Dana Milbank on Khattalah-- huh?

Although Dana Milbank was a regular on Olbermann's show he's not the worst partisan hack in the mainstream media fish pond.  He'll occasionally see a light and call a spade a spade. But his column today on Abu Khattalah is head-scratching. First, the headline:

Benghazi suspect Abu Khattala’s hearing shows merits of civilian courts

OK, so somehow bringing the terrorist to court has merit.  But searching the piece turns up little in the way of any merits.  Milbank rambles on about some courtroom audio problems then drops what apparently was supposed to be a merit:

The accused could see that he was represented by a legal team — Peterson and her assistant, also a woman — that vigorously challenged the government’s case. He could hear the judge making sure he understood his rights, and prosecutors assuring the judge they would share the evidence against Abu Khattala with the defense.

As important, the world could see (or learn from those in the courtroom, broadcasting via five satellite trucks parked outside the courthouse) that the prisoner was treated with dignity: He sat unshackled, and, through his lawyer, he entered a request for a halal diet and an Arabic-language Koran.

Do you see the mistake?  Yes, none of this means diddly squat.  Terrorists do not care about civil society.  It really doesn't matter to them if we try them via a criminal court or a military tribunal or blow them away with a drone or a tank--it's all for Allah anyway.  And quite obviously we and they both know a jury is never going to find them innocent and let them walk out the front door leaving them, as Bill Ayers once said, 'free as a bird'.

When Ramzi Yousef was caught in a rendition in Pakistan in 1995 and charged for the first World Trade Center attack and Operation Bojinka he wasn't harshly interrogated by the FBI on the way home.  It's questionable as to just how much he was interrogated at all before going to jail.  Think about that--he's the nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the architect of 9/11.  Bojinka was a plot to bomb 11 airliners.  We had him in our grasp but somehow didn't find out anything of substance about al Qaeda or any of the other Islamist cells and where they were planning the next mass murder attack.  Later the Khobar Towers and USS Cole attacks occurred, leading to 9/11.  But the terrorist was tried in federal court! 

The Clinton folks treated him like John Dillinger.  Eric Holder came in the Justice Department during Yousef's trials and he seems to have learned nothing in 20 years, nor has Milbank.  They evidently don't understand the enemy or are suffering from delusions.

During the trial Yousef tried to make a mockery of our criminal justice system, acting as his own attorney and doing the occasional outburst.  When he was found guilty this is what he said:

The Government in its summations and opening statement said that I was a terrorist. Yes, I am a terrorist and I am proud of it. And I support terrorism so long as it was against the United States Government and against Israel, because you are more than terrorists; you are the one who invented terrorism and using it every day. You are butchers, liars and hypocrites.

Megyn Kelly should have asked Bill Ayers whether he agreed with that statement or not.  Fast forward to now, Barack Obama will not hesitate to drone people in remote areas with no media coverage but at the same time seems to believe we are sending someone a powerful message by trying Abu Khattala or Anas al-Libi or even KSM in federal court.

Surely they know that people who think and operate like AQ jihadists are the strong horses of the world--the barbarians--and nothing affects them.  So this is being done for who--the rest of the world?  Milbank seems to think Abu Khattalah should be impressed.  But in reality the target audience only sees the death and destruction while those under the terrorist thumb are too busy trying to keep their necks intact to be impressed by audio troubles in a New York courtroom.

ISIS is showing the world an example of that concept now.  Would John Kerry ever call for a meeting of all parties in the ISIS conflict so everyone could sit down with folded napkins and crystal glassware to discuss 'the way forward' over a 'range of issues'?  Not a chance.  He'd be too scared of getting shot or having his head end up in the fruit bowl.

Groups like ISIS or AQ must be eradicated, period.  A hashtag won't stop them from kidnapping girls.  Thinking it will, or that a criminal court proceeding will change hearts and minds is dangerous--especially for those in positions of leadership.  "Know thine enemy" is an old saying.  Milbank and those who think this way should brush up on the history of this war.  Those that have and even those who've only partially paid attention know instinctively that keeping the ones we don't kill on a remote corner of Castro's island is probably for the best, since we'd be holding them here for life in a Supermax anyway.     

Ayers vs D'Souza

No bombshells, no questions from the audience about "Dreams" authorship, but worth skimming...



D'Souza is a fairly competent defender of western civilization and America in general and brings the immigrant perspective to boot.  He didn't neglect to mention that he came here as a peasant immigrant while Ayers inherited capital from this father.  Probably the most prescient examples he espoused were a defense of the "rights" inherent in the founding documents that later allowed the slaves to be freed and women and blacks to vote, an answer to Ayers' general idea that white people are practicing injustice (whether he thinks the white people who founded the country are to be condemned is unknown) along with the idea that America invented 'wealth creation'.  Ayers of course replied that the evil white men stole the country and murdered the Indians, which is part of his glass-half empty view of American crimes and the need to socialize the country to compel justice.  But as D'Souza retorted, it's easy to talk about 'splitting the pie', the hard thing is to create the pie in the first place.   Ayers had and has no answer for this.  

