Sen. Kennedy's anger & recklessness

It’s U. of Wisconsin law profssror Ann Althouse’s post at her eponymous blog. I comment below the star line.

Ann’s post:

"A year ago, the president said we couldn't withdraw because there was too much violence."
"Now he says we can't afford to withdraw because violence is down."

Ted Kennedy to General Petraeus.

Me to Ted Kennedy: "A year ago, you wanted to give up because we were losing, and now, you want to give up because we're winning."

****************************************************************************

Comment:

At the time of Abu Ghraib, Sen. Ted Kennedy said on the Senate floor:

"On March 19, 2004, President Bush asked, 'Who would prefer that Saddam's torture chambers still be open?'" said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. "Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management: U.S. management."

Since he was young, Kennedy has had a lot of anger and done many reckless things.

Remember all his drinking, wenching and police runins when he was a student at UVA law school?

Then there was …. well, most of you know a lot of it.

With Kennedy well into his seventies, it’s probably too late to expect him to do anything about his anger and the reckless behavior it’s bred.

But can't Kennedy stop targeting America’s military and our efforts in Iraq?

Why doesn’t Kennedy direct his anger at people like President Joseph Mugabe?

What will Duke’s trustees do?

Duke senior Adam Zell writes today in The Chronicle about the two lawsuits recently brought against the University, many of its leaders and others in connection with what’s widely-acknowledged to be Duke’s bungled and disgraceful response to the lies of Crystal Mangum and Mike Nifong, and the racially inflammatory and often fraudulent reporting of the Raleigh News & Observer.

Excerpts from Zell’s column follow in italics; my comments are in plain.

Zell begins - - -

How should the student body regard the two ongoing lawsuits by the men's lacrosse team? Given that the vast majority of us have been relatively unaffected, should we care?

In this column, I will attempt to examine the different sides in this case and how the case will impact Duke going forward.

When judging these lawsuits without regard to their moral worth, Duke students must weigh two competing claims: 1) the damage to the University's prestige as a result of airing our dirty laundry, and 2) the benefit of learning how and when decisions were made, and by whom. This enables the Duke community to hold actors accountable for their misdeeds.

Zell has a good opening; he’s asking questions all of us who care about higher education and justice in America should be asking. Duke's actions and inactions during the frame-up attempt and to today as the cover-up of the frame-up continues are matters with national implications.

Just as there are times when the courts and the public should take a hard, close look at private corporations – think Enron – there are times when the same should happen to a major university, even one that says “but we’re private.”

Should this lawsuit go to trial, the threat of our university's damaged reputation should not be taken lightly. Admitting this threat assumes that some administrators acted in a manner embarrassing to the University. …

That some administrators acted in ways that embarrassed decent people who care about Duke is indisputable. What the suits will reveal is how much more was done that was embarrassing and very possibly illegal.

Knowledge gained as a result of the suits will enable those who care about Duke to take necessary corrective actions and acknowledge those who served the University’s best interests.

If we’ve learned anything these past two years it’s that there is much at Duke which needs correcting. Example: At present Duke operates under a two-race policy so that it is possible for some faculty and students without fear of consequences to physically threaten white students, something which would never be tolerated were similar threats made to black students.

Even President Brodhead’s sharpest critics acknowledge he would not have remained silent when the CASTRATE banner waved, when the Vigilante posters circulated within sight of his office windows, and when racists made death threats in a courtroom against a Duke student, if the targeted students had been black instead of white.

I can understand why some trustees would want to avoid suits that will bring to light actions, inactions, conversations, emails, and conspiring the trustees have worked hard for two years to hide.

It's surely in the best individual interests of some trustees to keep all that hidden.

I just hope there are enough trustees and alums with the care for Duke and justice to push to bring what happened out into the light of day.

After proceeding carefully and fairly to further examine the questions he raised, Zell reaches a conclusion as to what’s best for Duke.

I empathize with the argument that Duke should "move on" from this scandal in order to focus attention on more pressing matters. However, these lawsuits are not trapping Duke in the past nor disabling our University from looking towards the future. In fact, these lawsuits could have a profound positive effect on Duke's prospects.

The massive uncovering of evidence that will occur if these cases go to trial can serve as an impetus to fix what are quite possibly fundamentally flawed institutional practices. These trials can help Duke restore its respect for and protection of students' rights.

An open trial justifies the costs of a drawn-out process by providing a simple, yet so far elusive, good: the truth. Administrators can be cross-examined and presented with any contradictory statements in a forum where they are compelled to respond. …

On a moral plane, I also support the lawsuit going to trial. I think it is the height of hypocrisy that an institution of higher learning, whose motto sanctifies the search for knowledge, would so callously hamper students' attempts to discover the truth. I am simply morally appalled at the lengths a university would go to obscure the truth.

After considering the costs and benefits of a trial, I firmly support the lacrosse players in their lawsuits, on one condition: Do not accept any University settlement.

I do not pretend to know the details of the case nor will I accuse any individual of poor judgment or malicious actions. I simply think the Duke community deserves the truth.

I’ll say more about Zell’s column soon.

Today I’ll just end with congratulations and thanks to Adam Zell for a column that’s an outstanding service to Duke University and the pursuit of justice.

Zell’s entire column is here.

Hat tip: BN

Obama’s Wright Problem Remains

An Obama delegate from Illinois to the Democratic National Convention tells some children climbing a tree to get out of it. She calls them “monkeys,” a term she says she uses with her own grandchildren.

But never mind about that.

One child, an African-American, complains and the child’s mother calls the police, who issue the women a citation for calling the kids “monkeys” (it seems doing so was disturbing the peace). The woman can be fined up to $75.00.

At that point the Obama campaign got involved. The Senator feels what the woman did has no place in his campaign or in the post-racial America he’s planning for us. The Senator wanted the woman to resign as an Obama delegate and she agrees to. [There are now reports she may not resign. I'll update as appropriate. JinC]

Now let’s get back to talking about Obama’s close friend and pastor of almost 20 years, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Former Clinton White House counsel Lanny Davis in today’s WSJ. I add a few comments below the star line

Davis begins - - -

I have tried to get over my unease surrounding Barack Obama's response to the sermons and writings of his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. But the unanswered questions remain.

I am a strong supporter of and a substantial fundraiser for Hillary Clinton for president (though in this column I speak only for myself). I still believe she should and will be the Democratic nominee.

But if Sen. Obama wins the nomination, he needs to understand that this issue goes well beyond Clinton partisans. Now is the time to address these questions, not later.

Clearly Mr. Obama does not share the extremist views of Rev. Wright. He is a tolerant and honorable person. But that is not the issue.

The questions remain: Why did he stay a member of the congregation? Why didn't he speak up earlier? And why did he reward Rev. Wright with a campaign position even after knowing of his comments?

My concerns were retriggered when I read for the first time three excerpts from Rev. Wright's sermons published several weeks ago in a national news magazine:

- "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."
-- Sept. 16, 2001 (the first Sunday after 9/11)

- "The government . . . wants us to sing God Bless America. No, no, no. God damn America; that's in the bible, for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human."
-- 2003

- "The United States of White America."
-- July 22, 2007

As I read and reread these words, I keep thinking: If my rabbi ever uttered such hateful words from the pulpit about America and declared all Palestinians to be terrorists, I have no doubt I would have withdrawn immediately from his congregation.

In his eloquent Philadelphia speech, Mr. Obama likened Rev. Wright to a beloved, but politically extremist, family member with whom one profoundly disagrees but whose rage one understands.

But this comparison just doesn't work for me. I don't get a chance to choose my family members. I do get a chance to choose my spiritual or religious leader and my congregation.

And I do not have to remain silent or, more importantly, expose my children to the spiritual leader of my congregation who spews hate that offends my conscience.

Mr. Obama made a choice to join the church and to ask Rev. Wright to marry him and his bride. He said for the first time a few weeks ago that had Rev. Wright not recently resigned as pastor of the church, he would have withdrawn.

