N&O announces staff cuts, other changes

Excerpts from a story just posted at newsobserver.com followed by my comments below the star line.

Newsobserver.com begins - - -

The News & Observer Publishing Co. this afternoon announced it is cutting jobs, cutting pay and requiring unpaid furloughs for its staff as it contends with steep declines in advertising revenue.

The newspaper company, which also owns community publications such as The Cary News and The Herald in Smithfield, will eliminate 78 positions, or 11 percent of its work force. The equivalent of about 27 full-time positions in The N&O newsroom are included.

The N&O will require remaining workers to take a week off without pay between May 1 and Oct. 31.

And it will cut salaries from 2.5 percent for lower-paid employees to 10 percent for the higher paid. Those making less than $25,000 a year won't see a pay cut.

"We are making our way through difficult times by making difficult decisions," N&O Publisher Orage Quarles III wrote in a memo to employees. "It is never easy to say goodbye to so many of our friends and colleagues, but we must make these additional cuts to sustain our company and adjust to new competitive and economic realities."

The cuts were expected and have been telegraphed for weeks after The N&O's parent, The McClatchy Co. of Sacramento, Calif., said it had to pare its business. The newspaper chain is wrestling with a severe drop in revenue as it tries to pay down debt. …

Quarles said The N&O will increase its cooperation with Charlotte to increase efficiencies and will speed the transition to a narrower newspaper, which will save on production costs.

The entire story’s here.

***************************************
My Comments:

Just minutes ago I couldn’t find the text of Publisher Quarles statement at newsobserver.com but McClatchy Watch has a copy posted here.

McClatchy Watch has also posted "Anger in Raleigh," detailing what are predictable and understandable reactions by at least some N&O staffers.

As I’ve said many times before when commenting on staff cuts at the N&O, I’m sorry for the honest, able people there who are losing their jobs, have already lost their jobs or may do so in the future.

They are certainly victims of technological forces impacting all newspapers.

They're also victims of McClatchy’s preening, self-indulgent and extraordinarily unwise leadership in recent years and of those at the N&O who’ve frequently infused the paper with their ideological beliefs at the expense of fair and accurate journalism.

Looking to the future, the story’s closing graf:

Quarles said The N&O will increase its cooperation with Charlotte to increase efficiencies and will speed the transition to a narrower newspaper, which will save on production costs.

will set many journalists to speculating whether rumors the N&O and CO will meld into one paper with separate Triangle and Charlotte “local” sections are true.

I've no “inside word” but I can understand why the rumors are going around.

As a practical matter, there’s already been a great deal of melding of the two papers.

And people who know the newspaper business tell me there could be considerable costs saved by melding the two.

There’s my first take on today’s announcements.

What do you say?

What Moderate Taliban?

Dated Mar. 13 at Larry Derfner’s U.S. News & World Report’s Mideast Watch blog there’s a post I’m sharing in full with a few comments after it.

Post Title - - - "Arab liberals warn about Obama's opening to militant Islam"

Text - - -

At the same time that liberal Arabs oppose America's pro-Israel tilt, they are worried about the Obama administration's intention to engage diplomatically with radical Islamic forces such as Iran and the Taliban.

Commentator Elias Harfoush writes in Lebanon's Dar al-Hayat of what he says is a harsh lesson learned recently in Pakistan of what comes from dealing with the Taliban:

There is no more obvious proof of the failure of any attempt to lure moderates from Taliban to a political settlement than what the Zardari government in Pakistan did recently.

The Pakistani regime released the hands of the Pakistani branch of Taliban, as it believed that they can be dealt with, in an attempt to regain control of the Swat province.

But what was the result? More murders and torture of those opposed to the movement and more suffering for the people who returned after the truce on the assumptions that stability was restored. More decapitated bodies of singers and artists and people whom the Taliban accuse of doing "indecent" activities, more attacks on female school teachers, including throwing acid at their faces on their way to work or threatening them with murder if they persist in their professions.

As a result, many schools had to close down, while the whole Pakistani province relived the worst days of Taliban rule in Afghanistan before September 11 and the American invasion.

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

My Comments:

Some people joined the Nazi party for reasons of expediency.

I suppose we could call them “moderate” Nazis.

But as I understand it, Taliban are “true believers” in their medieval and fully evil fanaticism who torture and kill singers, dancers, gays, Christians, independent women and any they suspect of being only “moderate” Taliban.

If that’s true, as I believe it is, there are no “moderate” Taliban.

And what happened in Swat was predictable.

JinC “Reaches Out” To Sacbee Editor Melanie Sill

Long-time JinC Regulars will recall Melanie Sill was executive editor of McClatchy’s liberal/leftist Raleigh N&O before moving in October 2007 to the same position at what was then McClatchy’s flagship paper, the Sacramento Bee.

Sacbee’s now hemorrhaging readers and revenue; and laying off employees.

In her column today - - A tough week leads readers to respond - - Sill’s forced to acknowledge Sacbee’s in trouble.

But then she spins “the outpouring of reader support” line many editors are now using to fog over the depth and extent of their problems and to suggest to readers they should join “the outpouring.”

Here’s some of what Sill said, followed by a comment I’ve just left on her column thread.

According to Sill - - -

... As readers have absorbed what's happening to newspapers, many have responded by calling or e-mailing with suggestions for how The Bee could weather the bad times.

A few said they'd pay considerably more than our current subscription rates.

Bill Timmons, who retired from the California State Railroad Museum and lives in south Sacramento, phoned to suggest we set up a way for subscribers to pay extra for Bee journalism until the recession eases.

Other readers have said they prefer our Web site to the print paper but want to help fund our reporting.

That's easy to do: Take the electronic subscription at $1 a week. You will get access to our e-edition, which is a searchable, indexed version of the print edition; go to www.sacbee.com/e-edition. Print subscribers get the e-edition free; call (916) 650-2847 for help.

I've seen more innovation in journalism thinking and practices in the past year – some in old media, some in new media and some from nonprofits and think tanks – than in my 30-year career before that. …

Sill’s entire column’s here.

Now my comment which, while not part of “the outpouring,” “reaches out” to Sill with some advice.

Dear Melanie,

You say a reader renewed her subscription because: "The Sacramento Bee may not be exactly the paper I want it to be, but it is the paper in our community, and we should support it."

Using the same logic: "Pravda many not be exactly the paper I want it to be, but it is the paper in our community, and we should support it."

You need to come up with something better.

Try this: "Sacbee's liberal/leftist tilt may not be exactly what you want in a newspaper, but it's what we know is best for you, so you should support us."

John in Carolina

Dems Waters’ & Frank’ Corruption & Contempt For The Public

According to the AP - - -

Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., is defended (sic) her role assisting minority-owned banks in the midst of the nation's financial meltdown and dismissed suggestions that she used her influence last year to steer government aid to a bank with ties to her husband.

"I had no influence on what Bush administration officials in the Treasury Department or other departments did," Waters said in a statement Friday.

"I maintain that my advocacy on behalf of ... minority and community banks is appropriate," she said. …

Appropriate? You wouldn’t think that if you read this WSJ investigative story which concluded - - -

… In January, Ms. Waters acknowledged she made a call to the Treasury on OneUnited's behalf. [Her 2008 disclosure forms revealed her husband at the time owned OneUnited shares worth between $250,000 and $500,000. He failed to return call seeking to learn whether he still holds shares in the bank.]

The bank's capital, which was heavily invested in shares of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, was all but wiped out with the federal takeover of the two mortgage giants, and the bank was seeking help from regulators.

OneUnited eventually secured bailout funds under the government's $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, which was set up later that month.

In a brief interview in January, Ms. Waters said she was unaware the bank received $12 million of TARP money, which arrived in December. OneUnited was "just a small" bank, she said.

