Ayers, Again

Instapundit points to a Breitbart video of Bill Ayers giving another speech a few weeks ago wherein he admits to having a "fundraiser" in his home for Barack Obama to help kick-start his political career in the mid 90s. This was never really in doubt to those who knew Ayers as more than described by the campaign and their friends in the mainstream media, but perhaps the more interesting thing is what Ayers also said about Obama at the event:

"At that time I thought geez, Obama's an ambitious young man, he wants to be mayor of Chicago.."

That's exactly what Jack Cashill has been saying for awhile now--that when Ayers co-wrote Dreams he was just trying to help a fellow traveler become mayor of Chicago:

Obama’s success must chafe Ayers even more. He hoped to mold a mayor of Chicago and instead he ended up with a president whose ambitions would always corrupt his ideology.

Maybe Obama and Ayers never dreamed they'd have to hide such an embarrassing relationship from a national voting audience one day.  Or perhaps this is just Bill Ayers playing his own little game of cat and mouse with the right for self-amusement. At any rate, the media seems to be in no rush to get the real story.  There are many more serious stories about Herman Cain's alleged bimbos or Rick Perry's confusion over the voting age to allow any reporters to be used for fact-finding about the current president or how he was vetted.

Turmoil in Pakistan

It's amazing how detached Americans have become to the central front of the global war on terror/extremism/man-caused disasters (that aren't always Islamic even though we have an army deployed against purely Islamic enemies).  The NATO raid on the Pakistani army bases over the weekend resulted in a "this time we mean it" stoppage of US supply routes and a base closure, but it has also continued a bitter division in Pakistan that began with the UBL raid.

Does any question exist as to why NATO decided to fire back after taking fire, knowing the sensitivity and blowback from such an action? Is it a presidential-level decision or a battlefield commander decision?  Even if it's a battlefield commander decision such authority comes from the president, who is aware of NATO operations right along the border and the potential of skirmishes.   So what's our role here?

Anyway, as the dustup continues some folks are highlighting a confidential memo that was presumably delivered from the Pakistani civilian government through Mansour Ijaz to General Jones to Admiral Mullen about 10 days after the bin Laden raid, which shines some light on perhaps why the Pak army might have fired in the first place:

1. President of Pakistan will order an independent inquiry into the allegations that Pakistan harbored and offered assistance to UBL and other senior Qaeda operatives. The White House can suggest names of independent investigators to populate the panel, along the lines of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission, for example.

2. The inquiry will be accountable and independent, and result in findings of tangible value to the US government and the American people that identify with exacting detail those elements responsible for harboring and aiding UBL inside and close to the inner ring of influence in Pakistan’s Government (civilian, intelligence directorates and military). It is certain that the UBL Commission will result in immediate termination of active service officers in the appropriate government offices and agencies found responsible for complicity in assisting UBL.

3. The new national security team will implement a policy of either handing over those left in the leadership of Al Qaeda or other affiliated terrorist groups who are still on Pakistani soil, including Ayman Al Zawahiri, Mullah Omar and Sirajuddin Haqqani, or giving US military forces a “green light” to conduct the necessary operations to capture or kill them on Pakistani soil. This “carte blanche” guarantee is not without political risks, but should demonstrate the new group’s commitment to rooting out bad elements on our soil. This commitment has the backing of the top echelon on the civilian side of our house, and we will insure necessary collateral support.

4. One of the great fears of the military-intelligence establishment is that with your stealth capabilities to enter and exit Pakistani airspace at will, Pakistan’s nuclear assets are now legitimate targets. The new national security team is prepared, with full backing of the Pakistani government – initially civilian but eventually all three power centers – to develop an acceptable framework of discipline for the nuclear program. This effort was begun under the previous military regime, with acceptable results. We are prepared to reactivate those ideas and build on them in a way that brings Pakistan’s nuclear assets under a more verifiable, transparent regime.

5. The new national security team will eliminate Section S of the ISI charged with maintaining relations to the Taliban, Haqqani network, etc. This will dramatically improve relations with Afghanistan.

6. We are prepared to cooperate fully under the new national security team’s guidance with the Indian government on bringing all perpetrators of Pakistani origin to account for the 2008 Mumbai attacks, whether outside government or inside any part of the government, including its intelligence agencies. This includes handing over those against whom sufficient evidence exists of guilt to the Indian security services.

