Saturday, October 25, 2008

O'Reilly with an Ayers seqment

In case you missed it.

Obama in a 1995 interview says Wright is

"the best the black church has to offer."

There's more in this under 2 minute video.

Hat tip: BN

Friday, October 24, 2008

The Churchill Series – Oct. 24, 2008

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

In the closing days of July 1914 Churchill, as First Lord of the Admiralty, prepared the Royal Navy for what he believed would soon be war with Germany.

The Monarchist blog’s post “Churchill on the Great War” includes this description by historian A. J. P. Taylor of England before the war began:

… Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other sort of currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home.

For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police.

Unlike the countries of the European continent, the state did not require its citizens to perform military service. An Englishman could enlist, if he chose, in the regular army, the navy or the territorials [something like America’s National Guard – JinC]. He could also ignore, if he chose, the demands of national defence. Substantial householders were occasionally called on to perform jury service. Otherwise, only those helped the state who wished to do so. …
Make what you will of what Taylor says.

Be sure to visit The Monarchist blog. It’s about much more than monarchy.

The Anglosphere gets a lot of attention and appreciation as do our rights rooted in the common law and other pillars of freedom. The blog is link rich.

Get yourselves a cup of tea or a dram and settle in for a while at The Monarchist.

Have a good weekend.


Lots of junk at the New York Times

Bloomberg reported yesterday:

New York Times Co., the third- largest U.S. newspaper publisher, will consider cutting its dividend after reporting a loss on severance costs and a steeper drop in advertising sales.

The payout will be reviewed ``to determine what is most prudent in light of the overall market conditions,'' Chief Executive Officer Janet Robinson said today in a statement. Standard & Poor's cut its debt rating on New York Times to junk after the results, increasing the pressure on the company to reduce the dividend that pays the controlling Ochs-Sulzberger family $25.1 million a year.(emphasis added)
The rest of the story’s here.


If you’re so cash strapped now you can’t afford even the NYT’s junk bonds, don’t be downcast.

The Times has plenty of junk you can have at no cost.

Yesterday, for example, as Standard & Poor’s was downgrading its bonds, the NYT published its editorial page endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama.

That endorsement, which the paper considers its “official” endorsement, comes months after the paper began publishing Obama endorsements in its news columns. The Times' officially terms those endorsements “news articles.”

Hat tip: BN

Voters call “bias” on MSM

Do journalists report the news fairly without favor for either party?

Most J-school professors, the network anchors, David Gergen, Bill Moyers, Gwen Ifill, Dan Rather, and most journalists at local newspapers keep saying they do.

But the public doesn’t agree.

Here's the latest example of the publics disagreement - - -

The the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism reports:

Voters overwhelmingly believe that the media wants Barack Obama to win the presidential election.

By a margin of 70%-9%, Americans say most journalists want to see Obama, not John McCain, win on Nov. 4. Another 8% say journalists don't favor either candidate, and 13% say they don't know which candidate most reporters support. (all emphases added)

A separate study released Wednesday by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism looks at the media’s recent campaign coverage and finds that McCain received significantly more negative than positive coverage between the GOP convention and the final debate. The study says that press treatment of Obama has been somewhat more positive than negative, but not markedly so. [See "Winning the Media Campaign" released October 22, 2008.]

In recent presidential campaigns, voters repeatedly have said they thought journalists favored the Democratic candidate over the Republican. But this year's margin is particularly wide.

At this stage of the 2004 campaign, 50% of voters said most journalists wanted to see John Kerry win the election, while 22% said most journalists favored George Bush. In October 2000, 47% of voters said journalists wanted to see Al Gore win and 23% said most journalists wanted Bush to win. In 1996, 59% said journalists were pulling for Bill Clinton.

In the current campaign, Republicans, Democrats and independents all feel that the media wants to see Obama win the election. Republicans are almost unanimous in their opinion: 90% of GOP voters say most journalists are pulling for Obama. More than six-in-ten Democratic and independent voters (62% each) say the same.


