Liberty vs Security

The president yesterday, speaking about the affirmation of government-controlled health insurance mandates...



"..whose lives will be more secure due to this law and the Supreme Court's decision to uphold it."  

More secure?  Well yes, due to the forced purchase of insurance resulting in the diminution of others' freedoms through taxation.   Back during the Bush years the liberals loved to point to how Bush had trampled the Constitution with his various national security programs, often hoisting up the ole Ben Franklin quote about the vileness of trading essential liberty for a little temporary safety.

It's unlikely that quote will be appearing on liberal blogs and newspapers anytime soon because Bush is gone and besides, most of them believe the general welfare clause allows any program Congress can dream up.  Then again, did the Franklin quote ever really mean what everyone thinks it meant?   Oh well, doesn't matter--it served it's purpose. 

Getting There...

The suspense is building to a crescendo!    Yes, will Eric Holder be voted in contempt or not.. no.  Of course everyone cares about Obamacare.   The nation will be at attention Thursday, focusing like a laser beam on the SCOTUS (and all the punditry thereafter).  Hell, people will be so focused the admin could release Bush-era records saying Saddam was behind 9/11 or Martians landed in Roswell in the 40s and few would notice.   Just imagine the chaos if Kim Kardashian got lost and somehow managed to show up outside the Supreme courthouse just as the verdicts were being announced.

I have no idea which way this is going.  None.   I hope the justices realize that a mandate is the slipperiest of slippery slopes and shoot it down, leaving Obama to do what he wanted to do in the first place...



He certainly sounds more like Mark Levin in this one as opposed to Nancy Pelosi..



But maybe they were just words.  The words we read and hear tomorrow will likely have longer-lasting effect.

TAKE THAT, BIATCHES!  

Kinda confused, I heard that was a reply of some sort but was wondering if it was part of the official SCOTUS opinion?   

But OK,  Roberts and company read the mind of Congress and called it a tax.  So it can remain.  Otherwise, if Congress had passed something forcing us to buy a product and penalized us for not buying it, and it wasn't called a tax, that would be wrong and a gross overstepping of government power.   That means when they force us to buy so many pounds of broccoli one day in the future they simply need to call it a tax and presto, it's constitutional!  Take that, biatches!

Wait though.  In reality such a thing would not pass because as Palin points out, if it were a tax it wouldn't have, er, passed.  People don't like taxes unless someone else is paying them.  Maybe Roberts wasn't part of a grand flim-flam, maybe he was trying to point out the importance of legislation and voting.

Of course now that it's officially a tax that means Obama has just raised taxes on those making less than 250K per year, which breaks his signature campaign promise.   He's got some splainin to do.  Meanwhile Romney, who had a mandate in Mass and has split the finest of hairs to explain why his was different than Obama's will be forced to campaign for repealing the very same vehicle that allowed his own signature legislation to pass.  What a mess.   Sounds like they're better off focusing on jobs, jobs, jobs.    

Let the Gulf Drilling Bids Begin

One would think this news would be welcome in a bad economy.. 

The US government offered up new areas of the central Gulf of Mexico for drilling for the first time since the 2010 BP oil spill and received $1.7 billion in winning bids, officials said Wednesday.

One might also think such news would deflate the conservative view of Obama as a socialist/environmentalist focused more on promoting oil fields off Brazil than our own.  Yet for some reason there seems to be almost zero national coverage. Hmmm.

Side Tracks

Raw and new in 78.   They evolved nicely.

Shocked, Shocked

A fast and furious trip around the web this morning produced quite the predictable result--the major media, instead of smelling blood in the water as they do with most scandals, are furiously trying to paint this one as a fishing trip wrapped in a witch hunt unworthy of serious coverage. 

None besides Fox were front-paging it.  CNN found some obscure expert to opine in their politics section that the GOP House has no chance of 'success' in pursuing this issue, despite two dead US agents.  The WaPo's Eugene Robinson actually makes the point that most other liberals are denying--that guns were the issue, not the program.   How about drugs, Mr. Robinson?  If US drug consumers didn't exist, neither would the cartels.