In other words--and this could be way off base coming from an internet yahoo--in the midst of turmoil between the civilian and military forces perhaps the generals ordered their army to fire on NATO in an effort to create outrage amongst the population to support a military coup. The letter itself seems to be a coup attempt by the civilians to defang the ISI and military leaders who held UBL under house arrest for political benefit.   Ah yes, such is the state of our top ally in the fight against extremism.  In the past money has always managed to heal these bitter rifts but this will be a true test of our dollar diplomacy.  Dollars to donuts the money wins again--and perhaps that's why average Americans will remain tuned out.     

Kudos to Blitzer...

...for running a smooth, fair, and representative debate tonight.  Sometimes CNN gets it right.  Blitzer focused questions and didn't try to make himself the show, and gave all the candidates equal time.  Romney might have even been shortchanged a bit.

As to who won, who knows.  There didn't seem to be any zinger or senior moments.  A couple of things stood out-- Gingrich was hammered over illegal immigration by basically coming out for amnesty based on some kind of draft board panel he'd set up to decide their fate.  Aside from the horrible image that brings to mind, it's impossible to decide whether to give Juan and his family amnesty because he's been here 25 years and goes to mass every week or Jose and his family, who's only been here 10 years and doesn't go to mass versus Ricardo who's been here 5 years but is attending school on his own nickel.  Utter arbitrary chaos.  The answer might play better in a general election against Obama, though.

Herman Cain seems less impressive with each debate.  The political hits are taking their toll, it appears. Santorum and Huntsman did what they do on the far ends.  Huntsman says America has lost trust in its institutions, which has been ongoing since Watergate, while suggesting nothing to fix it except electing him.
Bachmann always gives competent answers that belie her Hollywood-formed reputation, but gets no traction.  Romney was his usual grinning self but had another capable debate, positioning himself well on everything.  Perry still seems halting, even though he was the only one who made the Hizballah-Iran connection on a question about Syria (although Mitt handily shot down his Syria no-fly zone idea).  Perry seems to like wild ideas, which may sink him. 

Speaking of wild ideas, there's Ron Paul saying the Taliban just want us to leave their country, while quipping something about how the US was not attacked (although it wasn't clear if he meant 9/11 or something else).  It really doesn't matter because his stock answer to all foreign policy questions is that we are at fault for engaging with the world except in some quaint 18th century way, while we live in a world with 21st century technology.  We have no choice but to engage and form allies, but when we do we'll make enemies.  And sometimes the crazier ones will attack us, as on 9/11.  Someone as smart as him should understand that.  Maybe during the next debate someone can ask whether he thinks the United States brought World War II on ourselves, just for fun.  

Chem Weapons in Libya

From the Washington Post:

Pentagon and CIA analysts have asserted that Iran fired chemical artillery shells at Iraqi troops in 1988, a contention supported by secret Iraqi government documents obtained after the fall of Baghdad in 2003. A 1987 letter, written by Iraq’s military intelligence director and stamped “top secret,” described three Iranian chemical attacks and sought to assess what appeared to be a growing Iranian interest in mustard agent. “The enemy has chemical bombs/shells,” concluded the letter, part of an archives acquired by the Conflict Records Research Center at the National Defense University. It said that Iran probably received help from a foreign power in obtaining the chemicals to fill its munitions and that it was attempting “by various means to reach an advanced stage of chemical agent production.”

Wait sorry, that was on page two. You can read all about the surprise chem weapons found in Libya on page one, where anonymous sources tell reporters Iran might have supplied these mustard gas shells to Libya after the Iran-Iraq war (somewhere around 1989).   Not sure how they know it unless there's a "made in Iran, death to America" label on the canisters.  

But the more interesting part of this story is the intelligence on Iraq on page two.  Suddenly "Iraqi government documents obtained after the fall of Baghdad" can be trusted!  Wow.  And in this iteration, the WaPo tells us that such documents seemed to confirm that the Islamic regime in Iran indeed had chemical weapons because they were firing them at Iraqis during their war.  

But wait--how did the Mullahs get chem weapons?  Is there a secret picture of Rummy shaking hands with Ayatollah Khomeini we haven't seen yet?  Because after all, that's the only way Iraq got their stuff--from us, and the picture proved it.     

If Rummy didn't supply Tehran which "foreign power" did?  The Soviets?  French?  Chinese?  North Korea?  

And what about the rest of those captured Iraqi documents?  Are we now to believe the ones about the Taliban, or about WMDs?  Or does this only work when a Democratic political purpose is to be served, like piling on Iran?  Feel free to suspend your disbelief until told otherwise (by the people who said Bush lied). 

Now, on Libya, the presence of mustard gas makes the Bush-Rice disarmament deal look a little silly.  Did they really trust that little madman?  Silly, not smart diplomacy.  And who knows, there may be more WMDs stashed around and about, or the mustard stash they found may have been tapped into already.  After all there were no UN tags on the stockpile.   All of which should say something about international inspections and estimates in general.  Remember, we were told the UN inspectors could be left to make sure Saddam was WMD-free, after which he too would have pushed for sanctions to be dropped just like Gaddafi. 

