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  –  HELP!

Our subscription drive is faltering.  If you are a regular subscriber or donator, please consider a second subscription (a gift, perhaps), or an additional donation.  If you are one of our new readers, please subscribe, as you would to a favorite magazine or newspaper.  It takes funding to keep Urgent Agenda going, and you can help guarantee our future.)

Last week started our second subscription drive of the year.  I don't mind saying that it's critically important.  After two years of explosive growth, our subscription program slowed in our third year and has leveled off.  This must change if we are to maintain our service at our current level, and expand.  What we can do in the future will depend heavily on subscriptions and contributions.

As a subscriber or donator you become a member of our Angel's Corner, which features one of the best forums on the web, where you get a chance to write on anything you wish and see it published.  The Forum, sent by e-mail twice a week, has become our most popular feature and gets the greatest response.  We have readers with remarkable levels of expertise.

And, as a subscriber or donator, you help keep Urgent Agenda going.  We are gratified by the number of readers who tell us that this is the first place they go every day. 

So, we need subscriptions and donations.  If you like what you see, please go to the right-hand column on this page, right opposite these words.  You can do everything through PayPal.  If you don't like PayPal, alert us and we'll give you a traditional mailing address.

Only you can guarantee the future of Urgent Agenda.  Please do so.

MAY 25,  2011

UPDATE ON SARAH – WILL SHE OR WON'T SHE? – AT 10:01 ET:  Even The New York Times has shown an interest in whether Sarah Palin intends to run.   The signs are that she will:

WASHINGTON — Sarah Palin is fortifying her small staff of advisers, buying a house in Arizona — where associates have said she could base a national campaign — and reviving her schedule of public appearances. The moves are the most concrete signals yet that Ms. Palin, the former governor of Alaska, is seriously weighing a Republican presidential bid.

While it is by no means clear that she would be willing to give up her lucrative speaking career and her perch as an analyst on Fox News to face the scrutiny and combat that would come with her entrance into the race, she is being pressed by supporters for a decision and has acknowledged that time is running out.

And...

Ms. Palin has reshuffled her staff, rehiring two aides who have helped plan her political events. And she is expected to resume a schedule of public appearances soon — perhaps as early as this weekend — to raise her profile at a moment when the Republican presidential field appears to be taking final form.

The drumbeat intensified on Tuesday night when the conservative filmmaker Stephen K. Bannon was quoted on RealClearPolitics, a political news site, as saying that he was releasing a feature film he made with Ms. Palin’s acquiescence about her tenure as governor of Alaska. The film is to be shown next month in Iowa, whose caucuses open the nominating contest.

And...

Ms. Palin would undoubtedly be able to raise substantial campaign financing and attract constant media attention if she ran. But she is a divisive figure in the party, and would have to overcome what polls have consistently suggested is skepticism and even opposition to her among some fellow Republicans.

Still, supporters of Ms. Palin say that her constituency beyond the Beltway remains eager, and aides and associates have said she is receptive to their calls of “Run, Sarah, run.”

COMMENT:  If she does run, I suspect she'll position herself as an "independent Republican," which is what she did in Alaska, someone willing to take on the GOP establishment as well as the Democrats. 

As readers know, I have decidedly mixed feelings about this.  I like Sarah.  She's hard not to like.  But she really is very badly damaged, and her resignation from the governorship of Alaska reduced her even further in the eyes of many, many people.  She's a great cheerleader, but I'm not sure she'd be a great quarterback. 

If given a choice between Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann, I'd choose Bachmann.  I just can't see a route by which Sarah wins the presidency, and winning is what the next year and half is all about.

May 25, 2011       Permalink

ANOTHER BAD FORECAST FOR THE "ARAB SPRING" – AT 9:46 P.M. ET:  We warned earlier in the day that President Obama and British Prime Minister Cameron would be wise to keep their eyes open as they sing tributes to the "Arab spring."  There have been major convulsions in Yemen, but the good guys may not be winning, and the end result may be worse than what's there now.  From London's Telegraph:

Al-Qaeda is taking advantage of the worsening political turmoil in Yemen to smuggle weapons into the capital in preparation for an attack on Western targets.