But that only reraised the same questions: Why didn't he act before the resignation?

The rest of Davis’ column is here.

*************************************************************************
Comments:

Most of what Davis says has been said before. That’s important to note because it reminds us, as Davis is reminding the Obama people, that the Senator has not put behind him questions raised by his almost two-decade long relationship with Wright.

At least he hasn’t put them behind in the minds of most Independents and what are called Reagan Democrats and soft Republicans whose votes he’ll need in November.

Three weeks after Obama's Mar. 18 speech in Philadelphia the questions are still there.

A few hours after the speech I posted Obama’s speech was no Houston. Here’s part of it:

I though Senator Obama was sincere. As you’d expect, the speech was well delivered. It had moments of grace, candor and poignancy.

But the speech didn’t do what it needed to do: it wasn’t Obama’s Houston.

John Kennedy knew what he had to do in Houston was answer tough questions.

So he went before a not very friendly audience of mostly Protestant ministers, made a brief speech and then answered their questions about his Catholicism.

Obama had to answer tough and important questions today and he ducked them.

He arranged to deliverer a lengthy speech to a very friendly, invited audience and talked around the tough questions.

Nothing Obama said today really explains why he remained in a church whose pastor is so virulently anti-American. There are black churches that offer everything Trinity UCC offers, but without the anti-Americanism.

Obama never explained why he didn’t denounce until just recently his pastor’s Lifetime Achievement Award to the anti-Semite and anti-white Minister Louis Farrakhan. …

The rest of the post’s here.

Near the end of his column Davis says:

When I said on CNN recently that concerns about the Wright-Obama issue were "appropriate" to continue to be discussed, my friend Joe Klein of Time Magazine said, "Lanny, Lanny, you're spreading the poison right now" and that an "honorable person" would "stay away from this stuff." …

I’m hearing in North Carolina the kind of thing Klein was shilling: nice, “honorable” people don’t mention Wright-Obama.

Does that mean in Obama’s post-racial America discussing Wright-Obama falls in the same category as calling a group of kids climbing a tree “monkeys?”

The Churchill Series - Apr. 8, 2008

(One of a series of weekday posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Reading The Churchill Centre’s Action This Day report for June 10, 1944, we learn a bit about what happened when Churchill and other allied leaders visited the headquarters of the Allied ground commander, General Bernard Montgomery, four days after D-Day.

On June 10th, after Montgomery announced that "we have won the battle of the beaches" Churchill, Smuts, Brooke, General Marshall and Admiral King crossed the Channel where they were met by Montgomery. After a beach welcome they drove through "our limited but fertile domain in Normandy."

[Afterwards] they lunched on the lawn at Montgomery's headquarters, looking towards the front which was only three miles away.

Churchill enquired about the chances of German - armour breaking up their lunch.

Montgomery acknowledged that the chateau had indeed taken a pounding the night before.

The Prime Minister reminded him that "anything can be done once or for a short time, but custom, repetition, prolongation, is always to be avoided when possible in war."

Montgomery moved his headquarters two days later.

A troubling press release re: H-S's Bob Ashley

Readers Note: This post is an email I've sent to a media contact person at University of Kentucky News regarding UK News' press release announcing a talk at UK tomorrow by Durham Herald Sun editor Bob Ashley.

You can view the press release here. KC Johnson has posted on it here.

I thank all of you who sent me the link to the press release.

John
___________________________________

To: Whitney Hale
Media Contact
University of Kentucky News

Dear Ms. Hale;

I blog as John in Carolina, live in Durham, have posted often on the Duke Hoax, and am a Durham Herald-Sun subscriber.

I have a number of concerns regarding The University of Kentucky’s press release announcing tomorrow’s presentation by Herald Sun editor Bob Ashley in the William T. Young Library Auditorium.

The press release refers to “a talk on the now infamous rape case.”

As North Carolina’s attorney general Roy Cooper stated after an extensive investigation, there never was a rape. From his statement:

We believe that these cases were the result of a tragic rush to accuse and a failure to verify serious allegations. Based on the significant inconsistencies between the evidence and the various accounts given by the accusing witness, we believe these three individuals are innocent of these charges.

The attorney general’s entire statement is here.

I don’t understand why your press office didn’t at least use a neutral descriptor such as “Duke lacrosse case” or the more accurate one many people now use: “the frame-up attempt.”

Even the now disbarred former DA Mike Nifong and editor Ashley, for more than a year one of Nifong’s most important enablers, no longer, at least publicly, refer to “the rape case.”

The University’s press release states:

In March 2006, three Duke lacrosse players were charged with rape by district attorney Mike Nifong. Over the next 18 months, as tumultuous events in the case unfolded, the issues of race, gender, class, and the sometimes negative “town gown” relationship that existed in Durham, were exposed in ways that received national media attention.

In fact, no Duke lacrosse player was charged with rape during March 2006.

Instead, during the later part of March and the first weeks of April, the entire team was subjected to public vilification including false public statements by Nifong, Durham Police, and the Herald Sun.

The Duke students were also subjected to physical threats by “community activists” who rallied under CASTRATE and GIVE THEM EQUAL MEASURE banners and distributed Vigilante posters.

The NC State Bar would later cite Nifong’s March and April public statements as ethics violations and part of the case for his disbarment.

Ashley, however, was very supportive of what Nifong said at the time and remained a supporter until Nifong was at the edge of disbarment.

Even then, his editorial criticisms of Nifong would embarrass most journalists. For example, Ashley said Nifong’s handling of the case had not been “flawless.”

Ashley’s Herald Sun has yet to condemn the “activists” who threatened the players and those, including some Duke faculty, who thanked the “activists.”

Regarding “the issues of race, gender, class, and the sometimes negative ‘town gown’ relationship:” they certainly permeated every aspect of the Duke Hoax, so it was right to mention them.

But the University's press release failed to mention presumption of innocence, due process, the sworn duty of police officers and their supervisors to follow the law and regulations, the sworn duty of a prosecutor to seek justice, and every citizen’s right to justice.

For all the manipulation of race, class, gender and “town gown” by those working the frame-up attempt and those of a PC/ leftist bent supporting them, in the end it was the Constitutional principles and practices America’s founders bequeathed us that were most important in preventing three innocent young men from being railroaded to prison.

That should have been mentioned in the press release.

Something else belonged in the press release: a mention that the charges weren’t merely dropped, but were dropped because as attorney general Cooper took care to say, the three young men were innocent.

Despite the attorney general’s finding of innocence, the three young men will always carry a burden from the slander and libels of Nifong and Durham Police, and the slimes of Ashley and others.

But each time the point is made that they were determined to be innocent following a lengthy investigation, it helps to mitigate their burden.

Can you put me in touch with someone to whom I can make that point, who might then make sure Ashley’s listeners are told tomorrow of the attorney general’s finding and the circumstances in which he made it?

Also, will there be a pod cast of Ashley’s presentation and/or an audio and/or video tape available of it?

Thank you for your attention to this email.

I’ll post your response at my blog.

Sincerely,

John in Carolina

Cc. Bob Ashley - bashley@heraldsun.com


5 comments:

Anonymous said...

And of course, the MSM slant was slavishly followed by Carl Levin, "Chapaquiddick" Kennedy and the rest of the lemmings of the Democrat party when General Petraeus reported to them. To hear them tell it, we've slready lost and staying there simply costs more lives needlessly.
TH
3:43 PM

Anonymous said...

John:

I am sure your questions to Whitney Hale will receive the standard brushoff. The elitists who put out these press releases have no clue.

They are creatures of the night.

Ken
Dallas
4:52 PM

Anonymous said...

Nevertheless, John, many of us admire your relentless nature and your persistence in setting the record straight. Thanks.
12:00 AM

mac said...

Good job, John!
6:06 AM

Anonymous said...

