronald Reagan carefully distanced himself from nutbags.  Harry Truman lost votes by making the limits clear to both segregationists and the leftist lunatics.

Now, that time has come again among conservatives, as The Politico reports:

After months of struggling to harness the energy of newly engaged tea party activists, the conservative establishment - with critical midterm congressional elections on the horizon - is taking aim for the first time at the movement’s extremist elements.

The move has been cast by some conservatives as a modern version of the marginalization of the far-right anti-communist John Birch Society during the reorganization of the conservative movement spearheaded in the 1960s and 1970s by William F. Buckley Jr.

“A similar effort will be required today of conservative political and intellectual leaders,” former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson wrote in his column in the Washington Post . “It will not be easy. Sometimes it takes courage to stand before a large crowd and proclaim that two plus two equals four.”

But for Gerson and other conservatives, this is not just an intellectual exercise. They have a very specific political goal – to deprive Democrats and their allies a potentially potent weapon to use against the GOP in November.

“I don’t believe we should be giving (extremists) a platform or empowering them to do anything based off their conspiracy theories,” said Ned Ryun, president of American Majority, “because they give the left ammunition to try to define the tea party movement as crazy and fringy.”

Absolutely correct.  A political movement must be policed from the inside.  It can be a broad tent, but it cannot be an infinite tent.  One of the reasons the conservative revival worked so well, and launched Ronald Reagan into the White House, is that conservatives were far more vigilant than liberals about keeping the nuts out.  Compare Buckley's purge of the John Birchers with the Democratic Party's acceptance of all kinds of fringe leftists, starting in the 1960s. 

And, by the way, one reason for the revulsion of many toward parts of the mainstream media is the media's inability to separate true, traditional liberals from hard leftists.  Old Marxists are described as "progressives" or "social activists."

The attempt “to clean up our own house,” as Erick Erickson, founder of the influential conservative blog RedState, puts it, is necessary “ because traditional press outlets have decided to spotlight these fringe elements that get attracted to the movement, and focus on them as if they’re a large part of this tea party movement. And I don’t think they are.”

Go to it, guys.  Don't give ammo to the opposition.  Sometimes you have to show someone the door to keep the room clean.

February 27, 2010   Permalink

DEM MONEYBAGS STRIKES AGAIN – AT 10:27 A.M. ET:  The great Ed Lasky, of American Thinker, who's always ahead of the curve, reports on the latest despicable escapades of one George Soros, one of the leading financial backers of the Democratic Party and assorted leftist causes:

In the case of George Soros, the rich really do get richer while the poor get poorer. Let me count the ways hedge fund billionaire has enriched himself through his trading "strategies." Years ago, he broke the Bank of England by wagering against the British pound -- pressuring it in such a way that England had to devalue the pound. His first billion-dollar payday. Various ploys over the years enriched him further. Then he made billions by wagering that the housing and mortgage markets would collapse in America. A multi-billion dollar payoff again.  Now he is up to his old tricks again: working with other hedge funds to force the euro to crack.

Some heavyweight hedge funds have launched large bearish bets against the euro in moves that are reminiscent of the trading action at the height of the U.S. financial crisis.

The big bets are emerging amid gatherings such as an exclusive "idea dinner" earlier this month that included hedge-fund titans SAC Capital Advisors LP and Soros Fund Management LLC. During the dinner, hosted by a boutique investment bank at a private townhouse in Manhattan, a small group of all-star hedge-fund managers argued that the euro is likely to fall to "parity" -- or equal on an exchange basis -- with the dollar, people close to the situation say.

Ed notes the utter phoniness of this man who finances so many leftist "help the people" causes:

These types of moves bring exacerbate problems with financial markets and the turmoil that results may enrich speculators and hedge fund managers but bring misery to millions of people.

But who cares about real people, those flyover people out there.  It's the ideology that counts.

Democrats have been major beneficiaries of hedge fund managers making donations to their party and to its politicians. Senator Chris Dodd was the number one beneficiary of their largesse until Barack Obama emerged as a presidential candidate; Obama became the "hedge fund candidate."