No one should be surprised by any of what Pew reports.

I hope those of you who lean or are GOPers or politically conservative print and save or file electronically the Pew report so you can use it the next time some MSMer tries the following on you - - -

“Oh sure, we hear complaints from conservatives and Republicans all the time. But we’re really pretty fair.”

Or this one - - -

“Well, I know you’re upset and we get calls from Dems and Liberals who are upset, too. I always say if your catching it from both sides you must be doing about right.”

That stuff is bosh.

For decades MSM has been titling left and Democratic; and in this campaign more so than I ever remember.

The public across the political spectrum is noticing and calling "bias" on MSM.

Hat tip: Instapundit

Krauthammer endorses McCain

Excerpts from Charles Krauthammer’s column today with my comments below the star line

Krauthammer asks - - -

… Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.?

A man who's been cramming on these issues for the last year, who's never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of "a world that stands as one"), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as "the tragedy of 9/11," a term more appropriate for a bus accident?

Or do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker in the United States Senate? A man who not only has the best instincts, but has the honor and the courage to, yes, put country first, as when he carried the lonely fight for the surge that turned Iraq from catastrophic defeat into achievable strategic victory?

There's just no comparison.

Obama's own running mate warned this week that Obama's youth and inexperience will invite a crisis -- indeed a crisis "generated" precisely to test him. Can you be serious about national security and vote on Nov. 4 to invite that test?

And how will he pass it? Well, how has he fared on the only two significant foreign policy tests he has faced since he's been in the Senate?

The first was the surge. Obama failed spectacularly. He not only opposed it. He tried to denigrate it, stop it and, finally, deny its success.

The second test was Georgia, to which Obama responded instinctively with evenhanded moral equivalence, urging restraint on both sides. McCain did not have to consult his advisers to instantly identify the aggressor.

Today's economic crisis, like every other in our history, will in time pass. But the barbarians will still be at the gates. Whom do you want on the parapet?

I'm for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb.

Krauthammer’s entire column’s here.


IMO Krauthammer makes an irrefutable case for voting for Sen. McCain.

If what he says isn’t enough, there’s Wright, Ayers, Rezko and Sen. Obama dissembling about his relationship with each of them.

Obama has told us he never heard any of Wright’s racist, anti-American sermons but listen to him in this post quote from one of Wright’s racist sermons.

We’re got 10 days left in the campaign and I’d urge those of you supporting McCain to do two things:

1 - - - Add to the influence of Krauthammer’s endorsement by sending a link to this post to friends.

2 - - - Send a brief letter to the editor of your local paper quoting or rephrasing from Krauthammer or relying entirely on other material you select. Just make sure it states in positive terms why McCain deserves readers’ votes.

Mangum’s presser: bizarre, squalid, and the “Big Three” lose

Readers note: I’m sorry yesterday’s event occurred at all, particularly because it adds to the awful ordeal the players, their families and others have endured since Crystal Mangum began telling lies about herself and the Duke lacrosse party on the night of Mar. 13/14, 2006.

Also, as I finished this post, I got a few heads-up that in the book Mangum goes much further with her lies than she did at yesterday’s presser.


WRAL reports:

More than two years after she accused three Duke University lacrosse players of raping her, the woman at the center of the Duke lacrosse case says she still believes she was attacked.

"Ýes, I am still claiming that a sexual assault happened," Crystal Gail Mangum told reporters Thursday when she appeared at the Know Book Store to promote her new book, "The Last Dance for Grace: The Crystal Mangum Story." …
A few paragraph’s further into the story we read:
Vincent Clark, co-author and publisher of the book, said repeatedly that "the case is closed" and Mangum accepts the conclusions of state prosecutors.
Bizarre, isn’t it?

But WRAL's report is true! I viewed the entire press conference on a video WRAL is hosting here.

Speaking of bizarre: have you ever been to a book promotion where there were no copies of the book?