One must dig deep to find the NY Times coverage, buried in their political section, but the results were not unexpected.  Their headline--"Partisan Confrontation That Not All Wanted".  Or in other words, the Times calls it a fishing expedition without actually saying it.

A dig is also required over at ABC News, matter of fact, such a dig ends up in China because at the time of this search there were no stories noted on their website.   A reader does learn about Meg Ryan selling her home, though.  And of course Jerry Sandusky and George Zimmerman are still hot. 

NBC has a video in their politics section of Boehner promising a vote in the full house.  Most NBC readers would not know what in the world the vote was about. 

Finally, CBS News, whose reporter Sharyl Attkisson has been the most active MSM reporter on the story for years now, had two stories in their "investigates" section (nothing at all on their front page), one talking about agent Brian Terry's family suing the government and the other discussing the revelation that another Inspector General--from Homeland Security--is now investigating the case based on a request by a GOP congressman.  So there are now two IG's investigating the event.  

No, none of this is man bites dog.  It does illustrate how far in the tank most of the main outlets have sunk, which gets us closer to a banana republic every day.   And that's certainly part of the scandal. 

Tidbits from the Archive

GMU has made available an archive of released memos pertaining to the fight against terrorism.  Here are some interesting tidbits..

From a CIA presentation on what was known about 9/11 as of June 1, 2003:

Iraqi national and suspected al Qa'ida operative Ahmad Hikmat Shakir al-Azzawi met al-Mihdhar and possibly others at the airport, where he had served as a ground staff employee assisting Arab travelers since 1999

Followed by a large chunk of redacted text. Since it was known Shakir flew back to Iraq after 9/11 and was captured by the Jordanians as a possible intelligence agent, then released back to Iraq, the CIA possibly considered a linkage of some sort as of June 2003. That doesn't mean they thought Shakir linked Iraq with the attack, only that Saddam had operatives on the ground who were aware or perhaps associated with the players.  It's also possible they were trying to keep track of what UBL was up to just as we were.  The left made a big production of saying this person was not connected to Iraq.  

Their assessment of Atta in Prague, same document:

Although we cannot rule it out, we are increasingly skeptical that Muhammad Atta met with Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) member Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samiral-Ani in Prague in April 2001. We have received conflicting reports that allege that Atta traveled to Prague and met with al-Ani, but we have no been able to verify or refute these claims.

They go on to say various claims put Atta in Prague four times between 1994 and 2001. The point here is that as of June, 2003 they were still unsure about the Atta visit in April 2001, even after the Iraq invasion. Contrast that to Rawstory's ridiculous hit piece today on Cheney, using another document from late 2001 to allege that Cheney lied about Atta in Prague.  Rawstory got the year wrong--the document referred to a 2000 visit while Cheney was mentioning the April 2001 visiit.  Second, the Czechs had not backtracked on their claims when Cheney spoke about it.  At best he stretched the known intelligence but it's clear the CIA had not debunked the story when Cheney spoke of it.  

Another morsel from this document--al-Shehhi traveled abroad several times before 9/11,

While it is known that al-Shehhi visited Atta's father during his April 2001 trip to Egypt to collect Atta's international driver's license, nothing else is known of al-Shehhi's activities while traveling outside the United States.

Interesting that we're getting this trove now, in an election year.   

Dreams from my Typewriter

It's quite amazing to watch--a Washington Post reporter explaining all the falsehoods in Obama's literary masterpiece while maintaining his slobbering love affair; the New York Times admitting that hey, Obama probably did manufacture some of his racial chops because even his friends at Harvard were joking about it in 1990; and finally, watching the media try to explain why Obama triggered the dreaded executive privilege statute and why Eric Holder has now been held in contempt.  Watchers of the Today show and evening news must be utterly perplexed.

Jack Cashill has been churning out posts at a frenetic pace in response to Maraniss, pointing out that hey--all those falsehoods had already been pointed out years ago--by him.  So why is a left wing media stalwart now confirming them, or at least some of them?