A provision designed to aid OneUnited was written into the federal bailout legislation by Mr. Frank, who is chairman of the financial-services panel. Mr. Frank has said he inserted the provision to help the only African-American owned bank in his home state.

He said in an interview that Ms. Waters's interest "had zero impact on the outcome because I would have done it anyway."

In October, regulators demanded that OneUnited raise fresh capital and name an independent board.

The bank was ordered to stop paying for a Porsche used by one of its executives and its chairman's $6.4 million beachfront home in Pacific Palisades, Calif., a luxury enclave between Malibu and Santa Monica.

The AP’s story, which as posted at HuffPo reads like it came straight from Water’s press office, is here. The detailed WSJ story which cites numerous sources is here.

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

My Comments:

Neither Rep. Waters nor her husband will tell us of his recent and current financial interests, if any, in OneUnited.

Waters infers people asking questions are motivated by race.

And just a few months after OneUnited is ordered to "stop paying for a Porsche used by one of its executives and its chairman's $6.4 million beachfront home in Pacific Palisades, Calif” Rep. Frank makes sure $12 million in taxpayer money goes to OneUnited.

Folks, the OneUnited story isn’t about race. It’s about political corruption.

Hat tip: BN.

Mar. 14, 2006: McClatchy's Pruitt On "Credibility"

On March 14, 2006, the same day Crystal Mangum made self-contradicting and transparently false charges of gang rape and other felonies that 10 days later would become headline news, the Raleigh News & Observer published an op-ed by Gary Pruitt, CEO of it’s parent McClatchy News Company.

Although its stock price had in the past few years fallen more than 33% in a rising market and during growing economy; and despite warnings by many that McClatchy was taking on debt that could break the company, Pruitt was upbeat.

Newspapers had a great future, he said, because they told readers the truth. That gave them “credibility” and enabled citizens to gather in a “shared middle” where they could “basically agree about the facts and issues.”

Their “credibility” gave newspapers a place at the “center of democracy” despite what their critics might say.

Here’s some of what Pruitt said in that March 14 op-ed about his company’s recent purchase of the Knight-Ridder newspaper chain and the future of newspapers.

I follow with comments below the star line.

Pruitt told N&O readers - - -

… People in the newspaper industry have got a lot riding on this -- our jobs and reputations, for starters; but the stakes for society are far higher.

Self-government depends on continuous civic conversation, which in turn depends on people having a common vocabulary. Without a shared sense of what the problems are, there's little hope of finding solutions.

That shared middle -- a place where people basically agree about the facts and the issues, even if they differ over what to do about them -- is where we believe our responsibilities as newspaper owners lie.

And it is under assault by spinmeisters, partisans and ideologues. They all have their place in a democracy -- but it is not in the center. Our place is. …

Pruitt’s entire op-ed’s here.

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

My Comments:

Just 10 days after it published Pruitt’s op-ed, the N&O “broke” what became known for months as “the Duke lacrosse case.” The N&O’s story seven times referred to the then anonymous Mangum as the “victim” or with the possessive “victim’s,” never once using the traditional qualifier “alleged” to remind readers the accuser’s extraordinarily serious charges were just that: charges.

The N&O has so far refused to explain why its reporters and editors decided to call Mangum “the victim” knowing that they were thereby immediately casting the Duke lacrosse players as her victimizes.

The next day, March 25, the N&O ran a five-column, above the fold, page one headline telling readers about a woman’s “ordeal” which ended “finally” in “sexual violence.”

Only the N&O didn’t put qualifying quotation marks around “ordeal,” “finally” and “sexual violence.”

The N&O led readers to believe there was no doubt about what it was reporting.

In case any readers did doubt, a short way into the story the N&O said it had granted “the young mother” anonymity for an interview because its policy was to do that for “victims of sex crimes.”

There was much more in that “sexual violence” story that the N&O knew was false.

There was also much more the N&O knew that was exculpatory for the players but which it withheld from the story and didn’t publish for another 13 months; and then only after the NC attorney general had declared innocent the three young man indicted in the frame-up attempt.

I’ve posted on some of that before and will be posting again on it as we move through the 3-year anniversary of what was a transparent hoax followed by a frame-up attempt and its ongoing cover-up.

For now, I’ll just close with this:

Since March 14, 2006 many factors have interacted to influence the price of McClatchy’s stock.

I don’t know how much, if any, weight you’d give the credibility of the N&O and the other McClatchy papers as a factor influencing McClatchy’s stock price.

There are those, including journalists, who maintain credibility isn’t much of a factor influencing news organizations' stock prices.

In fact, thinking back over McClatchy and N&O reports of the company’s financial situation, I can’t recall a single instance when loss of credibility among readers and advertisers was cited as a factor influencing the calamitous plunge in McClatchy’s corporate fortunes and share price.

Be that as it may, on March 13, 2006 when the N&O put Pruitt’s op-ed “to bed” for delivery the next day, McClatchy’s share price stood at $52.99.

Yesterday, March 13, 2009 its stock price closed at .52 cents a share.

Make of that what you will.

Why Did Obama Go With Freeman?

When Charles Freeman’s statement announcing he’d no longer accept President Obama's appointment to serve as National Intelligence Council chair was posted at The Cable blog, a friend said: “Read it. America dodged a bullet on this one. The guy would’ve been worse than a disaster.”

Two days later the Washington Post had a similar reaction. It’s March 12 editorial called Freeman’s statement a “screed:"

in which he described himself as the victim of a shadowy and sinister "Lobby" whose "tactics plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency" and which is "intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government."

Yes, Mr. Freeman was referring to Americans who support Israel -- and his statement was a grotesque libel. …

He describes "an inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for U.S. policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics."

That will certainly be news to Israel's "ruling faction," which in the past few years alone has seen the U.S. government promote a Palestinian election that it opposed; refuse it weapons it might have used for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities; and adopt a policy of direct negotiations with a regime that denies the Holocaust and that promises to wipe Israel off the map.

Two Israeli governments have been forced from office since the early 1990s after open clashes with Washington over matters such as settlement construction in the occupied territories.

What's striking about the charges by Mr. Freeman and like-minded conspiracy theorists is their blatant disregard for such established facts.

Just think, folks. The National Intelligence Council is charged with taking the findings and questions of our various and often feuding intelligence gathering organizations and assembling them into combined intelligence papers for the President's use. And until a few days ago, Freeman was the man Obama wanted to chair the council.

That’s telling and very, very scary.

Freeman has shamelessly “blamed the Jews” for the opposition to his nomination. That may be because he really believes the paranoid conspiracy theories he now shills.

But it also surely has something to do with his wish to draw attention from other matters such as the ones GOP Rep. Frank Wolf spotlights in yesterday's WaPo:

...After Freeman abruptly withdrew from consideration Tuesday evening, he and some in the media pointed to the so-called Israel lobby to explain the congressional uproar over his appointment. Freeman's charges of an elaborate conspiracy to derail his nomination are disingenuous.

The "Israel lobby" never contacted me. For me, the warning flags about Charles Freeman went up when I learned of his questionable associations and inflammatory statements about China and Tibet

For almost four years, Freeman served on the advisory board of the China National Offshore Oil Corp. (CNOOC), receiving $10,000 a year for his service. The communist government of China, along with other state-owned companies, are majority stakeholders in CNOOC. Yet Freeman claims that he never received money from a foreign government. The connection may not be direct, but it is certainly there.

The same can be said of the paycheck he received from the Middle East Policy Council, which received ample funding from the kingdom of Saudi Arabia -- whose regime is responsible for funding madrassas around the globe that have given rise to Islamic fundamentalists such as Mohammad Omar, leader of the Taliban.