In his closing remarks D'Souza addressed a whiny South Korean immigrant questioner from the audience who railed on D'Souza for not giving the proper apologies for her new country's atrocities by reminding her she probably wouldn't be standing there asking the question if not for US action in Korea in the 1950s.  He boiled down the haves-have nots argument between America and the third world to "we want your jeans and your expensive camera", ie, we want the good things of life, too, so save the boilerplate Ivy League anti-colonial theory.

And that is precisely what eludes the Bill Ayers of the world--the real world.  Theirs is a John Lennon "Imagine" world, Godless because there is no God so it must be done here on earth, but hampered by a white-man-created US system that is repressive because it focuses on the rights of the individual, which too often tend to be rich white men.  What D'Souza was trying to show was that when it comes to human wants and needs things are usually a little simpler than what Ayers-type liberals imagine, something illustrated by D'Souza's own life story. The existence of the US has increased prosperity for many around the globe in that aspect, despite our faults.

One reality Ayers and his ilk often ignore is that, as the old saying goes, the world is a jungle.  The warlords of the jungle crush intellectuals like Ayers all the time, despite his occasional starry-eyed defense of such noble savages.  America represents a counter example, despite our stable of small-scale warlords. 

D'Souza is no William Buckley so he often didn't have the snappiest replies to the common socialist barbs the professor threw out, allowing Ayers to probably make a few converts with his blame America first rhetoric that is already so rooted in American universities.  It would have been fun to watch an Ayers vs Buckley debate and perhaps see how the latter focused on the former's 'small-c communism' and loathing of capitalism to point out that in an Ayers dreamed-of utopia their very debate would likely be impossible.

QUESTIONS NOT ASKED  2/1/14

Here are a few questions that could have been asked of Ayers but were not, either by D'Souza or the audience.  They are not conspiracy questions because as we've seen, he's going to be flip or sarcastic or simply lie about anything controversial. 

1.  You wrote in "Prairie Fire" that you wanted all the people who weren't in line with your thinking rounded up and sent to re-education camps and according to Larry Grathwohl if they refused to come around, be eliminated.  You talk about being a small-c communist and someone who wants to end capitalism.   With that in mind, number one, how do you respond to that and two, what would an Ayers United States look like from a government standpoint?

2.   What did you see in Hugo Chavez and his administration from an educational standpoint?  If you were made Education Secretary tomorrow how would you change American education?

3.   Do you have the same hatred for all capitalism or just the Halliburtons of the world?  Do Microsoft and Google scare you?  Do they need to be split up or taken over by the government?   Does George Soros need to be reined in?

Thanks.

Squirrel!

The president gave a speech today.

Not one on the troubles with Obamacare, say for example detailing how many young fit pajama hipsters have signed up so far or whether everyone who signed up actually has insurance.   Or why the 7 million number in March was not really a goal, but merely a suggestion. 

Not one on the mess in Syria and Iraq, explaining why al Qaeda in those areas is not our problem anymore.  Or why we're de facto supporting AQ in Syria and not Iraq.  

Not one on the Bi-Lateral Security Agreement for our forces in Afghanistan, which the White House said must be signed by January 1 or else all troops might be removed after 2014.   Karzai still hasn't signed it.

Not one on the NSA spying scandal and whether Edward Snowden deserves the same kind of respect given to the burglars that broke into an FBI office in 1970 and revealed the COINTELPRO documents, which eventually resulted in his buddy Bill Ayers getting away with domestic terrorism (when Obama was 8).

No, the speech today was about extending unemployment benefits, blaming Congress for going on vacation while the jobless suffer.  Which is rich, considering that he was on vacation, too (and is leaving his wife in Hawaii for an extra expense).  Not to mention the fact the cessation of the benefits was the result of a bi-partisan budget deal in Congress, of which he claims we need more.

Yet despite the bi-partisan compromise, today a fix-it bill is moving along in the Senate, which basically undermines the bi-partisan compromise.  It's like making a deal for a car then having the dealer come back after it's in your driveway and demand money for the stuff he threw in for free.

Any fool should know where this is leading--a show-down with the Tea Party in the House, whom the Democrats will label as hateful and insensitive children-haters if they don't pass it.  Which provides the perfect lead-in for Obama to open his true socialist agenda for the coming three years, better known as "income inequality", or Occupy Wall Street, 2014 edition.  

Too bad we don't have a real media to analyze any of this.  But ABC's web page is doing a great job keeping everyone updated on the latest celebrity happenings.

CRAVEN  1/8/14

What the administration is doing on this unemployment extension is nothing short of craven.  Their argument is that Bush did scores of times; in fact most of the 'emergency' extensions were after crises like 9/11 or during the 2008 financial collapse.  Katrina victims were specifically targeted.   So are they saying things are as bad as those times? 

