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.

SEPTEMBER 27,  2011

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE - AT 11:16 P.M. ET:

SAUDI DECADENCE – A few days after Saudi Arabia announced, with great fanfare, that women would get the right to vote, a Saudi court has sentenced a woman to 10 lashes for driving a car.  So, if you're female you'll be allowed to vote ...unless you show up at the polls driving a car.  What is remarkable is how little protest there is internationally regarding Saudi justice, and the kingdom's attitude toward women.  Of course, Saudi Arabia knows how to spread the oil money around, and money buys influence...and silence.

THE USUAL STATEMENT – Crown Publishers is saying it stands behind Joe Machinists' smear job on Sarah Palin, a day after Palin threatened to sue the publisher.  This is the standard line publishers put out when a book is under attack.  The book is getting near-universal bad reviews.  It tells tawdry tales, but very little evidence is presented to back up the stories.  It is very hard for a public figure to successfully sue for libel, under the New York Times vs. Sullivan rule.  The public figure must prove that the offending statements are false, and were published with actual malice.  But if Sarah does sue, it could be a remarkably interesting trial.

ANDY GOING – Andy Rooney, at 92, is retiring from "Sixty Minutes" after 33 years with the show.  Rooney's end-of-the-show, gripe-filled commentaries on American life became a regular feature of "Sixty Minutes."  I never thought, frankly, they were all that great.  The great part is that CBS allowed Rooney to stay on until 92, a far cry from the obsolete "out at 65" standard that still applies in too many places.  Rooney's tenure is a sign of the future, as more and more Americans are working well past retirement age, some because they have to, others because they want to.  A more realistic, modern retirement age will become a major subject of discussion in the Social Security debates we're about to have.

IRAN THREATENS – Iran is threatening to send its navy close to American shores because the U.S. Navy operates close to Iran.  This would represent a major escalation of tensions between the two countries, and would conjure up visions of another Cuban Missile Crisis.  When Iran gets the nuclear weapon, it could easily launch a missile with an atomic warhead from a ship near our shores.  We would be aware of that capability, and it would have to affect our strategic thinking.

September 27, 2011       Permalink

CHRISTIE NOT RUNNING – Chris Christie gave a superb speech at the Reagan Library tonight, but then disappointed the audience during the Q&A by making it clear he is not running for president.

Christie's speech, very Reaganesque, was well written and precise, and – unlike others in the Republican Party – demonsrated an understanding of the relationship between domestic and foreign policy.  As I heard it I became convinced that he was going to announce for president.  I've had doubts about Christie, but hearing him tonight persuaded me that, at minimum, he'd be the best speaker of all the candidates.

But, alas, in reply to the second question asked in the Q&A, Christie made it clear that he has no intention of running.   There was no wiggle room.  So that's that...unless someone wants to start a draft movement.

His speech, though, was the best I've heard from any American political leader in a long time.

September 27, 2011       Permalink

NEW YORK STATE POLL HIGHLIGHTS REPUBLICAN DILEMMA – AT 8:33 P.M. ET:  The new Siena Research Institute poll shows why Republicans can't depend on discontent with Obama to win next year's election:

In a new Siena Research Institute poll, 47 percent of registered voters in the state would re-elect Obama, and 47 percent would prefer to vote for 'someone else'. When that challenger is Rick Perry, however, the President leads 56-33 percent. When it's Mitt Romney, Obama leads 56-36 percent.

In a state where Democratic enrollment outnumbers Republican enrollment two-to-one, these results underscore that however unenthusiastic the Left is about President Obama, they still strongly favor him over the conservative alternative.

“The bad news for the President is that when voters judge him in the absence of Republican opposition, his numbers are weak,” Siena College pollster Steven Greenberg said. “The good news for the President is that when matched up against Republicans—those in Congress or potential presidential challengers—his numbers are strong.”

More voters support Obama's American Jobs Act than oppose it (33-19 percent), but a plurality of voters say they need more information before they can come to a decision. The rest of the President's policies are similarly popular among voters, although overwhelmingly more so with Democrats than with Republicans. Voters on both sides found common ground when asked whether Obama has tried to get both parties working together.