CNOOC's investment in Sudan's oil sector is part of the lifeline that has sustained the regime of President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, who was indicted by the International Criminal Court this month on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. …

Freeman remains in full-throated, self-rightous, paranoid cry as you'll see if you read his interview yesterday with The Nation's Robert Dreyfuss.

My friend was right. America dodged a bullet.

The Churchill Series - Mar. 13, 2009

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

The Conservatives swept the 1924 General Election. Shortly thereafter Churchill was invited to meet with Stanley Baldwin, who would serve as Prime Minister in the new government.

The invitation surprised Churchill who knew it could only mean Baldwin was planning to offer him a post in the new government. Since he had only recently been a member of the Liberal Party, had run in the election as an independent candidate (although with tacit Conservative support), and had not even yet rejoined the Conservative Party, Churchill thought whatever post he’d be offered would be a minor one.

Many of Churchill’s friends urged him to accept whatever post he was offered, however minor it might be. They reasoned it could only help revive his political career, then at a low point.

When they met, Baldwin asked Churchill if he’d be willing to serve as Chancellor of the Exchequer, then as now the second most important Cabinet post.

Churchill later recorded he told Baldwin:

This fulfills my ambition. I still have my father’s robe as Chancellor. I shall be proud to serve you in this splendid Office.

But Churchill added that he only spoke that way because it was “a formal and important conversation.” What he'd really wanted to say was:

Will a bloody duck swim?

Among the many congratulatory letters Churchill received was one from George Lambert, a former Liberal Party chairman who'd served with Churchill in the Admiralty from 1911 to 1915:

Winston dear boy, I have got a fair instinct for politics. I think I shall live to see you as Prime Minister.

Lambert, who entered Parliament in 1891, lived to see his prediction fulfilled.

In July 1940, two months after Churchill assumed the premiership, Lambert called his leadership “incomparably the most brilliant that I can remember, save perhaps that of Mr. Gladstone."
_________________________________
All material for this post can be found on pages 464-65 in Martin Gilbert’s Churchill: A Life, except Lambert’s July, 1940 assessment which can be found on page 696 in Gilbert’s Finest Hour: 1939-1941.

Obama’s “Limbaugh Strategy” Is Failing

Remember “Hope and Change?"

Remember the candidate our liberal/leftist MSM said would be a new kind of “post-partisan President?”

So we elected President Barack Obama.

Now how are things working out in the new, “post-partisan” Obama world?

Here's RCP's Tom Bevan - - -

Last week Jon Martin of Politico reported that Democrats had launched a concerted effort to paint Rush Limbaugh as the face and leader of the Republican Party.

The plan, originally hatched by former Clinton operatives James Carville and Paul Begala, quickly expanded to include current White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and was "explicitly authorized" by Senior Advisor to the President David Axelrod, according to a report in Monday's New York Times.

Mr. Carville praised the Democrats' "Limbaugh strategy" as "great for us, great for him, great for the press," adding, "The only people he's not good for are the actual Republicans in Congress." (BTW – - James Carville and the rest of Team Obama would want me to say they put the country’s welfare ahead of the Democratic Party’s welfare. Yes, really. - - JinC)

So far, the only thing we know for certain is that the strategy has indeed been great for El Rushbo.

On Wednesday's program, Mr. Limbaugh announced that revenue for his nationally syndicated radio program in the first quarter of this year was up 13.5% versus the same time period a year ago. That's no small accomplishment given the current state of the economy. . . .

"Over the years," Mr. Limbaugh declared, "every effort to divide me from you, my audience, has only strengthened the bond."

For their part, Democrats feel the strategy is paying dividends as well.

Mr. Carville's polling firm, Democracy Corps, released a new survey this week suggesting Mr. Limbaugh is exceedingly unpopular among all but the most conservative voters and that his image "weighs down heavily on an already weakened Republican Party." …

I would not hold my breath waiting for that to happen. Congressional Republicans are betting that by the time voters go to the polls next November, they'll be more concerned with what President Obama and the Democrats have done (or failed to do) than with what Rush Limbaugh has done or said. …

Tom Bevan’s entire column’s here.

More Questions About Angelo’s Sweetheart Dealer Dodd

David Patten at Newsmax begins - - -

Already under investigation for suspiciously favorable [sweetheart] mortgage terms received from Countrywide Financial [when Angelo Mozilo ran it for himself and “friends” while sticking taxpayers with Countrywide’s debt], Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd is also being called to task for a series of real estate deals and disclosures related to a cottage he owns on Galway Bay, Ireland.

Mr. Dodd is busy these days blaming everyone else for the real-estate bubble and financial meltdown, a Wall Street Journal editorial declared Thursday.

But he owes constituents and the Senate an honest accounting of his Galway property over the past 15 years.

Christopher Healy, chairman of the Connecticut GOP, told the Hartford Courant on Tuesday: There’s a body of activity here that raises questions about Dodd that so far he hasn’t really given reasonable answers to.

One reason the cottage is drawing attention: The man who witnessed the transfer of the property, Edward R. Downe Jr., was convicted of insider trading in 1993.

Downe pleaded guilty to securities fraud and insider trading, and agreed to a $11 million SEC civil settlement.

The Dodd-Downe relationship dates back at least to 1986, when they purchased a Washington [condo] together for $159,800. The Courant reports Dodd later bought out Downe’s share, and in 1999 sold the condominium for $310,000.

On former President Bill Clinton’s final day in office he issued, at Dodd’s request, a last-minute pardon of Downe’s felony convictions -- without going through the normal Justice Department vetting process.

None of which stopped Dodd from teaming up with Downe’s business partner, Missouri businessman William Kessinger, to purchase the Irish cottage.

According to Hartford Courant columnist Kevin Rennie, the saga of Dodd’s mysterious Irish land dealings date back to 1994.

Patten’s column continues here.

As for Dodd’s scandals, is there no end to them?

Hat tip: Instapundit

Obama's Poll Numbers Fall

Doug Schoen, who once polled for former President Bill Clinton, and Scott Rasmussen of the independent Rasmussen Reports are two of the fairest and most reliable pollsters working the “political fields.”

Today they team at WSJ to produce an op-ed that’s really a very informed report in which they say (excerpts):

It is simply wrong for commentators to continue to focus on President Barack Obama's high levels of popularity, and to conclude that these are indicative of high levels of public confidence in the work of his administration.

Indeed, a detailed look at recent survey data shows that the opposite is most likely true.

The American people are coming to express increasingly significant doubts about his initiatives, and most likely support a different agenda and different policies from those that the Obama administration has advanced.

Polling data show that Mr. Obama's approval rating is dropping and is below where George W. Bush was in an analogous period in 2001. (We haven’t heard that from MSM, have we? - - JinC)

Rasmussen Reports data shows that Mr. Obama's net presidential approval rating -- which is calculated by subtracting the number who strongly disapprove from the number who strongly approve -- is just six, his lowest rating to date.

Overall, Rasmussen Reports shows a 56%-43% approval, with a third strongly disapproving of the president's performance.

This is a substantial degree of polarization so early in the administration. Mr. Obama has lost virtually all of his Republican support and a good part of his Independent support, and the trend is decidedly negative. …

Schoen and Rasmussen provide a great deal more polling information from a variety of sources and discuss a broad range of public issues and preferences before they close with - - -

Despite the economic stimulus that Congress just passed and the budget and financial and mortgage bailouts that Congress is now debating, just 19% of voters believe that Congress has passed any significant legislation to improve their lives.

While Congress's approval has increased, it still stands at only 18%.

Over two-thirds of voters believe members of Congress are more interested in helping their own careers than in helping the American people.