Upon reading the information sent by KC, I also fired off an e-mail to UK. Of all people to make a presentation about the case. Ashley, come on!!! Another travesty in the HOAX.

I pray that there is an alumni out there that can go to this 'talk' and record what Ashley says and more importantly, what he does not say.

Duke Laxom AND SO VERY PROUD OF IT!!!

8:17 AM

High praise for Senator Obama

Those of you concerned about Sen. Barack Obama’s lack of foreign policy experience will be interested to read Mayhill Fowler’s Huffington Post report of the Senator's remarks at a fundraiser in San Francisco.

Asked what he would look for in a running mate, Fowler says Obama began:

"I would like somebody who knows about a bunch of stuff that I'm not as expert on," he said, and then he was off and running.

"I think a lot of people assume that might be some sort of military thing to make me look more Commander-in-Chief-like. Ironically, this is an area--foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain."

"It's ironic because this is supposedly the place where experience is most needed to be Commander-in-Chief. Experience in Washington is not knowledge of the world. This I know. When Senator Clinton brags 'I've met leaders from eighty countries'--I know what those trips are like! I've been on them. You go from the airport to the embassy. There's a group of children who do native dance. You meet with the CIA station chief and the embassy and they give you a briefing. You go take a tour of a plant that [with] the assistance of USAID has started something. And then--you go."

"You do that in eighty countries--you don't know those eighty countries. So when I speak about having lived in Indonesia for four years, having family that is impoverished in small villages in Africa--knowing the leaders is not important--what I know is the people. ..."

"I traveled to Pakistan when I was in college--I knew what Sunni and Shia was [sic] before I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. . . ."

You remember Pakistan, don’t you? That’s the country Obama said he would bomb.

As quoted in Fowler's post, Obama sounds extremely self-assured and very inexperienced.

Fowler’s entire post is here. It includes a link to an audio of Obama’s quoted remarks.

The N&O’s “emboldened rebel Shiite cleric”

is Muqtada al-Sadr.

In a front-page story today headlined “Al-Maliki’s offensive may put Petraeus in hot seat,” the N&O tells readers:

This is not the way that Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, was expected to reappear before Congress.

Violence in Iraq recently had dropped to a nearly three-year low. The once-intransigent Iraqi parliament had passed some key pieces of legislation. Only five U.S. service members had been killed since October in Anbar province, a fraction of the toll a year ago.

But that was before the offensive that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki launched in the southern port city of Basrah and in Baghdad two weeks ago. Instead of ridding the city of rogue Shiite Muslim militias, the operation exposed the frailty of the U.S.-trained Iraqi military, emboldened rebel Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his fighters, and showcased Iran's powerful influence on Iraq's security and politics.

Today, Petraeus will have to explain to legislators why the United States didn't know about the American-backed Iraqi government's offensive well in advance, as well as whether the drop in violence that followed the dispatch of additional U.S. forces to Iraq may have been temporary. …

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Friday that al-Maliki "has shown himself to be a political leader who is excessively sectarian, who is incompetent, and who runs a corrupt administration."

He added, "The purpose of the surge clearly has not been achieved."

The entire N&O story, datelined Washington and under the byline of Nancy Youssef, a reporter for the N&O’s parent McClatchy News Co. is here.

The Times of London today has a very different account of recent events in Iraq.

Under the headline, “Iraq: Al-Mahdi army offers to lay down its arms,” James Hider reports from Baghdad:

Iraq’s largest and most dangerous militia will voluntarily disband if Shia scholars advise its leader to do so, officials said yesterday — a dramatic move that could quell much of the fighting in the war-torn country.

Aides to Hojatoleslam Moqtada al-Sadr said that he would send delegations to Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, a moderate religious leader in Najaf, and to senior clerics in Iran to consult on whether he should stand down his 60,000-strong al-Mahdi Army.

The sudden announcement — the first time that the rebellious cleric had offered to disband his forces — came as US and Iraqi troops were poised for a key offensive into his Baghdad stronghold of Sadr City.

Yesterday streams of refugees were pouring out of Sadr City as automatic gunfire and mortar bomb blasts ripped through the giant slum that is home to 2.5 million people.

Terrified residents scuttled down side streets as tanks trundled along the main thoroughfares, shooting at guerrillas. A massive American and Iraqi security presence had ringed the area, with police and soldiers guarding every exit with many predicting a final, bloody showdown as popular support drained from al-Mahdi Army. ...
An Iraqi police commander whose forces have sealed the eastern approaches to Sadr City said that raids would resume today when a government deadline for the militia to disarm expires.

“I think this time they’re finished,” said Brigadier Ali Ibrahim Daboun. “In all the previous battles, they were attacking and we were on the defensive. Now it’s the other way round.”

The entire Times of London story is here.

At NRO Rich Lowry had an extensive report which includes this:

On the political front, Sadr now finds himself completely isolated. Key leaders of his own movement are now urging him to accept the Maliki government’s demands to disband the militia entirely.

Lowry’s entire report’s here.

Why didn’t the N&O and McClatchy tells us the “emboldened rebel Shite cleric” and his gangsters were surrounded, under fierce attack, and offering to lay down their arms?

Never underestimate your enemy. We have many tough fights ahead in Iraq. The situation is dangerous; the political progress is fragile.

But progress in Iraq and maintaining support in America for our government's efforts there have been made much more difficult than they otherwise would be because of what military expert Austin Bey calls “the sensationalist, fear-leveraging slant of most media coverage.”

The N&O/McClatchy story today is one more example of what Bey is talking about.

It hurts our country and civilization’s fight against the terrorists when liberal/leftist news organizations like the N&O engage in slanted reporting on Iraq.

I’ll give the last words to Bey:

The quick [media] damnation of PM Maliki and the Iraqi Army’s efforts last week reveals an immense ignorance of warfare, one still rampant despite six-plus years of alleged experience; it displays not simply hasty, herd-mentality judgmentalism, but demonstrates in trump cards the sensationalist, fear-leveraging slant of most media coverage.

Bey's entire post is here.

The Churchill Series - Apr. 7, 2008

(One of a series of weekday posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Reader’s Note: Previous posts dealing with John(Jack) Strange Spencer Churchill (1880-1947) and his relationship with his only brother and sibling, Winston S. Churchill (1874-1965), are here, here, here, here, and here.

Chartwell guest books for the 1920s and 30s reveal Jack Churchill, his wife Goonie, and their children were Winston and Clementine’s most frequent overnight guests.

In 1929 Winston, his son Randolph, Jack and his son John toured Canada and the American West coast together, visiting among other places William Randolph Hearst’s castle home at San Simeon. (Churchill used the occasion to arrange with Hearst to write a series of articles for his papers.)

During the years between the wars Jack worked as a financier. He was a man working “in the City”, a British expression that conveys much the same thing as “ works in Wall Street” conveys in America.

It was no doubt extremely difficult for Jack to be Winston’s brother and not fall to saying at least a few indiscreet things or get drawn into deals in which others were hoping to take advantage of Jack's relationship with his brother who for five years during the 20's was Chancellor of the Exchequer and later influenced as Lord of the Admiralty and Prime Minister the awarding of contracts worth billions. Or worst of all, to actively seek to use his relationship for own gain.

But Jack did none of that while still serving as confidant and sounding board for his powerful brother.

In 1940 Goonie’s health became a concern. She was subsequently diagnosed with cancer, and moved from London to the country, which was thought better for her health. Jack remained to work in the city and come out on weekends to be with Goonie. She died in 1941.

Jack continued to work in the City. His house was bombed and thereafter he moved in with Winston and Clementine at 10 Downing Street and in the Annexe, the nearby bomb shelter Churchill and other government leaders and their principal aides used. He was often the last person Churchill spoke to at night.

In 1945. Jack suffered a heart attack. Thereafter his health deteriorated. He died on Feb 23, 1947, age 67 years. He was buried next to his parents in the Bladon Churchyard a mile from Blenheim Palace. Eighteen years later, his brother Winston was laid to rest beside him.