And...

The Democratic Party preaches that it is for the little guy and bashes Wall Street and bankers mercilessly. Yet it remains silent on the machinations of their patron saint, George Soros. He funds think tanks galore. He created the Center for American Progress -- Obama's think-tank and hiring hall. The CAP is an adjunct of the Democratic Party, peddling its ideas throughout the media landscape.

Finally...

Yet, Soros has no compunction about bringing misery to millions of people -- the same people the Democrats tout they are helping. They have no problem accepting money and support from George Soros-they also have no compunction and are notable short in the morality department, too.

Let's call it for what it is: liberal hypocrisy.

It certainly is.  And it has been going on for years. 

London's Daily Mail has now picked up the story:

A secretive group of Wall Street hedge fund bosses are said to be behind a plot to cash in on the decline of the euro.

Representatives of George Soros's investment business were among an all-star line up of Wall Street investors at an 'ideas dinner' at a private townhouse in Manhattan, according to reports.
A spokesman for Soros Fund Management said the legendary investor did not attend the dinner on February 8, but did not deny that his firm was represented.

Will the Democrats now refuse to accept funds from Soros?  Are you kidding?

February 27, 2010    Permalink

CALIFORNIA CAMPUS TROUBLES – AT 10:07 A.M. ET:  Shades of the 1960s, there is trouble on the campuses of the University of California.  The New York Times reports:

SAN DIEGO — It began, as so many racial flare-ups on campus do, with a prank that some called malicious, others insensitive.

Students at the University of California, San Diego, held an off-campus “Compton Cookout” Feb. 15 to mock Black History Month, with guests invited to don gold teeth in the style of rappers from the Los Angeles suburb of Compton, eat watermelon, and dress in baggy athletic wear.

Outrage ensued from the relatively small black student population here and their supporters, who grew more inflamed when a satirical campus television program broadcast a segment on the party and used a racial epithet to denounce black students.

On Thursday night, a third incident, a student’s hanging a noose from a bookcase in the main library, spurred a large, multicultural mass of chanting and drumming students to occupy the chancellor’s office for several hours on Friday and fed a simmering, some say much-needed, debate over race relations.

That's the tip of the proverbial iceberg.  At Berkeley, demonstrations against tuition hikes have turned violent.  In one recent incident, someone tried to set fire to the chancellor's house.

And just a few weeks ago, in an incident that got national attention, Muslim students at the University of California at Irvine, and from surrounding areas, tried so vigorously to prevent the Israeli ambassador to the United States from speaking that 11 were arrested.  Irvine has been a tinderbox for years.

California campuses often influence colleges throughout the country, and we wonder if we're seeing the start of new campus unrest.

However, let me note this:  One thing we see, as we've seen since the 1960s, is that various groups on campus are treated quite differently, depending on their popularity with the political left.  If African-Americans express a concern, as black students have, appropriately and correctly, at San Diego, it's addressed immediately.  But other groups, like Christians, Jews, conservatives, and those less favored by the academic establishment, often see their protests ignored or even ridiculed.  The arrests at Irvine represented the first serious response to years of intimidating behavior by some Muslim students there. 

If there is a new period of campus unrest before us, college leaders would be well advised to treat grievances equally.  There is a backlash building against colleges in this time of economic stress, and how student groups are treated will play a role in whether that backlash grows.

February 27, 2010   Permalink

SINKING LIKE A STONE – AT 9:51 A.M. ET:  It keeps getting worse for Obama in the daily Rasmussen tracker:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that 22% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-three percent (43%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -21. That matches the lowest Approval Index rating yet recorded for President Obama.

And...

Overall, 43% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That is the lowest level of total approval yet measured for this President. Fifty-five percent (55%) disapprove.

And get this:

The President earns approval from 76% of Democrats while 86% of Republicans disapprove. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 38% approve and 61% disapprove.

The figure for independents is just staggering. 

And this...

The President earns approval from 37% of men and 49% of women.

Noting that there's a margin of error, and that this is only one poll, we must point out that, if the survey is accurate, the president is losing the women's vote.