Or where the publisher, the “as told to author” and other handlers monopolized most of the presser time talking about themselves and their high-mindedness which led each of them to become involved with the "author" and the book?

Or one where when the “author” whose “life” the book is allegedly about finally appeared to explain the book and answer questions, the handlers kept jumping in front of her and “dressing up” her statements or saying things unrelated to the question?

It’s all on the video.

In addition to seeing plenty that’s bizarre, I think most of you will agree an excellent one-word summary of the event is “squalid.”

I don’t mean squalid in one of its two principal meanings:“literally dirty;” but in its other principal meaning: “morally reprehensible, dishonest.”

False accuser Crystal Mangum yesterday claimed victim status for herself. Her handlers endorsed and amplified that dishonesty.

Yet all of them know Mangum had the police and state prosecutorial powers on her side for nearly a year;

that Duke University’s leaders and many of its faculty, staff and even some students endorsed her lies and enabled a vicious criminal frame-up;

that the Raleigh N&O and Durham Herald-Sun editorial pages were “lock step” with the now disbarred DA Mike Nifong in trashing the lacrosse players and supported his transparently unethical and illegal conduct for which he was later disbarred and jailed;

and that a mélange of powerful special interests groups, political action committees, advocacy groups, clerical leaders, and hate groups all sided with Mangum.

Mangum’s handlers kept repeating they were not involved in the book project for the money.

I don’t know the particulars of the various handlers’ contractual financial arrangements.

And I understand that some people get involved in certain book publications for reasons other than money.

So the first time a handler said none of them were involved with Mangum and the book for the money, I told myself, “maybe that’s true.”

The second time a handler said it, I allowed that some things bear repeating and thought “ why do they need to repeat that?” And I had no intention of posting anything about the handlers' financial motives.

But the handlers kept saying again and again they weren’t motivated by money.

They finally brought me to the point where I feel confident saying to you, paraphrasing the Bard, me thinks the handlers doth protest too much.

Squalid is, if anything, an understated description of the dishonesty and morally reprehensible assaults on the innocent we witnessed yesterday at the Know Bookstore.

A fitting end to the event would've been Mike Nifong walking up to the podium and assuring the press: “You can trust Crystal and these other people just as you’d trust me.”

News reports today indicate the innocent victims and their families are considering legal actions against Mangum and her handlers.

So it may turn out that what those self-promoters did yesterday was to set themselves up to be losers because of action they thought would make them winners.

If that happens, it will be some measure of justice for the real victims.

We’ll have to see how things turn out.

But we can already be sure there were other losers yesterday.

Duke University, Durham City and Durham Police were the “Big Three” losers.

They want the hoax and frame-up attempt to “go away” and for people to forget about them.

Crystal Mangum’s just reminded everyone of them.

The “Big Three” want the players and parents who’ve brought the suits to cool.

“Good old Precious” has heated them up.

The "Big Three" want the players and parents to feel it’s no longer worth the fight, so they’ll settle quietly for a big cash payout from dear old Duke which will also let Durham and DPD off.

I don't think any of the players and parents were ever dumb enough to think they should go for a cash only settlement that would allow the Duke/Durham/DPD defendants to hide their hoax and frame deeds and enablements by silence.

But if any player or parent was so dumb - - -

Yesterday we all saw why the players and parents need to go forward with the suits until at least most of the hoax/frame/cover-up story is out there.

The innocent can’t entirely stop Crystal Mangum and those like her handlers and Tim Tyson, Nancy Grace and other such self-defined “advocates” from peddling their lies to prop the Mangum/Nifong lies.

But they can provide themselves greater protection from Mangum’s and their calumnies be assuring the suits go forward.

The entire WRAL story's here; the video's here.

The Churchill Series - Oct. 23, 2008

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

I'm rereading David McReynolds' In Command of History: Churchill Fighting and Writing the Second World War(Random House, 2005).It's brought to mind this Series "oldie" - - -

When Churchill set to work after WW II on his six volume war history, aides working with him to fact-check soon realized that, like all of us, he recalled some things with great accuracy and others with not such great accuracy.