The other side of Obama's mouth is saying he saved the economy and things are going good.   The only reasons they would pull such a stunt would be to 1) shield Obama from bad press when people lose their benefits after actually signing a bill without the extensions, 2) part of a strategy to make the GOP look bad as part of the kickoff of a broader initiative, or 3) they are clueless clowns.   Number 3 is not an option, these people are not clueless, they are clowns who know exactly what they're trying to accomplish.   Two sounds more plausible.

All Your Children Are Belong to Us

So says MSNBC host and college professor Melissa Harris-Perry. So if a kid fails seventh grade algebra he can blame the neighbors?

As Rush said on his show today this is a stock Marxist tenet. Hillary wrote a book about it but the difference today is the pushback--there isn't as much.

That's because we are all being slow-boiled in a pot of liberalism. Income redistribution, government-controlled health care and student loans, government-controlled automotive companies, amnesty for illegal aliens (or whatever the media is allowed to call it anymore), gun control, and a constant game of class warfare and 'fairness'.  It's almost as if Bill Ayers and buddies are winning.

Hey, ole washed up has been given another prestigious honor in Minnesota while his former terrorist pal Kathy Boudin has been given similar reverence at the president's alma mater. Just imagine a former Klansman being given a professorship at some southern university after serving 22 years for lynching a black person. Yes, it's impossible. 

So onwards we travel towards our collective Utopia as the 4th estate sits on their hands in the press room in a state of awe.

What's that Sulfur Smell?

Ah, our favorite South American tinpot has died.   Who could forget his poignant speech about "the devil" back in 2006?   Surely a few libs were secretly clapping over that one.

Of course his nutcake regime is blaming some American secret program. But hey, Chavez seemed fine in 2009 when he met with our current president for the first time.  And he basically endorsed Obama for reelection.  So it had to be a Cheney death squad hit.    

Anyway, hopefully Sean Penn and Bill Ayers are too torn up about it.  Or Dolores Huerta.  Or Code Pinko. Or the Iranian Mullahs.  Or Hizballah sleepers.   And for gosh sakes let's hope this doesn't spike oil prices.

MORE  3/6/13

When AC messed with Hugo.  That really showed him!   But hey, it does seem there are less CITGO stations around these days.  Just sayin.  

Preventing Disinformation

That's how Obama described his muddy response to the Benghazi terror attack to the man who asked the debate question (bold added):

President Obama, though, wasn’t done with Kerry Ladka. “After the debate, the president came over to me and spent about two minutes with me privately,” says the 61-year-old Ladka, who works at Global Telecom Supply in Mineola, N.Y. According to Ladka, Obama gave him ”more information about why he delayed calling the attack a terorist attack.” For background, Obama did apparently lump Benghazi into a reference to “acts of terror” in a Sept. 12 Rose Garden address. However, he spent about two weeks holding off on using the full “terrorist” designation. The rationale for the delay, Obama explained to Ladka, was to make sure that the “intelligence he was acting on was real intelligence and not disinformation,” recalls Ladka.

So he responded by feeding the public disinformation about a movie clip for two weeks?

One could ask why they considered the initial information suggesting a terror act (his words) disinformation since it came from our own folks.   One could also ask why he defended his use of the word terror on September 12th if he was protecting against disinformation. 

Now, the argument can be made that Bush didn't immediately blame 9/11 on bin Laden, yet he also didn't blame it on Salman Rushdie, burned Korans, or our presence in Saudi.  And that's the deal here.

Speaking of information and disinformation, too bad someone couldn't have asked about the new revelations regarding O's past with Ayers and Wright that surfaced yesterday (to almost zero fanfare). Surely it's one or the other.

A Cold, Strange Case

1975 was a tumultuous year for America. Gerry Ford had become president due to Watergate.  The last US personnel exited Vietnam via the humiliating rooftop retreat in Saigon.  Saturday Night Live debuted. And there were terrorist bombings.

One of the most unusual bombings occurred on December 29, 1975 at LaGuardia Airport in New York. Around 6 pm a large bomb placed in a locker in the baggage claim area exploded, killing 11 and wounding over 70. The case has never been solved.  Nobody ever took formal credit.

Online research of this event doesn't provide much. New York terrorism investigators had a person of interest, a lone nut Croatian who had placed a bomb in a locker in Grand Central Station a year later while also hijacking a TWA flight between LaGuardia and Chicago.  Since the LGA bomb blast occurred at the Eastern/TWA baggage claim it's no wonder they suspected him.  He steadfastly denied it over the years, right up to his parole and deportation back to free Croatia in 2008.  But he seems a good target.  

