Friday, April 30, 2010

Boycott Insanity

The stupidity continues over the Arizona immigration bill. From a New York congressman:
"Baseball has been a game that has unified us," Serrano said. "People root for players on their team regardless of where they come from. You might have strong feelings against immigrants but you don't mind that fact that there's a guy playing on your team with a visa from Venezuela, the Dominican Republic or some other place."
"Strong feelings against immigrants"? Try strong feelings against illegal immigrants and lawlessness along the border. Apparently this congressmoron who took an oath to defend the constitution doesn't even realize he admitted that Latinos in MLB are LEGAL.

His boycott would likely hurt many Americans of Latin descent in Arizona but Serrano isn't grotesquely stupid--he's trying to stir up Latino baseball stars for the cause, presumably recruiting more Democratic voters, and it may work. Not sure what he thinks about those who don't fit the mold--like perhaps the most famous Latino ballplayer Albert Pujols, who recently became a US citizen.

Also notice ABC News did nothing to correct the mis-perception between illegal and legal (while conveniently bringing up Arizona's refusal to recognize the King holiday in the 80s) but they are hardly alone--most big media outlets freely allow the open borders people to use this smear at will.

Just imagine if conservative politicians started referring to anyone opposed to enforcement of our border laws as "pro-illegal alien", or "pro law-breaking", or "pro drug-violence", or "pro-chaos"? Think the big media would stand by and not provide clarification, even for one minute?

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Our Kangaroo Congress

Since the Dems took over Congress in 2007 there have been a series of show trials for public consumption. Who can forget the spectacle of Valerie Plame in front of Henry Waxman, or Congresswoman Waters threatening to go all socialist on the oil execs over rising pump prices? They told her that without drilling, prices would keep going up.

Recently Waxman called off a kneejerk hearing designed to berate CEOs of several companies who publicized accounting charges related to passage of the health care bill after it became clear they were actually following the law. That was replaced by a show trial of Goldman Sachs execs. Meanwhile, nary a whimper about government malfeasance on any issue.

Now we have a developing ecological disaster in the Gulf, and after a public letter sent over the horrors of drilling by Congressmen Menendez and Lautenberg, Senator Markey wants to haul in five major oil executives and grill them about the spill from the explosion off the Gulf Coast, as if they did it on purpose.

Meanwhile, we've not heard much from the drill, baby, drill folks, including the head honcho himself.

Beck and the Individual

Caught some of the Beck radio show today running an errand. After what some would consider a paranoid roundup of the latest inroads of the far left he got to a point-- it's not the left or right, it's the individual to blame for America's troubles. We're falling down on the ethical/moral job.

The founders warned against our grand experiment leading to tyranny if the individual failed to uphold their end. Some predicted that only a religious public could uphold the framwork through ethics/morals, etc. But as Beck pointed out, even most atheists believe in some kind of moral responsibility to their fellow man, so it's not just an invisible sky man thing.

This is all debatable through history but there does seem to be a "change" in America. Perhaps the reason we have Chicago machine politicians running the government and lecturing everyone on how to behave....and perhaps the reason we're seeing more and more silly laws mandating things that should be obvious, like purchasing health care insurance, being careful with the fatty foods, not letting toys override parental responsibility, profiling people to determine citizenship and so on and so forth, is because individual personal responsibility has eroded to the point where the state believes it has to erode individual liberty to 'save' things.

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Words, Numbers, and 99 Heroes

Sort of an amalgam post. We start with an oldie but goodie from the campaign trail and some pandering to La Raza:



..using the word 'terrorizing' to describe ICE raids. Well, apparently the word is appropriate in some circumstances as long as it doesn't apply to actual terrorism conducted by Islamic terrorists and is directed at dangerous tea party radicals sitting in lawn chairs. Just thinking ahead, wonder if Obama will charge any Arizona police for acting stupidly when they finally haul someone off in the deport-o-wagon? Yes, yes, just words.

Speaking of which, CNN picked up on Obama's shout out to the creator of the Muslim cartoon super-hero series "99" (9 x 11 - 99 based on 9/11) at the Presidential Summit on Entrepreneurship yesterday in Washington. Some (including yours truly) are a tad skeptical about having the 99 characters teaming up with Superman and Batman to fight international bad guys--as in, will any of those bad guys end up being terrorists like bin Laden, Zawahiri or al Awlaqi or will they turn out to be proxies for Goldman Sachs execs, ICE agents, or dangerous tea party radicals sitting in lawn chairs?

But OK, this could be a good thing. Young kids need positive role models. Bush tried to brand Islam a religion of peace but nobody believed him, apparently because he was white; Obama has Muslim roots so his street cred is better. At any rate we'll know for sure whether it's effective by the number of fatwas issued against the comic's Muslim creator.

Not much mention of Shariah finance in the summit websites although it was discussed here in a government website article about two attendees of the event. One of them described efforts to soften the concept outside the Muslim world; Out: interest-free loans. In: Riba Free finance. Out: Shariah finance. In: Lariba. Call it what they will the program still seems to be a numbers flim-flam. If it was such a great deal more people would be claiming to be Muslim.

By the way, this same gentleman also tried to use Biblical prohibitions against usury to suggest that Christians and Jews should follow Islam in going this direction on banking, which seems OK on the surface until one realizes that destroying international banking (run largely by white men of greed) is what most all of Obama's friends and mentors have preached for years. And it's no doubt what bin Laden wants as well. So you have that.

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Clowns all Around

Talking about a crappy deal, he recommended one..



Then later blamed Bush and lied his butt off...



Then this year he said he'd fix the thing he helped break (and blamed on Bush)..

And all we got was O'Reilly to grill him (and he could yell back). Not to say some of these Wall St. vultures shouldn't be squirming in their seats, heck, on general principle if nothing else, but their inquisitors need to notch back just a wee bit on the feigned outrage. It's danged embarrassing. And any complaints about the lack of using the real cuss words, please send them to Carl Levin, c/o Washington.

Monday, April 26, 2010

Clear as a Bell

HuffPo links to Salon, which has a column called "the Party of No...Credibility" by a guy named J.L. Bell. In a nutshell, Bell used Snopes to compile an absolute number of false Bush rumors versus false Obama rumors to determine that
..Our right wing now contains a lot more liars, and a lot more folks who spread lies out of gullibility or wishfulness, than our left wing.
Now, there are a lot of folks spreading disinformation through email and web sites, but is Mr. Bell doing likewise?

After all, he didn't make generalizations, he used hard numbers via Snopes. One of the 87 rumors was about Bill Ayers' relationship with Obama, which they classify as "partly true" (meaning partly false). This was used at the time to berate the comment Palin made about Obama 'palling around' with terrorists.

In Snopes' debunking of the Annenberg Challenge relationship they pointed to another fact-checking site, Factcheck.org, which basically called journalist Stanley Kurtz a liar when he postulated that "[Obama] almost certainly received the job at the behest of Bill Ayers" (the Snopes page won't allow cut/paste).

Snopes believed Factcheck, which said, "to the contrary, Ayers was not involved in the choice" based on the remarks of the president of the Joyce Foundation, a local Chicago charity where Obama also served on the board (some suggest there were ties between the two funds but that's not necessary to make the point here).