This from David Reynolds’ In Command of History: Churchill Fighting and Writing the Second World War:

His pilot for the 10,000-mile round-trip to Cairo and Moscow via Teheran was an American, Captain Bill Vanderkloot, who, Churchill records, had already flown about 1,000,000 miles in his career.

[Life Magazine’s] skeptical staffers eventually tracked down Vanderkloot, who explained that he had been an airline pilot for five years and had ferried U.S. planes across the Atlantic for the RAF, making some seventy such crossings before the trip to Cairo.

In other cases, however, Churchill’s memory seems to have been shakier. In successive drafts, the bulletproof glass in Molotov’s Moscow limousine was reduced in thickness from an inch and a quarter to half an inch, before expanding again to two inches. (pg. 286)

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Scott McClellan and Crystal Mangum

Duke hoax/frame liar Crystal Mangum is black and female.

Former Bush White House press secretary and toady Scott McClellen is white and male.

And right now they're both flogging their books.

So today in Durham - - -

Mangum once more claimed she was sexually assaulted, a charge so obviously false and malicious even Duke's Dick Brodhead will no longer enable it.

Also today via the Obama for President S. F. Chronicle - - -

Scott McClellan, President Bush's former press secretary, says he is backing Barack Obama for president.


Mangum and McClellen are equally credible.

Comments should come through now

I know some of you have had trouble commenting.

Blogger seems to have fixed the problem now.

I can't give you an explanation for the trouble.

As some of you know, it's very hard to get a human at Blogger to directly comment on you problem.


Obama light bulb joke

It's at Catholic Libertarian here.

Be sure to read the fun comments from some bright people.

What will the Duke false accuser say today?

According to a press release Crystal Mangum should be holding a press conference in Durham about now to promote a book she’s written. The public is not invited.

Like many of you I’ll be especially interested to learn what she has to say about the interview she granted the Raleigh News & Observer on March 24, 2006 which was such an important part of the N&O front page, above the fold story the next day with headlines across five columns:

Dancer gives details of ordeal

A woman hired to dance for the Duke lacrosse team describes a night of racial slurs, growing fear and, finally, sexual violence
and which also figures prominently in the N&O’s story:
Contradictions tore case apart

Accuser gave many versions of events on night of party
published Apr.12, 2007, the day after NC AG Roy Cooper had declared innocent the three young men indicted in a frame-up attempt based on Mangum’s false statements.

This post contains the portions of the Mar. 25 and Apr. 12 N&O stories that report on the March 24 interview, followed by my comments. I've placed in bold those portions of the N&O's Apr. 12 story which contain news from the interview which the N&O withheld from its Mar. 25, 2006 story.

It’s also important to know that nowhere in its Apr. 12, 2007 story did the N&O tell readers it had withheld that information from its Mar. 25, 2006 story.

From the interview portions from the Mar. 25, 2006 story - - -

The woman who says she was raped last week by three members of the Duke University lacrosse team thought she would be dancing for five men at a bachelor party, she said Friday. But when she arrived that night, she found herself surrounded by more than 40.

Just moments after she and another exotic dancer started to perform, she said, men in the house started barking racial slurs. The two women, both black, stopped dancing.
"We started to cry," she said. "We were so scared." …

The accuser spoke Friday, struggling not to cry as she recounted the events of the early hours of March 14 at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd., next to Duke's East Campus.

It is The News & Observer's policy not to identify the victims of sex crimes.

The accuser had worked for an escort company for two months, doing one-on-one dates about three times a week.

"It wasn't the greatest job," she said, her voice trailing off. But with two children, and a full class load at N.C. Central University, it paid well and fit her schedule.

This was the first time she had been hired to dance provocatively for a group, she said. There was no security to protect her, and as the men became aggressive, the two women started to leave.

After some of the men apologized for the behavior, the women went back inside, according to police. That's when the woman was pulled into a bathroom and raped and sodomized, police said.