And what about Syria? Intelligence estimates suggest they also have chem weapons, probably stored in the Bekaa Valley.  If Iraqi docs are now in vogue, shall we now believe this fantasy as well?  And surely if the Iranians were the ones selling to Libya there's much more of that stuff in Syria, their main middle eastern ally. Yet Assad's country is in turmoil and our Secretary of State is predicting his eventual demise. Hopefully there's a plan to keep those weapons away from AQ or Hizballah or other "lone wolves" as that regime falls.

WaPo's OWS Coverage

From the WaPo's photo gallery of OWS DC..

Notice the caption about the protester waving a "US flag".  Notice the stars on the 'US flag'.  And notice the advertisement targeting the protesters with a raised fist.  From a bank.    

Here's a sign with a subtle message taken from feminist Audre Lorde, which could be interpreted as something more violent...

But of course that's impossible because the Tea Party is the party of violence.  Going through the photo gallery it's easy to see that some of these liberal reporters must be giddy about this movement just based on the selective shots chosen.  The WaPo today also contained a declaration of war, er non-violent protest by the so-called founders of the OWS movement, "Adbusters".  One can wonder where they got the idea, but don't expect the media to wonder.

Anyway, as mentioned they seem incapable of finding the more controversial signs, such as ones mentioning Che or sponsorship emblems from the World Socialist Workers Party or other such outfits that have been a common fixture of these same "Day of Action" rallies since the Bush years.  Contrast that with the editorials about racist signs at Tea Party events or the blow-up about the phantom spitting incident and it's easy to see where the sympathies lie.

Some may say "so what wingnut, quit playing the victim" but the point is that despite Fox News and AM radio the mainstreamers still drive news coverage in America and are responsible for most of the narratives exploited by the entertainment establishment, which can have political impacts.  Not covering things represents a sort of soft bias and can sometimes be more effective than covering things in an overtly biased manner.  Just look how well it worked for Obama.   And despite the current Obama-less narrative with OWS, according to at least one protester, there's still hope for change..

SPEAKING OF SILENCE NOT PROTECTING...

We have the first recorded example..

A man threw an aluminum water bottle at a UC Berkeley student Thursday evening on campus, causing minor injuries to the victim’s face. At about 5:09 p.m., the female student was approached by a man at “the northeast exterior of the Haas Pavilion,” according to a UCPD crime alert. The man asked the student if she was going to the protest on Sproul Plaza, and when the victim answered “no,” the suspect yelled at her. “People like you are the reason that California is in debt,” he said, according to the crime alert.

Side Tracks

You might ask why some conservative blogger would post this song.  Trying to score brownies from the cool people?  Nope.  It's a damn good song.  But the message!  It condemns the stuffy organized world and how it sucks the creativity, spirit and expression out of life, and only when one becomes a liberal do they achieve a kind of freedom.  There may be a little truth in that for some people, but all one has to do is witness the collapsing EU and a debris trail of socialist experiments before it to know that liberalism doesn't always work so well in all endeavors.  There's a place for the logical and cynical, and a place for liberals.  That's what makes the world turn.

Gingrich and the GSEs

There's no doubt about it. As Bryan Preston alludes, the Dem/media establishment has a hit out on Newt over his creative description of lobbying efforts for Freddie Mac in the mid 2000s. Preston links an AP article posted on NPR:

Four people close to Freddie Mac say he was hired to strategize with his employer about identifying political friends on Capitol Hill who would help the company through a very difficult legislative environment. All four spoke only on condition of anonymity to discuss the personnel matter freely.

Never mind who they were, why was that a 'difficult' time period? Why didn't NPR describe the difficulty?

Maybe it was because the 'difficulty' stemmed from allegations that former execs Gorelick and Raines were cooking the books so they could keep the good bonuses flowing (bonuses are only evil when going to entities such as regular corporations, Wall St brokers and Republicans). When Newt was hired (the second time) in 2006 the above two individuals had been sent packing and the GOP was out for blood, with most Democrats circling the wagons to protect their 'holding pen'.