Is anyone at the White House noticing?  Anyone concerned?  Or are they still convinced that Japanese planes could never reach Pearl Harbor?

I'm getting a sense that many voters are turning against Obama personally, that they see personal characteristics that they don't like.  I wrote about this at the Angel's Corner last night.  If the public comes to dislike the president, it will be even more difficult for him to win back his former popularity. 

February 27,  2010   Permalink

FRIDAY,  FEBRUARY 26,  2010

THE DROP-OUT LIST GROWS AGAIN – AT 7:29 P.M. ET:  Scandal-plagued and governmentally challenged Governor David Paterson of New York has announced that he will not run for a full term.

You may recall that, in this soap opera, Paterson succeeded Governor Eliot Spitzer when Spitzer was forced to resign in a prostitution scandal.  Paterson is being forced out by a series of revelations about improper influence surrounding an aide's domestic violence problems.  One thing about New York:  When we have scandals, they're intimate and gossipy.  None of this mishandling of public funds nonsense. 

Paterson's withdrawal paves the way for Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, son of former Governor Mario Cuomo, to become the Democratic nominee.

Is it an opportunity for Republicans?  Not really.  New York is heavily Democratic, and, unless it's revealed that Cuomo is secretly married to John Edwards, he should win easily in November.  His probable opponent will be ill-fated former Republican Congressman Rick Lazio, last seen in a losing fight against Hillary Clinton for a Senate seat several political generations ago.

There's also a Senate seat up again in New York, which could provide an opportunity for Republicans, but so far no credible candidate has stepped forward.  The GOP in New York is weak and unimaginative.  The party tends to be owned by the highest-ranking Republican official in the state.  It used to be Nelson Rockefeller's toy.

So, for now, New York stays blue unless someone on a white horse rides in.

February 26, 2010    Permalink

STRANGENESS IN IRAN – The Iranians are doing strange things with their uranium, and no one can figure out why.  The New York Times's excellent David Sanger has the story:

WASHINGTON — When Iran was caught last September building a secret, underground nuclear enrichment plant at a military base near the city of Qum, the country’s leaders insisted they had no other choice. With its nuclear facilities under constant threat of attack, they said, only a fool would leave them out in the open.

So imagine the surprise of international inspectors almost two weeks ago when they watched as Iran moved nearly its entire stockpile of low-enriched nuclear fuel to an above-ground plant. It was as if, one official noted, a bull’s-eye had been painted on it.

Why take such a huge risk?

That mystery is the subject of fervent debate among many who are trying to decode Iran’s intentions. The theories run from the bizarre to the mundane: Under one, Iran is actually taunting the Israelis to strike first. Under another, it is simply escalating the confrontation with the West to win further concessions in negotiations that have dragged on for months. The simplest explanation is that Iran has run short of suitable storage containers for radioactive fuel, so it had to move everything.

The debate reflects the depth of confusion about the intentions of a badly divided Iranian leadership. Since October, when Iran agreed in principle to ship much of its nuclear stockpile out of the country so that it could be converted to fuel for a medical reactor, there have been a series of unexplained actions.

COMMENT:  Historically, the Iranians are excellent negotiators, stemming from the Persian tradition.  This is pure speculation, but this movement of uranium can be some kind of negotiating ploy, the nature of which is still to be seen.

One thing is clear:  So far, Iran has beaten us badly in the negotiating game.  They've given up nothing, and gotten everything.  Mr. Obama, who fancies himself a man of brilliance and an international actor of high tone, seems unable to do a thing about it. 

February 26, 2010   Permalink

SCRATCH ANOTHER ONE – AT 10:07 A.M. ET:  It looks like Scott Brown country may lose another far-left Dem congressman, with an opportunity opening up.  From the Boston Herald:

U.S. Rep. William Delahunt blew nearly $560,000 in campaign cash last year - much of it on lavish meals and a family-friendly payroll that includes his ex-wife, son-in-law and daughter - stoking speculation the Quincy Democrat is emptying his war chest and won’t seek re-election.