“Seventy-three percent of voters, including almost half of Republicans, say that Obama has tried to get both parties working together. And a majority of voters believe that he is strong enough to be President, has had many accomplishments, has the right policies for America, and he makes them proud to be an American,” Greenberg said.

COMMENT:  We are seeing this pattern across America.  People aren't very enthusiastic about Obama, but they're less enthusiastic about the Republican Party and its potential nominees.

We've said here for a long time that, without an exciting candidate, the Republicans will probably not win next year's election.  Survey after survey is now confirming that view.  I think the election would be far closer nationally than the New York numbers indicate – New York begins by being very blue – but even Mitt Romney, who was governor in nearby Massachusetts, only gets 36% of the vote in the New York poll.

Republicans have a history of working hard to lose elections, while celebrating their victory in advance of the loss.  I fear history might repeat itself.  You can't beat somebody with nobody.

September 27, 2011      Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 10:38 A.M. ET:

From Fox:  SWEET SPRINGS, Mo. – A Missouri mom was facing felony charges Thursday after her kindergartner son brought a crack pipe and several baggies of methamphetamine to school for show-and-tell.  Michelle Marie Cheatum, 32, has been charged with two class C felonies -- possession of a controlled substance and endangering the welfare of a child, the Marshall Democrat-News reported. 

Show-and-tell has changed over the years.  When I was in school, kids would bring in slides of the Grand Canyon, or a sweater that mom had knitted.  Am I being culturally insensitive?  Should I go to special training?

WHO FIGHTS FOR US – AT 10:01 A.M. ET:   Reader Joseph J. Gallick refers us to a terrific story about the makeup of our armed forces.  The political left loves to portray the American military as made up of dregs who have to join because they have no other means of income.  Absolutely untrue.  The facts speak for themselves.  From The Wall Street Journal:

In 2008, using data provided by the Defense Department, the Heritage Foundation found that only 11% of enlisted military recruits in 2007 came from the poorest one-fifth, or quintile, of American neighborhoods (as of the 2000 Census), while 25% came from the wealthiest quintile. Heritage reported that "these trends are even more pronounced in the Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) program, in which 40% of enrollees come from the wealthiest neighborhoods, a number that has increased substantially over the past four years."

Indeed, the Heritage report showed that "low-income families are underrepresented in the military and high-income families are overrepresented. Individuals from the bottom household income quintile make up 20.0 percent of Americans who are age 18-24 years old but only 10.6 percent of the 2006 recruits and 10.7 percent of the 2007 recruits. Individuals in the top two quintiles make up 40.0 percent of the population, but 49.3 percent of the recruits in both years."

What about the charge that our Army is disproportionately black? This too is false, as is clear from data for fiscal 2010 available on the Army's website: Whereas blacks comprise 17% of Americans ages 18-39 with high school degrees, they represent only a slightly larger proportion of enlisted soldiers, at 21%.

Meanwhile, whites were significantly overrepresented among enlisted Army personnel in 2010. While 58% of Americans 18-39 years old are white, 64% of the Army's enlisted men and women are. Whites are underrepresented to a minor degree in only one category, in which blacks are overrepresented: Army officers. While 74% of 25-54 year-olds with bachelor's degrees are white, 72% of Army officers are white. While 8% of 25-54 year-olds with B.A.s are black, 13% of Army officers are.

COMMENT:  Not quite the image the mainstream media presents.  The same slurs were used in Vietnam as part of the campaign to discredit our effort there.  (The main part of the campaign, waged by Walter Cronkite and others, was that the war was unwinnable.) 

I hope this new information is widely publicized, especially by Fox News and other outlets with a respect for the military.  I don't think the mainstream outlets will show much interest.

September 27, 2011   Permalink     

PILLOW TALK? – AT 9:07 A.M. ET:  We have an odd arrangement in Washington wherein the secretary of state is married to a former president who dealt with many of the same issues his wife is handling today.  Thus, any comment on foreign policy by Bill Clinton, some surmise, must really be coming from his wife.