The United States is on standby to evacuate its ambassador from Yemen amid fears of an imminent attack in violence plagued Sana'a, according to a western intelligence assessment.

Already viewed as the most powerful franchise in the global al Qaeda network, al Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula is said to have gained considerable strength over three months of political upheaval that have left Yemen's president of 32 years, Ali Abdullah Saleh, on the brink.

At least 44 people have been killed in clashes between troops loyal to Mr Saleh and militiamen controlled by one of his most powerful tribal rivals, Sadiq al-Ahmar, in the past three days.

Amid growing international concern of an incipient civil war in Yemen, President Barack Obama used a press conference with David Cameron yesterday to urge Mr Saleh to abide by a pledge to leave office.

"We call upon President Saleh to move immediately on his commitment to transfer power," Mr Obama said.

That's awfully nice  Has our historically tone-deaf president considered the next step in Yemen's future, or is everything a matter of rhetoric?  I think we know the answer.

"Yemen is standing on the edge of a precipice," a western source familiar with Yemen said. "The rule of law has almost totally collapsed and AQAP can manoeuvre with unimpeded and unprecedented freedom. The current risk is as high as it could be."

Senior US officials have already described AQAP as "the most significant threat to the US homeland" after it was linked to two attacks on domestic American targets, including an attempt by a would-be bomber to bring down an airline over Detroit on Christmas Day, 2009 with explosives concealed in his underpants.

COMMENT:  If we can get the president to concentrate on real threats, rather than the 1967 borders of Israel, maybe we can develop a coherent policy in that part of the world. 

We are now, by the way, permitting the Libyan opposition to open up an office in Washington, which is fine, and maybe even noble, if this bunch has been properly vetted by our intelligence services.  Who are they?  What are they for, not simply against?  And who are they for?  It's been obvious in recent days that Congress, including some Democrats, is growing restive over the mess that we call our Mideast policy.  It's time for a change.

May 25, 2011      Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 10:53 A.M. ET:

From AFP:  A campaign has been launched on Facebook calling for men to beat Saudi women who drive their cars in a planned protest next month against the ultra-conservative kingdom's ban on women taking the wheel.  The call comes as activists are demanding the release of Manal al-Sharif, a Saudi woman who was jailed for defying the ban.

Notice the silence in the West.  Oil talks.  Arab spring indeed.

May 25, 2011       Permalink

ACTION – AT 10:20 P.M. ET:  It was inevitable that Hollywood would make a film about the killing of bin Laden, but there seems to be an odd agenda at work here.  From London's Telegraph:

A film about the killing of Osama bin Laden has been given the green light after Colombia Pictures won the rights to distribute the movie, which will be directed by Oscar-winning filmmaker Kathryn Bigelow.

Bigelow and journalist-turned screenwriter Mark Boal, who won Oscars for Iraq bomb squad movie The Hurt Locker in 2010, had already been working on a project about the al-Qaeda chief's capture or killing, before his death on May 2.

Immediately afterwards there were reports they were scrambling to decide what to do with the project, but the announcement by Amy Pascal of Columbia's parent company Sony Pictures Entertainment confirmed the plans.

So far so good.  But then get this:

Boal and Bigelow will produce the as-yet unnamed movie with Annapurna Picture's Megan Ellison, and executive producer Greg Shapiro. Filming will start in late summer, with the film to be released in the last quarter of 2012.

COMMENT:  What's that?  The film will be released in the last quarter of 2012?  Now wait.  I know a little something about Hollywood, and I'm wondering about that schedule.  You'd think the studio would want to take advantage of the bin Laden raid and get this movie out as quickly as possible.

Ah, but it's modern, chic Hollywood.  Now, students, what will happen in the last quarter of 2012?  That's right, the presidential election.  And who ordered the bin Laden hit?  That's right, Barack Obama.  And who could benefit by a huge film being released right before the election that heralds Barack's triumph?  No doubt there.

This, it appears, will be Hollywood's gift to the Obama campaign.  You may be sure that the movie will be released just in time for the voting, that it will be a major event, with saturation coverage by the mainstream media, and that it will portray Obama as a heroic, larger-than-life figure.  It's got to be worth a few points, maybe more, in an election.  In a close election, all that publicity might actually make the difference.