Flash forward--we now have New Yorker editor David Remnick's new book about Obama's history that states that yes indeed, Bill Ayers DID make Obama the director of the Annenberg Challenge, exactly what Kurtz and others were saying all along. He even called Obama's characterization between the two as 'disingenuous'. So where is the Snopes update on Remnick's charge? Bell's? And who fact checks the fact checkers?

Lines in the Sand

Funny how just when 'immigration reform' was dead in the Senate some new life gets breathed in:
Has Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) suddenly revived a major item on President Obama's agenda and moved it to the top of his to-do list?
As they say about illegals--they do the jobs Americans won't do. Brewer is now doing a job the federal government won't do. Sure, asking for proof of citizenship is a tad draconian and hopefully unconstitutional, but when her residents and police are being killed by illegal aliens what's a governor to do? And what's a president to do? Of course, use it to push for unpopular reforms! If this were a Republican parlor trick the left would be yelling "Reichstag fire".

According to reports Senator Graham backed out of amnesty reform over the weekend then last night indicated he wasn't so sure. Bryon York says the votes still aren't there, mainly because the needed Democrats might not show up. But no sense in letting a crisis go to waste, and hey, a video call to arms never hurts when done at the right moment.

MORE 4/26/10

Funny--"Refried Beans of Hate". Quick, somebody get Clinton to the scene to calms things down.

By the way, opponents of the bill (cough Obama) say the government needs to act on this problem, presumably by passing amnesty. But how would an amnesty or a guest worker program or making illegals in America legal stop the illegal drug shipments crossing the border and the crime that comes with it? Do they think smugglers will be so giddy they'll voluntarily check in at border stations or something? Or maybe we can just legalize all drugs, just like the illegals.

Sunday, April 25, 2010

The Miners

The president eulogized the fallen miners today in West Virginia. That's certainly a hard act to criticize, especially with his political history in the area and previous comments about coal. But I'm taken by something he said while putting his arms around a community in a time of grief:
"How can we fail them? How can a nation that relies on its miners not do everything in its power to protect them?" Obama said. "How can we let anyone in this country put their lives at risk by simply showing up to work, by simply pursuing the American Dream?"
Well, we let police, firefighters and soldiers and other emergency personnel put their lives on the line daily, but Obama was obviously talking about coming down hard on mining companies for perceived safety violations, apparently beyond just imposing more safety rules. In his mind the investigation is over.

Tragically there was another disaster in the energy business involving tough men who do dangerous work every day to keep the country running--the oil rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico has likely cost the lives of eleven. Like the mining disaster an exact cause has yet to be found, but environmentalists are already using it to suggest that Obama's expanded offshore oil exploration plan is dangerous and risky:
Obama showed no sign of budging Friday. Spokesman Robert Gibbs said the president still believes increasing domestic oil production can be done safely, securely and without harming the environment.

"I don't honestly think it opens up a whole new series of questions, because, you know, in all honesty I doubt this is the first accident that has happened and I doubt it will be the last," Gibbs said.
The Federal Minerals Management Service will be working up new regulations to lessen the chances of more human errors despite Gibbs' cryptic reality. But the contrast between the two events is rather stark, it would seem.

Hatfill Surfaces

I missed the Steven Hatfill interview on the Today Show last week but after having watched the replay it's evident he's an interesting study. His stare-down of the Justice Dept was impressive. By the way, you'll need to read the accompanying article to get a better picture of what he actually said due to selective editing by NBC of the video, but his answer to Lauer's question about Ivins' guilt was perhaps the most interesting part of the interview, and Hatfill didn't really answer it.

He excoriates the government and their lapdogs in the media for propagating the myth he was the killer and calls America a police state, yet let's not forget he's 5 million richer for his troubles--thanks to the government. In the Atlantic interview he admits being friends with high-level intelligence members and also states he always thought al-Qaeda would be found responsible.

So where does that leave us? Well, we know the left is still interested in this because they think it's evidence of Bush setting the table for Iraq or GWoT initiative and are still hoping for a frogmarch one day. But the question is--why would Obama repel an independent investigation?

After all, if there was any culpability on the part of Bush or Cheney it seems odd he wouldn't go there, at least surreptitiously. Perhaps he's generally convinced of Ivins' guilt based on the evidence at hand. Or perhaps he's not completely convinced but doesn't need a war with the FBI right now over this subject with other fish to fry. Or maybe he's afraid of what might come out and how it might affect his narrative. He certainly knows all there is to know on it.

One thing's for sure, unlike other unsolved mysteries this one DOES have mainstream media attention due to the damage they think it might cause the right. Not that they'll get any answers, just sayin.

MORE 4/25/10

Thinking a bit about Hatfill's admission that all during the ordeal he thought AQ was responsible. Isn't such a statement a bit odd considering the government was going after him? And not just any government, but the Bush government? Perhaps the interviewer, had he any presence of mind, might have asked why he would think the Bush government would want to pin a terrorist attack on a lone scientist when 1) he knew he was innocent and 2) they were in the midst of fighting a war on terror all over the place.

Or was it just a throw-away line?

MORE 4/26/10

Something strikes me from the LA Times article linked above regarding the 2.82 million lump sum and 150K annual annuity that Hatfill will be receiving from the government for settling the lawsuit. Here is that something:
The lawsuit was filed in August 2003, but U.S. District Court Judge Reggie B. Walton delayed permitting Hatfill's lawyers to question FBI and Justice officials or news reporters for two more years. The government contended that the depositions of agents and FBI leaders could interfere with the investigation.
It's interesting that according to the intrepid Ed Lake's Bruce Ivins timeline, 2005 was the year he believes the FBI finally realized they had their man. According to Lake's data, on July 28th, 2005 the FBI first ran surveillance on Ivins' home to look for suspicious activity, and Ivins first realized he would need a lawyer during further interviews. That was almost two years to the date from judge Walton's 2003 order, meaning Hatfill's lawyers were about to be unleashed on the FBI, DoJ and media figures the following month.

Saturday, April 24, 2010

Side Tracks



That was awesome. Compare it to versions from the Beatles (actually live), and ELO (also live) if you like. I think Berry was still the best.

Friday, April 23, 2010

GM Commercial

Wondering... Senator Grassley claims GM didn't really pay back all their loans to the taxpayers but rather used another loan to pay off the first loan. If so, isn't the new GM commercial false advertising? And if so, is the government involved in false advertising? And if so, who was involved in the marketing decision? And if so, doesn't that mean the government should contact one of its United States attorneys to investigate?

Just wondering.

MORE 4/25/10

Fox News actually contacted the Federal Trade Commission to inquire of any truth-in-advertising issues. Of course a GM spokesman said he had not heard of anything but positive responses to the ad.

Testing for Earthquakes

Earthquakes seem to be on the increase but folks cannot seem to settle for a natural explanation to anything anymore. So we appear to have two running theories now--on the one hand a liberal tree-hugger who blames the increase of both quakes and volcanoes on western democracy, and on the other a Muslim cleric who blames them on too much western-style cleavage. I'll just go ahead and blame Bush, but both of these guys can't be right!