She hesitated to tell police what happened, she said Friday. She realized she had to, for her young daughter and her father.

"My father came to see me in the hospital," she said. "I knew if I didn't report it that he would have that hurt forever, knowing that someone hurt his baby and got away with it." …

From the Apr. 12, 2007 story - - -

… Mangum, a mother of three children ages 7, 8 and 3 months, was enrolled last spring at N.C. Central University. On March 24, 11 days after the party, she granted a short interview with The News & Observer, her only media interview to date. Mangum made allegations of racism, claimed to have only a short history as a stripper, and said she thought the other woman hired to dance with her also had been assaulted.

The interview began in front of Mangum's parents' home near N.C. Central. When an N&O reporter approached, she confirmed that she had made the rape report. She started crying.

When asked why she made the report, she said, "Most guys don't think it's a big deal" to force a woman to have sex. She confirmed that the claimed incident occurred at a party near Duke.

Moments later, she added, "Maybe they think they can get away with it because they have more money than me."

After a few moments, Mangum said she had to leave, but she consented to meet that afternoon.

Later, she sat in her living room for less than 15 minutes to answer more questions. She said she received a phone call from her escort service to appear at the house for a bachelor party. There, she met a second dancer whose name she could not recall.

Mangum said that as soon as she and the second dancer entered the house, they were barraged with racist remarks.

"We started crying," she said. "We were so scared."

Moments later, after someone apologized, the women went back into the house and were separated, Mangum said. [In the Mar. 25 story the N&O's attribution regarding the women returning to the house is "according to police." - JinC]

She did not give details but maintained that she had been raped. Mangum said that although she did not witness it, she thought the second dancer was sexually assaulted but didn't come forward because she would lose her job as an escort.

"I got the feeling she would do just about anything for money," Mangum said of the second dancer, Kim Roberts.


Reading all the interview news exculpatory for the players the N&O withheld for thirteen months during which time it watched many innocent people go through hell and race relations in our community deteriorate, any intelligent, fair-minded person will justifiably hold the N&O in contempt.

I want to say more now about the N&O’s prima facie dishonest reporting. But I’ll save that for another day.

In this post I'll keep my focus entirely on some important matters I hope Mangum will speak about today.

How was the N&O interview set up? I discussed that question in a June 28, 2007 post – INNOCENT: N&O “boots” questions – excerpts of which follow with some further commentary below the star line - - -

While searching archives today I found and read the transcript of MSNBC’s The Abrams Report for 3/28/06. It reminded me of some unanswered questions I have about the Raleigh News & Observer’s role in first, describing all the white members of the 2006 Duke lacrosse team as drunken, brutish racists, and then, second, helping enable the attempted frame-up of three members of the team.

To understand my questions let’s start with a portion of the transcript in which Dan Abrams asks a question of the N&O’s Samiha Khanna, one of two N&O reporters (the other was Anne Blythe) bylined on the N&O’s [Mar. 25, 2006 story] which, in front-page headlines, the N&O said was about “a night of racial slurs, growing fear and, finally, sexual violence.”

We pick up Abrams as he introduces Khanna [ Keep in mind the Abrams-Khanna interview occurred Mar. 28, just four days after Khanna interviewed Mangum. – JinC]:
Samiha Khanna from the “News and Observer” down there who interviewed the alleged victim in this case.

ABRAMS: “All right, so what did she tell you?”

“Well first, she sort of wondered how I had found her, and I assured her that her identity was not revealed in the newspaper and it was not going to be revealed, as we don’t publish the names of sexual assault victims.”
I don’t know whether Crystal Mangum really “sort of wondered” how Khanna found her.

In truth she could have been “tipped” that an N&O reporter was coming to interview her much the way the N&O itself was “tipped to be there” when the Duke lacrosse players showed up at the police building to provide DNA samples.

But I sure do wonder how and why the N&O was able to get to Mangum so quickly and secure the cooperation of the young mother who Khanna later in the interview says “was still in shock.”