And if the Republicans properly ask that the premiere be delayed until after the election, you can just hear the cries of "censorship" from the literary precincts.

Hooray for Hollywood?  Not quite.

May 25, 2011      Permalink

BRING IN THE EGO CONTROL TEAM – AT 9:09 A.M. ET:  Mr. Obama is in London being feted by the Brits, who are showing extreme graciousness, considering Mr. Obama's insults toward Britain in his first year in office.  It's apparent that The One realizes that the special relationship with the Brits is very popular in his own home country, which I believe is the United States.

But Obama pushes it a bit far, and brings British Prime Minister David Cameron with him, in a remarkable piece of ego-exercising  that has created considerable buzz across the internet.  From USA Today:

President Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron kick off two days of diplomacy this morning by pledging to work against repressive regimes in the Middle East -- by force if necessary.

In a sternly worded column in The Times of London, the two leaders liken the effort to free Arab people from authoritarianism to the Cold War and the fall of the Berlin Wall in the 1980s.

They liken their personal efforts to two leaders who came before them: Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

"We will stand with those who want to bring light into dark, support those who seek freedom in place of repression, aid those laying the building blocks of democracy," they wrote.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.  When you start comparing yourself to Reagan and Thatcher, you'd better have the goods.  I see only a discount store.  As Sinatra might have said, leave us we should analyze:

First, there is a world of difference between Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama.  Reagan had been a stalwart for freedom for many years.  Obama openly mocked the democracy agenda of George W. Bush.

Reagan embraced American allies who embraced freedom and free markets.  Obama spent a good part of his life hangin' with leftist college professors and self-proclaimed intellectuals who opposed both.

And there is a world of difference between the Cold War and the Arab spring.  In the Cold War we fought a sustained multi-decade battle, finally bringing down the Soviet Union and replacing it with true democracies in Eastern Europe.  The Arab spring is a brief period of justified rebellion, but we're really not sure who's doing the rebelling or who will have the real power, especially as Arab countries have no democratic tradition.  We wish the Arab people well.  We want to see them free of their oppressors.  But it's a very different situation from the one we faced in Eastern Europe.

One of the problems with Obama is that he doesn't know much history, at least accurate history.  It always shows.  The statement that he and Cameron wrote is noble in intent, and we applaud the dedication it demonstrates.  But we hope these two keep their eyes open, and realize that the Arab spring can quickly turn into an Arab blizzard if the wrong people get the missiles.

May 25, 2011       Permalink

EDWARDS FACES DEEPER TROUBLE – AT 8:51 A.M. ET:  One-time Democratic senator and full-time glamour boy John Edwards faces even deeper trouble.  Having disgraced himself by cheating on his wife Elizabeth, now deceased, and fathering a love child whose existence he long denied, he now faces indictment over money stuff.  From ABC News: 

The United States Department of Justice has green-lighted the prosecution of former presidential candidate John Edwards for alleged violations of campaign laws while he tried to cover up an extra-marital affair, ABC News has learned.

A source close to the case said Edwards is aware that the government intends to seek an indictment and that the former senator from North Carolina is now considering his limited options. He could accept a plea bargain with prosecutors or face a potentially costly trial.

Edwards has been the focus of a lengthy federal investigation focusing on hundreds of thousands of dollars allegedly provided by two wealthy supporters. The government will contend those were illegal donations that ultimately went to support and seclude his mistress, Rielle Hunter.

COMMENT:  Isn't it interesting?  With all that's come out about John Edwards, there hasn't been a single criticism of John Kerry for selecting Edwards as his vice-presidential choice in 2004.  Yet, John McCain is forever condemned by the mainstream media for selecting Sarah Palin.   Double standards anyone?

And of course the mainstream word processors missed the whole love-child story, which was actually exposed by the supermarket tabloid National Enquirer, which actually has a rather good track record in exposing public figures.  Even when the Enquirer did solid reporting, the high-minded reporters of the MSM refused to touch the story.

And of course there's the little matter of how Edwards, an ambulance-chasing malpractice lawyer, made the millions that allowed him to enter politics.  He used junk science to win malpractice cases, but no one wanted to question it, not when the main objective of the media was to bring down BUSH (!!) and CHENEY (!!!!).