Which is why this question calls for a scientific experiment:
The campaign to trigger a 'Boobquake' was begun by American student Jennifer McCreight who has so far got 40,000 people to sign up to the idea on a special Facebook page (where another 150,000 have been invited) and has attracted a large following on Twitter.
April 26, mark it down. Observations will certainly be taken far and wide, perhaps with more precision that a mercury thermometer. We look forward to seeing the data. Oh, and by the way, to be on the safe side you may want to avoid West Lafayette next week. Just sayin'.

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Fat Chances

So Blago wants Obama to testify in his Senate-seat auction case? That's about as likely as anyone finding out who destroyed the CIA interrogation tapes (since the latest FOIA release has apparently exonerated the Bush folks).

Hot Rod is an interesting character, though. It's almost as if he's regularly doing and saying outrageous things to keep his profile as high as possible, to the point of becoming a household name. Wonder why he would do that, aside from the fame?

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

More Police "Acting Stupidly"?

That's what the DC Park Police are saying about the strange event yesterday when Lafayette Park (in front of the White House) was closed as gay service members stood handcuffed to the fence out front. Politico reported, then reported the explanation:
"We had some young officers who, when they were told to move the people back -- which we typically do when we're going to make arrests - they moved the people back a lot further than we typically do," said Schlosser. "That was a rookie, amateur error and they screwed up on that."
Many possibilities--1) they are telling the truth, 2) the White House didn't want the specter of service members being arrested in front of the White House to make the evening news (assuming it would), 3) the Park Police or Secret Service didn't want that image, totally independent of the WH (as with the Sahali party crashers, evidently), 4) nothing happened at all--it was actually created by a CIA hologram.

Assuming it's not 4 or 1, that leaves 2 and 3 as most plausible and the answer to that question is probably in the realm of don't ask, don't tell. Interesting though--at least some in the media are appalled for the first time and many in the gay community are not buying it for a minute. But wait, could this really just be a clever stunt designed to get the right onboard with gays in their quest to abolish DADT due to their mutual outrage, in other words, an enemy of my enemy is my friend thing? Yeah, plain old incompetence or politics makes more sense but with these cats it's never clear.

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Whether to Believe Dick Morris

From Hannity, last night:



It's not an easy call. After all Morris, now a champion of the conservative cause, got Clinton re-elected as Arkansas governor and later as president, so his loyalties appear suspect. He's had a run-in with a prostitute. His prognostications are never a sure thing. But does any of that make him always wrong, especially about recounting a first person event?

Just a thought bubble--let's assume the event occurred close to his description. What was the secret she kept about Waco? Was it really that Clinton himself called for the raid resulting in all those dead children that had been pinned on Reno? As the Cap'n says, he had already been elected. Or was it something else?

Checking history, the siege began on February 28th, 1993. Only two days prior to that, the World Trade Center was attacked by Ramzi Yousef, who carried an Iraqi passport into America, and by Abdul Yasin, an Iraqi national who fled to Baghdad only days after the attack (and after talking with the FBI). The FBI botched that case, losing their inside mole only weeks before the attack.

Had there not been a massive distraction over a religious zealot responsible for killing four federal agents with his dozens of concubines running around while claiming to speak for god (and all the dangerous right wing connotations produced thereby) wouldn't there have been a rising national plea for retribution as soon as the public realized that our most symbolic building was possibly attacked by terrorists with ties to Iraq?

After fifty days the siege ended tragically on April 19th. A little over two months later Clinton put a bunch of cruise missiles down the snoot of Saddam's intelligence service under the guise of retaliating for the attempted assassination of Bush 41 in Kuwait, which occurred only a few days before Waco ended. But the only official retaliation for the symbolic bombing of our most symbolic skyscraper was to capture the Brooklyn cell (except for Yasin) and try them in court, a process that stretched out until 1998.

By no means does this prove whether the secret Morris claims Reno was keeping was about other terrorism--who knows? The 64,000 question is whether this allegation will ever see the light of day again.

MORE 4/20/10

Could this be the secret? Maybe, or perhaps related, but the report had been in the papers in 1995 before Reno supposedly made her demand. So it's likely something worse.

QUESTION ANSWERED 4/20/10

No, we cannot believe Morris...

Hard to believe I'd agree with Media Matters, but when they are right they are right--Morris completely misrepresented that conversation.

One could argue that his conjecture might have occurred, that is, Clinton's reappointment of Reno after wanting to fire her was strange in that he either did it for pity or to protect himself. That is, IF we can believe Morris about the cabinet picks story. There's a far distance between making up quotes and conjecture--Fox should fire Morris, now.

Monday, April 19, 2010

BBC World Poll

The left will make much hay with this:
"After a year, it appears the 'Obama effect' is real" said Steven Kull director Program on International Policy Attitudes (Pipa) at the University of Maryland, who helped conduct the poll.

"Its influence on people's views worldwide, though, is to soften the negative aspects of the United States' image, while positive aspects are not yet coming into strong focus."
So our negatives are way up but we're still polling more or less the same as China. What about past performances? Here's the headline from the 2008 survey:
World views US 'more positively'
Before Obama? The period of survey was from November 2007 through January 2008 while Bush was in the middle of a surge in Iraq and before Obama was even nominated. But alas, the poll director has an answer:
"It may be that as the US approaches a new presidential election, views of the US are being mitigated by hope that a new administration will move away from the foreign policies that have been so unpopular in the world," he said.
When the 2009 came in flat the same guy explained it this way:
Steven Kull, Director of PIPA, comments: "Though BBC polls have shown that most people around the world are hopeful that Barack Obama will improve US relations with the world, it is clear that his election alone is not enough to turn the tide. People are still looking to see if there are significant changes in US policies."
So.. go ahead and believe this means something if it makes your day. Obama is on record that he doesn't think too much of polls anyway...



And he's right on this one..

Big News in Iraq

According to both the Maliki government and US MNF the leadership of AQ in Iraq has been killed:
Two of the most wanted terrorist figures in Iraq have been killed in a joint Iraqi-U.S. operation, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Monday.

Abu Ayyub al-Masri, leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, and Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, leader of the Islamic State of Iraq - an umbrella group that includes al Qaeda in Iraq - were killed in a security operation in al-Tharthar, north of Baghdad, al-Maliki said.
To use a Bidenism, this is a BFD. It certainly appears a positive step for the Iraqi military as our forces prepare to draw down.

Let the speculation begin, though. Al-Baghdadi has at times been reported a ghost or captured, which turned out to be an embarrassment last year. In 2007 a captured prisoner reported that he was merely a creation to put an Iraqi face on the foreign component involved in the insurgency, who were connected directly to bin Laden's Afghanistan command. Our forces ran with that as they were trying to convince local Sunni tribal chieftains to work with us against AQ.

According to a skeptical Times summary of al-Baghdadi:
He has not appeared publicly, though, except by voice - in recordings of his florid lectures condemning the West, Israel, Iran and insufficiently zealous Sunnis. This has given him a mystique that has only made him more powerful in the eyes of jihadists
Ergo, silencing this ghost sounds like a necessary BFD.