Damage control.  The Dreams falsehoods were going to come out sooner or later; the sooner the better and better in the hands of a mainstreamer than a surrogate from the Romney campaign.  By releasing them now the left can cry that they are 'old news' and 'thoroughly explained' and 'the president has now been fully vetted' when someone brings this stuff up in the fall (before said person is accused of being a racist).  And of course, since Maraniss' book stopped before getting to the Ayers years (presumably) they can still brand anyone who mentions the washed up terrorist as a kook, nut, or conspiracy theorist (before calling them a racist).

But the bottom line is that after 5 years the truth is finally dribbling out in fits and starts, confirming what some of the "haters" had suggested, painting O as a bit more fanciful with the pen than his life would allow.  Meanwhile Marco Rubio has a biography out--the WaPo is already reacted with one of their own, presumably to tamp down any such early attempts at narrative-building for the possible first Latino Vice President. Sounds reminiscent to the dumpster diving done up in "Wasilly".  But at least the curtain has been pulled back slightly to expose some of the flim-flams.  No wonder there was so much gum-chewing down at Cabo. 

Flame Out

As Eric Holder assures the American people that leaks of top secret information are being investigated by two competent employees working for Eric Holder, out comes another major story spilling national security secrets:

The United States and Israel jointly developed a sophisticated computer virus nicknamed Flame that collected critical intelligence in preparation for cyber-sabotage attacks aimed at slowing Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon, according to Western officials with knowledge of the effort.

So who dumped this one? Notice they attribute it to 'western officials', which doesn't narrow it down to the US officials of any kind.  Later in the story they mention that spokespersons for several major alphabet agencies here and in Israel 'declined to comment'. That simply means they aren't going on record, not that one of their personnel didn't leak. Perhaps this latest Flame story will renew calls for an Independent Counsel to investigate. Perhaps pigs will fly across the moon.

It's amazing to see what the press will do to keep their man in office. Just yesterday MSNBC fraudulently cropped a story to make Mitt Romney look like a clueless clown, allowing premier NBC journalist Andrea 'everyone knew Plame was in CIA' Mitchell to suggest it may be Romney's 'supermarket scanner moment'.  Talk about blaming Bush, it's a generational slam!  This would be more believable coming from Maddow or Schultz, but Mitchell is just a step or two away from Brian Williams and the Peacock.  Oh well, we await the next round of media hijinks, probably to do with Obama's reset with the Rooskies at the G20.  Maybe they can blame the more recent Bush somehow.

MORE  6/20/12

The Times covers the main argument used by the Obama folks regarding their refusal to appoint an IC for the leak investigations--their zeal in prosecuting them to this point:

Under fire from Republicans who claim that the White House has leaked classified information to make him look tough, President Obama has pointed to his administration’s unmatched record in prosecuting leaks. The statistics are certainly on his side: six leak-related prosecutions in Mr. Obama’s first term, compared with three under all previous presidents combined.

The key question is how many of those investigations involved Obama administration figures? The answer is zero.  Had Bush prosecuted 60 bureaucrats for leaks before the Plame affair it wouldn't have mattered one hill of beans to the press because the leak was supposedly coming from the inside.  Such a simple concept.  Such a laughable alibi.

No Questions for You!

Hey, did you hear?  A reporter 'heckled' the president today.  With a question.  As if!

OK, maybe it was a little disrespectful.  He wasn't finished. Most presidents are expected to finish their remarks before the questions get shouted, even if they aren't planning to take questions.  The Daily Caller's excuse is that he mis-timed the question, thinking the human filibuster was done when he wasn't.  An easy mistake to make, but at the same time somewhat unbelievable.  He wanted questions. 

Of course MSNBC was on the ball today in response.  When their hosts weren't suggesting Mitt's death in a fiery bus explosion their guests were wondering if the Caller's reporter wasn't a racist--would a white president ever get heckled by the press?   Evidently they missed the Bush and Reagan years.  Or even Clinton.