All the while the housing bubble was steadily growing into a Hindenberg blimp. NPR didn't really mention it, but the GSEs gave donations to the Obama campaign for the same reasons. Obama hired long time Fannie exec Jim Johnson as a consultant, and of course Rahm Emanuel had "worked" for Freddie Mac and was by all descriptions part of Wall Street yet he became advisor to the president and mayor of Chicago.  If you don't believe the above characterization re-read the words of former Alabama Democratic congressman Artur Davis, who sat on the GSE committee:

"Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues, I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership, when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit that when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong. By the way, I wish my Republican colleagues would admit that they missed the early warning signs that Wall Street deregulation was overheating the securities market and promoting dangerously lax lending practices. When it comes to the debacle in our capital markets, there is much blame to go around for both sides."

For some reason that revelation wasn't earth shattering back in 2008.  But it highlights the 'help' the GSEs needed when they hired Newt and other GOP lobbyists--get the right wing regulators off their backs to keep the ball rolling under a president who had concerns about their stability despite his overall wish for an ownership society. NPR again:

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae for years had been under scrutiny from Republicans on Capitol Hill who opposed government involvement in the mortgage business and wanted to scale back the companies' size and impose tough regulation.

And yet, Barney Frank just told the MSNBC bobblehead that he saved the day by putting the GSEs into conservatorship in late 2008.  After the bubble popped.   And Frank was in some of the same hearings Davis attended. 

Oh never mind, we know that in this bi-partisan epic fail there can only be one villain.  Newt is probably sugar-coating his role but in the court of media opinion only side can be guilty of such a heinous crime. 

Laying Blame

Here's a bizarre interview with Barney Frank (well not really that bizarre, it's MSNBC) wherein he says the Republicans are trying to 'blame' him and other Dems for the housing collapse.  Blame him?  The chair of the House banking committee during the collapse?  The hellyousay.    

Only a guy like Frank could sit there and talk about the collapse with a straight face but he knows his back is covered---the DNC talking point is to go after Gingrich for taking lobbying cash from the GSEs and the big boys have selective memories.  Frank even comically tried to place himself and Dodd as heroes for putting Fannie/Freddie into conservatorship.  Let's see, the GSEs were placed into conservatorship in SEPTEMBER 2008, just as the crisis began.  Frank took over the banking committee in January 2007.   That gap was not something the drooling Martin Bashir wanted to explore.

Matter of fact Bashir wasn't in the mood to refute any talking point or conjure any history, such as Franks's infamous CNBC interview in summer 2008 (that would be before the conservatorship) where he misled investors by saying the GSEs looked good 'going forward'.  Such spawned the great O'Reilly-Frank shouting match interview.  All now down Bashir's memory hole.

Also, Frank seemed to say the GSEs had 'not lost anything' since they put them into conservatorship, which is completely detached from reality considering they are requesting billions more in bailouts while their leadership gets criticized for passing out bonuses (but not by the president).  Why aren't the OWS folks occupying Barney Frank's street?  Yes, we know.  

Don't take this as an endorsement of Gingrich--his rise will be temporary in my opinion.  I said the same the last time he weighed running in 2008.  He's smart and knows more about government than any of the others but he'll have a tough time wriggling out of the various charges of hypocrisy and moral depravity.  Meanwhile there will be no memory hole for the pointy-headed debate moderator corps, who will no doubt be loaded for bear with all kinds of GSE history at the next debate in order to 'get' Newt for being snippy with their brethren.

But in doing so they will once again prove that the media in this country isn't a journalistic enterprise, just a personal attack machine for favored ideologies as pointed out by the idiotic Bashir interview with Frank.  Their refusal to go after the actual president for taking money from the GSEs in the same aggressive manner should have made that clear long ago.

Here in Asia?

Taken from Obama's APEC presser out in Hiwayer (southern pronunciation of Hawaii), during one of his filbustering replies to Chuck Todd...

One other thing that I want to say about this: When I meet with world leaders, what’s striking -- whether it’s in Europe or here in Asia -- the kinds of fundamental reforms and changes both on the revenue side and the public pension side that other countries are having to make are so much more significant than what we need to do in order to get our books in order.

Emphasis added to note what appears to be a gaffe.   But there are several possibilities: 1) Obama is a blubbering moron who has no idea what he's saying, 2) Obama is confused and thinks he's in Asia already, 3) Obama thinks Hawaii is part of Asia, meaning he's a moron, 4) Obama thinks Hawaii is part of Asia but it's some kind of Maoist/Marxist anti-colonial revisionist history insider wink-wink coded message, 5) Obama was tired.

Of course some birthers may take his reference as a secret admission that he wasn't born in America but chances are the answer is number 5.  And he'll get a pass on it because, 1) he's already the president and 2) he's a politically correct black politician unlike Herman Cain, who is a moron because he forgot his Libya talking points and believes federal employees have collective bargaining rights, even if they do. 