At the time of Jack’s death, The Times of London noted he'd remained throughout his life “on the closest terms with his elder brother.”
____________________________________________
For background I've relied on Speaking for Themselves: The personal Letters of Winston and Clementine Churchill (Mary Soames, Editor), Martin Gilbert’s Churchill: A Life and Richard Hough’s Winston and Clementine: The Triumphs and Tragedies of the Churchills.

Politics vs. Petraeus

Give a listen to Gen. Petraeus and Sens. Clinton and Obama:

In Pa, Obama's latest on guns

It was just a few days ago, Apr. 3 to be exact, that Amanda Carpenter at Townhall.com reported - - -

Barack Obama is embracing anti-gun policies in the run-up to a Democratic presidential debate scheduled on the one-year anniversary of the Virginia Tech shootings.

“I am not in favor of concealed weapons,” Obama told the Pittsburgh Tribune. “I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.”

These remarks break from Obama’s previous moderate rhetoric on gun control.

While campaigning in Idaho in February, Obama promised, “I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.”

Obama elaborated later that month in a political forum sponsored by ABC News and the Politico.

He said: “I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respects the Second Amendment and people's traditions."

Obama’s tough talk on gun control may be prompted by Philadelphia-based Democratic leaders who are pressuring Clinton and Obama to adopt harder stances on gun control.

This issue is expected to come up in ABC News’ Democratic debate on April 16 in Philadelphia. 32 people were shot to death on the campus of Virginia Tech by Seung-Hui Cho April 16, 2007.

Obama’s new hardline liberal position differs from his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton and GOP candidate John McCain, who both are for concealed-carry.(emphasis added)

The rest of Carpenter's report is here.

But wait!

Obama is the CHANGE candidate. Remember?

That no doubt explains why we read today at Politico: - - -

Barack Obama did not hunt or fish as a child. He lives in a big city. And as an Illinois state legislator and a U.S. senator, he consistently backed gun control legislation.

But he is nevertheless making a play for pro-gun voters in rural Pennsylvania.

By highlighting his background in constitutional law and downplaying his voting record, Obama is engaging in a quiet but targeted drive to win over an important constituency that on the surface might seem hostile to his views.

The need to craft a strategy aimed at pro-gun voters underscores the potency of the issue in Pennsylvania, which claims one of the nation’s highest per capita membership rates in the National Rifle Association.

It also could provide clues as to whether Obama, as one of the Senate’s more liberal members, can position himself as an acceptable choice to a conservative-minded demographic in later primary contests and in the general election. ...

Carpenter's entire report is here; Politico's report today is here.

Which Obama position do you prefer?

And did you know he was such a quick CHANGE candidate?

Raleigh N&O Arrogance (Post 5)

Readers Note: This is the fifth and last of a five-post series providing examples of the Raleigh News & Observer’s arrogance during its Duke lacrosse coverage. The examples also reveal some of the disingenuousness that was an essential and pervasive part of the N&O’s grossly biased, racially inflammatory and often false Duke Hoax reporting during Spring 2006 and thereafter.

John
_____________________________________________________

This past Feb. 23 I emailed N&O public editor Ted Vaden calling to his attention two misquotes which appeared in a Feb. 22 story: "38-player lacrosse suit gets fanfare." Both involved statements made by Mr. Robert Bork, Jr acting in a public information capacity for the plaintiffs and their attorneys. I included the email in a post you can read here.

Bork had noted the misquotes in a post you can read here at www.dukelawsuit.com.

In my email to Vaden, I noted one of the two reporters bylined on the story was Anne Blythe, one of two reporters bylined on the N&O’s deliberately fraudulent Mar. 25, 2006 which the N&O told readers was about a young black mother’s “ordeal” which ended in “sexual violence.” I added:

It must be upsetting for the students and their families to see the N&O again misrepresenting their actions and motives.

I asked for corrections and promised to post in full Vaden’s response.

I did not hear from Vaden, but I did get an email response from another N&O editor, Bob Waters.

Regarding one of the misquotes, Waters said Bork had made the remark - that Durham wasn’t a media center and thus the announcement of the lawsuit was made in DC - during a one-on-one conversation with the other reporter bylined, Barbara Barrett, in a hallway after the announcement. (Bork did not respond to an email request asking whether such a conversation took place.)

Waters said nothing about the second misquote which was an extremely serious distortion of what Bork had actually said.

So I sent Waters the following email:

Dear Editor Waters:

Thank you for a prompt response.

I plan to ask Bork about what he may have said to reporter Barrett after the press conference.

I'll be sure to report at JinC in full what you say happened and what, if anything, Bork says.

You did not say anything about the most important part of my email.

That part is:

The N&O reported:

The players chose not to appear at the news conference, said Bob Bork Jr., the group's hired publicist, because they don't want to attract attention.

But Bork said no such thing.

In this post at www.dukelawsuit.com Bork provided the text of what he'd actually said as follows:

“None of the 38 players who are filing this lawsuit are here today. They considered participating, but many have jobs and some are still students and lacrosse team members at Duke. One is in Army Ranger school preparing to deploy to Iraq.”

“Know this -- the players are united behind this lawsuit. At the same time that they are understandably concerned about retribution and negative, maybe even slanderous media coverage. Who can blame them after what they endured for 13 months in 2006 and 2007. They are walking a fine line between trying to live normal lives in the wake of an unspeakable trauma and at the same time trying to get answers to questions that remain unaddressed by their university.”

“They need to have peace to heal, but there can be no healing without accountability.”

It will be very easy for you to check what Bork actually said against what the N&O reported because the news conference video with fine audio quality is available and in the first minute or two you'll be able to view and hear exactly what Bork said.

You can access the video here.

People will wonder how the N&O could take what Bork actually said and report what the N&O told readers.

Folks, I ended the email with a pledge to publish in full his response.

Editor Waters did not respond to that email or two subsequent ones. You can read more about that here.

Folks, I don’t know what, if anything Bork may have said to Barrett in a hallway after the conference.

But all of us can check what the N&O published under Barrett and Blythe’s byline regarding why the players weren’t at the announcement, against what Bork actually said on the video tape.

As for Walters, I think his failure to respond to a reader about a serious, documented instance of his papers grossly misrepresenting what someone said is arrogant.

I’m told most MSM journalists are concerned that bloggers are hurting them.

I wonder if many of them ever consider whether journalists like editor Bob Waters and the others who worked on the N&O’s "38-player lacrosse suit gets fanfare" might be the people who are really hurting them.

Iraq News & Commentary via Mike Williams

Blog friend Mike Williams sent on an electronic letter today. I want to share it all with you. But keep it to yourselves. If Speaker Pelosi reads it, her day will be ruined.

John

________________________________________

Tomorrow General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker testify to Congress on Iraq. Speaker Pelosi has already informed them that the Dems aren’t interested in any good news. Saturday the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Biden (D-DE), declared the Surge a failure. The MSM is already spinning away on the Dem party line.

So today Senators Lieberman (I-CT) and Graham (R-SC)take them all on in the WSJ Online. Some excerpts:

As late as last September, advocates of retreat insisted that the surge would fail to bring about any meaningful reduction in violence in Iraq. MoveOn.org accused Gen. Petraeus of "cooking the books," while others claimed that his testimony, offering evidence of early progress, required "the willing suspension of disbelief."

Gen. Petraeus will be the first to acknowledge that the gains in Iraq have come at a heavy price in blood and treasure. We mourn the loss and pain of the civilians and service members who have been killed and wounded in Iraq, but adamantly believe these losses have served a noble cause.

No one can deny the dramatic improvements in security in Iraq achieved by Gen. Petraeus, the brave troops under his command, and the Iraqi Security Forces. From June 2007 through February 2008, deaths from ethno-sectarian violence in Baghdad have fallen approximately 90%. American casualties have also fallen sharply, down by 70%.