How any of this might relate to the Saddamists still apparently funding the mayhem is the next guess. With Iyad Allawi rising to power it's possible a deal was struck to give these guys up--this story suggests they tried to make deals regarding Yemen. Perhaps it's the only way we can ever begin our drawdown, although clearly it will never be completely safe to withdraw.

MORE 4/21/10

I was shocked to see the Fox News story about the arrest warrant issued for Raghad Hussein by Iraq (the King of Jordan continues to display a giant middle finger towards the east) regards a captured letter supposedly to Izzat al-Douri (the unknown terrorist) telling him to ramp up the kickass before the recent elections.

Of course such a tale is mighty convenient for Maliki, who stands to benefit from the notion that al-Douri influenced the elections and allowed Allawi to gain some of his stake. But as with anything else there could be some truth behind it as well, especially the notion of Ba'athists using Sunni terrorists as cat's paws. The sudden death of the two most notorious AQ terrorists in Iraq cannot be a coincidence, but figuring out how it was engineered is certainly above my pay grade.

Sunday, April 18, 2010

The Clinton Domestic Directive

According to the former president:
"By all means keep fighting, by all means, keep arguing," he said. "But remember, words have consequences as much as actions do, and what we advocate, commensurate with our position and responsibility, we have to take responsibility for. We owe that to Oklahoma City."
I for one welcome this new era of personal responsibility for elected officials, journalists and politicians over what they say and look forward to holding them to account. Here's one already.. a birther mayor--not very productive.

Here's another. Of course, he's only a comedian.

How about Clinton himself, who mentioned the word "terror" or one of its derivatives 12 times in his CFAP speech on lessons learned from April 19, 1995, apparently violating a previous soft edict from Obama on toning down the hostile impact of that word when it's applied to Islamic (radicals who do terrorizing things). Words matter!

OK, there's a point here. Rhetoric can inflame. But the left needs to understand that it's not only conservative rhetoric, it's everyone's rhetoric. Until luminaries like Clinton and Obama come down off their high horses of absolute moral authority the situation is not likely to change. Wait, unless no change and more chaos is the ultimate goal--why, such a thing would be near-treasonous (er, sorry, not very nice).

Side Tracks



Seems popular..still.

Saturday, April 17, 2010

Cooling the Rhetoric

As we approach the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing some liberals have seen fit to use it as a reminder to everyone (conservatives) to cool their rhetoric lest it occur again in this charged environment. Opined Bill Clinton:
"Most of them have been well within bounds," Clinton said. "And they're harsh but limited criticism; in other words, they're not advocating violence or encouraging other people to do it.

"But I just think that we have to be careful," the former president added. "We've been down this road on more than one occasion before. We don't want to go down it again."
Like accusing tea party protesters of being racists? Jack Cashill of Kansas City has been one of the web journalists exploring the Washington "spitting and N-word" incident, primarily since it involved Kansas City's own black congressmen Emanuel Cleaver.

In challenging the narrative--which almost every mainstream outlet ran with, including a few using the N word in the headline--Cashill discovered a troubling event that occurred in the Country Club Plaza section of his city over the past two weekends:
This past Saturday even the Kansas City Star had to take notice when, according to a Plaza spokesman, some 900 youths roamed the Plaza streets, “ destroying property, pushing people as they walked down the sidewalk and spitting on people.” Spitting on people? The Star does not mention whether the people were spit on because they were white or beaten because they were white or robbed because they were white. In fact, in a 2,000-word summary article, the Star does not mention race in any which way at all.
Hmm. Whether this kind of thing was responsible for the attack on Bobby Jindal's chief fundraiser and her boyfriend in New Orleans recently is anyone's guess, but the internet makes it possible to organize such things quickly--as Clinton warned. So surely if chaos breaks out again this weekend in KC or elsewhere using such tactics then Clinton all the mainstreamers (and the WaPo's ombudsman) will jump right on it, making the required inferences to race then calling for calm, right? Or maybe they'll just circle around and blame it on the spitting incident.

CLINTON TAPPED 4/18/10

Clinton sat down with Jake Tapper in an attempt to rearrange the history of the 90s to fit his political narrative:



A few takeaways: One--he's right about inflamed rhetoric and demonization. ALL politicians should be careful in how they word things and should resist demagogueing situations for their own political gain as Clinton seems to be doing here. Calling right wing protesters racists comes to mind. This should also apply to so-called objective media figures, but I apologize for the redundancy.

Slick said the rise of Rush Limbaugh came after his presidency, which is only partially true. The first time I heard Rush on a national show was in 1991 during the run-up to the Gulf War, nearly 2 years before the inauguration.

As to McVeigh, he was fueled largely by Waco. That was Clinton's decision and cannot be completely eliminated from the calculus. Children died. But neither he nor the formally intrepid Tapper mentioned it. For the record, I backed both him and Reno on it because we can't have people simply picking off federal agents and starting wars over warrants. Koresh was a nut. But the abhorrent end-game firestorm debacle was shameful--apparently they didn't even bother to check a weather forecast (strong winds + ordnance = disaster). McVeigh was also fueled by Ruby Ridge, which occurred during Bush 41.

So Slick is largely blowing smoke again but nobody in the media except Limbaugh dares to challenge him on it, and Limbaugh has long ago been placed neatly in his box.

Friday, April 16, 2010

Are the Dems Using Okla City?

...as a way to paint modern Tea Partiers as dangerous radicals who might one day blow up buildings just like al Qaeda? Surely they wouldn't stoop so low, but some early rumblings are pointing in that direction.

Rachel Maddow will be hosting a special two hour show about the Oklahoma City bombing Monday night. Her stand on 'teabaggers' is well known. The preview of the show suggests a connection. How is that not vile?

BTW, wonder if Maddow will venture down this road? Wonder if she'll explore the puzzle of why Terry Nichols' went to Cebu City, Philippines at the same time Yousef and KSM were there, only to return and have his bomb work as well as the first WTC bomb? Wonder if she'll ponder what might have happened had Clinton interrogated Yousef when he was captured two months before the bombing? Nah, she probably condemns the targeting of Muslims in such a manner.

Meanwhile the NYT, never one to be one-upped, features Bill Clinton's take on the event today. He will deliver a keynote address tonight at a memorial event held by his former associates at the far left Center for American Progress. This same man once insinuated that Rush Limbaugh was responsible for the bombing and his wife claimed there was a vast right wing conspiracy out to get them. Wonder if they'll explore those lessons?

Slick points to Michelle Bachmann; the Times writer mentions the crosshairs on Palin's political target map in the effort to demonize those opposed to the present track we're on. Yet somehow it wasn't incendiary when anti-war protesters were in the streets openly advocating for Bush's demise while the DLC produced a political target map in 2004 with bullseyes.

They mention Waco, but looking back the Ruby Ridge incident occurred when Bush 41 was president. Many militia members thought he was on the leading edge of a one-world government when he called for a 'new world order' in a speech condemning Saddam Hussein--delivered on September 11th, 1990. Surely that was a memorable date in Saddam's mind.