Eyebrows were therefore raised last week when Bill Clinton launched a very public and very venomous attack on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, essentially blaming him for the collapse of the peace process, very dubious proposition.   Clinton was sounding like Carter. 

Observers wondered whether this was actually coming from Hillary Clinton, who is serving a president who has been hostile to Netanyahu.  And, if Hillary wants a political future in a country that is decidedly pro-Israel, what would be the point of such an attack, launched through her husband?

Yesterday, Hillary's state department issued a statement distancing itself, and, by implication, the secretary, from Bill Clinton's remarks.  From the Jerusalem Post:

The US State Department under Hillary Clinton is not endorsing the sharp criticism of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu voiced last week by her husband, former US president Bill Clinton.

“President Clinton is a private citizen, his comments reflect his private views,” a US embassy spokesperson said Monday.

Well, he isn't exactly a private citizen, but we'll let it pass.

The former president, who had a testy relationship with Netanyahu when he was president and Netanyahu was prime minister in the late 1990s, blamed Netanyahu for the impasse in the diplomatic process during a discussion last week with bloggers.

His comments came even as the Obama administration’s public tone toward Israel changed dramatically last week, with US President Barack Obama’s sympathetic and empathic address at the UN.

According to Josh Rogin’s blog on the Foreign Policy website last week, Clinton attributed the lack of a comprehensive peace agreement today to the Netanyahu administration’s refusal to accept the Camp David deal that he brokered in 2000, and the influx of Russian-speaking immigrants who he called “territorialists, the people who just showed up lately, and they’re not encumbered by the historical record.”

His comments about the Russian-speaking immigrants echoes similar comments he made last year that raised eyebrows in Jerusalem.

In America we would call that ethnic profiling.  One thing about Bill – he never hestitates to get down and dirty when it counts. 

I have no idea what prompted the State Department's public distancing of itself from Bill, who's made a number of irrational statements recently.  But Hillary's ambitions may well be involved, although I concede that this is speculation. 

September 27, 2011       Permalink

THE NEWSPAPER OF RECORD IS AT IT AGAIN – AT 8:46 A.M. ET:  Well, they used to call The New York Times the newspaper of record.  Their idea of "the record" today, though, may seem a bit odd to many of us who once labored there. 

I ask this question:  Why is it that whenever a Republican comes to the fore as a potential presidential candidate, The Times is always ready with a hit piece?  Rick Perry has been the subject of a number of weak pieces clearly designed to discredit him.  (The idea of another Texas governor as president brings intense chills and violent shaking to the editors of The Times, who regard Texas as a foreign country where cows drive cars.)  Now that Chris Christie is in the spotlight the once newspaper of record responds in its usual manner...a hit piece out this morning: 

They are rich. They are unattached. They are looking for a little excitement.

You immediately see where this is going.

Meet the Draft Christie committee, a small but influential group of Republican-leaning donors and activists, many based in New York, united by a shared desire to see Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey run for president.

There is Kenneth G. Langone, the billionaire Home Depot founder who is perhaps Mr. Christie’s most fervent booster; Paul E. Singer, the publicity-shy hedge fund magnate and Republican activist who is among the most-sought-after Republican donors in the country; and David H. Koch, the industrialist, Tea Party benefactor and, according to Forbes, the richest man in New York.

Charles R. Schwab, the personal investment guru, is also among those who have shown interest in seeing a Christie presidential bid, according to published reports and people familiar with the discussions, as is the financier Stanley F. Druckenmiller. So are the hedge fund managers David Tepper and Daniel S. Loeb, a onetime supporter of President Obama.

In recent months, Christie enthusiasts have lighted up the phone lines between Manhattan and Trenton trying to persuade the governor to enter the Republican field amid growing concern about the current contenders.

Several dozen potential Christie backers attended a meeting in July convened by Mr. Langone to introduce the governor to top-shelf Republican donors, many of them on the sidelines so far in the 2012 campaign. Others saw him in action in June, when Mr. Christie quietly flew to Colorado to speak at a private retreat hosted by Mr. Koch and his brother, Charles, another prominent Republican donor.