Khanna doesn’t say what she said when Mangum, allegedly asked how Khanna found her. And Abrams didn’t ask Khanna anything about the matter.

I’ve asked the N&O’s Public Editor, Ted Vaden, how Khanna found Mangum. He won’t say.

N&O Investigative Reporter Joe Neff, for all his writing on the witch hunt and frame-up attempt, has never reported how Khanna found Mangum.

And when readers have asked Melanie Sill, the N&O’s exec editor for news, she’s usually ignored them. [Sill has since moved on to a similar position with the Sacramento Bee.]

The only instance I can find when Sill “answered” the question is on the thread of an Editors’ Blog post, "March 25 interview." Commenting at 10/06/06 Sill said [excerpt]:
The first day story was about a DNA roundup involving an unprecedented number of people from a single group. The second day we were working to talk to all the principals. We got the woman identified as the victim and interviewed her. […]

[It] wasn't an extensive or extensively planned interview -- it was boots on the street hustle to track down the key players.
Durham City has a population of more than 210,000 people.

In a city that size, you can do a lot of what Sill calls “street hustle” before you’d come to just the person you were looking for; and even then you wouldn’t know you’d come to “the right person” you were looking for unless you knew something about the person. Like the person’s name and address, for instance.

Sill’s “boots on the street hustle” is an attempt to lead gullible people to think she’s answered their question when, it fact, she’s avoided it. And she succeeds in doing that very often with tens of thousand of faithful N&O readers.

That leaves intelligent people to ask: Who told the N&O the accuser was Crystal Mangum and where to find her?

Sill could easily have answered that with something like: “An anonymous source phoned – we don’t know if it was a neighbor or someone else - and gave us the ID and address.”

That explanation would be plausible. The N&O actively seeks news tips, anonymous and otherwise. And everyday people on their own phone news tips to newspapers, often anonymously.

So why hasn’t the N&O used the plausible “anonymous tip” fob-off instead of the obviously fairy tale “boots on the street?”

“Perhaps, because the ‘anonymous tip fob-off’ is not true,” you say?

Folks, the N&O promulgated the deliberate falsehood that the players hadn’t cooperated with police while suppressing the news they had.

And as much as I deplore most of the NY Times’ Hoax reporting, it wasn’t the NY Times that withheld for thirteen months the exculpatory news the N&O learned in the Mangum/Khanna interview, was it?

“Not true” is not a Stop sign for Sill and the other people who control what “news” the N&O reports; it’s not even a Caution light.

I believe the N&O hasn’t given us the “anonymous tip” or any other false explanation for how Khanna got to Mangum because:

1) the N&O was, in the lingo of journalists, “fed a tip;”

2) the tip came from someone very close to the case, such as someone in the DA’s office or on the DPD “investigation team;”

3) that someone undoubtedly assured Mangum she could speak “to the lady from the N&O” without any worry that the “N&O lady” would do anything to upset the case, especially the hopes Mangum had then for a “big settlement” from those rich, white Duke boys;

4) and that the N&O knows the someone who fed it the tip is likely at some time in the not too distant future to testify in a case, criminal or civil, in which the someone will explain how Khanna and the N&O really didn't need to do any "boots on the street hustle."

The complicity involving the N&O and someone(s) on the “Nifong/DPD investigative team” may be much more extensive than what I’ve suggested here.

Would you doubt that, even if Melanie Sill, Ted Vaden, and Joe Neff swore on a stack of tomorrow’s N&O it wasn’t true?

Final comment today, Oct. 23, 2008

When trying to unravel the Duke hoax , frame-up attempt and the ongoing cover-up of the two, always keep in mind that between Mar. 24 and Mar. 27, 2006 the N&O laid out the fictitious script for the hoax and framing attempt before Nifong began speaking publicly about the case in the late morning or early afternoon of Mar. 27.

Nifong’s statements were false, but he told public the very same fictitious story the N&O had presented the public.

Publicly at least, Nifong followed where the N&O had led.