The handling of John Edwards is one of the most disgraceful episodes in the modern history of political reporting.  Shame, mainstream media.  Shame.

May 25, 2011      Permalink

SETBACK FOR GOP – AT 8:37 A.M. ET:  Let's not sugarcoat it.  The Republican Party suffered a setback yesterday when it lost a House seat in a special election in New York's 26th Congressional District, a Republican district.

The election was being run to replace disgraced Congressman Christopher Lee, who resigned after revelations that the married gent was looking for love online. 

County Clerk Kathy Hochul won a House special election in western New York on Tuesday night, a Democratic triumph in a conservative district that many regarded a referendum on House Republicans’ efforts to reform Medicare.

With 90 percent of precincts reporting, Hochul had 48 percent of the vote. State Assemblywoman Jane Corwin (R) had 42 percent, with independent candidate Jack Davis running a distant third with 9 percent.

Democrats contended that the race in New York’s 26th Congressional District — which the GOP had held since the 1960s — became competitive through their efforts tying Corwin to the House Republican budget plan that included a provision to turn Medicare into a voucher program.

The Democrats are correct.  Yes, it is true that the third candidate probably took more votes from the Republican candidate than from the winner, but Hochul would have won anyway in a district that went for McCain in 2008.

This is a warning to the Republican Party:  We've said several times here at Urgent Agenda that the Medicare component of the brave Ryan budget was its weakest link.  Medicare must be reformed, but turning it into a voucher program to be be run largely by unpopular private insurance companies will not pass muster with the public.  Medicare is popular.  People have planned their retirement with Medicare benefits in mind.  We can debate its merits, and surely there is widespread agreement that the program is filled with cost overruns that will eventually kill it unless it is changed.  But how it's changed is the key point.

Tying the GOP candidate to the Ryan Medicare plan in a normally conservative district had devastating results.  I suspect the Republicans will now distance themselves from that part of the Ryan budget, and that is the wise move.  Come back and fight another day, but fight smarter, and with better weapons.

May 25, 2011     Permalink

MAY 24,  2011

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 9:41 P.M. ET:

...the email sent recently by Kathy Witterick and David Stocker of Toronto, Canada to announce the birth of their baby, Storm, was missing one important piece of information. "We've decided not to share Storm's sex for now--a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation, a stand up to what the world could become in Storm's lifetime (a more progressive place? ...)," it said.

I would also imagine they're not sending out the results of the parents' most recent psychiatric exam.

May 24, 2011       Permalink

BARACK IN BRITAIN – AT 9:30 P.M. ET:  Mr. Obama is in London.  The British have made preparations, and they have included the assigning of a codename to the American president:

More than one person has wanted to call Barack Obama a 'smart alec', and now British police will get the chance to do so without getting reprimanded.

That's because Scotland Yard has tapped the codename 'Chalaque' to refer to the U.S. president for security reasons during his upcoming state visit to the United Kingdom May 24-26.

Indarjit Singh, a Punjabi speaker in the UK who is director of the Network of Sikh Organisations, told the Sunday Times the word 'is sometimes used when we want to denigrate someone who we think is too clever for their own good'.

Yeah, I can see that.  Then there's this:

The president and the orchestra at Buckingham Palace this evening were a bit out of synch.

When the president toasted the Queen the orchestra misunderstood a pause and what seemed to be a cue from the president for “God Save the Queen” to begin playing.

“Ladies and gentlemen please stand with me and raise your glasses as I propose a toast,” the president said, putting down his note cards and grabbing his glass. “To her majesty the Queen.”

The president paused, the guests stood, and the orchestra prepared to play.

But the president wasn’t done speaking.

“The vitality –“ the president said before the orchestra began.

Then the familiar tune – you might know it better as “My Country ‘Tis of Thee” – started up.

The president kept going: “ -- of the special relationship between our peoples and for the words of Shakespeare to this blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,” the president said as the awkward moment played out.

The Queen looked ahead as the UK anthem played.

“To the Queen,” the president finally said.

He lifted his glass to her, she smiled a bit uncomfortably.