BTW, Gateway dude reports that Obama officially ended the APEC silly outfit photo-op (started by Bill Clinton) this year by unilateral decree.  The attendees were all expecting grass skirts or Hawaiian shirts or some other frivolity, but all for naught.  Guess a flight jacket was enough dress up for one trip.  Hey, they are all politicians.

Accidents Will Happen

It appears the alleged freak accident at the Iranian "ammunition depot' has taken out a big player in the Mullah's long range missile program:

An explosion at a Revolutionary Guard base in Iran killed a senior commander in charge of the country's missile development programme, the authorities have said, prompting speculation Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service was involved.

That's odd, the Iranians never mentioned Israel and America in their post-explosion press reports because it was an accident. Now another 'accident' has occurred, this time in Dubai:

The son of a former Iranian Revolutionary Guard commander was found dead in a Dubai hotel room -- with his father's website calling the death "suspicious," though police insisted it was not. Numerous Iranian media on Sunday reported the death of Ahmad Rezaie inside Hotel Gloria, a four-star hotel in the coastal United Arab Emirates city.

He was an epileptic and just happened to get electrocuted in his hotel room, presumably.  Wait, isn't that how the HAMAS agent died in Dubai?   They better check the wiring there!  His distraught father is not buying it of course, and in posting about it on his blog made perhaps a little slip:

The same site noted that the death was "concurrent with the martyrdom of Mohsen Rezaie's comrades in arms" on Saturday, referring to an explosion at a military base near Tehran.

Are they considered martyred when dying while routinely transporting warheads from base to base?  Maybe so, but it seems like they might get more virgins if they were killed by an enemy doing the holy work instead of just fate.  Hmm. Well, with all the recent hubbub about Revolutionary Guard involvement in a murder-for-hire plot of a Saudi Ambassador, Stuxnet worms, the IAEA report, and the Russians threatening the west not to mess with Tehran, things seem to be getting ripe for even more accidents.  It might be a good policy for the GOP candidates to play their cards a little closer to the vest on this Iran thing.  Like Herman Cain (even if by default).

Another Debate Brain Freeze

But not by a candidate, this time by renowned 60 Minute moderator Scott Pelley...



And that was probably the least of the criticism directed towards him. Meanwhile the majors took to their fact-checking and analysis with such headlines as...

"Five things we learned from Saturday's GOP debate". Who does CNN think "we" are?  Well, apparently they think we don't like Cain much, because they seemed irritated that Herman had 'read his briefing book'.  They bashed him anyway.  And we didn't learn anything about extra-judicial killings? 

"Romney, Gingrich back war with Iran" (WaPo- front page headline was truncated as shown left).  Maybe we need some factcheckers to attack MSM headlines. 

"GOP field attempts to find foreign policy footing"... yeah, because we all know they are a bunch of stumblers, right ABC?

"Romney, Gingrich back war to keep Iran from nuke". Well, at least the network that hosted the debate put some context into their warmongering headline.  Of course Obama, the warmongering Nobel Peace president, hasn't taken a military option off his Persian plate either.

"Iran dominates GOP contenders debate". WOW! Fair and balanced...and from MSNBC! Hope springs eternal.

Obama on the Carrier

Let's stipulate up front--compared to the POTUS making a carrier landing, striding out on the deck in his flight suit holding his helmet, then giving what most have come to call the 'mission accomplished' speech it wasn't quite as dramatic. And this time it was Veterans Day.

But it was a photo-op on a carrier, nonetheless. In the bask of a glow around the first ever college hoops contest on a flattop there was the CinC, flight jacket adorned, striding out at mid-court to speak about public enemy number one finding his watery grave from that very flight deck last year and jobs, jobs, jobs.  He followed it with a self-congratulatory Saturday internet address from the bridge, again in the flight jacket, where he also mentioned his "ending the wars" and his jobs bill as a way to get soldiers back to work when they return.

Yet there really wasn't much wrong with the whole thing in context, other than a lack of outrage. 

Yep, back when Bush photo-op'ed our military's take-down of the Saddam regime from a flat top--and before the 'mission accomplished' banner in the background took over the memory--here was some typical lefty reaction:

Against this background, liberals are now saying there should be a wall of separation between commanders-in-chief and their prior military experience. Recently the Senate’s senior Democrat, Robert Byrd, blasted Bush for flying out to the Lincoln in a fighter jet. He denounced the action as “self-congratulatory” and “flamboyant showmanship.” (Byrd is just jealous that Bush’s showmanship comes off better than Byrd’s in Gods and Generals.)