When it comes to the nation's economic issues, two-thirds of voters have more confidence in their own judgment than they do in the average member of Congress. (I’ll bet most of those saying they have more confidence in Congress are liberals who vote for people like Sens. Reid, Durbin and Dodd and Reps. Frank, Rangel and Waters; and, of course, Speaker Pelosi.)

Finally, what probably accounts for a good measure of the confidence and support the Obama administration has enjoyed is the fact that they are not Republicans.

Virtually all Americans, more than eight in 10, blame Republicans for the current economic woes, and the only two leaders with lower approval ratings than Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are Republican leaders Mitch McConnell and John Boehner.

All of this is not just a subject for pollsters and analysts to debate. It shows fundamentally that public confidence in government remains low and is slipping.

We face the possibility of substantial gridlock along with an absolute absence of public confidence that could come to mirror the lack of confidence in the American economy that the Dow and the S&P are currently showing.

Schoen and Rasmussen’s entire report/commentary’s here.

I hope you all give it a look.

The Churchill Series - Mar. 12, 2009

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

On October 12, 1941, Elizabeth Layton, one of Churchill's secretaries, wrote her parents. Excerpts from her letter:

Presently, after having dictated something he found I'd put "Somehow I think it right (which was what I thought he'd said). So, fairly patient, he said "no, no, I said now the time is right" (with accents like that).

So I did it again. Gave it back. There was a roar of rage. "God's teeth, girl, can’t you even do it right the second time. I said ripe, ripe, ripe - P P P."

I should, perhaps, have realized, but he hadn't mentioned that "right" was wrong. However, he forgave me and was very amiable for the rest of the day.

Churchill biographer Martin Gilbert says:

All those who worked for Churchill at closest quarters saw his sternest moods, born of fearsome problems. They also saw the character that lay beneath those moods. "I can't help feeling rather fond of him," Elizabeth Layton wrote, "he is a loveable person, in spite of his impatience."

_____________________________________________
Martin Gilbert, Finest Hour: 1939 - 1941. (pgs. 1214-1215)

Liberals Count On Obama Lying To Them

Here’s some of what Karl Rove says in today’s WSJ - -

…[President] Obama's fiscal house is built on gimmicks. For example, it assumes the cost of the surge in Iraq will extend for a decade.

This brazenly dishonest trick was done to create phony savings down the line.

Mr. Obama's budget downplays some programs' true cost. For example, his vaunted new college access program is funded for five years and then disappears (on paper); the children's health insurance program drops (on paper) from $12.4 billion in 2013 to $700 million the next year.

Neither will happen; the costs of both will be much higher and so will the deficits.

Mr. Obama's budget also assumes the economy declines 41% less this year and grows 52% more next year and 38% more the year after than is estimated by the Blue Chip consensus (a collection of estimates by leading economists traditionally used by federal budget crunchers).

If Mr. Obama used the consensus forecasts for growth rather than his own rosy scenarios, his budget would be $758 billion more in the red over the next five years.

Then there's discretionary domestic spending, which grows over the next two years by $238 billion, the fastest increase ever recorded.

Mr. Obama pledges it will then be cut in real terms for the next nine years. That's simply not credible.

Then there's his omnibus spending bill to fund the government for the next six months, laden with 8,500 earmarks and tens of billions in additional spending above the current budget. What happened to pledges for earmark reform and making "meaningful cuts?"

In the face of our enormous economic challenges, top White House aides decided to pee on Mr. Limbaugh's leg. This is a political luxury the country cannot afford, and which Mr. Obama would be wise to forbid.

Or did he not mean it when he ran promising to "turn the page" on the "old" politics?

Rove’s entire column’s here..
_____________________________________

My Comments:

Rove’s right. President Obama’s budget projections are not credible.

Obama’s liberal supporters are counting on the fact that he’s lying to us.

Liberals would be hysterical if they really thought the “college access program” funding will disappear in five years while “the children's health insurance program drops in actual spending cost from $12.4 billion in 2013 to $700 million the next year.

N&O's “Lipstick” On Obama’s Earmarks Signing

McClatchy’s liberal/leftist Raleigh News & Observer went heavy on the “lipstick” when reporting President Obama’s signing of the latest pork-laden deficit spending bill passed by the Dem-controlled Congress.

Headline: Obama: No earmarks, after this

Subhead: He says the spending bill, which includes thousands of them, is too important to wait.

“Too important to wait?” Yes, isn’t everything the Obama administration wants to d “too important to wait.”

The headlines are so Obama-supportive they parrot precisly what Team Obama said to justify his breaking a promise he’d made many times.

The story by McClatchy reporters Steven Thomma and David Lightman begins - - -
As a candidate, Barack Obama once said that a president has to be able to do more than one thing at a time. Wednesday he proved it, though not in the way he had in mind.

He criticized pork-barrel spending in the form of "earmarks," urging changes in the way that Congress adopts the spending proposals. Then he signed a spending bill that contains nearly 9,000 of them, some that members of his own staff shoved in last year when they were still members of Congress.

"Let there be no doubt, this piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business, and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability," Obama said.

He said, however, that it was crucial for him to sign the $410 billion bill as soon as it arrived at the White House from Congress because it's needed to finance much of the government for the rest of this fiscal year. It was largely written last year but was held back while Republican George W. Bush was president because he opposed it.

The rest of the story’s here.

A few things worth noting:

The story doesn’t mention that earmarks Obama as Senator had put in the bill were stripped out so as not to embarrass him.

The story devoted only one paragraph near the end to criticism of the bill by a taxpayer advocate group.

The story included only one paragraph in which only one Republican is quoted criticizing the bill.

The story doesn’t mention until the last paragraph that one of the principal earmark "porkers" who stuffed his into the bill last year when it was being put together was then Senator Joe Biden.

At the Anything for Obama N&O it’s “Hope and Change” and heavy on the "lipstick."

WaPo:“The Real Question” About Obama’s Top Intel Pick

The lead editorial in today’s Washington Post begins - - -

Former ambassador Charles W. Freeman Jr. looked like a poor choice to chair the Obama administration's National Intelligence Council.

A former envoy to Saudi Arabia and China, he suffered from an extreme case of clientitis on both accounts. In addition to chiding Beijing for not crushing the Tiananmen Square democracy protests sooner and offering sycophantic paeans to Saudi King "Abdullah the Great," Mr. Freeman headed a Saudi-funded Middle East advocacy group in Washington and served on the advisory board of a state-owned Chinese oil company.

It was only reasonable to ask -- as numerous members of Congress had begun to do -- whether such an actor was the right person to oversee the preparation of National Intelligence Estimates.

It wasn't until Mr. Freeman withdrew from consideration for the job, however, that it became clear just how bad a selection Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair had made.

Mr. Freeman issued a two-page screed on Tuesday in which he described himself as the victim of a shadowy and sinister "Lobby" whose "tactics plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency" and which is "intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government."

Yes, Mr. Freeman was referring to Americans who support Israel -- and his statement was a grotesque libel. …

He describes "an inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for U.S. policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics."

That will certainly be news to Israel's "ruling faction," which in the past few years alone has seen the U.S. government promote a Palestinian election that it opposed; refuse it weapons it might have used for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities; and adopt a policy of direct negotiations with a regime that denies the Holocaust and that promises to wipe Israel off the map.

Two Israeli governments have been forced from office since the early 1990s after open clashes with Washington over matters such as settlement construction in the occupied territories.

What's striking about the charges by Mr. Freeman and like-minded conspiracy theorists is their blatant disregard for such established facts. Mr. Freeman darkly claims that "it is not permitted for anyone in the United States" to describe Israel's nefarious influence.