But because the song was playing, no one drank from his or her glass, including the president, who put his glass down on the table.

Then once the song was over, everyone raised a glass.

COMMENT:  One of the reasons for the president's trip is to repair a relationship with Britain that has been strained since Mr. Obama took office.  His coldness to Britain, and to other American allies, has been one of the most disturbing aspect of Obama's presidency.  After all, he just got finished insulting the Israeli prime minister, snubbed the French president on a visit to Normandy, spent, I think, a couple of hours in Canada, our largest trading partner...but bowed down to a Saudi king.

Maybe things will go better after the toast.  There is work to be done and trust to be rebuilt.

May 24, 2011     Permalink

THE POOR, STARVING CHILDREN OF GAZA – NOT – AT 9:32 A.M. ET:   We are constantly being bombarded by leftist nonsense about the "desperate" situation in Gaza.  I don't know.  This, from the great Muslim journalist Khaled Abu Toameh, in the Jerusalem Post, doesn't look much like desperation to me:

The biggest Palestinian shopping mall is scheduled to open in the Gaza Strip in mid-June.

This will be the second shopping mall to open in the Gaza Strip in a year. Last July, Palestinians opened a two-story mall that includes a supermarket, international clothing stores, a food court, beauty products, a children’s playground and a restaurant.

The modern three-story complex is the first of its kind in the Palestinian territories, said Ehab al-Issawi, executive director of the Al-Hayat Tureed Company that owns the mall...

...Issawi explained that the first floor would house a huge supermarket that would consist of various departments offering food and household items as well as stationery.

The second floor would have many clothes and gift shops, while the third floor would become home to a large restaurant, a modern coffee shop, a cinema and entertainment sites for children.

COMMENT:  Who is this mall for?  Israeli tourists?  Left-wing European journalists visiting Gaza to describe the horrible conditions? 

A new flotilla of "peace activists" is set to leave Turkey soon to bring "humanitarian" supplies to Gaza.  Better they should bring themselves, go to the mall, make some purchases, and help these people build a legitimate economy.  But that's exactly what these "peace activists" don't want.  Their "narrative" requires a culture of victimization, whether true or not.

May 24, 2011      Permalink

UNDER THE RADAR – AT 9:06 A.M. ET:  A remarkable, and disturbing, event in Pakistan came in under the radar last week, but its implications are just beginning to be understood.  This is important, from Financial Times:

The brazen attack on a Pakistani naval air base has sent shockwaves through the nuclear-armed country, raising concerns about the military’s ability to protect sophisticated weaponry.

The ease with which six Taliban militants stormed the PNS Mehran base in Karachi, close to the city’s busy commercial airport, and destroyed two newly US-supplied P-3C Orion maritime surveillance aircraft has unnerved Pakistan’s military establishment...

...Pakistan’s security establishment insists that the nuclear arsenal is carefully guarded.

Some analysts, however, argue that nuclear material used in the earlier phases of weapons production is more vulnerable.

“There is more concern about the plutonium and highly enriched uranium in production facilities and laboratories, which involve considerably more people and facilities that aren’t as protected as well as military bases,” said David Albright at the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington.

“You [would worry that militants] could try to seize a reactor in order to have a very visible suicide mission where they could threaten to damage the reactor or cause a massive radiation release.”

COMMENT:  Or, they could steal nuclear material.  Please remember that building a nuclear weapon is an engineering project, not a scientific project.  The science is well known.  What militant groups need is the materials and the expertise at assembly.  Pakistan has both, and Pakistan is growing increasingly unstable. 

We simply don't take this seriously enough.  We speak of WMD, weapons of mass destruction, as if it's an abstraction.  The nuclear weapon, though, does exactly what it's supposed to do.  If two were floated into American harbors in the holds of vessels, on the same day, and set off by suicide crews, the resulting devastation would be greater than any we have experienced in our history.  We could lose, in one moment, more people than we have lost in all American wars put together. 

That is the nuclear nightmare.  And now, with Iran apparently supplying missiles to Venezuela, that nightmare can grow in our own backyard.