Over in the House, Rep. Henry Waxman, in flamboyant contradiction to his entire career, is suddenly concerned about government spending: How much did Bush’s flight cost the Treasury? More ominously, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman warns that “Mr. Bush was breaking an important tradition” when he donned a flight suit; that his “Top Gun act” was “scary”; that American presidents just don’t wear uniforms or military accoutrements. (Never mind that the president had to wear a flight suit to go up in an S-3B Viking jet, and that after mixing and mingling with the sailors, he got out of his flight suit and put on civilian clothes for his public address.)

Of course the photo-op got worse with time as the Iraqi insurgency took root, but there's scant evidence of any such outrage this time.  Not even from the right, who have largely let the president celebrate in peace with the troops and his favorite passtime.  Matter of fact, one of the most critical rags over Bush's photo-op is now telling us there is common ground about the Iraq victory withdrawal thing..

Pi

If that picture looks familiar it should--a similar one adorned all publications after the World War II victory parade.  And the troops?  Beaming. 

To be fair, the game idea was hatched some time ago so Obama didn't orchestrate things, he just showed up and got a photo-op.  But it was a photo-op, just like Bush on the Lincoln.  Like Bush he left some hint of a military success, this time vis a vis al Qaeda, a sort of 'mission accomplished' without the banner.  We can only hope the very dangerous enemies still out there don't spoil yet another speech.

Side Tracks

For those interested in a longer live version, this one's pretty good.

Brain Farts and Other Things...

Wow. That was certainly a must-see TV debate last night. Usually politicians can come up with something clever to divert a brain fart like Perry's, but he was just left with "I'm sorry". Awful. Hannity was defending him today on the air but there's really no defense when talking about a presidential candidate. Look at what the left/media/hollywood did to Reagan and Dubya--just imagine how Perry would be treated.

No, he's done. Maybe not officially yet, but unofficially.

Yes it's true that Obama mispronounced 'corpseman' and stumbled and bumbled through a stump speech without TOTUS (you've all seen the video) but he was always 'on' when it really mattered--on the national stage.

The rest of the debate was very entertaining. Perry had done alright to that point, although he wasn't getting many questions. Newt, Romney and Cain all got off some great zingers at the expense of the zealous moderators. Still, it's hard to see a front runner yet.

Speaking of Ann Coulter (you'll see), her latest column seems to suggest a wild conspiracy to get the goods on Cain back before he got serious, emanating from the Chicago machine. It is weird, even if Coulter herself has bashed the conspiracy wing of the GOP.

Libs are predictably pushing back with a birther analogy, ie, just as Obama's parents couldn't have known he would run for president in 1961 when the ads appeared in the Honolulu newspaper nobody could know in 1998 that Cain would be leading in the polls now. Just more rantings of teh crazy wingnuts!

But Cain was already on the political stage in the 90s. He ran for president in 2000, albeit briefly, and the video surfaced of his 1993 rebuttal to Bill Clinton on a televised Hillarycare debate, leaving Bubba stumped and Hillarycare dumped.

So not only was he on the Chicago radar in the 90s but he also CROSSED BILL CLINTON, the first black president, on TV. No wonder he's in trouble.

Lowering Cain

Look, there's Gloria Allred on TV again. Hey, was that illegal alien maid she used to take down Meg Whitman ever deported or in the least, audited? Oh well, she's got a new client, who finally puts a face to the anonymous Cain sexual harassment pile on:.

"Mr. Cain instead decided to try to provide her with his idea of a stimulus package," Allred said.

And apparently just as effective! Forget for a second the client is from Chicago--which almost makes this event cartoonish--she's a self-described life-long Republican. Wait, doesn't that also make her evil and un-trustworthy?

Let's face it, we live in a liberal-controlled media universe of political correctness and dumbass conventional wisdoms where Snooki, Paris Hilton and Kimmy K are more famous than Cain and most other politicians aside from Obama. So if Herman has done what they say he's done, he's done.

And we on the right can't keep supporting him if it's true. How can we mock and ridicule Clinton's bimbo eruptions and maintain any ideological purity otherwise? Yes, the media is not fair and didn't vet Obama and many of the lefties who supported Clinton are now bashing Cain, but they also have few scruples when it comes to politics and couldn't care less about being hypocrites as long as ends justifies means. Results count in that world, and their main goal is taking down the GOP and anyone in it, especially a "house N".

About the only thing to be said for Herman--assuming some truthiness to these smears--is that he didn't track down the women beforehand and pay them off or threaten them somehow as others have surely done. Non-conventional and fly by the seat of the pants indeed. Of course, he might have thought they were already wrapped up under non-disclosure agreements. Then again, this lack of action could also suggest his innocence. Perish the thought, that black man is guilty until proven innocent in white America 2011!