What you see when you combine the N&O’s Mar. 25, 2006 and Apr. 12, 2007 “reports” of the Mangum interview is the news the N&O admits it had on Mar. 24, 2006.

What you see when you look at its Mar. 25 story is only the news that fits the hoax/frame script Nifong began delivering on Mar. 27. The N&O withheld from its Mar. 25 story everything that contradicted or cast doubt on the story Nifong began telling on Mar. 27.

The most important thing we need to learn now is who the N&O was working with when it took the news Mangum gave it on Mar. 24 and withheld from its Mar. 25 story crucial, exculpatory portions of that news which would have blown a huge hole in the false story Nifong was about to tell on Mar. 27.

Who was that person or persons?

And who were the people at the N&O who worked with the person or persons to deliberately and maliciously enable a vicious hoax and launch a criminal frame-up attempt?

Links to the Mar. 25 story, the Apr. 12 story, the Abrams transcript, the Editors' Blog post; and my INNOCENT: N&O "boots" questions post.

Obama,“white folks,” and some of his brothers

The racist, anti-American Rev. Wright’s mentorship of Sen. Obama inspired the senator to title one of his books after the title of one of Wright’s hateful sermons: “The Audacity of Hope.”

The vidio clip below of Obama reading from his book lasts about 30 seconds. It includes Obama saying, “White folks greed runs a world in need.”

A blog friend who sent the clip commented:

Apparently Obama got this racist phrase from a Rev. Wright sermon – “The Audacity of Hope .” (Obama titled his book after this sermon.)

It's completely disingenuous for Obama to claim he was not aware of Wright's racist, anti- American preaching when Obama quotes directly from Wright's sermons on this video and in his book.

By the way, greed is not limited, as Obama suggests, to "white folks. " African Americans Franklin Raines, former CEO of Fannie Mae and advisor to Obama ,and Stan O'Neal, former CEO of Merrill Lynch, both received tens of millions of dollars from their companies despite leading them into financial disaster.
Yes, and Rev. Jesse Jackson and his family members with those corporate franchises have done pretty well, haven’t they?

And there’s Rev. Wright himself, who upon his retirement after what Obama’s MSM shills insist was “a pastorate serving Chicago’s South Side poor,” was given by his Trinity UCC congregation a 10,000 sq. ft. mansion on a golf course.

And then there’s President Mugabe and a host of other African leaders and their friends who’ve stolen billions while there people live in abject poverty of the kind Obama’s Kenyan half-brother endures.

Did Obama even send him a few signed copies of the Audacity of Hope so he could sell them to support himself for a few weeks?

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

The Churchill Series - Oct. 22, 2008

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

In yesterday's post I noted when Churchill took command of a battalion of the Royal Scots Fusiliers on the Western Front during the winter of 1915/16, he was initially resented and ridiculed by his men as a failed politician. But he soon earned their respect and affectation. Some became close friends.

One such friend was Archibald Sinclair who served as the battalion's second-in- command. Their friendship lasted until Churchill’s death in 1965; Sinclair survived for another five years.

In Winston Churchill and His Inner Circle John Colville, Churchill’s Private Secretary during both his premierships, writes about the two friends:

Sinclair had an air of distinction. With his fine features, black hair and swarthy complexion he resembled a Spanish grandee rather than the Highland chieftain that he was.

His delivery as a speaker was slow. He had a stammer which attracted attention and lent emphasis. His oratory was not of the first order, but his words were carefully chosen and he has a gift for imagery and allusion. …

He was more a nineteenth-century Whig, like Churchill himself, than a twentieth-century Liberal. Starting his career in the fashionable Second Life Guards, he became in due course second-in-command of the battalion of the Royal Scots Fusiliers that Churchill commanded in the trenches during the winter of 1915-1916. For both of them this brotherhood in arms, short thought it was in time, was an unbreakable link, forged in war but maintained in peace.

Sinclair followed Churchill first to the War Office and then to the Colonial Office as his military private secretary in the years following the Armistice of 1918. He accompanied him on his travels to the Arab countries and elsewhere. Then he went into politics himself.