One reason he seemed a good target is that investigators generally took the lack of formal claim to mean the bomber(s) didn't intend deaths, just a loud statement.  This might have fit a Croatian terrorist trying to gain freedom for his people.  At the time of the blast former Israeli premier Golda Meir was visiting New York so that angle was considered, but apparently dropped.  They ruled out the bomb being meant to target any one individual in the airport (it would have been nearly impossible without a remote controller anyway). Investigators immediately suspected FALN, The Jewish Defense League, and the PLO but surely those groups would have taken credit had they been responsible.

Yet there was one group operating in the mid 70s out of the New York area that didn't seem to get mentioned--the Weather Underground.  Their public statements--both then and now--downplay the death/injury objective of their bombs and play up the bang to make a point objective, which would also fit the no claim of credit.  Were they ever suspected?

According to this Wiki timeline the WUG took credit for 3 bombings in 1975 before the LaGuardia blast...

January 29 - Bombing of the State Department; WUO states this is in response to escalation in Vietnam. (AP. "State Department Rattled by Blast," The Daily Times-News, January 29, 1975, p. 1)[34]

January 23 - Offices of Dept. of Defense in Oakland are bombed. In a statement released to the press, Weather expressed solidarity with the Vietnamese still fighting against the Thieu regime in Vietnam. [35]

Spring - WUO publishes "Politics in Command," which is its new political-military strategy. It furthers the line of building a legal, above-ground organization and begins to minimize the armed struggle role.[34]

March – The WUO releases its first edition of a new magazine entitled Osawatomie.[36]

June 16 - Weathermen bomb a Banco de Ponce (a Puerto Rican bank) in New York, WUO states this is in solidarity with striking Puerto Rican cement workers.[34][36]

July - More than a thousand women attend the Socialist Feminist Conference at Antioch College in Yellow Springs, OH in which WUO supporters attempt to play a major role.[34]

July 11-13 – The Prairie Fire Organizing Committee (PFOC) holds its first national convention during which time they go through the formality of creating a new organization.[36]

September – Bombing of the Kennecott Corporation; WUO states this is in retribution for Kennecott's alleged involvement in the Chilean coup two years prior.[36][37]

So they were active in the year leading up to the event.  For some reason the Times interview with the former bomb squad investigator didn't mention them, not even to say they were considered but ruled out. 

The "COINTELPRO" scandal (domestic warrantless wiretapping to follow revolutionary groups prevalent during the Vietnam war) occurred in 1971, which led to federal charges against WUG suspects being dropped.  We also know the FBI had a mole in the group at some point.  Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadine had gone underground in the early 70s and were still there in 75, having just released their own communist manifesto dedicated to Mao and Satan called "Prairie Fire" a year earlier.

The WUG was not a group of yahoos.  They actually took credit for bombing the State Department at Foggy Bottom in late January 1975.  They had previously bombed the Pentagon.  No child's play.  They also bombed a DoD office and a bank later that year, then a corporation.

Then for some reason the group "slowly disbands" beginning in 1976 with many members turning themselves in over the next few years to take advantage of an amnesty program brought about by Jimmy Carter.  According to Ayers the group split about that same time, with a more radical faction carrying on after a merger with a black separatist group (later carried out the Brinks robbery in 1981).  So what triggered this sudden split in 1976?

Conventional wisdom says it was because the war in Vietnam had finally ended.  Yet our evacuation from Saigon occurred in April 1975 while the group still bombed Kennecott Corporation in September of that year, supposedly in retaliation for their involvement in a Chilean coup.  Ayers and others have said the end of the war caused the group to begin to split apart--the quintessential rebels without a cause--at least on the surface.  But as Prairie Fire illustrates their war wasn't just over the Vietnam conflict but against capitalism at large.  Ayers still admits this today.  Yet for some reason their bombing philosophy basically ended at some point towards the end of 1975 leading to a split. Why?    

This is not some whackadoodle post to suggest the FBI knew about bombings and did nothing, or God forbid were involved in the LaGuardia bombing--the mole was apparently only a go-between operating between central HQ and field units.  The government would have been derelict of duty had they NOT investigated a group whose mission statement was to overthrow the government.   There's reason to believe that communist Cuba was helping to fund the Weathermen, which is not to say Cuba was involved directly in any bombings, but it's not to say they weren't either.  Perhaps there was an international or domestic angle the government didn't want publicized at the time, ie an entity sending a silent message, who knows.  

Since this post is about the Weathermen it's also not designed to link Obama to any terrorism.  He was in Hawaii at the time, 14 years old or so--yes, evidently being mentored by a communist but there's no known link between Davis and Ayers.  And yes, he started his political career in Ayers' living room and the campaign deceived voters about their relationship, but that can also be explained by the radioactivity of Ayers outside of liberal academia (in bitter clinger America), which would amount to a political distancing without culpability.   Then again, the radioactivity would have been considerably higher.  

No, this post is merely from a guy sitting around in his underwear bringing to light a very strange chapter of terrorism history in America and asking a question--were the Weathermen ever considered suspects and if not, why not?

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. 

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.

The Show Must Go On..

Do we have a media in this country anymore?