But despite reality a lecture is always appropriate:
“Have at it,” he said. “You can attack the politics. Criticize their policies. Don’t demonize them, and don’t say things that will encourage violent opposition.”
Nice to see he's publicly discouraging the use of Alinsky tactics while engaging in them, while almost everyone in his party--even to include the president of the United States--have demonized the protesters from day one. Of course, such is becoming old hat with the latter.
Meanwhile another Clinton-era rejoinder, "it's the economy, stupid", lies dormant.

SPEAKING OF.. 4/16/10

..dangerous radicals, this swell character was just sentenced to 10 years in an Arkansas federal court for threatening the president and black people in general. Ten years seems rather lenient.

Then again, someone who actually killed a soldier while committing jihad against America, and who has recently "lashed out" at the president, sits in an Arkansas jail awaiting a state capital murder charge with no federal component whatsoever. What would happen if the case were thrown out on a technicality?

Double Down Then, Sir

Obama, finally reacting to the tea party protesters:
Speaking at a Democratic fundraiser tonight, President Obama touted his administration’s tax cuts and said that the recent tea party rallies across the nation have “amused” him.

“You would think they should be saying thank you,” the president said to applause.
Well then, if he thinks tax cuts are so great why not make the Bush cuts permanent (or maybe double down on them)? Is it because our Chicago machine president most likely always planned to sprinkle out goodies on the way in the door with reality designed to arrive after the mid-terms (after his liberal agenda was through Congress)? Who doesn't think tax hikes are coming, maybe even a VAT?

Aside from being snide his comments also illustrate the fact that the movement is truly grassroots, mainly comprised of moms and pops not pros, who have no strong leadership and are largely reacting emotionally to the socialist mosaic this president is painting. They can't always put their feelings into exact words so the skinny but tough Chicago politician will be happy to it for them--to cheers from his flock. But rejection is part of the job description, fear and retribution are not. That is, if Obama hasn't already torn up that description.

Thursday, April 15, 2010

Indictment for Leaking

The WaPo is reporting (ht Hot Air) that a Bush-era NSA official has been indicted on 10 counts of passing state secrets to a reporter:
The indictment alleges that Drake exchanged hundreds of e-mails with an unidentified reporter for a national newspaper and served as a source for its articles about Bush administration intelligence policies between February 2006 and November 2007, U.S. officials said.
The Thomas Tamm story is old. The Risen TSP story actually broke in 2005 so by divulging later years it seems they were trying to telegraph the topic as something other than the main leak case. The New York Times has the story--the AP story. Guess they are too busy reviewing their archives to write their own version yet.

As Cap'n Ed says, this appears to be a good thing from the Obama people, pursuing justice and guarding state secrets and such. One could presume they got their security briefings, said OMG, then decided to take up where Bushitler left off. But based on reality it's just as likely there's something positive in this politically for the administration. Developing, as they say.

Oversimplifying the World

Lots of talk about what Obama really meant by his "like it or not" statement on America's super power status at the loose nuke summit--I think he's embarrassed to consider himself the leader of such a huge power in light of all the apologizing he's done over the past year.

But it's dog bites man--the same kind of sentiment can be easily found in the writings of the former ideological friends he threw under the bus during the campaign and most probably even within his own writings should they ever come out. The bigger question is whether the summit logo was actually a sneaky Islamic crescent!

Anyway, this New York Times article on the matter contains two paragraphs quoting former Congressman Robert Wexler (now part of a Mid-East think tank) that are most bizarre:
“The president is re-evaluating the tactics his administration is employing toward Israel and the entire Middle East,” said Robert Wexler, a former Democratic congressman who resigned in January to lead the Center for Middle East Peace, a Washington-based nonprofit institution that is working for a peace agreement.

“I don’t think that anybody believes American lives are endangered or materially affected by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” said Mr. Wexler, who has close ties to administration officials. “That’s an oversimplification. However, you’d have to have blinders on not to recognize that there are issues in one arena that affect other arenas.”
Anybody? I think almost everybody believes American lives could be endangered by the conflict, since almost every terrorist over the last 30 years has evoked Israel in some way, shape or form. Even long dead writers of the Bible saw the danger there. So Wexler is either off his gord or just illustrating the stock world-socialist view of how to solve the crisis--less Israel. In the latter case we might ask, just how close are his ties to the administration?

Well, I continue to wonder if Obama is just pulling a grand subterfuge on the dimwits of the world or whether he really believes the stuff coming outa his own mouth. I continue to wonder which might be worse, and have found no solution as yet.

Meanwhile the Times continues to live up to their low expectations. In their mention of the letter sent to the administration about Israel by most in Congress they pulled a classic 'oversimplification' of their own:
On Tuesday, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a powerful pro-Israel lobbying group, publicized letters to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, signed by 76 senators and 333 House members, that implored the administration to defuse tensions.
Ben Smith at Politico described the letter as a 'rebuke'. It was clearly meant to show support for Israel after Clinton and Obama publicly chastised them, not just to "diffuse tensions" in the region. By mischaracterizing the letter we might ask--just how close are the Times' ties to this administration?

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Hank Williams Wins the Pulitzer

Yes, for..
"..craftsmanship as a songwriter who expressed universal feelings with poignant simplicity and played a pivotal role in transforming country music into a major musical and cultural force in American life."
Better late than never, I guess. And perhaps appropriate since the entire winner's set is usually part of a good ole boy's club anyway. Williams now shares the award with a bunch of other luminaries, like the New York Times and Joseph Pulitzer.

Who knows, maybe they felt the need to improve their street cred and reach across the aisle to the Nascar crowd. Williams was the father of country music and he was a populist, probably a Pulitzer prerequisite. But he was also the epitome of the American dream, born a poor white kid in Alabama who rose to the top of his field solely on talent and perseverance. So congrats to the Williams family.

Monday, April 12, 2010

A More Perfect Democracy

From the One's spokesman re the "perfecting democracy" quip:
"[Obama's] taken, I think, rather historic steps to improve our own democracy since coming to office here in the United States."
Uh... what historic steps does he think have been taken? Ramming through health insurance reform? We know Biden thought it was a BFD but is that really what Obama considers as perfecting a democracy? Really? Or was it taking over the car companies? Or was it just getting elected? Let's hope this is just a part of the grand subterfuge.

Suddenly There's a Threat?

Obama is trying to rid the world of nukes, a noble gesture, but wow--they are now openly admitting that fear of a WMD in the hands of Islamic terrorists violent extremists is not just some Cheney pipe dream:
Terrorists including al-Qaeda pose a serious threat to world security as they attempt to obtain atomic weapons material, Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, declared on the eve of a global summit in Washington to prevent a nuclear terror attack.
The Times interview mentioned former CIA analyst Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, who warned:
Bin Laden's avowed intention to go nuclear has kept the West's intelligence services busy for years.

"Since the mid-1990s, al-Qaeda's WMD procurement efforts have been managed at the most senior levels, under rules of strict compartmentalisation from lower levels of the organisation, and with central control over possible targets and the timing of prospective attacks," Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, a former senior CIA officer, wrote in Foreign Policy magazine in January.