COMMENT:  Translated:  Christie is a creature of Wall Street and the moneyed interests.  He's not his own man.  Now, it's appropriate for a newspaper to look into the financial backing of any candidate, but the timing of this piece, and the lack of any real scrutiny of Obama during the 2008 campaign, demonstrate journalistic hypocrisy and opportunism. 

A full picture of Christie will reveal pluses and minuses.  I am not waiting for The Times to provide that portrait.

September 27, 2011      Permalink

CHRISTIE'S DAY – AT 8:26 A.M. ET:  Chris Christie makes his much-anticipated speech on leadership at the Reagan Library today.  We'll tell you what he says.  The speech, viewed as routine when it was announced originally, has now taken on a life of its own amid speculation that Christie may reverse himself and decide to join the presidential race.

As readers know, we have had our doubts about Christie, but we're certainly willing to listen.  This is an important speech.  At the same time, Christie being Christie, he's done something new that reflects the spunk and verve that he brings to his office, the kind of thing that has made him so popular with so many:

TRENTON, New Jersey (AP) — MTV’s reality show “Jersey Shore” won’t get a tax break from New Jersey because Gov. Chris Christie says the show hurts the state’s image.

Christie on Monday blocked a $420,000 film credit that was approved for the show last week by the state Economic Development Authority.

The money was supposed to cover production costs for the hit reality series’ inaugural 2009 season.

Christie suspended the film tax credit program in 2010 to close a budget deficit, but the 2009 season still qualified for the credit.

“I have no interest in policing the content of such projects,” Christie said in a statement. “However, as chief executive I am duty-bound to ensure that taxpayers are not footing a $420,000 bill for a project which does nothing more than perpetuate misconceptions about the State and its citizens.”

COMMENT:  Good for Chris.  I've been in the film business and have always been dubious about tax credits for the industry.  Hollywood accounting has too much flim-flam for me to believe that these credits are well used.  I suspect many tax "incentives" turn into BMWs in the garages of Hollywood executives. 

We await the governor, from the Reagan Library.

September 27, 2011     Permalink

SEPTEMBER 26,  2011

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 9:55 P.M. ET:

THE PAIN IN SPAIN WILL NO LONGER REMAIN – The Spanish legislature has just ended its session, signaling the runup to the November 20th national elections.  Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, no great friend of the United States, will not be running for reelection, and there's a very good chance his socialist party will lose in November.  That would be good news for us.  Spain was a firm ally in the war on terror until Zapatero, sometimes called "Bambi" for some reason, won in 2004.  We hope that a conservative victory will put Spain on a more rational international footing. 

DISGRACEFUL – The White House is making a big issue of the tasteless behavior of some audience members at several Republican debates.  In one case some applause seemed to suggest that the members favored letting people without health insurance die.  In another case there were boos for a citizen questioner – a gay soldier who'd served in Iraq.  But Jake Tapper, who plays it straight at ABC News, points out that "the boos and applause came from what sounded like less than a handful of individuals, it should be noted."  And that's the point.  These were huge audiences and a few people clearly engaged in vulgar behavior.  The overwhelming majority did not.  But this is standard fare for the left – proclaiming its own moral superiority, while suggesting that anyone on the other side is 1) cruel, 2) bigoted, and 3) ignorant.  Who needs successful policies when you can paint a picture like that?

OH, THANKS A LOT, GUYS – The interim government in Libya, known as the National Transitional Council, has declared the Lockerbie bombing case closed, and will not release any evidence that could lead to anyone else in Libya being charged.  Scottish prosecutors – Lockerbie is in Scotland – had asked for papers and access to witnesses so they could explore other suspects in the 1988 bombing of PanAm flight 103 over Lockerbie, which killed 270 people, the majority of them American.  The prosecutors were clearly looking for evidence linking Muammar Gaddafi to the crime.  Weren't these new Libyan leaders supposed to be our allies?  So much for the Arab spring.