So Joe Biden "apologized" to the president for getting out ahead of him on the gay marriage thing?  Apologized, really?  For getting out ahead?  When?   BIDEN HAS ALREADY COME OUT FOR GAY MARRIAGE, BACK IN 2010.   The story is right here.  Of course, the video appears to be unavailable for some reason.  

And what about this crappola regarding Obama pushing a girl that the right is using to respond to Romney's high school homophobia haircut (a story perfectly timed to come out after Obama's epiphany)?  The girl says it didn't happen.  In other words, just another composite story manufactured by the writer of "Dreams", whoever that might have been but clearly someone the media doesn't want to discover.  Thank heavens we know about Mitt's high school romps but we still haven't seen the Rashid Khalidi tape.  

Crackies, what a load of horsehiite.

MORE  5/11/12

CNN does some research, including mentioning the creator of "Will and Grace", the TV show used by Biden as an example by how NBC educated the nation:

The show's creator, Max Mutchnick, said Wednesday on CBS's "This Morning" that Biden had used similar language at a private fundraiser three weeks prior to the interview. He added that the White House was recording Biden while he made the comments at the event. "This says to me that it was all very choreographed," Mutchnick said. "It just doesn't seem right to me because it was verbatim to what he had said three weeks earlier....He was testing the material out of town, and then he took it to a larger house, which was 'Meet the Press.'"

Funny, social conservatives have been claiming for years that the networks were using these kinds of shows more as education than entertainment, and Biden basically confirms it.  Meanwhile yeah, they still won't mention Joe's comments from December 2010.  But at least CNN had the stones to refer to Obama's 1996 starting point on the issue...

 ..while completely avoiding it it in the actual story when detailing the "evolution".

The Tapes

Hannity will premier the first batch of Breitbart's tapes designed to 'vet' the already elected president.  If history is our judge, they will not be the only tapes coming out.  But will a tape showing a radical Obama at Harvard protesting for radical Derrick Bell really change any minds?  Most people are already aware he wasn't serving orange juice with Anita Bryant back then.  Voters pretty much put more stock in "what have you done lately" than something that occurred 20 years ago.  It has to be big.

One possibility is a revelation about Ayers and Dohrn, whom the campaign told us weren't in the picture until the infamous coffee in Ayers' living room to kick off the State Senate run in 1995.  If there's video of the two or three of them together prior to 1995, especially prior to 1990, that brings Cashill's theory about "Dreams" into play.

Also, one revelation might open a sort of flood gate, as it has with Rush's advertisers.  Political junkies are aware of at least two juicy stories the press tried to sit on; one was the Rashid Khalidi going away party tape (with Ayers and Dohrn in attendance) and the other is the interview with Percy Sutton whereupon he talked about Obama being sent to Harvard via a wealthy Saudi named Prince al-Aweed.   Funny, Politico inserted itself in that story as well, just like they inserted themselves in the tape release today.   Donald Rummy once said there are unknown unknowns.  What else might someone be sitting on?  

Anyway, if a narrative gets out that Obama was actually a hand-picked candidate by 60s-70s Marxist radicals who nurtured him up through the White House with stealth provided along the way by friends in the left-leaning media that might actually make a dent in his chances this fall.   In the least it would put him on defense and take away some of his advantage over the presumptive nominee Mittens on health care (Mitt could say that Obama will want a full state takeover if reelected, etc).  Then again, according to some in the know, Chicago has a truckload of opposition research about the Mittster, ready to pop at any moment.   Better buckle up.

NOTHING BURGER?  3/7/12

PBS claims the only editing done on Buzzfeed's tape was to get rid of some background material but they played the entire portion that included Obama's words.  PBS published the entire tape in their possession, although admitting it was probably edited after being filmed in 1990.  But they are playing coy and sneaky just like Obama and friends.  As Hannity noted, the big embrace from Obama to Bell after his introduction was snipped from the Buzzfeed version.  PBS defends them by saying they were paying for the video 'by the second', which is hilarious.  How much does Public Broadcasting charge per second, anyway?

At any rate, the video itself was far from earth-shattering and had actually appeared on PBS in 2008 (meaning only a few liberals saw it).   Still, not a lot.   But a nothing burger?  Maybe not, but maybe a tough sell.  For this to be effective Breitbart's troops will have to act like lawyers laying out a circumstantial case by establishing a pattern, which takes time and requires audience attention.  Romney has already said he won't be leveling salvos at the O (ala McCain) so he'll be running from this like the plague.   Fox News and Rush can't elevate the story to national prominence--notice Obama has already done his presser and probably won't do another one until closing day of the GOP Convention in August.  So it'll be hard to challenge him on it directly.  Yeah, it might be fun to see whether they try to throw Bell under the bus with Wright and the others, but if so that will be done by Carney.   What will happen is a complete breakdown of everything controversial Bell said that can be tied to Obama but as we've seen with the Catholic birth control issue, don't be surprised if the left tries to turn this around into a "GOP is racist" meme. 