But several of his allies have made themselves famous (and advanced their careers) by making such charges -- and no doubt Mr. Freeman himself will now win plenty of admiring attention.

Crackpot tirades such as his have always had an eager audience here and around the world.

The real question is why an administration that says it aims to depoliticize U.S. intelligence estimates would have chosen such a man to oversee them.

WaPo’s entire editorial’s here.

________________________________________________
My comments:

It’s an outstanding editorial.

As for “the real question” of why Freeman was nominated, the answer’s obvious: President Obama and most of those in his administration who control intelligence gathering and formulating wanted Freeman in the vital National Intelligence Council chair.

Freeman’s their kind of guy. They could count on him to work to produce the sort of national intelligence estimate reports Obama and his “reset” crowd want.

Reports they can use to justify “playing nice” with Iran, Hamas and “the Muslim world” while stiffing the Israelis, the Poles, the Czechs, the Brits, the Aussies, and other US allies.

I feel sure at least most of the WaPo editorial board know that but – reasonably enough – think it may be too soon to come right out and say it.

But their editorial today left no doubt how dangerously unfit for the job they know Freeman was.

And yet Obama picked him.

Who’ll sleep easy tonight?

Paragon RAF WW II cup & saucer

Many of you may be saying, “Now that’s an odd title for a JinC post.”

Yes, it is. Here’s the explanation:

A JinC Regular sent the following email(excerpted)- - -

I have acquired a collectible teacup and saucer that is part of the "Patriotic Series produced during the War of Britain" by Paragon in London. It is in mint condition with no chips, scratches, or other damage.

The full series honors every one of the British Commonwealth nations who sent pilots and aircraft to defend England from the Luftwaffe. My set honors the Royal Canadian Air Force and has the old Canadian blue flag with the Union Jack in the corner.

Since the inscription uses the term "War of Britain" rather than "Battle of Britain" I believe this series was produced very early in the war.

I've tried to find an appraiser, but so far have been unsuccessful. I thought perhaps you might have a suggestion. ...

______________________________________

Folks, the post title is meant to draw comments and help from those who know about Paragon items.

It’s a use of open sourcing on the Net. Let’s see what happens.

In the meantime - - -

There is The Paragon International Collectors’ Club which says: “ Members of the Club will try and help but please remember that the worth is in the eye and pocket of the collector, so valuations are not usually given!”

RAF Museums in London (on its outskirt & quite a journey from Central London) and Cosford offer research help from their own archives or by referring a questioner on to others.

Finally at 11 AM ET today at e-Bay I found for sale (photos accompany) - - -

A very interesting Cup & Saucer Set from World War II. Made in England by "Paragon by Appointment to H.M.The Queen & H.M. Queen Mary. Produced during the War of Britain". The inscription on the Saucer says "Never Was So Much Owed By So Many To So Few".

The clear picture inside the Cup shows a Spitfire Airplane of the R.A.F. The condition of both pieces is excellent with no chips, cracks, crazing scratches, stains, or loss of gold rim trim. A truly beautiful and rare collectible. Free shipping in the U.S.

The Churchill Series - Mar. 11, 2009

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

Sunday, September 6, 1941

The Prime Minister journeys to Buckinghamshire where he enters a gated and heavily guarded area in the center of which sits a Victorian mansion surrounded by many smaller, recently constructed buildings.

Before the war the mansion and grounds were known as Bletchley Park; now the government owns them and the place is called Station X.

It holds secrets. Even John Martin, one of Churchill's principal aides who accompanies him that day, doesn't know it's here at Station X that a most unusual group which includes mathematicians, champion chess players, crossword specialists, linguists fluent in languages ancient and modern, debutantes, and even an actress has broken German codes.

Its success enables Churchill and a select few to read in almost real time many of the enemy's communications. Years after the war the world will learn about Station X, the heart of the Enigma Project.

As Churchill tours Station X he meets many people we'd call "unusual.” Some stare silently as he approaches and introduces himself. They're mentally calculating extraordinarily complex math problems and can't allow an interruption. Another was once so engrossed in explaining something to a colleague that he reached without looking for tobacco to fill his pipe and instead packed it with some of his lunch: tuna salad.

Some ways through the tour, Churchill turns and says to the officer who'd recruited most of the staff: "I know I told you to leave no stone unturned to get staff, but I didn't expect you to take me literally."

Later in the day Churchill addresses the staff and expresses his profound appreciation for their work.

He's very sincere in that. As the principal consumer of their intelligence, Churchill knows better than anyone the enormously important contribution the codebreakers are making to the war America will enter three months and one day following his visit to Station X.
___________________________________________________
Michael Smith's Station X: Decoding Nazi Secrets (pgs. 106-107) contains all of the material found in this post except that concerning John Martin. That reference is found in Martin Gilbert, Finest Hour: 1939-1941. (pg. 1189)

Top Obama Intel Pick Withdraws; Blames Jews

The NYT Co. owned and oh so Obama-friendly International Herald Tribune reports:

Charles Freeman Jr., President Barack Obama's choice for a major intelligence post, has withdrawn his name and blamed pro-Israel lobbying groups for his decision, saying they had distorted his record and campaigned against him.

Freeman had come under sharp criticism for his past statements about Israel as well as his association with the Saudi and Chinese governments.

Freeman's withdrawal Tuesday from consideration as chairman of the National Intelligence Council came just hours after Dennis Blair, director of national intelligence, vigorously defended him and said his comments had been taken out of context.

In a message to colleagues and friends, first posted Tuesday evening on Foreign Policy magazine's Web site, Freeman blamed pro-Israel groups for the controversy, saying the "tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth."

Joshua Block, a spokesman for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a lobbying group, said Tuesday that his organization had not taken a formal position on Freeman's selection and had not lobbied Congress members to oppose it.

A former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Freeman had in recent years questioned Washington's steadfast support for Israel. He had also been deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing. His critics unearthed past statements that seemed to indicate at least partial support for the crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in Tiananmen Square in 1989.

Critics in Congress also questioned Freeman's financial ties to China because he had served for four years on the board of the China National Offshore Oil Corp., a state-owned company.

He also led the Middle East Policy Council, a Washington-based group that receives financial support from the Saudi government.

In the intelligence post, Freeman would have been in charge of producing all U.S. intelligence estimates, documents that represent the consensus judgment of the government's 16 intelligence agencies.

Opposition to Freeman's appointment had been building on Capitol Hill, and several lawmakers said they had been lobbying the White House to withdraw its support for Freeman.

Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, said Freeman's "statements against Israel were way over the top and severely out of step with the administration."

_______________________________________________

Folks, those of us who care about America’s security can be thankful Freeman has withdrawn his nomination despite support from President Obama and the many Soros and CAIR flacks close to the President.

But what evidence is there to support Sen. Schumer’s claim Freeman’s “statements against Israel were way over the top and severely out of step with the administration?"

OBAMA KNEW ALL ABOUT THOSE STATEMENTS AND NOMINATED HIM ANYWAY.

More tomorrow about Obama, Freeman and their critics.

Why Aren't "Victims' Rights Advocates" Liable?

Readers Note: As first published this post's title was: Why Aren't "Victims Rights Advocates" Libel?

That drew this email from one of JinC's many outstanding "editors:" Shouldn't your Title be:

Why Aren't "Victims' Rights Advocates" Liable

Of course. I apologize for my error and thank the "editor" for the correction.

John
__________________________________________

At MSNBC today - - -

For 11 years, a North Carolina woman slept comfortably, secure in the knowledge that she had put the man who raped her in prison for life. And for 11 years, that man endured the endless days of confinement praying that someday, somehow, his innocence would be proved.