He said Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's Egyptian deputy chief, "personally shepherded the group's ultimately unsuccessful efforts to set off an anthrax attack in the US".
Apart from the letters, which were almost certainly done by Dr. Ivins, he's saying there was another attempt. Interesting. Again, this makes sense based on what we know occurred around 9/11 apart from the letters and explains why Cheney went to secure locations and carried around a bio hazard suit. Of course they called him a paranoid nut--but coming from the anointed reset administration we must now take them seriously.

That is, unless they are just trying to use this fear to get the right onboard with some kind of plan to neuter our deterrence capabilities on the world stage. This group is hard to read.

But it's doubtful this is all political spin--the threat has been real since before the Bush crew entered the White House. Perhaps Obama's recent hit order on our friend in Yemen Anwar Aulaqi makes more sense considering what the 9/11 Commission said about him:
33. On Anwar Aulaqi, see Wade A. interview (Oct. 16, 2003).The FBI investigated Aulaqi in 1999 and 2000 after learning that he may have been contacted by a possible procurement agent for Bin Ladin.
And just who did the commission identify as 'procurement agents for WMD'? These guys--both of whom were in the Sudan after 9/11. Both of whom were interviewed but not picked up. One of whom was last seen heading back to Iraq, who carries the same surname as the former head of Saddam's Revolutionary Command Council, who himself is number one on Iraq's new most wanted list and has been seen recently meeting with individuals in Yemen.

Sunday, April 11, 2010

Re-fighting the Past

Wow, you know things are getting slow when the press starts trying to re-fight the civil war. And Roland Martin? Comparing confederate troops to terrorists? CNN should send him back to the minors for that nonsense but I guess they need the web traffic. The prez? Well, he has no problem taking a stand against some enemies, evidently.

Haley Barbour says it all "amounts to diddly." He's right--nobody was trying to dismiss the horrors of slavery or lament the south's loss, just recognize Virginians who died in that war, exactly as his Democratic state legislature of Mississippi has done for years. But in this day and age a politician cannot afford to appear callous, which is how this will be spun, which is why it's even an issue. Which is why (along with that accent) Barbour will never be president.

Side Tracks

It's Sunday at the Masters so let's get some music and golf in the same video..



Today's final could be classic as well. The weather looks perfect and the old guard is represented by 50 year old Fred Couples and 60 year old Tom Watson. Now, if Tiger can just keep his on-camera outbursts to a minimum..

Saturday, April 10, 2010

A Long Reach, or History?

Marc Thiessen's book has gotten a lot of slammage from the left, who consider it a torture apologia riddled with errors (many of their own invention). But Thiessen left his readers an interesting comment from the Decider in the opening pages of the last chapter (conclusion:"You've Got a Harder Job", page 367):
On November 6, 2008, two days after the election of Barack Obama, President Bush held a meeting of his cabinet and senior staff. He started by telling us that a friend had called to tell him how sorry he was about the election. The president recounted his response: "Don't be sorry. It was a great day for the American people".

He then said: "It will be a good lesson for the country, for people who say if I only had this person in office, my life will be better. They will learn that it is not government that improves lives. It will be a fascinating political science lesson."
That alone is enough to put MSNBC into a collective aneurysm, but Bush elaborated further:
"I feel a great sense of liberation after the election. History has a long reach. Someday there will be a sober assessment of what we did here..."
In the next paragraph Bush hints a little about why they did it without busting the wall between conventional wisdom and classified intelligence:
"Our job is to make sure the next president and his team can do the job and succeed. No one at this table should want them to fail--because that means the country got attacked again."

He added: "When they arrive, they will quickly realize we didn't invent the war on terror. It will be a day of reckoning when the reality of the world sets in."
The left might be tempted to use that fail comment against Limbaugh but it was clearly in the context of the war, not social policies. Thiessen goes on to describe a wide-eyed Obama getting the first security briefing from Mike McConnell and wondering where they obtained all the threats and the answer: the NSA's TSP program. In the subsequent 15 months Obama has done a lot of posturing and positioning but America still has the NSA program, Gitmo, renditions, and troops on the ground in the same place they were when Bush left.

While that doesn't vindicate Bush's response it certainly doesn't dismiss it either, keeping the notion of 'someday they will understand' alive and well. Obama now knows everything Bush knew--which Cheney still knows--which is perhaps why he comes out every time Obama seems to publicly forget.

Meanwhile, one of the biggest Bush detractors continues to be Lawrence Wilkerson, a former assistant to Colin Powell and part of the small group of State Department radicals who pushed back on the 'neocons' back in the day. Lawrence was once asked by PBS in 2005 about Dick Cheney's influence in the run-up to Iraq:
It's difficult for me to say. ... Dick Cheney is genuinely concerned about the security of this country; there's no question in my mind about that. He's paranoid about it, I think. And you can say, "Well, the vice president of the United States and the president of the United States should be paranoid about my security," and I probably wouldn't argue it until it starts causing me to do things that violate my own code of conduct, ethics and so forth. Then I'm going to object.
Unless it depended on maintaining everything we hold dear? Here's Wilkerson, a vociferous critic of the administration primarily due to harsh treatment of detainees but also over Iraq, admitted he wasn't privy to the highest intelligence and was only speculating on some of his responses, but he thought Cheney wasn't evil, just overly paranoid about threats he likely wasn't briefed on. So why was Cheney so paranoid? Was it just 9/11?

Consider that the Veep and other high officials were offered anthrax vaccinations concurrent with 9/11 and a week BEFORE the first anthrax letters were mailed, and several weeks before they became news items in the media. The conspiracy theorists like to use this as a smoking gun to argue the government was behind the letters (and everything else) but isn't it just as likely they understood the threat and the enemy almost immediately?

And if in the end Bush knew he had misjudged AQ by thinking of them as a clever cat's paw of the pan-Arabic movement (individual Arabs, as Saddam once said) or even darker unnamed forces why would he, behind closed doors, tell his team they should hold onto hope that the "long reach" of history would vindicate them in the end? Was the "long reach" just the rambling of a failed president trying to pick up the pieces of a legacy and cheer up the troops or was it the surface reflection of his "brutal honesty"? Guess we'll have to wait for history.

Friday, April 09, 2010

A Grisly Anniversary

We just passed a rather gruesome but somewhat illuminating anniversary in the history of terrorism perpetrated against America--the bombing of TWA flight 840 on April 2, 1986. Here's a rather prescient summary from a Time article about the event written shortly thereafter:
The bomb aboard Flight 840 took only four lives, far fewer than the 166 people who died two days earlier when a Mexican jetliner crashed into a mountainside in central Mexico, but it was one of the most chilling episodes in the generation-old saga of airborne terrorism. The bombing demonstrated that neither governments nor airlines have yet found the means to make air travelers safe from terrorist attacks.

Nor was there any sense that the war against terrorism was being won on the ground.
Emphasis added to point out a familiar phrase phased out in 2009 (and now another iteration) by the reset crew in a meager hope to change hearts and minds. So if anyone tells you it was Bush's rhetoric that spawned terrorism they are simply forgetting their history.