Since liberals are always searching for the deeper meaning on everything here's a stab at it.  One, presidents are becoming more and more insulated from the tough questions.  Obama rarely does a presser that isn't scripted and the White House press corpse are generally afraid to interrupt even the press spokesman, much less the actual president.   Some aren't--but they are the oddities or work for Fox News.   

Two, Obama was clearly trying to score political points with another imperial presidency moment on a Friday afternoon and he didn't want some hack messing it up.  That's probably why the Caller guy tried to mess it up.

As to the action itself, it's not completely off the wall (other than the part about ignoring Constitutional duties and the glaring hypocrisy) as everyone can sympathize with the plight of a kid who, by the actions of their parents, is committing a crime by just living in his/her home.  That said, this sounds pretty subjective.  Will the production of documents to prove someone a "dreamer" not also implicate their illegal parents, who themselves should have been deported years earlier, alleviating the need for a Dreamer act?  What a colossal mess this country has become.

MORE  6/16/12

Just thinking out loud about the benevolent King's latest proclamation.   Presumably the illegal kids of illegals this action pertains to are already working, right?  If they are working without documentation that probably means they are either using false Social Security numbers, IRS furnished numbers, or being paid under the table.  If the latter, will their tax liabilities be forgiven now, once they emerge from the shadows with documents to prove they are no-fault children of illegals?   Will such paperwork implicate their illegal parents? If so, has the King mandated that the parents are immune from deportation as well? 

Will they get in line for green cards or cut in front?  Or will it be a new kind of special green card, resulting in a new branch of ICE to process?   Will they be charged fees--after all, it was not their fault. 

No wonder Barack Cheney didn't want any questions.  The likely goal of this move is to force Rubio's Dream Act into rapid passage, nullifying the political capital it might have captured from Latinos.  In other words, the POTUS is willing to use his office and powers as purely political if need be.  Even John Yoo is amazed.  

Reset?

The story of Syria hasn't been warranting top drawer news coverage for some reason--probably because the administration has decided not to engage despite perhaps 10,000 civilian deaths.  But one might think at least a few mainstream journalists would point out that Hillary (and her smart power aides) once gave Russia a reset button as a symbolic gesture of Bush's failures and the Russians gleefully played along.  Now they are shoving that button up her rear. 

Meanwhile, Izzat al Duri and the Islamic State of Iraq are up to their old tricks in Iraq, trying to start a civil war there while a civil war rages in Syria according to the UN despite what Baghdad Bob says.  Obama is proud of withdrawing from Iraq, so how can he engage in Syria?  Guess we only have a 'responsibility to protect' Libyans and a few other assorted Africans.

All the while the economy remains in a quagmire.  Maybe it's time for Obama to walk down the hall, gaze up at the portrait and say, "what would George do?"

Investigation Update

Jay Carney was actually grilled today by the White House press corpse (grilled as in they refused to take his usual filibustering talking point non-answer as an answer) over the details of the leak investigation, providing bloggers with easy material.

The grilling took place after Carney constantly referred reporters to the Commerce Dept for questions about Secretary Bryson's weird adventure in California (which the White House strangely seems to know very little about nor did the president feel the need to get more info by actually contacting him--yeah he's busy).  Then Carney tried to shuffle them off to the Justice Department for questions about the leak probe:

Q The President says he has zero tolerance for these kinds of leaks. Then why not support a special prosecutor?

MR. CARNEY: Again, the President addressed this; I addressed it. There have -- I think our seriousness about this matter in general -- about these matters in general has been demonstrated while the President has been in office. I would refer you to the Department of Justice and the FBI when it regards questions of matters under investigation or potential investigation. So there is no need for a special counsel. These things have consistently been investigated when that’s appropriate.

Q The charges that -- given that this investigation will be led by two U.S. attorneys who then report to the Attorney General of the United States, that it’s not an independent investigation.

MR. CARNEY: I think there are very capable people in the Department of Justice and I would refer you to them for that matter. The Attorney General has spoken on this. Let me go again -- Kristen Remington from Reno. Are you here? Hi.