HER AGAIN? – There is some renewed talk, especially in the New York media, about the possibility of Hillary Clinton rising again politically, possibly even replacing Barack Obama as the 2012 Democratic candidate.  The talk has been generated by some very unkind remarks that former President Bill Clinton made about Obama's economic plans.  (Obama immediately invited Clinton to play golf with him, possibly to put out the fires.)  But Hillary has apparently made clear to friends that she would never run against Obama in the primaries because she would lose the black vote immediately, and it wouldn't return on election day.  Her only hope for 2012 rests on Obama's dropping out, and I can't see that, barring an economic collapse.  The man is too great an egotist, and he couldn't stand being replaced by the woman he defeated in 2008. 

September 26, 2011      Permalink 

SNIPPET OF THE DAY - AT 7:05 P.M. ET:

From London's Telegraph:  From the Wicked Witch of the West in the Wizard of Oz to Meg, the good witch from the Meg and Mog children's books, witches have always dressed in black.  But their traditional attire has now come in for criticism from equality experts who claim it could send a negative message to toddlers in nursery and lead to racism.  Instead, teachers should censor the toy box and replace the pointy black hat with a pink one, while dressing fairies, generally resplendent in pale pastels, in darker shades.  Another staple of the classroom - white paper - has also been questioned by Anne O'Connor, an early years consultant who advises local authorities on equality and diversity.  Children should be provided with paper other than white to drawn on and paints and crayons should come in "the full range of flesh tones", reflecting the diversity of the human race, according to the former teacher.

Well, I guess that's the end of vanilla ice cream, White-Out, and Ivory soap.

POST-DEBATE POLL – AT 6:34 P.M. ET:  A new CNN poll, taken after the Republican debate last week, shows Perry still in the lead, despite a poor performance.  But it also shows Romney as the more electable candidate: 

Washington (CNN) - Despite his performances in the two most recent Republican presidential debates, a new national survey indicates that Texas Gov. Rick Perry remains on top of the field in the race for the GOP nomination.

But a CNN/ORC International Poll also indicates that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney does better than Perry in hypothetical 2012 general election matchups against President Barack Obama and matches evenly with the president on the issues and on personal characteristics.

According to the survey, which was released Monday, 28 percent of Republicans and independents who lean towards the GOP say they support Perry as their party's presidential nominee, with Romney at 21 percent.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is at ten percent, with Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who's making his third bid for the White House, former Godfather's Pizza CEO and radio talk show host Herman Cain, and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, all at seven percent. The poll indicates that Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota is at four percent, with former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania at three percent and former Utah Gov. and ambassador to China Jon Huntsman at one percent.

Palin has flirted with a bid for the GOP nomination, but the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee has not taken any concrete steps towards launching a campaign. Taking Palin out of the mix produces a similar result: 30 percent for Perry, 22 percent for Romney, 11 percent for Gingrich, and all other candidates in single digits.

The poll was conducted Friday through Sunday, after last Thursday's debate in Orlando, Florida. Pundits and analysts rate Perry's performance in that debate, and in a debate one a week and a half earlier in Tampa, Florida, as uneven.

COMMENT:  The poll was taken among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents.  There was apparently no requirement that the respondents had seen last week's debate.

Perry has a cultural advantage among conservatives, who tend to favor southern and southwestern candidates, certainly over a man who's been governor of Massachusetts.  At the same time, there is clearly a substantial discontent among conservatives.  I mean, when the presumed frontrunner only gets 28 percent, what does that tell you?

Let's see if Christie enters the race, and whether that makes a difference.

September 26, 2011     Permalink

THE TRUTH COMES OUT – AT 10:35 A.M. ET:  We tend to forget the viciousness of the campaign against the Bush administration and its appointees.  "Bush lied, thousands died" was only the start of it.  And remember that the Justice Department is still considering prosecutions of CIA officers for the crime of doing their jobs.  Although you can be sure that an unpopular move like that won't come until after the election, if the Obamans survive.

Now comes news that a highly publicized charge, and one that won a Pulitzer Prize, has turned out to be untrue, according to a full investigation.  From the Washington Times: 

A three-year government investigation has found no wrongdoing by Bush-era Pentagon officials when they gave war briefings to retired military analysts who served as TV and radio commentators.