Some will never forget. Three of the four murdered Americans were sucked out through the bomb hole as the Boeing 727 descended through 11,000 feet for Athens, Greece on a short-hop from Rome. A coroner later found they were possibly alive all the way to the ground. A Lebanese woman was accused of placing a micro bomb under seat 10F on the preceding flight but was never convicted.

While popular wisdom says that terrorism ramped up after the 1993 WTC bombing or September 11, the mid 80s were probably the most active decade in the last few. At the time the left accused Reagan of ramping it up because like Bush 43, he took an aggressive stance (at least for awhile). Bush 41 was more careful but he also took the offensive, and the attacks continued. Obama appears to have a more passive strategy similar to Clinton's--perhaps sneakier due to his awesome smartness and Chicago cunning--but the result will likely be the same until Israel is removed from the Middle East. For starters.

As to 840, depending on sources the attack was either carried out by the Abu Nidal Organization, whose founder met his death in Baghdad shortly before the invasion, or by the 15 May Organization, whose leader Abu Ibrahim is still alive and was last seen in Iraq. Anyone see the common thread? Ibrahim is a master bomb-maker and was credited with devising micro-seat bombs, of which TWA 840 likely encountered.

Coincidentally, the bomber of the WTC in 93 was experimenting with micro-bombs and used one on Philippine Airlines 434 in 1994. Ramzi Yousef's uncle also had a plan to use them on 11 trans-pacific flights in the mid 90s--itself likely borrowed from Ibrahim's largely thwarted attack on 12 planes in the mid 80s. KSM went on to devise and coordinate 9/11, of course.

The glaring and still unanswered question is whether there was any coordination between the largely pan-Arabic terrorists of the 80s and the Islamic variety of the 90s as to bomb making or airliner training? Iraq had an old 727 sitting at their training site at Salmon Pak and some think they farmed out training, but regardless of whether any training or coordination occurred Iraq was still undoubtedly home to at least two notorious expert terrorists who had killed Americans, and probably more.

So when folks say Saddam Hussein was not a player in global terrorism and that we attacked him for no reason they are simply forgetting their history. Again.

MORE 4/9/10

And here we are 24 years later and still worried to death over saying the word bomb on an airplane. BTW, the idiot Qatari diplomat was heading to the Supermax to visit Ali al-Marri, KSM's sleeper agent sent to America on 9/10/01 to await further instructions to blow stuff up. Held for awhile as an enemy combatant at a Navy brig, he later copped a plea last year to almost zero media fanfare. He will get out of jail with some life left to live.

Thursday, April 08, 2010

Tiger Time

Another major, another story about Tiger, and 60 year old Tom Watson is once again leading the tournament. Go figure.

Looks like Tiger's detractors have found a way to use their bullhorn without encountering the 90 man security force or Augusta's ground troops--ain't free speech grand? Meanwhile the buzz is about the Nike commercial featuring the voice of Earl Woods, speaking about something completely different yet used to address a massive sex scandal that nearly toppled an industry. Somehow I'm thinking Mr. Woods might have taken a little more aggressive tone with his son in the real world, but that's just me.

In my view Woods had two viable options in the self-redemption department. One, he could have jettisoned ALL his sponsors and returned for the US Open--our national tournament. Everyone knows he loves the Masters so giving it up would have shown true sacrifice (I wouldn't want to give up even watching for a year). But that would have kept a lot of folks out of work, though. For instance, we have a Nike plant here in Memphis. But the notion of earning his way back onto the tour might have played pretty well over time.

Alternatively he could have just thrown up his hands and taken ownership of the whole thing. Taking ownership would have estranged him permanently from Elin and family, but does she really have any cause for forgiving him with bimbos and next door neighbors still coming out of the woodwork? Sure it's a "high risk" play, like going for the green in two on a par five over water, but most of his fans are males and we would have forgiven. And we buy shoes and shirts and balls. Yeah, he would become the biggest cad in town but Wilt Chamberlain wrote a book bragging about his conquests. Tiger could have said, "I yam what I yam and that's all that I yam". In a Tiger sorta way. He wouldn't have any major sponsors left doing that either but eventually they'd return, just different brands. Like maybe Extenze. That would be neat on the cap and quite pertinent to golf, too!

Meanwhile, life goes on. We're still going broke, health care is still passed, troops are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan and Iran is threatening a nuke attack. So I'm planning to enjoy the azaleas and the birdies, no matter who makes them, and hope for somebody new--or old--to take the green jacket. Anybody but Tiger.

UPDATE 4/8/10

"and 60 year old Tom Watson is once again leading the tournament." Well, check that--50 year old Fred Couples. And 52 year old Sandy Lyle is only a few shots back. Those guys were classy, but only Watson has more wins and he's twice Tiger's age. So who knows, maybe winning with class is just old fashioned and outdated or even racist. Woods bagged every available bird off the course and still has his trophies; his blond super attractive wife; his most important sponsor; and got polite applause from the gallery, and is still addicted to sex. What's to suffer?

Review the Reviewers

The New York Times Sunday book review found time to review David Remnick's 'exhaustive' new book on Obama called "The Bridge" and in particular, his comments on "Dreams from my Father". Here's one:
Obama was not literally a slave in his youth, but he was in thrall to false images of his father, fostered by his mother’s protective loyalty to her husband.
It will be interesting to see what Remnick discovered about the first year of Obama's life in Hawaii seeing as how Stanley Ann scurried off to Seattle weeks after O's birth and Barack Sr remained at U of Hawaii.

Anyway, Tom the Minuteman Maguire is not very impressed with the Wills writeup, specifically this part:
The narrative protects him from claims that he is an ideologue or peddler of false hopes. The art with which the book is constructed to serve his deepest personal needs shows how ludicrous is the charge of Rush Limbaugh and others that he did not write it. (The ineffable ­Limbaugh thinks Bill Ayers may have written it.)
Wildly, Maguire, like el-Rushbo and strange bedfellow Steve Diamond, believe that the Obama camp has been lying all along about Ayers and that celebrity biographer Christopher Andersen innocently stumbled upon the truth in writing his book, "Barack and Michelle" when he matter-of-factly was told that Ayers helped write the book when Obama got writer's block--according to people he interviewed in the neighborhood.

Andersen was interviewed by almost every major network but only Sean Hannity of Fox asked him about the Ayers part. Hannity may be an irritating tool at times, but he's absolutely right about 2008 being the year journalism died. That the mainstream White House journalists never asked Robert Gibbs about this contention is borderline criminal.

But it's not just the White House press corpse, perhaps most tellingly, the New York Times Review of Books never reviewed "Barack and Michelle". Celebrity writer? Well maybe, but they reviewed Kitty Kelley's book on Bush.

MORE 4/8/10

....from Huffpo on Remnick's book:
[Obama] was a cautious player, folding hand after hand, waiting for his moment to bluff or go big on a good hand ... Obama's caution, hidden behind a cloud of cigarette smoke, could be maddening. One Republican, Bill Brady, of Bloomington, told Obama, 'You're a socialist with everybody's money but your own.'
Fold after fold waiting for the big score or bluff--sounds like our president to a tee. As much as Bush was known for his bluntness Obama will be known for his subterfuge. Hopefully the world doesn't catch on.