In the same press conference Carney actually lectured the reporters for not doing their jobs because they had not provided the correct Obama-approved "context" to their reportage on the "private sector is doing fine" comment.  It's impossible to make this stuff up.

Meanwhile, Sweetness and Light sees this Times article as a subtle suggestion to the Attorney General not to appoint an Independent Counsel because Holder himself would have to sign off on any subpoenas directed to Times (and other) journalists. 

The bigger question in all of this--do enough people care? The Plame/Libby case made big news in the political blogosphere and the mainstreamers kept trying to make it a front burner story but most of the public yawned. This time it's quite possible the masinstreamers will eventually yawn and we know the public will remain fixated on Kim Kardashian's rear, Madonna's right nipple and the various zombie attacks along with the Zimmerman thing.   The route chosen by Holder is likely designed to make this fade away just like the weird story about Bill Clinton and Pennsylvania Congressman Sestak.  Remember that?   If the Congress takes it up, well, just think Fast and Furious.

But stranger things have happened.  Like lungs being found on a sidewalk or people snacking on the homeless in broad daylight, or the Wisconsin recall being a win for the Democrats. So who knows.

Side Tracks

Music lost another voice this past week with the passing of Bob Welch.  As with Boston lead singer Brad Delp it's sometimes hard to understand the taking of one's own life but this post isn't about judgment, it's about remembering the music and the good times that many of us associate with it.




This was another radio hit.  And here's more. 

About Obama's Comment

...on the leaks.  Here's the video:



The 'I'm offended' part comes in at 2:30. Take careful notice of Obama's comment:

"The notion that my White House would purposely, release classified national security information, is offensive."

Emphasis added to question why the word "purposely" was inserted.  Is he saying that leaking such information mistakenly, even while talking to reporters, wouldn't be offensive? Is he trying to set up a future defense, ie, they leaked but they didn't know (aka Libby)? Or was it just an extra word thrown in for power and effect?

We may never know. By the time an independent counsel got selected and prepped Obama might already be gone, or reelected. But that shouldn't matter. This is a non-partisan matter of national security and somebody needs to conduct a real investigation.  It's clear Obama via Holder will never allow an independent prosecutor so Congress must do one on their own, for what's it's worth.  Maybe Obama should walk down the hall, gaze up at the portrait of 43, and ask him what he would do.

MORE  6/8/12

Have you ever ventured onto the official White House site to watch a video?  Aside from the fact they try to cram cookies into your PC--which is probably against the rules for all other federal websites--the video was hardly worth the trouble.   Did Obama take 4 or only 3 questions?   I lost track amidst his windy filibustering replies generally designed to blame the Republicans, Bush, and Europe for all his ills.  You know it's getting bad when even someone from the WaPo can't take it anymore. 

HOLDER ACTS..   6/9/12

...and appoints two US Attorneys to head parallel investigations into the leaks.  One is an Obama appointee who donated heavily to the campaign; the other is a Bush appointee who worked under Ken Starr.   So this is apparently the administration's version of an Independent Counsel-- two partisan counsels who will likely come to different conclusions.  Whether they will be going over the same evidence or are investigating separate leaks is unclear.  At any rate, the results will likely be called partisan if they find anything. Maybe not much different than say appointing an Independent Counsel, because their results would also be called partisan as well, but at least an IC would not be reporting directly to Eric Holder.  

The interesting part of leak investigations is of course the journalist-to-source relationship and so-called shield protections of the press.  Times reporter Judy Miller went to jail to prevent giving up her source in the Libby case; will Times reporters do likewise in this one?  Clearly the Times and the AP know who leaked, so we'll see how tough and ideological these guys are.   If the sources were higher-ups in the administration it's possible they'll fight; if they were lower level flunkies then no way.  The question then will be whether the lower level flunkies were being told to leak by the high level flunkies, ala Libby, which will be hard to prove.