On Tuesday, Jennifer Thompson-Cannino and the man she mistakenly put in prison, Ronald Cotton, shared a couch on the TODAY show as they told co-host Meredith Vieira a tale about pain and redemption — and the tricks that memory can play on people with the best intentions. …

The rest of the story’s here.

What a tragedy for Ronald Cotton!

And what a reminder of the false and dangerous claims “victims’ rights advocates” often make.

When was the last time you heard one them say “rape victims” often lie as Crystal Mangum did in the Duke/Durham case when she claimed 20, 5, 3, 4 Duke lacrosse players raped her?

When was the last time one of those "advocates" admitted in the midst of a page one rape investigation that women who are raped often ID the wrong man and send him to prison?

When was the last time you heard a newspaper or politician say “victims’ rights advocates” should be licensed and subject to malpractice suits just as physicians, nurses, mental health professions, attorneys and others are?

It’s Not About Lacrosse

Joan Foster is one of those outstanding people who’ve been called “lacrosse hooligans.”

Since Spring 2006 Joan and the other “hooligans” have spoken out in opposition to the lies of Crystal Mangum, Mike Nifong and many others at Duke, in Durham and media who worked - sometimes wittingly, sometimes unwittingly – to frame three transparently innocent Duke students for gang rape and other felonies and are now working to cover-up what they did.

Yesterday, Joan posted a request at Liestoppers Meeting. It follows in full, after which I respond below the star line.

Joan began - - -

I've been invited to give a program at a women's club. In the past, I have droned on about some poet which was well received. When asked THIS time, I indicated I wanted to speak about the Duke Lacrosse case.

There were a few deep breaths and then the comment was made. "Well, that's been OVER for so long. There isn't anything more to KNOW." I assured them that there was a LOT they did not know...precisely why I wanted to speak on the topic.

Well, they were fairly desperate and I was pretty insistent...so Duke Lacrosse it is. I doubt anyone in this group was following every nuance of this case...but I want to surprise them...no, shock them. I want them to understand the magnitude of this debacle.

My theme is "Ten things you DON'T know about the Duke Lacrosse Debacle."

Number one, of course....it was a cold blooded Frame.

I want to address Elmo's trial....and, yes, I have my own temporary list.

But I value your opinions and know that many of you have a grasp on this case that is awe-inspiring. Will you give me your "selections in outrage."

What do we want to be sure the general public understands?

What shall I tell the ladies at lunch?

____________________________________

Dear Joan,

Start off with something like: “Weren’t the ice cream and strawberries delicious? But did you notice the chicken salad had an odd taste? I passed on it.”

Now seriously:

I’m going to work on the assumption you have 20 or so minutes to speak after lunch with a 10 or so minute Q&A following.

If I’m right about that, I think you should cut the “10 things” to 5 and change your title to something like: “Five important things I’ve learned about what’s called ‘the Duke lacrosse case.’”

Baldo suggested you begin with a reference to NC AG Roy Cooper’s public comments of April 11, 2007.

I agree and suggest you have a copy of it in hand and highlighted.

Set up for referencing Cooper’s comments by very briefly noting Nifong had to turn the case over to Cooper’s office once it was revealed in open court he’d withheld evidence exculpatory for the falsely accused and indicted Duke students; and when once again Crystal Mangum changed her story, this time saying she wasn’t sure she’d been raped, with the result Nifong dropped the rape charge while he kept in place the two other bogus felony charges of sexual assault and kidnapping.

With that explained, read these portions of Cooper’s April 11, 2007 comments:

During the past 12 weeks, our lawyers and investigators have reviewed the remaining allegations of sexual assault and kidnapping that resulted from a party on March 13, 2006, in Durham, N.C.

We have carefully reviewed the evidence collected by the Durham County prosecutor's office and the Durham Police Department.

We have also conducted our own interviews and evidence gathering. Our attorneys and SBI (State Bureau of Investigation) agents have interviewed numerous people who were at the party, DNA and other experts, the Durham County district attorney, Durham police officers, defense attorneys and the accusing witness on several occasions....

The result of our review and investigation shows clearly that there is insufficient evidence to proceed on any of the charges. …

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.

We approached this case with the understanding that rape and sexual assault victims often have some inconsistencies in their accounts of a traumatic event.

However, in this case, the inconsistencies were so significant and so contrary to the evidence that we have no credible evidence that an attack occurred in that house that night. …

In this case, with the weight of the state behind him, the Durham district attorney pushed forward unchecked....

And in the rush to condemn, a community and a state lost the ability to see clearly....

Today, we need to learn from this and keep it from happening again to anybody.

Joan, at this point give a “we all know” nod to your audience and ask rhetorically, “AG Cooper didn’t mention the word “lacrosse” in any of the excerpts I’ve just read, did he?”

Then add that nowhere else in his entire statement did Cooper use the word “lacrosse.”

Mention that media referenced Cooper’s comments much the way WTVD Raleigh did: “Statement from North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper on the Duke University lacrosse rape case.”

Tell your listeners they can see that at WTVD’s Web site where it hosts Cooper’s statement.

But let your listeners know Cooper himself did not refer to his comments that way.

At his official Web site your listeners can view a copy of Cooper’s statement which bears the heading:

Comments by Attorney General Roy Cooper
State vs. Finnerty, Evans, Seligmann
April 11, 2007

As you know so well, Joan, and as Cooper understood and make clear, the case, still ongoing, is not about lacrosse.

It’s about “a tragic rush to accuse and a failure to verify serious allegations.”

It’s about police and a prosecutor's office falsely accusing and indicting three young Americans and working very hard to send them to prison for decades when there was “no credible evidence” of a crime.

It’s about many in "a community and a state [and the nation losing]the ability to see clearly."

All that and more happened because many of us failed to keep before us and treasure the great gifts bequeathed to us in The Constitution, while others among us simply care more for their personal agendas and conceits than for justice and a system based on respect for law.

Joan, that’s the most important message you can share with your listeners. It's why the case is important for all Americans and not about lacrosse.

I won't say I hope I don’t sound like I’m telling you what to say because that's just what I'm doing.

But you know best; and you know I respect that.

I’ve some other thoughts about what I think are important matters you should mention.

But I’ll wait to hear from you before going forward.

I often think back with appreciation and respect to the “old days” when you and others took the lead at The Editors’ Blog in exposing and skewering the N&O’s disgraceful Duke/Durham hoax, frame attempt and cover-up case “coverage.”

You’re probably one of the few people who now could name any of the many outright lies some editors told to justify the N&O’s coverage which included its withholding for 13 months critical information exculpatory for the players.

Or that the N&O didn’t publish that information until April 12, 2007, a day the N&O knew its disgraceful news suppression in support of the frame-up would get little attention because Cooper’s exoneration of the students was the major story that day.

All Good Wishes,

John

The Churchill Series - Mar. 10, 2009

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

Churchill had his critics. One was Field Marshal Alan Brooke (later Lord Alanbrooke), Chief of the Imperial General Staff for most of WW II.

Brooke kept a diary during the war. Here are some of historian Christopher Harmon's comments on aspects of it concerning the Churchill-Alanbrooke relationship.

Another reason for (his) criticism of Churchill is high-minded and strategic, if not necessarily correct. Alanbrooke felt that this admittedly-great man had no strategy; as late as December 1941, when Alanbrooke became C.I.G.S., he remained "appalled" by the "lack of a definite policy....Planned strategy was not Winston's strong card. He preferred to work by intuition and impulse."