Al Qaeda in Iraq has been swept from its former strongholds in Anbar province and Baghdad….

In the past seven months, the other main argument offered by critics of the Petraeus strategy has also begun to collapse: namely, the alleged lack of Iraqi political progress.

Antiwar forces last September latched onto the Iraqi government's failure to pass "benchmark" legislation, relentlessly hammering Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as hopelessly sectarian and unwilling to confront Iranian-backed Shiite militias. Here as well, however, the critics in Washington have been proven wrong.

In recent months, the Iraqi government, encouraged by our Ambassador in Iraq, Ryan Crocker, has passed benchmark legislation on such politically difficult issues as de-Baathification, amnesty, the budget and provincial elections. After boycotting the last round of elections, Sunnis now stand ready to vote by the millions in the provincial elections this autumn. The Iraqi economy is growing at a brisk 7% and inflation is down dramatically.

And, in launching the recent offensive in Basra, Mr. Maliki has demonstrated that he has the political will to take on the Shiite militias and criminal gangs, which he recently condemned as "worse than al Qaeda."

And this:

Unable to make the case that the surge has failed, antiwar forces have adopted a new set of talking points, emphasizing the "costs" of our involvement in Iraq, hoping to exploit Americans' current economic anxieties.

Today's antiwar politicians have effectively turned John F. Kennedy's inaugural address on its head, urging Americans to refuse to pay any price, or bear any burden, to assure the survival of liberty. This is wrong. The fact is that America's prosperity at home and security abroad are bound together. We will not fare well in a world in which al Qaeda and Iran can claim that they have defeated us in Iraq and are ascendant….

Speaking of meeting legislative benchmarks, Randy Ketner at Red State compares Iraq to the 110^th Congress:

Iraqi Government: 4 completed, 2 partially completed, 1 not completed.

U.S. Congress: 0 completed, 1 partially completed, 6 not completed.***

You might want to read this one if you have some time. And even better:

Iraqi Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr will consult senior religious leaders and disband his Mehdi Army militia if they instruct him to, a senior aide said on Monday.

The surprise announcement came on the day Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, in a television interview, ordered the Mehdi Army to disband or Sadr's followers would be excluded from Iraqi political life….

Ed Morrissey comments at Hot Air:

Moqtada al-Sadr has found himself increasingly isolated in Iraqi political circles. Once considered a kingmaker when Nouri al-Maliki ascended to the Prime Minister post, he has managed to bring unity to the various sectarian factions in Iraq in a unique manner. He has everyone looking to kick him and his Mahdis out of the next election….

The move against Sadr in Basra clearly had a lot more support from Iraqis than previously thought. Even Shi’ites have had enough of the militia leader and want to see security and control managed from the elected government. The military phase was only the start; the political phase has just begun. And this time, unlike in 2004, the central government has increased the stakes. They now demand that Sadr disband the Mahdi Army entirely, not just stand them down.

Undoubtedly, Sadr’s Iranian support has prompted the isolationist coalition within the Iraqi government. Sadr has flaunted his Iranian backing a little too publicly. Even Maliki, who wants good relations with Iran, cannot abide foreign troops abetting an insurrection in his second-largest city. It has given Shi’ites, Sunnis, and Kurds a common focus and a point on which unity naturally arises.

Now even Sadr’s political supporters have acknowledged that the end of the road may have come….

Via Hugh Hewitt, let’s give John McCain the last word for now:

Today John McCain delivered a speech rebuking --again-- the proponents of defeat in Iraq. The campaign made these excerpts available, and the contrast between McCain's realism and resolve and Obama's eagerness to retreat could not be more stark….

Hugh has the excerpts at the link.

****************************************************************************

Message to Mike: Great work.

On the pledge, these Dems said no

Eli Sanders at SLOG blog reports on what happened Saturday when Seattle’s 43rd District Democrats came together to select delegates to Washington state's Democratic convention where the district delegates would help select delegates to the Dems' national convention.

“Highlights” from Sanders’ post:

... There was some time to kill as multiple tallies of the delegates and alternates were done, and when the time-killer of taking audience questions had run its course and the idea of telling jokes had been nixed, someone suggested doing the Pledge of Allegiance to pass the time. (Are you listening, right-wing bloggers? This is going to get good.)

At the mere mention of doing the pledge there were groans and boos. Then, when the district chair put the idea of doing the Pledge of Allegiance up to a vote, it was overwhelmingly voted down. One might more accurately say the idea of pledging allegiance to the flag (of which there was only one in the room, by the way, on some delegate’s hat) was shouted down.

There were to be 67 delegates to the state convention apportioned at this legislative district caucus: 14 for Clinton and 53 for Obama.

Is anyone surprised by what you’ve just read?

John Edwards said “two America’s.”

There are two America’s, but not the ones Edwards meant.

One of the two America’s the really exist is represented by, for example, the Rev, Jeremiah Wright and his supporters, MoveOn.org, Code Pink, a lot of MSM, the Academic and Religious Lefts, and people like those at the 43rd Districts Democratic meeting.

Here’s more from Sanders:

While everyone waited for the Clinton surrogate to appear and give his speech, Congressman Jim McDermott showed up and lumbered toward the stage. Before mounting the steps he turned back to take in the crowd and snap a digital picture for himself. In his remarks he too praised the turnout, saying: “It makes me think we’re going to win in November.”

But then he added, ominously, that Republicans are determined to play the fear card. “They’re looking for ways to have bomber strikes on Iran,” he said. “They’re looking for some little excuse.” The audience loved every word of it, giving McDermott the lefty hero treatment even though he remained neutral on the issue of the day, the question of who the Democratic nominee should be. “Both of them are good candidates,” he said.

Congressman McDermott sounds like a warmup speaker for Wright.

Or maybe it’s the other way around.

Both Wright and McDermott have histories of making reckless, anti-American statements.

Sanders’ entire posts here.

Hat tip: Instapundit

No campus surge for Obama in Pa.

is the title of a Politico article I want to use as a launch pad for a some comments about voter fraud.

First Politico; then my comments below the star line.

Politico begins - - -

With 159 colleges and universities and approximately 680,000 students, Pennsylvania’s campus vote would appear to be Barack Obama’s ace in the hole in the state’s April 22 primary.

Yet in a tough contest where Obama will need every vote he can get, it’s unlikely that one of his most loyal constituencies will be able to provide him with much of a boost.

One reason is the nature of the state’s college students. With numerous nationally recognized schools ranging from elite, small liberal arts colleges such as Haverford College to the Ivy League’s University of Pennsylvania, not to mention enormous public universities such as Penn State, Pennsylvania is a net importer of students.

Many of those out-of-state students are registered to vote in their home states. Sean Coit, 20, a junior at Saint Joseph’s University in Philadelphia and the news editor of the school newspaper, The Hawk, is among them.

Although he follows politics closely and is interning with a Democratic consultant in Philadelphia, he will not be voting in the Pennsylvania primary since he is registered to vote in Virginia at his parents’ house.

“A lot [of students] are voting absentee at home,” said Coit of his fellow out-of-state students.

Pennsylvania’s election rules also act to suppress the college vote. The state has a closed primary, which means only registered Democrats can vote. Since college-age young people are disproportionately likely to be registered as independents, that will serve to limit the number of students who can vote.

Pennsylvania’s approach is distinct from Iowa and New Hampshire, two states where college students turned out in force in part because voters were permitted to register on Election Day and also because the two contests were open to independents.
...

The rest of the Politico article is here.

*******************************************************************

Comments:

In many states you need little or no ID and residency proof to register and vote. In some states you can even walk into a polling station on election day, register and immediately vote. There's no check on what, if any, ID and residence proof you provided.

Something else: There's no cross-checking among states to ID voters registered in more than one state.

With no national voter registration or cross-checking system, there’s an "open door" for voter fraud through, among other things, voting more than once in the same election.

One other thing: It's very easy in most states to vote by absentee ballot or to vote at a central polling place in your community weeks before an election.