Another twist is if such low level flunkies are still with the government.  Obama hinted that some may not be.  If so they may no longer have security clearances.   My WAG is that the administration has their t's crossed and i's dotted on the Stuxnet and the drone stories, with an ironclad method to run the leaks, but the leak to the AP over underbomber 2.0 maybe not.  Too sloppy.  Wonder which USA is investigating that one?

THE TIMES...  6/10/12

..weighs in and points out a thousand reasons why it's utterly fruitless to go after leakers.   Of course they are saying this with the knowledge of who leaked to them.  It's simply hilarious to compare this to coverage of the Libby-Plame case.

Drones No Longer Creating New Terrorists

Big AQ fish apparently fried, number two they say.   AQ is running out of leaders, but the ones remaining are nothing to sneeze over. 

Say what you will about Obama but he's one shrewd politico.  He knows AQ has no answer to the drones and we're picking them off one by one, winning through attrition.  He knows most of the leg work in discovering the inner-workings of AQ came from the men he once threatened to prosecute for 'torture'.  Soon they will bag Zawahiri and the few remaining bigwigs, Obama will spike the football and AQ will fracture into a loose series of cells to be dealt with by drones and special operations forces.    

Yes, it would be handled differently in the press and lefty commentators before 2009.  No, there will be no jokes or conspiracy theories about taking out another AQ number two or three or how we can't win the WoT, and Obama will not call it a 'bumper sticker' like John Edwards did in 2007.  He won't complain about us 'air-raiding villages and killing civilians'. Few in the press will fulminate about how our drone strikes or Gitmo are creating more terrorists.  And yes, if Romney wins the circle will rotate 180 degrees very quickly.

But that's politics in America.  This is war--and we have to keep whacking moles.  These guys spend their waking hours thinking about new ways to kill us.  "Hey Abdul, how about we tap into the heating vent using, hey what's that noise?  BOOM".   That's a good thing.

Aviation Update

Brutal, two accidents involving Nigerian aircraft this past weekend, killing over 170 people.  Related?

Early speculation would say no.  The Allied Air 727-200 that overshot the runway on a scheduled cargo flight from Lagos to Accra, Ghana, was by all reports landing during intermittent thunderstorms.  The runway was long--over 11,000 feet--plenty of stopping room for a 727 (can handle less than half that length under normal conditions).  The crew is still alive so they'll have a lot to work with in completing an investigation.

The Dana Air flight 992 MD83 crash at Lagos Sunday appears more complicated.  Weather conditions were reportedly benign. Initial reports say pilots radioed they were having engine trouble on final approach and the aircraft struck the ground about 5 miles short of the runway.  

Reports vary; some today put the accident site 11 miles from the airport--this one says 4 miles.  The confusion probably comes from the fact the crew reported Mayday 11 miles out, allegedly reporting a loss of power of both engines.  This kind of confusion is common in crashes, especially in the third world.  Here's a local media report heralding fresh information that says the plane actually took off from Lagos and was trying to return to the airport, which has already been eclipsed by events.

Pictures from the scene indicate the tailplane of the MD83 remained relatively intact, to the point where locals were walking across the horizontal stabilizer taking cellphone pictures.  An AFP video features a witness who described the aircraft wobbling as it descended.  This, along with other witness accounts saying the aircraft impacted the ground with a nose-up attitude suggests the plane didn't drop out of the sky but was stalling while proceeding laterally. 

So far no witnesses have mentioned the aircraft being on fire before colliding with the ground, which seems to work against a terrorist missile or bomb.  Such a crash would likely have occurred in Detroit had Abdulmuttalob been successful in igniting his underwear but the difference here is the Mayday call; onboard bombs tend to be catastrophic. Nigeria is home to AQ faction Boko Haram  and they've taken credit for an attack on a Christian church Sunday in northern Nigeria killing at least 12, but so far no terrorists have claimed responsibility for flight 992.  Not that their silence lessens the overall fears.

Both the CVR and FDR have been found, which will go a long way towards solving the mystery--if the mystery is allowed to be solved.  Boeing has dispatched some personnel working through the NTSB so the right players are in position for an honest and thorough investigation.  It won't take away the grief, but a real inquest may save more grief for others down the line.