The probe by the Pentagon inspector general was in response to a 2008 Pulitzer Prize-winning article in the New York Times that implied the former military officers, some of whom worked for or were defense contractors, received financial favors in return for their commentary and were tools in a propaganda campaign.

Sources familiar with the IG’s final report said it will say officials broke no rules or laws when they provided information briefings, some from Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

The IG also found no evidence that any analyst or his defense contractor employer received favorable treatment or procurement contracts because of his work as an on-air commentator, according to the sources.

“The report basically says the Pentagon activities were in compliance with [Department of Defense] directives and instructions,” a government official familiar with the findings told The Washington Times. In terms of financial favors, “they didn’t find any evidence of that,” the source said.

COMMENT:  Does The New York Times give back the Pulitzer Prize?  Don't hold your breath.  The Times does not give back Pulitzer Prizes.  (Other newspapers have.)  But vindication must be sweet for those falsely charged.  And many are falsely charged, especially if they work for conservative administrations. 

Now I want to see another outrage cleared up – the charge that George W. Bush lied about WMD to justify invading Iraq.  He did not.  He used the same information that Bill Clinton had used.  And while it is true that the weapons inspectors did not find stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, they did find the WMD programs, ready to be restarted once sanctions on Iraq were lifted.  That part gets left out of news stories.  I guess the dog ate that section of the inspectors' report.

September 26, 2011       Permalink

OH DEAR, OH DEAR, I GUESS IT REALLY ISN'T 2008 – AT 9:44 A.M. ET:  We've reported that President Obama is trying to tighten up his base, which also means re-energizing the African-American vote.  Apparently, there's one key black leader, a certified bomb thrower, who isn't convinced.

Maxine Waters is a hard-left congresswoman, racialist, and all-around spoilsport from California.  She is, for some unfathonable reason, influential in the Congressional Black Caucus, and she has been on Obama's case recently.  The charge:  He has been inattentive to his own ethnic group.  So Obama went and gave a speech over the weekend to a major black audience, and Maxine still is ruffled.  From The Politico: 

Rep. Maxine Waters on Monday called President Barack Obama’s comments to black Americans that they should stop complaining “a bit curious” and said she doesn’t “know who he was talking to.”

The California Democrat told CBS’s “Early Show” the president would never have addressed other communities like gays or Jews or Hispanics in the way he did at the annual awards dinner for the Congressional Black Caucus on Saturday when he told the audience to “stop complaining.”

“I don’t know who he was talking to, because we’re certainly not complaining,” said Waters, who has been critical of Obama in the past. “We are working. We support him and we are protecting that base because we want people to be enthusiastic about him when that election rolls around.”

Obama told the audience at the annual gala to “take off your bedroom slippers, put on your marching shoes. Shake it off. Stop complaining, stop grumbling, stop crying. We are going to press on. We’ve got work to do, CBC.”

Waters said she found some of the language Obama used “not appropriate” and said it “surprised me a little bit.”

I'm no fan of Maxine Waters, but she does have a point.  Obama was very patronizing...although politicians often feel that they can speak differently to their own group. 

“I found that language a bit curious because the president spoke to the Hispanic Caucus and certainly they are pushing him on immigration and despite the fact that he's appointed [Justice Sonia] Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, he has an office for excellence in Hispanic education right in the White House, they’re still pushing him and he certainly didn’t tell them to stop complaining,” she said.

COMMENT:  It's hard to know how much this reflects black opinion, but if Maxine is unhappy, her unhappiness is bound to spread.  The issue here is not whether blacks will support Obama in 2012.  They will.  The issue is the level of that support.  Remember that Obama is of mixed race.  If he's seen as "going white" it could dim the enthusiasm of a community that, very understandably, cheered his election in 2008 as a major breakthrough. 