So we'll see.  Maybe this is a deliberate strategy in play--create a lot of buzz and put out the weakest tape first so everyone poo-poos it and levels snark and criticism only to launch bigger bombshells down the road.  Or maybe it's much-ado-about same ole same ole.   It will take a lot more than what we saw tonight to make a dent.

The Ayers 'Confession' Tape

Jack Cashill is all atwitter about Bill Ayers' public statement about his authorship of "Dreams":

Worse for Obama still, Ayers knows that the story he and Obama contrived in Dreams is false in many key details. The fact that Donald Trump has proved willing to challenge that story has got to make the White House even more apprehensive.

As was obvious in his speech at Montclair, Ayers does not like the application of force in Libya, and this may have been his own way of retaliating. Consider it a shot across Obama's bow.

Think he's jumping the gun a bit? Ayers' slightly sarcastic contribution no more proves authorship than the previous encounter with the Chicago blogger. The former terrorist seems to have a penchant for sarcasm and BS, and his comment about "Audacity" being a 'political hack' book could mean nothing more than it was written to square Obama up on the hot-button issues for his run, as opposed to Odyssey-like adventurism of "Dreams". This is not a bombshell.

Then again, if Christopher Andersen is correct that Michelle asked Ayers to help a hopelessly blocked Obama finish the book (assuming anyone ever asks him about it) then what might a small-c communist professor, who as recently as 9/11 said the Weathermen didn't do enough bombing, be able to demand from the president for his continued silence? Somebody should ask.

WHILE WE'RE ON THAT CONSPIRACY THANG.. 3/30/11

Trump has been making the rounds talking about birth certificates and phantom ghost writers, which has a tendency to pull these stories back into the spotlight. CNN has already done a feigned outrage hit piece on the Donald, mentioning his release of a hospital birth record but not going so far as to mention the subsequently released long form document. Guess that would be too close to Obamaland. O'Reilly is doing a multi-part series with Trump and chided him over the birther thing, which of course Bill debunked back in 1972 when he was a foreign war correspondent and part-time high school teacher/bouncer.

As this bubbles back up just in time for campaign 2012 (and conveniently distracts attention away from undeclared wars and a stalled economy) we will likely see more mainstreamers take on the story. Here's a San Diego paper with a birther debate (although the liberal guy just threw poo the whole time) that featured something new--not about birthing--but about Obama's time at Columbia:

Recent documents substantiate that Obama only attended Columbia University for 9 months in 1982-1983, contrary to official accounts.

Nine months? That might explain why nobody seems to remember him there. The official record suggests Obama transferred from Occidental to Columbia College in 1981, presumably for the fall semester. According to the O campaign, the O traveled to Pakistan during the summer of 1981 in between the transfer.

So *if* these mysterious new records coming from the unknown guy on SanDiego.com show he only attended Columbia for nine months, from 1982-83, and if we believe Columbia that he was on the graduation program in 1983 (presumably in the spring), and if we believe Occidental when they say he attended two years between fall 1979 and spring 1981, then there seems to be a missing semester in there somewhere. Or maybe he really was cramming in the library the whole time. Then again, wouldn't that be something to 'trump'? Sing it!

Bits and Pieces

Obama's Kenyan granny Sarah started out the presidential campaign as a 'non-practicing Muslim'. Then she morphed into a Christian around the time Obama was nominated. Then after his election she apparently re-converted into a practicing Muslim who recently attended the Hajj and prays that our current president will one day convert himself. Well at least that means he isn't a Muslim. Whew! Or is he?

-------

Fed Ex is looking for a shipment of radioactive material apparently lost in transit.

Munoz says as long as no one tries to open the metal container, the rods do not pose a danger.

Well, that's a nice warm fuzzy considering the news of late.

-------

Considering what's going on in Korea why isn't this famous picture enough evidence to forever condemn communism as a viable political system?



Yet guys like Bill Ayers, the washed up terrorist turned professor who hardly knew Obama according to 'fightthesmears', still calls himself a 'small-c communist'. In other words, it's only the corrupt rulers who fall short in their attempts to manage the system, not the system itself. Maybe that's why they lied about Ayers.

Of course, if the following picture is the only face of capitalism then it's no wonder some of our utopian dreamers dream of a land of equal equality (run by them)...


Look at those silly women. Now, if that was a sale on 60 inch LEDs...completely justifiable.

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?

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.

Ghost Writer Ghosts

So Bush has a ghost writer for his memoirs. OK, the Daily Beast has details - let the jokes begin. But now that biographies are back in the news maybe the New York Times will find time to do a Times Book Review on Christopher Andersen's Obama biography, "Barack and Michelle".

They must know what Fox said about it (since they are practically neighbors), and what Media Matters hit back with (they most likely see them at parties) so now is a perfect time to set the record straight about this controversy involving the ghost-writer of Obama's first book, the one he wrote himself.