Proving he does possess a sense of humor, Alanbrooke twice formulates the problem as antithesis: "God knows where we would be without him, but God knows where we shall go with him," says an entry for 1941. Three years hence he writes: "Without him England was lost for a certainty, with him England has been on the verge of disaster time and again." […]

What Alanbrooke never adds to such accounts of conference room combat is that Churchill would never overrule the Chiefs of Staff when they agreed among themselves. Arguing, testing and debating were part of proper civilian oversight. Alanbrooke missed the point. He thought he was saving Britain from wild variants of hare-brained strategies.

Alanbrooke's diaries are remarkably silent about most of the many things these two war horses agreed about. Both believed Germany must be defeated before Japan. Both emphasized Mediterranean operations, where British and Allied troops retook North Africa, Sicily, and southern Italy.

Both felt in 1943 and 1944 that Alexander's army in Italy was neglected and condemned to fighting without real offensive power by various Pacific ventures and the unnecessary plan to invade southern France (Dragoon). Both believed in what is today called "joint warfare," and pushed air power.[…]

Alanbrooke, by the way, was an avid birder and photographer. Shortly after he returned to England from the Casablanca Conference he called a staff officer into his office. The officer was expecting to hear of war plans; instead he was shown photo of a bird which Alanbrooke said was "quite rare really. I was very lucky."
________________________________________
Christopher Harmon, "Churchill and Alanbrooke." Finest Hour (No. 112)

Where Are Obama's Friends?

The Hill reports - - -

President Obama’s budget doesn’t have enough support from lawmakers to pass, the Senate Budget Committee chairman said Tuesday.

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said he has spoken to enough colleagues about several different provisions in the budget to make him think Congress won’t pass it. ...

The entire Hill story's here.

Why aren't President Obama's friends helping him stick taxpayers with trillions in new debt?

Where are Tony Rezko, Angelo Mosilo, Jim Johnson, Franklin Raines and Duke's Jamie ("I only made $26 million.") Gorelick?

Where's Dem Sen. Chris ("Sweetheart") Dodd?

Conrad and Dodd have shoved billions of special interest costs down the taxpayers' throats while they hustled sweetheart mortgage loans for themselves.

Why can't they round up fellow Dem Sens. Chuck ("The public doesn't care.") Schumer, Carl Levin, Dick Durbin, Jay Rockefeller and John ("Do you know who I am?") Kerry and pass the budget.

All those liberal Dems have spent years sticking debt on the backs of working people and pulling pork for themselves and their special interest, maga-buck contributor friends.

Speaker Pelosi, Reps. Rangel and Frank, and the NY Times editorial board all think that's OK.

Why aren't Obama's hustling friends lining up one more time?

Is it the tea parties?

Rangel’s Latest Outrage

Michelle Malkin reports it in a post that begins:

Our intrepid Hot Air TV special correspondent Jason Mattera is back on Capitol Hill! You’ve watched him corner smear merchants Jack Murtha and John Kerry, ask William “Cold Cash” Jefferson for bribe-freezing tips, and roam the Democrat National Convention in an orange Gitmo suit exposing far Left insanity. This time he catches tax cheat Charlie Rangel and confronts him about his mounting ethical and financial scandals.

Malkin’s entire post’s here. Be sure to watch the YouTube of scoundrel Rangel's “public be damned” swearing.

Only a Dem could get away with what Rangel gets away with.

From Instapundit comes "Botchmen"

Folks, if you don't have cash for the price of admission at a theater near you, that's no problem.

Just use food stamps or provide a letter from your mortgage lender that says you're behind on your payments.

And remember to keep your eye out for Bailout IV soon to be released by Congressional Dems Unlimited.

The Churchill Series - Mar. 9, 2009

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

Here’s an amusing Churchill anecdote, the authenticity of which I can't confirm.

In 1900 Churchill, then 26, was in Washington, D.C., to deliver a lecture after which he was a guest at a reception where has met a very well-endowed woman.

The woman let Churchill know she was from the South and wished the Confederacy had won the Civil War.

"Mr. Churchill, you see before you a rebel who has not been Reconstructed."

"Madam," he is supposed to have replied, "in your case reconstruction would be blasphemy."

Did Churchill really say that or something like it?

I’ve looked through Martin Gilbert’s Churchill and America and can’t find it there.

I've found it in some of the "Churchill’s wit” books, but it’s always been unsourced.

I’d love to confirm the remark which sure sounds like Churchill.

Can anyone help?

If someone finds a confirming source, I'll reconstruct this post.

TIME spins for Angelo’s friend Chris Dodd

Yes, the Dems control The White House and Congress.

That should mean these are “happy days” at TIME, one of many news mags that favor the Dems.

But they’re not. And that's not just because TIME's been bleeding subscriptions and ad revenue since well before the recession started.

TIME right now can’t totally ignore all the scandals involving Obama administration biggies and Congressional Dems.

Which brings us to a TIME story today about Senate Banking chair Chris Dodd’s sweetheart mortgage loans from Countrywide’s Angelo Mozilo who’s at the heart of the sub-prime scandal along with Dodd.

There’s growing citizen outrage in Connecticut directed at the dodgy Dodd, up for reelection in 2010.

And TIME is forced to report it.

But TIME spins as hard as it can for Dodd.

Here are excerpts from TIME’s story with my comments interspersed in italics.

TIME begins - -

In many respects, Senator Chris Dodd is more powerful than ever on Capitol Hill these days. After enduring eight years in the political wilderness, the Connecticut Democrat is one of his ascendant party's senior statesmen, someone who endorsed Barack Obama early on in the presidential campaign and who hails from a solidly blue state.

(Political wilderness? Good heavens! The guy’s been in the Senate since 1981, he’s a former chairman of the DNC, a mega-buck party fundraiser and since Jan. 2007 chair of the Senate Banking Committee. TIME is starting off with a pretense to hide how powerful Dodd’s really been like in 2003 and 04 when he got sweetheart mortgages from Angelo and Countrywide.)


As chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Dodd has played a central role in shepherding much of Obama's economic agenda, from the second half of the bank bailout to the coming overhaul of regulations governing Wall Street.

(Notice TIME doesn’t say that as Banking Committee chair since 2007 Dodd gave a green light to Fannie and Fredie until their shenanigans became public knowledge and a financial crisis.) …

At the same time, Dodd is looking increasingly vulnerable. The silver-haired father of two young girls is facing his toughest re-election fight ever, and he doesn't even have an opponent yet. (CNBC pundit Larry Kudlow and former GOP Representative Rob Simmons have both expressed interest in running.)

(“The silver-haired father of two young girls . . . facing his toughest re-election fight ever.”

What a nice way for TIME to avoid saying: “The scandal-plagued Dodd, one of Clinton’s chief apologists during the Lewinsky scandals, now finds himself facing voters outraged following public disclosures of his previously secret “friends of Angelo” dealings.) …

Much of Dodd's current woes stem from a pair of mortgages that he must wish he had never gotten. His reputation has not recovered from the revelation last year that he received a sweetheart deal on his mortgage, saving upwards of $75,000 courtesy of Countrywide, one of the biggest pushers of the subprime mortgages that have landed the U.S. economy in such dire straits.

( "Current woes?" It's a currant SCANDAL!

"Must wish he had never gotten?" TIME’s giving its readers baloney. Dodd just wishes his sweetheart mortgages had never become public knowledge. There's a big difference there.)

The entire TIME story’s here and the DEM TIME's spin only gets worse as its story goes along.

Agenda Journalism Now & In The Reagan Years

A few days ago I posted Gearino’s Informed Look At An N&O Story.

The short of it: Blogger G. D. Gearino, former N&O business editor and columnist, posted on a story in which he first presented the essentials of what N&O reporter Barbara Barrett and her editors told readers about a couple who couldn’t make their mortgage payments.

Gearino followed that with questions the N&O didn’t ask that the readers should have known about.

I want here to share with you an Anon’s comment in response to my post.