Up til now he's been surviving but the challengers are already heel-nipping in the politest of ways (with Grinch-like smirks when they turn their backs) and if the gals keep comin the numbers will start plummeting and the politeness will go away. He's already on record of saying that if anyone else comes out they will be "making things up" so he's left himself in position to call her a liar here, but that only perpetuates the outrage and the he said/she said (and makes Gloria Allred an even fatter member of the 1 percent). If he stays silent the pressure will keep mounting and he'll never face another debate in peace. Whatever the strategy his message has now been totally derailed. Which actually isn't the worst of his worries at the moment, surely.

A LITTLE CRISP 11/8/11

Cain was unequivocal in his presser today but his earlier release targeted Bialek's financial troubles, which was bush league. And this evening on Haniity his chain-smoking campaign guru falsely accused ex-Politico reporter Josh Kraushaar of being related to the newest woman scorned, Karen Kraushaar. If he wants to stay in this race he needs to get a serious staff and stop shooting from the hip. I'm starting to wonder if the left is right about his long-term intentions. There's a debate tomorrow, should be interesting.

John Adams on our Problems Today

These quotes, taken largely from the early 19th century, are just as apt today as when written...

The proposition that the people are the best keepers of their own liberties is not true. They are the worst conceivable, they are no keepers at all; they can neither judge, act, think, or will, as a political body.

Yet this is what most of the OWS folks are trying to accomplish with their consensus groups and refusal to appoint leaders. There is danger in such a system, which is the reason the Founders created a representative democratic republic instead of a participatory democracy.

There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.

Again, showing the genius of the checks and balances ingrained in every part of our government--to protect ourselves from ourselves. Everyone sins and is capable of malice, especially after becoming drunk on power.

Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.

Such is why we have a republic. But even a republic is not infallible...

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.

In other words, even with the safeguards put in place the population has to exercise personal restraint to make things work. These restraints are most often derived from the moral and ethical pathways common to all religions.

The above are of course from John Adams, circa early 1800s. There really isn't anything new under the sun.. aside from the latest iPhone.

Side Tracks

No feature on The Cars would be complete without vocal performances from both Ric Ocasek and the late Benjamin Orr.

VP Biden, Get Your Papers Ready!

Who can forget our incorrigible VP back in 2007:



Fast forward to now and what's whistling in the wind overseas...

The Guardian reports that the UK has begun preparing to support the US in a strike on Iran, thanks to a new IAEA report that concludes — very much belatedly — that Tehran has been working all along to develop nuclear weapons:

Biden best get the papers ready because there's no way Obama will go to Congress for any attack on Iran.

Really, it's amazing how things change from one administration to the next. Anything related to Iran's terror as mentioned by the Bush administration elicited shock and awe from the radical left and Democratic congressmen. Not so anymore.

Maybe it's partisan, or maybe just a simmering reality sinking in. Here's a report about the alleged Iranian-backed plot to murder the Saudi ambassador to the US, suggesting the Qods Force was behind it along with the leadership. Take it for what it is.

And here's a look back at a rather prescient article from 2009 regarding the fate of UBL and his son Saad, who spent time under "house arrest" in Tehran, where some thought he was acting as a messenger between the Qods Force and UBL in Pakistan. That would be the same Qods Force that has been implicated in the US plot. Saad's death has never been confirmed nor has the fate of the other Emir-in-training Hamza bin Laden. Where are they? Then there's the lawsuit.

In other words, a lot of dots connect through valleys, down alleys and around corners to the Mullahs in Iran, and they have for years. Bush's hands were tied for political reasons--Obama's are not.

CNN on OWS Oakland: Success!

They seem to be pleased..

Demonstrators in Oakland, California, appeared to carry out a successful strike of downtown businesses Wednesday, as most merchants and retailers shuttered their doors during a largely peaceful protest.

They went on to mention that police were nowhere in sight, and..

Despite the absence of police officers, the department pledged to protect life and property "in the event the demonstration becomes unlawful, threatens public safety or incites vandalism or property damage," according to a statement.

So apparently since the report mentioned nothing other than protesters writing in chalk on downtown streets and called the event 'successful' there must have been no property damage, right?

OK then:

Various sympathizers and observers are tweeting live. Mother Jones reports that the Oakland Whole Foods store — after being falsely accused of threatening to punish workers who walked out on the job today — has been vandalized.

One person on scene writes: “Straight into window breaking and street furniture smashing at whole foods. #generalstrike #occupyoaklandwindow breaking and street furniture smashing at whole foods.”

Whole Foods is defending itself online. To no avail.