A Bombshell at the Airport?

It seems a chance airport encounter between a conservative blogger and Billy the flag stomping neighborhood acquaintance of the president has caused the "Ayers wrote Dreams" saga to reappear again. This time the heretofore ambivalent Hot Air has decided to weigh in--here's Cap'n Ed trying to explain why it doesn't matter:

But there’s a larger problem with the argument. Even if Cashill and the advocates of this position prove their case or get an admission — a real admission — what does that change? It will show what we already know about Obama and Ayers, a relationship that got plenty of New Media coverage in the campaign, and also show that Obama hired a ghost writer. Neither of these issues are relevant now that Obama is in office.

Maybe, but gee, if true it also might prove the man at 1600 told a fib about his literary talent and past relationship with the washed up terrorist (and his radical agenda for education reform). It would also bring up the obvious question of how long the small-c communist has actually known the president, not to mention exonerating Sarah Palin after all the criticism or her criticism. Maybe it would also call into question why the elite media allowed Ayers to hide in plain sight before the election.

But why the relative silence on this? Cashill adequately explains the mainstreamers:

Despite all evidence to the contrary, Alger Hiss will always be innocent in their eyes. Margaret Mead's Samoa will always be a sexual paradise. Rachel Carson's science will always be sound. Alex Haley's Kunta Kinte will always be real. Edward Said will always be a Palestinian refugee. And Obama will always be a literary wunderkind. Those who choose to say otherwise do so at their peril.

Does anyone think the same news hounds that chased Bush around with the fake Rather documents wouldn't still be digging if Palin were linked with a reformed neo-nazi? Just look at the reaction to her book, or put another way, the idiot from Wasilla needs a ghostwriter while the Kenyan savant can crank out a masterpiece without practice proving his genius. But how likely is that?

Not very. In the immortal words of Danny DeVito in "Throw Momma from the Train", "writers write, always". Obama has refused to release materials from his college days, which could have provided an insight on his talent. Cap'n Ed surely knows such revelations could be relevant in light of current policy being pursued.

But their cautious silence makes a lot of sense in a risk-reward fashion. Had they bitten on the story and it later turned out false their lefty counterparts and the elites would never rest in comparing them all to Glenn Beck. Every future story would be couched in that framework, diminishing their impact. Cashill indeed has a checkered record of success in his past exposes and many consider him an outright kook based on his TWA 800 work (usually those without much knowledge on it), so there's that.

By reporting the encounter in a slightly condescending manner they satisfy their readers' thirst for a post without taking a hardcore stand. Then if the story takes off as true (and Backyard Conservative now has many incoming links from smaller bloggers meaning a grassfire, or maybe prairie fire, has started) they can go along for the ride and nobody is the wiser.

Now, if someone can truthfully explain the Fox News angle on this in light of the Glenn Beck show that would be great!

BUT WHAT DOES IT MEAN? 10/7/09

Speculation is free, and usually worth every penny paid. But here goes.. Ayers reminds me of a guy who likes to play head games with people. It's possible he realized she was a righty blogger and immediately told her what he knew she wanted to hear, being his sarcastic self. The bit about Michelle telling Obama to see Ayers was in the book. Simply denying the charge would not have satisfied the blogger, after all, so he immediately told her what he thought she wanted to hear.

But does that make it absolutely false? Sometimes people just blurt out the truth in a snide manner hoping people will think they're lying because it's so sensational.

There are a few definitive ways to prove this but like the birth cert thing none of them will ever happen. Nevertheless -- have Obama produce his book notes and college records, That would show how much editing was done, and whether he was a skilled and gifted writer or not. They could also locate the sources Andersen used, which is far-fetched because they wish to remain nameless. It's entirely possible Ayers was actually one of Andersen's sources, in which case it would be hard to prove he wasn't yanking Andersen's chain by furthering the myth.

Then there's the white girlfriend mentioned in Dreams who seemed to share a similarly laid-out home as that of Ayers' late girlfriend Diana Oughten. Good luck with that one, too.

MORE 10/8/09

Maguire is the go-to on this today. Go there and you'll find a timeline of how his surrogates have explained the Ayers-Obama relationship, which have been less impressive than the explanations about Wright.

Then there's Charles Johnson (can't resist). His effort is predictably negative, even using the codeword "wingnuts" much to the delight all the moonbats he once loathed who now use his site to score debate points. He mocks Backyard Conservative without providing any evidence that she's wrong on her facts.

He also refers to the whole thing as a conspiracy theory without mentioning Andersen's book. Perhaps he's been too busy calling people racists to notice, but Jack Cashill is the conspiracist--Andersen is the biographer. The charge of ghost writing was dredged up by the latter, so that's where the bombs should be directed. And sure, Ayers is having fun with this just like all self-important narcissist head-gamers would. But he hardly needs any help from LGF.