Most of you already know where I'm going on this one.

That's right, it's quite easy for college students so inclined or encouraged wink-wink style to vote in the same election in their home communities and college communities.

We need to be more aware of voter fraud and governments at all levels should be working to eliminate it.

In the coming weeks, I plan to post often concerning voter fraud and what needs to be done to prevent it.

JinC Regulars know I think John Fund is one of America's best reporters. He covers many beats, including election fraud,

Tomorrow I'll post concerning some of his reporting on voter fraud.

I hope you're back.

Responding to Commenters on Apr. 6, 2008

Folks,

If you look on the threads of all posts since 4/4, you'll see I've responded to all comments on those threads.

I'll be traveling tonight, but will resume blogging tomorrow AM.

Sincerely,

John

Obama won’t repudiate “warmonger” smear

At the Washington Post’s campaign blog, The Trail, Alec MacGillis reports:

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) declined twice Saturday to personally repudiate a liberal radio host's declaration that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is a "warmonger."

At a morning stump speech in Missoula and an evening Montana Democratic Party dinner in Butte, Obama made no mention of Ed Schultz's comment, which came Friday night at a fundraiser for the North Dakota Democratic Party, which Obama later attended.

Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki said, "John McCain is not a warmonger and should not be described as such. He's a supporter of a war that Senator Obama believes should have never been authorized and never been waged."

But that was not enough for the Republican National Committee or the McCain campaign, which compared the situation to McCain's repudiation of comments by conservative radio host Bill Cunningham, who repeatedly mocked Obama's middle name Hussein while warming up the crowd at a McCain appearance.

"Senator Obama must personally and publicly repudiate his campaign supporter's attacks -- rather than give tacit approval to this blatant smear -- or his rhetoric of change will be exposed as nothing but words," said McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds.

McCain even broached the issue himself while speaking with reporters in Arizona. "Mr. Schultz is entitled to his views," he said. But he added, " I would hope that, in keeping with his commitment, that Senator Obama would condemn such language, since it was part of his campaign." …

The rest of MacGillis’ report is here.

It a shame Sen. Obama hasn’t repudiated Schultz’s remarks.

Perhaps he would if the liberal MSM newspapers (and that's most of America's major dailies) would criticize him for not doing so.

But that may be expecting too much from almost all the editors.

As for Obama, a question: Is he still going around the country promising “to bring us together?”

The wisdom in Will's column

Yesterday I used portions of George Will’s most recent column in NY Times & "bankruptcy reform," a post responding to a NY Times editorial.

Today Realclearpolitics.com places Will’s column at the top of a 17 column/op-ed list to which it links. Give the column/op-ed list a scan.

And if you haven’t already done so, please read Will’s column, especially noting this section which I didn’t include in yesterday’s post:

... This is the crux of the difference between the two parties -- belief in the competence, responsibility and accountability of individuals.

When Obama characterizes my position as "little more than watching this crisis happen," he again has part of a point. The housing market must find its bottom, and no good will can come from delaying the day that it does.

The market, which bewilders and annoys liberals by correcting excesses without the supervision of liberals, is doing that as housing prices fall far enough to stimulate demand. Witness this recent Financial Times headline:

"Property sales pick up as prices plummet."

The story began: "Sales of previously owned homes in the U.S. rose for the first time in seven months in February, while sale prices fell by their most in at least 40 years."

By golly, the Gershwins were right: The age of miracles hasn't passed. ...

There’s wisdom in what Will says.

And what about liberals? If they don’t believe in miracles, what do they believe in?

They believe in programs, solutions, regulations, trial lawyers, George Soros, and everything critical Europeans say about America.

Also, NPR, the NYT, and the U. N.

Other things, too, but I'll save them for another day.

So how bad is the economy?

MSM tells us daily it's "in a tail-spin," "a crisis," and "a recession."

Once in a while we're also told the "econony is slowing," but usually the report doesn't add something like "after 5 years of strong growth."

And MSM almost never says anything like what we read in John Lott's recent column at Fox News:

During the 2000 election, with Bill Clinton as president, the economy was viewed through rose-colored glasses. According to polls, voters didn’t realize that the country was in a recession. Although the economy started shrinking in July 2000, most Americans through the entire year thought that the economy was fine.

But over the last half-year, the media and politicians have said we were in a recession even while the economy was still growing.

Gas prices are going up. The economy is slowing. Talk of recession is seemingly everywhere. While the majority of people rate their personal finances positively, consumer confidence in the economy has plunged to a 16-year low, well below what it was during the last year of the Clinton administration when we were in a recession.

A Nexis search on news stories during the three-month period from July 2000 through September 2000 using the keywords “economy recession US” produces 1,388. By contrast, the same search over just the last month finds 3,166. Or, even more telling, take the three months from July through September last year, when the GDP was growing at a phenomenal 4.9 percent. The same type of Google search shows 2,475 news stories.

Over 78 percent more negative news stories discussed a recession when the economy under a Republican was soaring than occurred under a Democrat when the economy was shrinking. ...The rest of Lott's column's here.

A thank you to an Anon reader who let me know about Lott's column and sent along the link.

Where’s Obama’s money coming from?

A U. S. News & World Report political report begins:

The AP reports this morning that Sen. Barack Obama "raked in" $40 million last month leaving Sen. Hillary Clinton "and her $20 million in the fundraising dust and stuffing his campaign treasury so he can outspend her in the crucial Pennsylvania primary."

The rest of the story’s here. It provides information about the states where Obama's spending the money.

Good, that takes care of the where.

But what about the who?

Who gave that $40 million?

Yes, I heard about the “ people who believe in Obama” and are sending in $1 and $10 contributions.

That’s all very touching, but it’s usually not the way you get to $40 million, at least not in a month.

And Obama’s been out-raising Clinton for many months. By now his contributions must total in the hundreds of millions.

Who’s giving him that money?

MSM needs to tell us more about Obama’s big money sources and what their interests are.

If MSM news organizations aren’t sure how to do that the answer is easy: they just do it the same way they would if a Republican was raising the kind of money Obama is.

Hat tip: AC

Debate report catches JinC off guard

From The Hollywood Reporter:

Hillary Clinton has agreed to a Sunday, April 27, primetime debate in North Carolina, which would be "CBS Evening News" anchor Katie Couric's first turn to moderate a presidential debate.

Now all that remains is for Barack Obama, who previously accepted CBS' offer of a debate April 19, to agree to the new date. …

The entire story’s here.

Folks, I’ve got to tell you this report caught me completely off guard.

When I began reading “Now all that remains is for…” I was thinking - -“is for Katie Couric to learn something about the issues.”

I wasn’t ready for the mention of Sen. Obama and debate dates.

Obama & troops in Iraq

The New York Sun reports:

A key adviser to Senator Obama’s campaign is recommending in a confidential paper that America keep between 60,000 and 80,000 troops in Iraq as of late 2010, a plan at odds with the public pledge of the Illinois senator to withdraw combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office.

The paper, obtained by The New York Sun, was written by Colin Kahl for the center-left Center for a New American Security. In “Stay on Success: A Policy of Conditional Engagement,” Mr. Kahl writes that through negotiations with the Iraqi government “the U.S. should aim to transition to a sustainable over-watch posture (of perhaps 60,000–80,000 forces) by the end of 2010 (although the specific timelines should be the byproduct of negotiations and conditions on the ground).”

Mr. Kahl is the day-to-day coordinator of the Obama campaign’s working group on Iraq. A shorter and less detailed version of this paper appeared on the center’s Web site as a policy brief. ...

The rest of the Sun's story's here.

Comments:

Most Americans understand why its essential to our national security that we have a military presence in Iraq for many years to come, just as they understand why an American military presence in necessary in South Korea more than 50 years after an armistice was signed.

We also understand why contingency planning of the type found in the Kahl paper is necessary for a political leader who has some chance of becoming President next January.