A big mob dressed in black is roaming around the streets. They’ve sprayed graffiti on the walls of businesses.

Wells Fargo windows have also been reportedly smashed.

Chase Bank vandalized.

Unless all those tweets are disinformation from Karl Rove's twitter deflection machine, shouldn't normal people wonder about CNN's reportage of anything OWS? OK yes, that was redundant.

SUCCESS? 11/3/11

Perhaps CNN should question their sources or their objectivity. Somebody on the mid shift seems to have awakened to find..

Earlier Wednesday, police said a small group of protesters vandalized five businesses, including banks and a Whole Foods. The incidents involved graffiti and smashed windows, authorities said.

Now it's the lead story on Drudge. They just couldn't root any harder without being completely run out of the business. And for you libs, yes Fox News rooted for the Tea Party but you call them Faux and constantly berate their objectivity. CNN's coverage of OWS proves them the as the other side of the same coin. Such is American cable news in 2011.

MORE 11/4/11

Again, this is not man bites dog stuff, but check out the WaPo and NY Times apologizing for the otherwise successful protest in Oakland by relegating the damage to those on the fringe, and only late at night after closing down the port. Guess they don't read Twitter or Malkin. What does OWS have against transportation, anyway?

Hard to recall those rags coming to the rescue of the Tea Party in such an overt manner when they were accused of being racists and fascists. Meanwhile a continuing source of hate from the left, Malkin, has another post up showing some of the things the mainstreamers won't show--basically because these protests are better left as a movement 'against Wall St' rather than a protest on the essence of the American system. After all, we might start getting visions of Bill Ayers. Speaking of Obama's pal, where is he with all this juicy revolution stuff going on? Oh, there he is.

As to these OWS fridge, the movement seems every bit like Wisconsin, pitting socialists, communists, unions and kooks with a small fringe contingent of genuinely ticked off people who want change within the system. If an OWS protest starts and gets hijacked by 'anarchists' (actually socialist anarchists--the oxymoron of the millennium) then what stops it from being an OWS rally after the violence breaks out? Don't both groups really feel the same about things in general with one a little more rambunctious than the other?

The Harassment of Cain

Not quite sure how deep this Herman Cain sexual harassment thing goes but at least on the surface it appears to be about an inch thick. The two women in question aren't talking--we assume at least--since they signed confidentiality agreements.

Nevertheless it's not good for Herman because it throws him off message and hatches a kind of "corporate groper" image that doesn't sit well with women. Since he has no past political record from which to cherry-pick, his business career is the Achilles Heel, so that's where they are attacking.

Whodunit? Feel free to choose your leaker targets from either side. Both have motive. Who gains in the short term? Any GOP challenger aside from Romney. Who gains in the long term? Obama. Which side would be more likely to have the Politico (or someone in the know) drop the name(s) of the leakers at some critical later date? Any Republican leaker. A leak from Axelrod would be guarded like the gold in Ft. Knox, that is, until the book came out late in Obama's second term.

Meanwhile, the question once again arises about whether the story should have been published at all without voices from the mouths of the horses. Let's get in the wayback machine and take a look at what Pigeon O' Brien, the leaker of the John Edwards affair, told the Huffington Post (who for some reason disappeared the story):

Oddly, within hours of my call to the Enquirer, the bigger coverup -- the one that a grand jury in North Carolina has now been investigating for more than a year -- began. With pregnant Rielle in North Carolina, Edwards denied and decried the largely true article, which did contain exaggerations (and an "accidental" use of materials I'd provided to verify our identities), as "tabloid trash and lies." Soon followed the tales we hear now, of private jets, cash transactions, fevered calls to media to shut down the rumors, and a phalanx of people working on whitewashing the issue. The mistress story had just broken. The coverup story was just beginning.

Surprisingly, the evasion worked. As did Elizabeth Edwards's passionate, private appeals to the media that "the Enquirer writes about planes on the moon." The media wavered as Rielle was hidden. In July 2008, a memo went to the LA Times bloggers asking that they not cover the "rumors or salacious speculations."

According to her the big paper she talked to already knew but wouldn't go to press without her revealing herself. No so in this case. And there are many more examples of selective scandal and MSM subjectivity of late: the Marco Rubio family narrative investigation compared to the pass given to Obama's nativity story; the largely negative coverage of the Tea Party compared to largely positive coverage of OWS; the suppressing of the Edwards scandal compared to the Times inventing one about McCain in the same political cycle.

Cain may be guilty as sin and someone who doesn't need to be in the race--it's the media's job to bring us those facts. But one thing we do know: the same media entrusted to bring us the facts are clearly invested in doing so in only one direction, and therefore cannot be trusted.