After all there was a time...not too far distant...when posts about the washed up professor would rank as "exclusives":

You may have read about this book, or seen it mentioned on Hannity and Colmes, but you cannot appreciate how radically insane and violent it is until you read it for yourself.

And here's another one chastising old Billy for his bombings. Of course these random posts don't mean Johnson has changed his mind about the importance of the relationship between the former Weather Man and the present president, but applying LGF logic---past associations portend present behavior, no matter what--well it sure makes him one of the biggest wingnuts on the block.

Dreams We'll Never See?

The Times still hasn't moved on reviewing or even mentioning the Andersen book containing the Ayers co-wrote Dreams revelation. Searching their web site returns a paltry this:



Cashill recently got an interview with Andersen, who claims to have two Hyde Park sources for the Ayers story who aren't named Jack Cashill. The trouble is, both wish to remain anonymous, which of course solves nothing. It does suggest Cashill wasn't Andersen's source as some on the left have claimed, unless both men are lying through their teeth. But if they aren't...well somebody will soon ask a few questions and get to the bottom of this, just like Van Jones. And no, Protein Wisdom doesn't count.

No Child Left Behind, Memphis Style

The right wing uproar over the upcoming presidential speech to Dick and Jane has New York Daily News sportswriter Mike Lupica all fired up. His column, entitled "Loons should shut up and listen: Obama not out to brainwash schoolkids", takes parents to task for saying they'll hold their kids out of class that day. Here's an excerpt:

This is no longer about dissent, or disagreement with Obama's policies. This is something deeper and meaner, something that seems to come from a foreign country, not this one. How else do you explain a speech about education and hard work being seen as a threat?

Another idiot, Florida Republican Party Chairman Jim Greer, has suggested that Obama is trying to "indoctrinate America's children to his Socialist agenda." Somebody needs to inform Greer, and fast, that Glenn Beck's time slot on Fox News hasn't opened up, at least not yet.

It's ironic he'd use Beck in a column about kneejerk reactions to Obama's perceived socialism message, as if he didn't just successfully help force the resignation of social justice environmental jobs czar Van Jones from Obama's non-vetted executive branch add-on wing. No reason for concern there. Lupica's newspaper attributed the resignation mainly to his signatory of a 9/11 truther petition but it was clearly just as much about radical associations. Oddly enough, the Daily News included a Jones comment in an August 30th editorial slamming those who want to change the meaning of Patriot's Day:

Van Jones, an Obama environmental adviser, said 9/11 would be an opportunity to "connect, to find other people in your peer group who are also passionate about repowering America but also greening up America and cleaning up America."

Meaning his own paper called out Jones as too radical a transformer. But remember, only the right can be reactionary loons in America these days!

Lupica seems to find it strange parents might be suspicious of an Obama speech to kids. Well, here in Memphis we have a bold new program designed to go against his assumed message of achievement; the city has a new policy designed to remove the potential for failing in grades K-3 through eliminating the grading system:



It's being touted as a money issue designed to stop unpopular politicians from having to levy unpopular property tax increases to support consistent failure. To others it seems like another attempt to water down standards in the name of cultural diversity.

The man running this change, as shown in the video above, is Superintendent Kriner Cash, a former associate Dean at Howard University who got his superintendent feet wet in of all places Martha's Vineyard, the liberal fantasy island where Obama just vacationed. According to his CV Cash got his Ed.D at U Mass in "Cultural Diversity and Curriculum Reform Concentration". So there you go.

But before any liberals kneejerk over the above (in an un-loony fashion of course) this is NOT to say that reform in itself is sinister. Dr. Cash is very bright and accomplished and is one of many, no doubt including Jones, who've spent years working on ways to raise achievement in the minority districts via experimental methods. It's odd he'd begin that journey in Martha's Vineyard, which suggests it was a sort of liberal test bed, but that's just wild speculation. In general people aren't against reforms, they are against bad reform based on flawed premises.

How does this relate to Obama and the speech? Well, when talking reform it's hard not to consider Bill Ayers, who worked with Obama on various reform projects in Chicago and has made reform his life's work since he officially transformed into a washed-up terrorist. Ayers focuses on minority issues and has emphatically stated that he wants to abolish capitalism, which represents a common thread among many of his peers who believe the western system rewards those who are privileged, who then rise above others based on this flawed racist system to become white men of greed in a world of need.

Therefore he's shifted his radical reform from molotovs to textbooks, although it's still just as radical as before illustrated by a stated admiration for the educational reforms of Hugo Chavez. This is the same man for which Obama once wrote a book recommendation. With all that in mind it's hardly loony to connect a few dots and have some concerns. Indeed, some of the curriculum and philosophies emerging in today's reforms--to use Lupica's description-- "...seem(s) to come from a foreign country, not this one." Personally I'd let my kids attend the speech so it could be discussed at home later, but there's nothing wrong with pointing out the obvious. It's even democratic.