And we understand why Senator Obama is promising to withdraw all troops from Iraq within 16 months of becoming President.

I just wish on such an important matter, Obama wouldn't pander to win his party's nomination.

Obama’s promise to withdraw from Iraq sows doubt among those Iraqi's who are or would be our allies, and hope among those there who our enemies.

The NY Times & “bankruptcy reform”

The NY Times’ reputation, bottom line and stock price have all tanked.

The Times has been unable to come up with any solutions to the tankings.

Letting hundreds of workers go doesn't seem to have helped much.

But never mind any of that.

The Times is confident it has solutions to other peoples problems.

Do know someone who took out a bigger mortgage than they could handle? Or a mortgage lender who made subprime (read high risk) mortgages to people with questionable credit histories and got a “performance bonus” for making those high risk mortgages?

How about a lending institution that made such loans under government pressure to lend in “traditionally under-served neighborhoods” to a more “diverse population?”

The Times has "solutions" for all of them. Excerpts from a Times editorial today:

…Congress is just now getting around to responding to the foreclosure crisis, doing things that would have been too modest even months ago, and are now clearly not up to the scale of the problem.

In the relief package debated by the Senate this week and expected to pass next week, lawmakers bowed to the mortgage industry. They ditched what would have been the bill’s most powerful measure — allowing bankrupt homeowners to have their mortgages modified under court protection.(emphasis added)

The remaining features in the package are smaller bore — $10 billion in tax-exempt bonds to help local housing agencies refinance subprime loans, $4 billion for local governments to buy foreclosed properties and $100 million to expand counseling for homeowners at risk. …

Congress has all the data it needs to quit dithering and take bold action.

Restoring the bankruptcy reform to the relief package as it moves through Congress would be a good place to start. …

George Will today tells us some of what’s wrong with the Times’ “solutions”, particularly "bankruptcy reform," which the Washington Post and many Senate Democrats also favor [excerpts]:

… [Sen. John McCain] says "it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers." For now, he is with Senate Republicans in opposing the Democrats' proposal to empower judges to rewrite the terms of some mortgages, an idea that strikes at the sanctity of contracts and hence at the ethic of promise-keeping that is fundamental to social life.

He opposes an additional dose of the toxin that has made the credit system sick -- he favors strengthening rather than weakening down-payment requirements for loans backed by the Federal Housing Administration.

And [McCain] has admirably avoided the rhetoric of victimology, such as that used when The Post editorialized that "lenders pushed tens of billions of dollars in potentially high-interest mortgage debt on people ill-equipped to handle it."

Pertinent questions were elided by The Post's formulation of the problem, a formulation in the spirit of the liberal narrative about "predatory" lenders.
How much pushing of lenders was required when they were being pushed by a bipartisan political consensus that, such are the community benefits from homeownership, it should be maximized?

What portion of the subprime borrowers currently in distress -- 30 percent? 50? 70? -- lunged for loans requiring 5 percent or less (if any) down payments and fibbed about their financial assets and capabilities? …

The Times editorial is here; Will’s column’s here.

I’m with McCain on these issues.

What the Times, WaPo and the Dems are proposing amounts to rewarding those who did things they shouldn’t have and making the rest of us meeting our mortgage obligations – still over 97% of mortgage holders – pick up the bill for those who don't.

NY & Illinois Gubernatorial crime rates: questions

Yes, I’ve read about New York’s Democratic Governors Eliot Spitzer and David Paterson, and their involvement with prostitution and other forms of sleaze.

I’ve also read the 2006 NY Times’ editorials enthusiastically endorsing both men.

But frankly, my dear readers, I don’t know a thing about New York’s Gubernatorial crime rate.

What about Illinois?

That’s different.

From Rick Moran at American Spectator :

…No fewer than 3 of the last 7 governors of Illinois have gone to jail for corruption. The most recent inmate being previous governor George Ryan [,a Republican,] who pressured state workers to raise money for his campaigns when Secretary of State, while overseeing a "pay for play" scheme at drivers license bureaus where unqualified truck drivers bribed state employees to get licenses.

One such driver was involved in a horrific accident that killed 6 children. The resulting investigation into that crash unmasked the conspiracy. More than 70 lobbyists, state employees, and government officials have been convicted in connection with the scheme.

And to list the corruption associated with Mayor Daley's Chicago Democratic Machine would require an encyclopedia-length dissertation. The most recent example of Machine sleaze was the conviction of one of the Mayor's closest aides in a city hall patronage scandal that had Barack Obama praising hizzoner for beginning to "clean up" city hall.

Frankly, I believe the Augean Stables would be an easier place to start cleaning up. Might as well start with something less taxing than trying to clean up Chicago politics.

The sleaze is not limited to Chicago -- not by any means. The sad fact is, the entire state is in some ways a gigantic cesspool of bid rigging, kickback schemes, cronyism, and outright bribery greased by campaign contributions, and where the businessman, the criminal, and the politician merge into a seamless, corrupt beast that greedily feeds at the public trough.

The beast survives due to an apathetic public and, despite some noble exceptions, a curiously quiescent press who seem to have adopted the blasé attitude in some cases that everyone does it so what's new?...

Moran’s entire post is here.

Folks, this time two years ago we were reading and hearing so much in MSM about what then House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called “a culture of corruption.”

The malfactors Pelosi and the Dem/MSM called out certainly deserved to be punished.

But why aren’t Pelosi and her Dem/MSM flacks speaking up now?

Why aren’t they urging Sen. Barack Obama to speak out and condemn the political corruption in his home state?

Why isn’t Obama telling us what he’s done to CHANGE “the culture of corruption” there?

The Churchill Series - Apr. 4, 2008

(One of a series of weekday posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Reader’s Note: Previous posts dealing with John(Jack) Strange Spencer Churchill (1880-1947) and his relationship with his only brother and sibling, Winston S. Churchill (1874-1965), are here, here, here, and here.

On Aug. 8, 1908, Jack Churchill married Lady Gwendeline Bertie, whom Winston knew and liked. Later that day, Winston wrote to Clementine Hozier, to whom he would propose in a few days and marry a month later:

I have just come back from throwing an old slipper into Jack’s departing motor-car. It was a very pretty wedding. No swarms of London fly-catchers. No one came who did not really care & the only spectators were tenants & countryfolk. Only children for bridesmaids & Yeomanry with crossed swords for pomp.

The bride looked lovely & her father & mother were sad indeed to lose her. But the triumphant Jack bore her off amid showers of rice & pursuing cheers – let us pray – to happiness & honour.

Jack and Goonie (as she was always called) were, much like Winston and Clementine: intelligent, generous, witty and deeply in love.

Clementine and Goonie quickly became fast friends. They discussed details of their children’s development and their husbands’ careers. They shared opinions concerning art, music, social issues, and affairs of state. In later years they traveled together to such places as Venice, Florence, Rome, Paris and the South of France.

Besides delighting in each others company, the two couples often cared for each others children.

For a time during WW I while Winston served on the Western front and Jack served in the Eastern Mediterranean and later on the Western front, Clementine and her children moved in with Goonie and her three children.

During the early 1920s, with Winston’s career at a low point, the families vacationed together. This time it wasn’t as enjoyable as in the past. Churchill was not himself. Goonie realized he was depressed.

One afternoon Goonie, a talented amateur painter, told Winston that painting might lessen his depression. She was just about to paint. Why didn’t he grab a brush. She had extra canvas. She’d show him a few things, and he could be on his way.

And off he went until the very last years of his life.

Right up until Goonie’s illness and death in 1941, Winston and Clementine counted on Jack and Goonie (nicknamed “the Jagoons”) for generous love that included a quality rare at any time, and vital to a statesman: discretion.

The Jagoons never let them down. Candid when speaking to Winston and Clementine, they were expert at protecting Winston and Clementine’s private lives and unguarded comments.

In Monday’s post, I’ll conclude this series with a sketch of Jack’s later years and some thoughts on his achievements, including his contributions to Winston and Clementine’s lives.