Nickolai Bobrov, who is married to Delahunt’s daughter Kara, has raked in $47,732 since landing on the payroll as the congressman’s campaign manager in July, including a $10,000 payment that month marked retroactive for “consulting services April-July,” according to campaign finance records.

Bobrov also is listed as treasurer of Delahunt’s Campaign for Change political action committee, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

COMMENT:  We are moved by this affirmation of family values.  Why, the congressman is just showing us what a little warmth can do.

Delahunt is one of the most left-leaning members of Congress.  He took a major hit recently when it was revealed that he had been the D.A. who dropped the ball in 1986, when Amy Bishop (who recently murdered three fellow professors at the University of Alabama) killed her brother with a shotgun.  The shooting was put down as an accident, despite the fact that Bishop fired the gun three times.  Had Delahunt done his job and properly prosecuted the case as a murder, the recent Alabama tragedy might have been avoided. 

Scott Brown did well in the district Delahunt represents.  If Delahunt pulls out, it could provide another opening for a strong Republican.

February 26, 2010   Permalink

PAYBACK FROM THE VOTERS – AT 9:37 A.M. ET:  Rasmussen reports this morning that President Obama's poll numbers are awful:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 23% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-three percent (43%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -20. For President Obama, the Approval Index has been lower only once.

And...

Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That matches the lowest level of total approval yet measured for this President. Fifty-five percent (55%) disapprove.

COMMENT:  What is remarkable is that the White House has no real answers to this abysmal showing.  The president seems determined to push on with policies that are distinctly unpopular with the American people.  Now, at times that can be a sign of courageous leadership, especially in foreign and defense policy.  President Truman, pursuing policies that ultimately contributed mightily to our winning of the Cold War, did so in the face of considerable public scorn.

The difference is that Obama's policies defy what we have learned about what works and what doesn't, and show no signs of actually succeeding.  Unlike Truman, who based his beliefs on experience and history, Obama bases his on ideology...in a distinctly non-ideological country.

Truman studied history because, as he said, it prevents a leader from having to start from scratch.  Obama doesn't study history, doesn't seem to know much about it, and doesn't seem to care much.  When you're a demigod, who needs books?

The midterms are little more than eight months away.  The question is whether the American people will apply the brakes to Obama, and do so before more real damage is done.

February 26, 2010   Permalink

ANOTHER FOREIGN-POLICY FLOP – AT 8:55 A.M. ET:  Almost under the radar, the United States has returned its ambassador to Syria.  We have not had an ambassador in Damascus since 2005.

Syria did absolutely nothing to win this concession from the United States.  Enemy states apparently need do nothing to get a reward under the Obama administration.

And how has Syria responded to this new opportunity to heal relations with Washington?  How do you think?  Superlative reporter Benny Avni reports for the New York Post:

How many times does the Obama administration have to get bitten before it stops leading with an "open hand"?

Hillary Clinton this week called on Syrian President Bashar Assad to respond to recent US overtures by distancing his country from Iran. Yesterday, Assad responded by signing a new friendship pact with a grinning Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. More, he mocked our secretary of state: "We must have understood Clinton wrong because of bad translation or our limited understanding, so we signed the agreement."

The latest US overture was the naming of Robert Ford last week as our next ambassador to Syria, five years after we recalled our last ambassador to protest Syria's suspected involvement in the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

And...

Meanwhile, Assad calmly pockets every gift we shower on him, then thumbs his nose at us. We've yet to get a single meaningful concession.

Five years after the (American-supported) peaceful Cedar Revolution drove Syrian troops out of Lebanon, that nation is back under near-complete Syrian control. Lebanon's new prime minister, Hariri's son Saad, recently had no choice but to go and pay obeisance to Assad -- kissing the ring of his father's killer.

Can you name a single foreign-policy success for this administration?  I can't.

But I'm told that some Obama advisers are harder-headed -- starting with Hillary herself, whatever she has to say in public. Assad's show of solidarity with Ahmadinejad yesterday should bolster the skeptics' case. And there are more skeptics in Congress: Robert Ford's Senate confirmation could prove problematic for the administration.