Wednesday, April 07, 2010

Play Politics!

Nothing wrong with the prez throwing out a ceremonial first pitch on opening day:



But an eephus pitch? Well, judge not on such things, it's a difficult toss, but maybe an eephus pitch makes sense since he's always trying to use subterfuge to get things done.

The Chi Sox prop hat came out again, which makes it mighty convenient to later make a comparison between the working class heroes on the south side, where he hails, and the wine sipping bourgeois Cub fans on the north. Never miss an opportunity to make class and income distinctions! Even if he doesn't really hail from the south side and even if he can't name any favorite players growing up.

And wasn't that a brilliant question from the color man (Rob Dibble?). Wonder if he made the conscious acknowledgment ahead of time that Obama probably wasn't a White Sox fan "growing up" since he attended school in Indonesia and Hawaii, which would amount to a set up question, or whether it was a spur-of-the-moment thing? Obama was forced to admit he wasn't always a fan before arriving in the south side--nothing wrong with that--but he stumbled mightily in getting there with the image getting a bit frayed in the process.

Oh well, surely Obama's crack advisory staff are looking into the color man (can we say that anymore?) to see if they can find anything fishy. Just in case. And maybe at the next prime time press conference Helen Thomas can ask him to name his favorite Oakland A's player 'growing up'. At the current pace he'll have plenty of time to research it. Or heck with that--Gibbs can just Twitter out the answer much faster.

Monday, April 05, 2010

Hey Look! A Kristallnacht!

My own Congressman--calling me a Nazi Klansman! Oh, and anyone else who "goes out and exercises their first amendment rights". And Kristallnacht? Criminy, what a maroon. But this is Left Tennessee, so it's appropriate. Here's the explanation..

Cohen's challenger for his 9th district seat is former Memphis mayor W.W. Herenton, who has already dropped the race card by suggesting the 9th district seat belongs to a black person. So that explains Cohen. It's not the first time.

Forgotten Stories Update

Here are a few things swirling around that the major media seems to have no real interest in following..

The Tripoli Miracle

Pan Am 103 bomber al-Megrahi, counted for dead and traded back to Libya for something or other, recently celebrated his 58th birthday after being technically dead for almost a year. But don't worry, he still has only weeks left to live. Just like in December. And in August. And last April. And October 2008.

So what's forgotten? Not al-Megrahi, more like the Obama connection. Is it reasonable to assume the administration was clueless about this deal beforehand? And if not, were they horribly punked by the Brits? The Scots doctors? Gaddafi? This man was convicted of killing almost 200 Americans and helped to bring about the demise of an entire airline. One might think our intrepid media would have smelled something.

Taliban number Two

al-Baradar, remember him? His capture was a big issue during the opening weeks of the Afghan surge and rumors were swirling that he was singing like a chatty Cathy. Then things went dark. The latest? He is still in Pakistan.

Ethiopian Flight 409

The last official word came several weeks ago about a forthcoming preliminary report that was going to blame the pilot. This story attempts to blame Beirut ATC or another airline, while WND and others went with this bomb story connecting AQ in the Arabian Peninsula. Here's a summary.

The trials of al-Nashiri and Hambali...

..or Hasan, or the guy who waged jihad in Little Rock, or Abdulmuttalob. The last I've seen on Hambali was that he'd filed a habeas petition and that DOJ had not decided whether to try him in Washington, DC, or in a commission. Nidal Hasan will get a military trial--as appropriate--at some point. Al-Nashiri, the USS Cole bomber, is also getting a commission according to Holder. But there has been virtually nothing about it since he spoke those words in Congress. And now his department has backtracked on calling Abu Zubaydah a member of al Qaeda, something even the Clinton administration was certain about.

As to underbomber Abdulmuttalob, he supposedly has a pre-trial hearing coming up on April 13th in Detroit. And as for Abdulhakim, the Little Rock jihadist, this is about the only thing to come out of late. He will apparently be tried in Arkansas state court, not on terrorism charges.

Raghad Hussein

Back in 2007 I posted this about Interpol's interest in Saddam's daughter, who is apparently still being sheltered in Jordan while helping finance one of the Sunni insurgent groups in Iraq (Al-Douri's group?). Interpol has now increased the pressure yet everybody seems to know exactly where she is hiding--Jordan.

Sunday, April 04, 2010

Side Tracks



Happy Easter, all.

BTW, this report about the "face of Christ" is interesting, not because it actually shows the face of the Son of God per se (it's the face of the Shroud person) but by the reaction to it from people on the street. Notice the black woman wasn't very excited to see it, mentioning that Jesus' deeds were really all that mattered. And she's correct, both from an emotional and logical perspective.

Think about it--what would happen if Good Morning America was around to cover the Messiah? The tribal nature of mankind would make it hard for a modern Jesus to spread the message without constant bickering over his image. Any such a figure would almost have to be a chameleon, which would be seen as either a trick or miracle, which takes away from the whole faith thing.

So it seems only logical to think that if God were going to send a messenger it would have occurred before the age of mass media so the Savior could become someone only envisioned through the mind of each person by reading or listening. For instance, Reverend Wright can say Jesus was black but that only makes Him black in the reverend's mind; a far-eastern believer might see Him as looking more eastern, etc.

Friday, April 02, 2010

Yes, But Was He Flipping Us Off?

Another episode of "Constitution Schmonstitution" with Phil Hare aired today, where yesterday's curious remarks were explained. But was Hare secretly flipping everyone the bird? You be the judge:



Just sayin'. They made the claim about Obama. But surely not, right?

These People Are Getting Scary

No, not the tea partiers, the cabal trying to smear the tea partiers or anyone else opposed to the policies of this president. For instance, Harry Smith of CBS made news today by shooting hoops (playing basketball for all our white readers) with the president and in the course of the interview, managed to throw down some slams on his hate radio competition on AM, whom he claims to be monitoring. But if Harry has really been listening how did he miss this:



Malloy has in the past wished mental illness for Palin and called O'Reilly a murderer. True, he's only a former Air America nobody and yes, Obama covered himself by mentioning that both sides should turn down the volume. But to use a sports metaphor, everyone knows the score on that one, good buddy.

Obama does this frequently since losing the war to Fox News--slyly hitting both sides with a jab in order to bash the real targets on the right. These White House folks must really think they're the most cunning foxes to ever run the national hen house.

But the media is a different story. Based on a search, Harry Smith never donned a pith helmet and ventured into the roiling moonbat sea to explore hate for the previous president (wait, that was a few days ago); he never went mountain bike riding with Bush and stood by as W dissed the Dixie Chicks or Air America (not as if Bush would have stooped).

But Harry did opine about Bush's long vacations, which included mountain biking, including some folksy wit about his global warming stance. And here's Mr. Smith grilling the late Tony Snow over just about everything including closing Gitmo.

For contrast, here's Smith grilling Robert Gibbs over the promise, but failure, to close Gitmo. And here he is grilling the president over breaking that promise. Almost like drilling him a new navel, word.

Ah shucks though, don't be too hard on the clucks--after all, they helped put the man in office.