May 24, 2011       Permalink

A RUDY SURPRISE? – AT 8:50 A.M. ET:  Byron York, at Washington Examiner, has a story that is spreading very rapidly around the internet.  He is not the only source for this.  Rudy Giuliani may shake things up by joining the Republican race for president:

Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, whose presidential campaign fizzled in 2008, is leaning toward another race for the White House, according to a close associate. New York Republican Rep. Peter King, who has known Giuliani for more than 40 years, says the former mayor "is very close to saying he's going to run."

"If he were to make the decision today, he would run," says King.

Speaking at a dinner with reporters in Washington, King, who was an enthusiastic Giuliani supporter in 2008, said the former mayor has been quietly lining up support and exploring strategy. Giuliani has also examined the mistakes his campaign made in '08, when he did not seriously compete in a contest until the Florida primary, by which time he was hopelessly behind in the race.

It's unclear what effect a Giuliani candidacy would have on the primary campaign. There is an ongoing conversation among Republican political insiders about supposed voter unhappiness with the GOP field, and after Indiana governor Mitch Daniels' decision not to run, pundits and strategists have focused on hopes that New Jersey governor Chris Christie or House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan might be coaxed into running. Others have mentioned the name of former Florida governor Jeb Bush. Few observers have looked to Giuliani as a possible savior of the Republican Party.

Yet there are some indicators to encourage the former mayor. In a new poll of New Hampshire Republicans released Monday by television station WMUR, Giuliani tied for third, well behind frontrunner Mitt Romney but ahead of Tim Pawlenty, Sarah Palin, Daniels, Jon Huntsman, Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, and Herman Cain. When WMUR asked New Hampshire GOP primary voters which candidate is the strongest leader, Giuliani placed second to Romney, although a distant second. If Giuliani were to run, he would likely focus his efforts on the Granite State.

COMMENT:  I'm a Giuliani fan, but I must tell you that I think Rudy's time is past.  He's 9-11, and it's ten years out from 9-11.  Rudy was a great mayor, but has a hard time with strategy that extends beyond security and crime-fighting.  His 2008 race for the nomination was abysmal.  He has the image of great mayor, not president.  He also has a messy family life, with a son who is apparently estranged.

Further, Rudy is a man who is admired, not liked.  Despite his legendary reputation, the public didn't warm to him his last time out as a presidential contender.

And yet, you never know.  Rudy is a strong leader, and with the right guidance might overcome his deficits.  I hope he gets in.  Let's look him over again.  He can be especially potent if we face a national-security crisis in 2012.

May 24, 2011      Permalink 

BULLETIN:  NEW DATE FOR END OF WORLD – AT 8:38 A.M. ET:  Please mark your calendars this time, and let's get it right.  We have a new date for the end of the world.

A Christian radio host who predicted the apocalypse would come last Saturday, now says he made a mistake and it will occur on October 21.

California preacher Harold Camping said the Rapture will come five months to the day after May 21, his original prophecy.

The 89-year-old said he felt so bad his prediction didn't come true on Saturday, he sought refuge in a motel with his wife.

Camping made the statement to the press at the Oakland headquarters of his media empire, Family Radio International.

He also predicted the apocalypse would happen in 1994, but blamed the world's survival then on a mathematical error.

Camping had stated there was no way the Rapture would not start on Saturday at 6.p.m, and told the San Francisco Chronicle he was "flabbergasted" his doomsday prophecy didn't come about.

Camping preached some 200 million Christians would be saved and those left behind would die in a series of plagues until Earth was destroyed in a fireball on Oct. 21.

While his latest prediction was mostly met with online ridicule, some believers took it quite seriously. One man in New York spent his life savings on advertisements warning of the coming doom.

Camping's media empire has assets of more than $100 million and had $18 million in donations in 2009.

COMMENT:  People like this give true religious leaders a bad name.  The guy is running a lucrative business and depends on the vulnerable to send in cash.  Given our free-speech traditions, I'm not sure he can be shut down, but maybe there's some law that can be used against a religious scam.  I mean, the guy got $18-million in 2009 for predicting the end of the world.  I guess people felt they wouldn't need their money any longer.

On second thought, don't mark your calendar.  Go out and have a good time on October 21st.

May 24, 2011     Permalink