I hope you all have a very nice weekend.

John
___________________________________________

Winston’s letter describing Jack and Goonie’s wedding can be found on pgs. 12-13 of Speaking for Themselves: The personal Letters of Winston and Clementine Churchill (Mary Soames, Editor). I relied on that work for other material in this post. I also made use of Martin Gilbert’s Churchill: A Life and Richard Hough’s Winston and Clementine: The Triumphs and Tragedies of the Churchills.

Sounds like, sounds like ...

The AP reports:

In chilling videos shown to a jury Friday, men accused of plotting to bring down jetliners over the Atlantic called for revenge for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and praised Osama bin Laden.

Six of the eight defendants videotaped messages denouncing the West for what they said was its suppression of Muslims, prosecutor Peter Wright said as he outlined his case to jurors at a London court. ...

"I say to the nonbelievers, as you bomb, you will be bombed. As you kill, you will be killed," said Umar Islam, 29, as he angrily wagged a finger at the camera, denouncing the U.S. and Britain for their role in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Palestinian territories. ...

"I say to the nonbelievers, as you bomb, you will be bombed. As you kill, you will be killed."

That sounds like who?

You don't know?

Hint: "America's chickens coming home to roost."

Ah, now you know.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Ok, but why didn't Sen. Barack Obama, a very smart man, know what his close friend and pastor said the Sunday after 9/11 or anytime thereafter until just a few weeks ago?

The NYT, CBS, NPR, the DNC, George Soros and the rest of them still haven't answered that question.

Will they tell us before November?

The entire AP story's here.

Take the N&O’s “big hockey game” quiz

Did you know I can tell some very important things about you based on how you respond to a brief post Raleigh News & Observer Senior Editor Dan Barkin’s published this morning at the N&O’s Editors’ Blog?

If you don’t believe me, just read his post and then check what I say about you.

First, Barkin’s post, "Big hockey game tonight"; then my “analysis” below the star line.

Barkin begins - - -

If you go to the Carolina Hurricanes (sic) web site, you will see a big ad for playoff tickets. Tonight's game against Washington may determine whether there will be any playoffs for the Canes. If they win tonight in regulation, they clinch their division. If they lose, they are tied with Washington with two games to go.

You will also see on the Cane's (sic) site that Ray Whitney, who has missed the last 12 games after ankle surgery, is listed as "probable" for tonight's big game in Washington.

But if you go to Luke DeCock's blog, you will see that he is a little skeptical. Here is what he wrote today:

"I'm not ready to believe that Ray Whitney is ready to go until I see it, so I'm going to assume Wade Brookbank is still in the lineup until warmups. I am, however, willing to believe that Justin Williams and Bret Hedican are OK to go."

Luke was up in Northern Virginia, at the Washington Capital's (sic) practice facility. Go to Lord Stanley's Blog to look at his updates.

Two of the NHL's biggest stars are in tonight's game, the Cane's (sic) Eric Staal and the Capital's (sic)Alex Ovechkin, the league's leading scorer.

We'll have the results and a game story at newsobserver.com later tonight.

***************************************************************

After reading Barkin’s post, did you say to yourself something like: “Gee, that sure was nice of Mr. Barkin to take time from his busy day to let us know about “the big hockey game tonight?”

If you did, you’re a faithful N&O reader.

Now, what if you said something like: “What Barkin’s doing here is advertising. He’s using tonight’s game and Ray Whitney’s playing status as a draw to get readers to Luke DeCock’s Lord Stanley’s blog which I bet is an N&O blog with lots of advertising.

Barkin hype’s tonight’s game with mentions of “two of the NHL’s biggest stars” and ties them to a not subtle “ad” for the “game story” at newsobserver.com.

Barkin’s post is a reminder that most MSM “news organizations” are really in the sales and advertising business?”

If you said something like that to yourself, you won’t be fooled much by the N&O and other such “news organizations.”

Some of you who read Barkin’s post have some memory the N&O’s ended its deliberately fraudulent Mar. 25, 2006 story it said was about the young mother’s “ordeal” involving “sexual violence” with:

Paul Haagen, chairman of Duke's Academic Council, was in a faculty meeting about the incident.

"There was a sense of, 'This is sad, and it's terrible,' " Haagen said. "Beyond that, people don't know what's going on."

Haagen, a law professor who specializes in sports law, said studies show that violence against women is more prevalent among male athletes than among male students in general -- and higher still among such "helmet sports" as football, hockey and lacrosse.

"These are sports of violence," he said. "This is clearly a concern."

You folks who remembered the end of that N&O story will be the hardest of all to fool.

Raleigh N&O Arrogance (Post 4)

Readers Note: This is the fourth of a five-post series providing examples of the Raleigh News & Observer’s arrogance during its Duke lacrosse coverage. The examples also reveal some of the disingenuousness that was an essential and pervasive part of the N&O’s grossly biased, racially inflammatory and often false Duke Hoax reporting during Spring 2006 and thereafter.

John
_________________________________

This past Sunday Raleigh News & Observer publisher Orage Quarles III told readers:

We have a mission to advance our tradition of excellent public-service journalism and serve our community.

When I read that I thought of an email I sent Quarles some weeks ago (see post here) and his response.

Here's part of the email. I resume commenting below the star line.

Dear Mr. Quarles:

I’m an N&O subscriber and blog as John in Carolina.

For many months I’ve been posting concerning claims by Ruth Sheehan that then DA Mike Nifong was an anonymous source for her March 27, 2006 column “Team’s silence is sickening.” For example, in Nifong an N&O anonymous source (Post 1) 7/29/07 and Nifong an N&O anonymous source (Post 2) 8/1/08. ...

No reporter or editor would speak about the matter until recently when, in response to the email in this post - What's really hurting the N&O , Ted Vaden he sent me the email you’ll find in this post: N&O editor's response re: Nifong an anonymous source.

You'll see Vaden’s email avoided my questions and contains statements which are prima facie false.

On Feb. 6 I sent Vaden another email and a link to this post: Is the N&O public editor's job about the truth?

I once again laid out all the material relating to the N&O’s use of Nifong as an anonymous source and asked again the questions I’ve been asking for many months.

I ended my email, which I also posted for JinC readers, with this:

Given all of the foregoing, Editor Vaden, it's difficult to see how a reasonably responsible public editor would claim Sheehan is saying anything other than Nifong was an anonymous source for her March 27 column; or that she is saying anything other than Nifong's source information was passed to her by journalist(s) she reached by phone at the N&O.

I hope you will now give me and all other N&O readers full and frank answers to the questions I've been asking about the N&O's use of Nifong as an anonymous source in March 2006.

Isn't that the kind of service a public editor is supposed to provide readers?

If you can't provide that service, please direct me to someone at the N&O or the McClatchy Company who can?

I'll publish your response in full at my blog.

Thank you for your attention to this document.

Sincerely,

John in Carolina

I’ve not heard anything back from Vaden.

I ask that you review the documentation and questions in my post and then direct me to the person at the N&O or in the McClatchy Company who can provide full and frank answers to what Ruth Sheehan has said and the questions I’ve asked. ...

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

I’ll publish your response in full at my blog.

Sincerely,

John in Carolina
*****************************************************************

Now, folks, what sort of response to that email should a reader expect from an MSM newspaper publisher who tells them:

We have a mission to advance our tradition of excellent public-service journalism and serve our community?

Here in full is Quarles' response:

Dear John in Carolina.

We do not provide anonymous source information.

Sincerely,

Orage Quarles III

Given the matters I raised, including false statements his public editor made to a reader, and the documentation I provided him, I was hoping for something more from Quarles.

His response is arrogant and disingenuous.

It's an example of both the contempt many MSM news executives and journalists have for readers and of their willingness to overlook the actions of those within their ranks who knowingly mislead readers.

Is it any wonder the public holds journalists in such low esteem?