A great place for the GOP to take a firm stand. 

Avni suggests that Obama, for once, show some backbone, using as a hook one of Syria's latest acts of defiance, its refusal to open its nuclear program to international inspection.

He has enough reason now to announce that, until Syria opens up its nuclear facilities for inspections, no US ambassador will be returning to Damascus.

That won't happen.  It might "offend" the Arab world, and we wouldn't want to do that, would we?  We must show how much more sophisticated we are than BUSH (!!).

And yesterday the administration indicated that sanctions on Iran, promised for the first of the year, may not happen until April, and that assumes we can get the UN on board.

The president is great at showing toughness when dealing with Republicans.  When dealing with foreign enemies, it's an entirely different story.

February 26, 2010   Permalink

BRITS GET OBAMA BETTER THAN WE DO – AT 8:27 A.M. ET:  As you know, we often turn to British journalists to nail the truth about Obama.  Today, Toby Harnden of the Telegraph observes The One's behavior at the health summit, and comes to appropriate conclusions:

It did not take long for the bipartisan health care summit to degenerate into the kind of bickering and points-scoring that has created a crescendo of anger about the conduct of politics in Washington.

President Barack Obama preached that the White House health care summit should not be "political theatre where we're just playing to the camera" or about trading "respective talking points". Then he reminded his 2008 opponent John McCain: "We're not campaigning any more. The election is over."

The barely concealed message was: "I won and you lost, buddy." When Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority Leader, grumbled that Democrats had talked for 52 minutes and Republicans just 24, Mr Obama shot back: "I'm the President. I didn't count my time."

From the moment Mr Obama crossed Pennsylvania Avenue to Blair House (which is normally occupied by visiting diplomats) flanked by aides and Secret Service agents, it was clear the President meant business. He looked like an extra from Reservoir Dogs – only the shades were missing.

When the garrulous Vice President Joe Biden was a little tardy getting to his seat, Mr Obama chided him: "Come on, Biden!" Reprising the message that the voters of Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts had rejected overwhelmingly, Mr Obama made the case that a trillion-dollar overhaul of the American health-care system was essential to rescue the ailing economy.  His opening remarks were a campaign speech in all but name.  He had little new to say, even admitting: "I'm telling you things all of you already know."

COMMENT:  That's the best description of Obama's Oscar-losing performance yesterday that I've read.  We saw Obama at his Chicago City Council best.  All we needed was the "They bring a knife, we bring a gun" line. 

One term?  If the GOP can come up with a presidential candidate who can pass an EKG, that could be Obama's future.  Back to community organizing.

February 26, 2010   Permalink

NANCY'S PLACE – AT 8:14 A.M. ET:  What is it about these Democrats?  Didn't any of them learn in student government?  From The Politico:

For a few hours Thursday night, the House of Representatives was in chaos.

Shortly after dinnertime, New York Democrat Charlie Rangel emerged from his private hideaway after news broke that he would be admonished by the House ethics committee.

Yet reporters in the Capitol rushed right past Rangel to ask House Democratic leaders about a critical intelligence bill that had just been pulled over a torture provision. The language had been inserted in defiance of leadership by House Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.).

At the same time, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was slated to meet with leaders of the Congressional Black Caucus to try to salvage a routine, $15 billion jobs bill that turned into a piñata for progressives, the moderate Blue Dog Coalition and members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Any of these three issues – a floundering jobs bill, a hastily scotched intelligence authorization or an ethics committee admonishment of the powerful chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee – would qualify as mid-level crises.

Together, these incidents illustrated a chamber in a mini-meltdown near week's end.

COMMENT:  Ignore this.  It's obviously far-right propaganda inserted by Sarah Palin and her children.  These are just the people you want to run your health care.  Why?  Because they fail, and they learn from their failures.  By the time they get to decide whether you live or die, they'll be wise and perfect. 

Nancy?  Charlie?  How can Washington and Jefferson compare to them? 

February 26,  2010   Permalink