Anon’s in italics; my responses are in plain.

This reminds me of the "homelessness" epidemic of the early 1980's. There had been homelessness before Reagan took office but, for the mass (hysteria) media, it was important to make it look like the Gipper had brought back the Great Depression.

The Holy Grail of journalism was to find homeless white families and the search was relentless (in the same manner as they now use Muslims as "bait" to see if they get attacked at NASCAR events).


The homeless were victims, of course. [And} none had substance abuse problems or mental illness. Their lives were perfect during the halcyon days of the Carter administration but instantly turned to kaka in January, 1981.

I remember exactly what Anon’s describing. Not only did MSM “discover an epidemic of homelessness,” but Reagan was “heartless” about it.

Sometimes bad stuff happens to good people. But Gearino is right that there is probably more to this story. With regard to the current mortgage mess, I would guess that a large majority of the "victims" are the architects of their own misery.

When you have a $229K mortgage on a house [the N&O reported the couple bought in 1994 for $150,000], you have done something wrong. The principal is supposed to decline over time. Your house is not a cookie jar to raid.

The couple may have refinanced after their original purchase to add to the house or just cash out a big hunk of money that really wasn’t their’s but owed to the bank.

Interestedly, there was a much more balanced story about some homeless guy in yesterday's (3/8/09) N&O. It did a fair job of explaining the difficulty of getting homeless people to CHOOSE to reintegrate into society.

The truth of the matter is that do-gooders often are frustrated in their attempts to convince the homeless to stop being homeless. Often, hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent to get one individual off the streets.

If people want to be urban campers, the do-gooders should simply give them a gift card from REI so they can buy some high quality gear that will keep them warm and sheltered.

I have a friend who says he’s never seen a social or economic problem liberals can’t make worse.

I don’t entirely agree. Civil rights, safer roads, a safe drinking water supply available in almost the entire country are of few of America’s accomplishments in the last century for which liberals deserve great credit.

But they and their leaders – Speaker Pelosi, Reps. Frank, Rangel, Waxman, Sens. Kennedy, Reid, and Dodd – to name just a few – have sure made things worse for most people who pay their bills. And I don’t believe they’ve made things better for the growing millions who live primarily on government “entitlements.”

Folks, if you’re wondering why I didn’t list President Obama among the liberals, it’s because I’m not sure whether he’s a liberal or worse, a leftist or what some in Western Europe call a “soft Marxist.”

Thank you Anon for your comment.

Brit Pundit: Obama & Brown Relying On Marxism

Excerpts from Janet Daley’s column in the Daily Telegraph today:

. . . [Both] Gordon Brown and Barack Obama have taken to using [“opportunity”] to describe the current economic apocalypse.

In Gordon Brown's fantasy, this is an "opportunity" to exercise control over the whole world. Not just stricter regulation by national governments of their own economic institutions, but a wondrous new level of international regulation by supranational functionaries – to be appointed by whom?

A World Government agency accountable to no electorate and with no democratic mandate from the populations over whom it will wield such power?

Trotskyists used to say that Stalinist Russia had failed to achieve Utopia because it had embraced "socialism in one country" rather than going for "world revolution". Now, we are being told that Labour's market-led social justice programme failed because it opted for "regulation in one country" instead of understanding the need for "world regulation". …

In the more overheated renditions of the Brown theme, there is talk of a "global vision for fairness", in which the very poverty that is being visited upon all the developed economies will somehow make it possible to redistribute wealth to the developing world.

Is he quite mad? Does he actually believe that the economic failure of rich countries will do anything but impoverish poor countries even further?

Or that the moral righteousness of the intention to cure world poverty will, in itself, constitute some kind of cure for the banking collapse?

Meanwhile, Mr Obama – who gives the impression of being considerably out of his depth in the economic maelstrom – talks of an "opportunity" to "reorganise our priorities".

He gave a major speech last week in which he actually seemed to suggest that the present crisis had been caused by America's failure to develop a universal health care system and to attend to the impending environmental disaster of global warming ("we made the wrong choices"), and that by focusing on these matters a way can be found out of the country's economic problems.

Is he quite mad? Does he really believe that the banking crisis and the recession were some kind of divine retribution for the absence of universal health care, and excessive carbon emissions? Or is he suggesting that a practical solution lies in spending money on health care and the development of alternative energy sources?

If it is the latter, then he is making a pitch for old-fashioned Roosevelt-style government-expenditure programmes which take money out of the productive part of the economy and bring state intervention into play in new dimensions of national life.
It did not work for Roosevelt and it will not work now. . . .

Daley’s entire column’s here.

_______________________________________

My Comments:

I wish Daley was wrong but she has both PM Brown and President Obama pegged.

The Bible says where there is no vision the people perish.

And where leaders of nations have Marxist visions favoring government control of people’s lives, freedom suffers and the economies tank.

“Don’t Pork Pee Down Our Legs”

That’s what protesters in Lafayette, La, yesterday told President Barack Obama and his Dem friends of Angelo, Speaker Pelosi, the networks and Tony Rezko; all of them eager to strap trillions in debt on the backs of the minority of Americans who now actually pay income taxes.

Take at look a photos of the protest here.

Those pictures and the accompanying text speak for millions of Americans who work for a living and pay income taxes.

Why aren’t the NY Times and McClatchy papers reporting the protests in Lafayette with anything near the coverage they gave The Jena 6?

Yes, it turned out the NYT, McClatchy and almost all of MSM had the Jena 6 story wrong.

And no, the Jena 6 young black "victims" weren’t anything like what the Revs Jackson and Sharpton said they were.

But that’s no excuse for the NYT, McClatchy and the rest ignoring the Lafayette protest yesterday.

The protest story's here.

Hat Tip: Instapundit

Hillary’s About ME; This Dad Was About US

This morning I posted What's Important For Secretary Clinton.

The short of it: Reuters reported Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went on a Turkish TV interview program and talked, not about policy issues, but about herself. Her life, her loves, etc.

Why? Hillary believes if Turks and others in the world can just know her, that will be wonderful for the US.

With Hillary - as with her husband - it’s always about ME.

I suggested the Reuters story could've been headlined: HILLARY DOES AN OPRAH.

An Anon commenting on my post linked to a 2006 Sippican Cottege post - My Dad Asks For Nothing – which now includes a brief update from Mar. 3, 2009.

My Father Asks For Nothing began - - -

My father asks me for nothing, really. Every three months or so, I take him to his doctor, who pokes about him wondering what keeps him animated, and that's about it. He's grown frail, and has discovered the joys of "Not Going."

It takes a lot to get him to leave the comfort and safety of his house. I was really surprised when he called me on Saturday, because he asked me to take him somewhere.

My father was a ball gunner on a B-24J Liberator bomber in the Pacific during WW2.

He rarely spoke about that. My father and his confreres considered themselves part of a thing greater than the sum of their parts in it --or so it seems to me -- and more or less did what was expected of them as a sort of unpleasant chore, kept themselves safe as much as was practicable, amused themselves when possible, and got back to being regular people as soon as they could.

As far as how practicable it was to keep safe hanging below a plane filled with four hundred pound bombs with nothing but the ocean beneath you to bore you and Japanese Zeros shooting at you to keep you interested in the trip, you can draw your own conclusions.

My father said that the last B-24 in flying condition was going to be at a little air show nearby, and he wanted to go see it. Would I take him?

As I said, my father is very frail. His heart is big but not useful. His mind is sharp but not overused now. It takes quite a bit of effort for him to get down the hall and into a car. And there was nothing I could do to keep him from trying to climb in that plane when we got there.

I didn't try, actually; I just was sort of amazed, and wondered how I could help him. You entered the plane … (continued here)