Black unemployment is high, and it's not getting better.  While ethnic solidarity is an important factor in American politics, it has sometimes come apart under the pressure of compelling issues.  Just a few weeks ago we saw that happen in New York's 9th Congressional District, an iconic Democratic district that had been Democratic since the early 1920s.  The district has a large proportion of orthodox Jews, and yet rejected an orthodox Jewish Democrat in favor of a Roman Catholic Republican – out of anger at Obama.

Times they are a-changin'. 

September 26, 2011      Permalink

ANOTHER CLOSE CALL – AT 9:14 A.M. ET:  How long will the free nations remain lucky in the fight against terror?  We've broken up a number of attacks since 9/11, ten years ago.  But new attempts are being made all the time.  There have been major arrests in Britain, as Fox reports: 

LONDON – Six men have been charged with involvement in a terror-bomb plot, police announced on Sunday.
The arrests last Monday of the six Birmingham-area men were part of a "major operation" by the West Midlands counterterrorism unit, the West Midlands police department said...

...Four were charged with preparing for an act of terrorism, and two more with failing to disclose information, the police said. One of those two was also charged with terrorist fundraising.

All six, who are aged between 25 and 32, will appear at West London Magistrates Court on Monday.

The police said Irfan Nasser, 30, Irfan Khalid, 26, Ashik Ali, 26, and Rahin Ahmed, 25, were charged with plotting terrorist acts.

They were involved in planning between Dec. 25, 2010 and Sept. 19 of this year to prepare or help others prepare to commit acts of terrorism, the department said.

Nasser and Ali are alleged to have planned a bombing campaign; stated an intention to be a suicide bomber; collected money for terrorism; made or helped others make a bomb; and recruited others for terrorism, police said.

Nasser and Khalid are also accused of traveling to Pakistan for terrorism training including bomb-making, weapons and poison-making, as well as making a martyrdom film, police said.

Ahmed is accused of helping others travel to Pakistan for terrorism training, collecting money for terrorism and investing and managing terrorist funds, police said.

COMMENT:  Again, Pakistan.  Our problems with that nation are growing, and it's one of the key nations in Asia, as well as being a nuclear power. 

I wonder who gives the terrorism training in Pakistan.  Are there regular courses?  Scholarships?  Affirmative action?  Who teaches poison-making?  I'd love to see some real investigative reporting on this underbelly of Pakistani society.  It could easily affect us here in the United States.

September 26, 2011       Permalink

THE CONTEST – AT 8:49 A.M. ET:  This is a "waiting" week in American politics.  The conventional wisdom is that the Republican race for president has become very fluid, given that the crown seems to have fallen off Rick Perry's head, after only a month of wear.  I think he can get a refund at Neiman-Marcus in Dallas.

And yet Romney, the immediate beneficiary of Perry's near-death experience in the debates, is not the recipient of any renewed love.  Herman Cain's victory in the Florida straw poll proved that – probably the first time in history that a former pizza executive defeated two governors. 

The "waiting" is now for Chris Christie, governor of New Jersey and favorite of the budget cutters.  As we've said, if Christie gets in it will throw the GOP race wide open...at least for a time.  Christie, like Perry, will have to prove himself in the GOP debates coming up.  And then attention may well turn to Sarah Palin, who appears to be delaying her decision.  It's been pointed out that Bill Clinton didn't get into the 1992 race until October of the previous year.  Things move more rapidly today, though.  Look for a possible Christie announcement, one way or the other,  

On the Democratic side, Obama is moving to solidify and energize his base, understanding that elections are about turnout.  The winner will not be the best or most popular candidate, but the candidate who moves enough voters to the polls.  Obama has clearly lost the stature he had at the start of his administration, having shown a remarkable ability to get things wrong, but he retains some affection, especially from his political base.  The main thrust of his campaign seems to be that he's the devil we know, and better than the devilish alternative.  Obama is already claiming that a Republican president would ruin America.  Funny, I thought Obama had already accomplished that.

Now, what if Christie gets into the race, and does a Perry?  Republicans are clearly unhappy with their choices.  And we wonder whether, through the work of conservative journalists, the spotlight might suddenly focus on a non-candidate who will be encouraged to get into the race and save the party.  Stranger things have happened.  Stand by.

September 26, 2011     Permalink