Preppies for President

A careful reader should always scan a New York Times story for hidden nuggets that may not comport with the headline.  In this morning's edition Mark Lebovich has a piece comparing Romney and Obama with the intent of illustrating how the two are practically twin sons of different mothers.

They are both relatively shy non-traditional political operators who don't shoot from the hip, both love Star Trek, both enjoy baked spicy chicken, and both followed similar educational paths.

Wait, what? Similar educational paths? Yes--

The candidates attended two of the most elite preparatory schools in the country — Punahou in Hawaii for Mr. Obama, Cranbrook in Michigan for Mr. Romney (George Romney spoke at Mitt’s graduation).

Wow, Punahou is one of the most 'elite' in the country? Go figure. That didn't seem a major part of the narrative in 2008. 

For instance, here's a pretty good Times article from February 2008 about Obama's drug dabbling in school, referring correctly to Punahou as a 'preparatory school' (not elite), including some of his deep conversations while there:

Mr. Kakugawa remembered that the two often discussed wealth and class and that their disaffection would surface. He said race would come up in the conversations, usually when talking about white girls they thought about dating. “We were dealing with acceptance and adaptation, and both had to do with the fact that we were not part of the moneyed elite,” Mr. Kakugawa said.

So while they were attending one of the most elite prep schools in the nation they were talking about how rough they had it?  Hmm.

Here's a Politico article from 2008 basically slamming the GOP for trying to make hay about Obama's attendance at an elite school:

Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt declined to comment on the latest iteration of a subject previously raised by Hawaii Sen. Daniel Inouye, a Hillary Rodham Clinton backer who attended a public school down the road from Punahou, and who cracked before the state's primary that the private school “was not school for the impoverished.”

Obama had an answer--he attended on 'scholarship'.  Does that mean free?  If so, that means they were discussing how rough they had it for not being in the 'moneyed elite' while attending one of the most elite prep schools in the nation, for free.  If not, that means he attended one of the most elite prep schools in the nation, which means he wasn't exactly poor. 

But he was raised by a single mother on food stamps (despite living with his step-father, an elite in the Indonesian military and his grandmother, a bank VP) and was born poor:

Shenkman said that presidents who grow up in humble circumstances — including modest childhood homes — add to the American dream that anybody can be president. "In fact, very few presidents are born poor," Shenkman said. "Obama happens to fit the bill."

That humble burnished narrative goes back a ways.  An article written in 1990 referred to Obama's attendance in 'public schools' on his way to Harvard yard, despite Punahou being a pricey private prep school.  Why was that fact omitted?  Was it just a simple fact-checking error like his literary bio a few years later that said he was born in Kenya, or perhaps a 'composite' similar to the story about the only other black at Punahou he pushed away to make a point about racial redemption?  Times writer Jackie Calmes explored that person--"Coretta"--after Obama had victory safely secured in January 2009 and was perhaps the first Times writer to use the term "one of the most elite schools in the nation" in reference to Punahou while suggesting it's racist leanings by exposing the real Coretta, Joella Edwards:

“I was ‘the lonely only’ until he came,” she said, adding that she wished she had known then how sympathetic Mr. Obama felt. Five years later Ms. Edwards left Punahou, tired of “the n-word” and taunts of “Aunt Jemima,” she said.

Joella didn't remember being pushed away by Barry but hey, the little red-headed girl from Dreams who wanted to touch Obama's fro doesn't remember doing that either, nor does she remember Joella.  More fact-checking errors, perhaps. 


Bottom line, since Obama 'made it' there's no longer any reason to downplay his less-than-humble background as he vies against Richie Romney for a second term. Just be careful making the claim that his past narrative was massaged to help promote a struggling young community organizer who hated the suburbs and eschewed his business suit job in NYC in favor of being sucked into the Chicago political machine, introduced to politics by a small-c communist and noted unrepentant domestic terrorist.  Such are the ramblings of a racist birther.

Side Tracks

To the late Duck Dunn..