The two friends were briefly of the same party, for Sinclair was elected Liberal M. P. for his own county of Caithness in 1922; but Churchill soon crossed the floor, back to the Conservative benches where his parliamentary career had begun. They parted at political crossways, their personal relationship remaining undisturbed.(pgs. 219-220)
During the thirties they both opposed appeasement with Sinclair, if anything, a more passionate anti-appeaser than Churchill, if such a person is possible.

In 1940 when Churchill became Prime Minister, he asked Sinclair to serve as Secretary of State for Air which Sinclair did until 1945.

If you like to read more about Sinclair, Wikipedia has what looks to me to be a reliable Sinclair bio entry.

News from Year I of Obama's reign - a parody

With thanks to JA and with SNL parodies liberals and leftists think are just great in mind, JinC offers - - -

Obama’s AP mum on oil price drop benefits

The AP reports:

Oil prices tumbled below $67 a barrel to 16-month lows Wednesday after the government reported big increases in U.S. fuel supplies -- more evidence that the economic downturn is drying up energy demand.
The rest of the AP’s story’s here.


Today in North Carolina I paid only $2.83 a gallon for Regular.

Just a few months ago Regular here cost about $4.00 a gallon.

I’ll bet you’re "feeling the effects" of the oil price tumbles, too.

But although the AP’s lengthy story includes many details, nowhere does it say falling gas prices and home heating costs along with other energy coast savings will leave more money in consumers' pockets for them to spend as they wish.

In fact, Sen. Obama's AP doesn’t mention a single benefit to consumers of falling energy prices.

But's that's about what you’d expect this time of year from an Obama organization like the AP.

If a similar dramatic drop in energy prices occurs next year and Obama is president, you can be sure his AP will huff and puff about consumer benefits.

Powell’s Obama endorsement followup comments

There sure have been a lot of them, including mine – MSM hyping Powell's endorsement – which was more about the MSM Obama-crats hyping rather than reporting Gen. Powell’s endorsement.

I’ve seen many comments suggesting race influenced Powell’s decision.

While I haven’t said anything about that until now, I don’t doubt race may have influenced Powell.

No sensible person disputes it influences most of us in many things we do, as well as how we perceive things we only observe or think about.

So do age, gender and, researchers tell us, even the height of those about whom we make decisions that logically should be unrelated to height.

Here’s where I’m heading - - -

Some of the comments about Gen. Powell since his Obama endorsement are beyond the pale.

He’s been mocked as “an Uncle Tom all his career” and “an ungrateful affirmative action ‘winner.’”

And much worse.

I’m support Sen. McCain.

I disagree with Powell’s endorsement.

I disagree with things unrelated to the campaign that each man has said or done.

But I respect them both.

The slimes directed at Powell are every bit as disgusting as’s notorious General Betray Us ad.

And some of the slimes are coming from people who were outraged by the Betray Us ad.

It’s an interesting world.

NBC didn't play the whole Biden "crisis test" tape provides the video clip along with this text:

In this clip, McCain spokeswoman Nancy Pfotenhauer presses Andrea Mitchell to play all of the audio of Joe Biden's comments to supporters where he predicts an "international crisis" if Obama is elected. Mitchell says, "I think we played the whole thing."

But as documented on Tuesday, the clip that Mitchell used was not from the Seattle event, but rather much milder comments made in San Francisco. MSNBC has even labeled the incorrect audio as being from the Seattle event.

Hat tip: Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit who says, "Andrea Mitchell busted on a Biden converup."

Traveling today. Blogging resumes

about 9 PM ET, Wednesday, Oct. 22 with:

a follow-up post on reaction to Gen. Powell's Obama endorsement;

another discussing Duke hoax false accusser Crystal Mangum's book promotion press conference planned for tomorrow;

and a third in which I'll share some impressions I took from Homecoming regarding how Duke alums now view President Brodhead, BOT Chair Steel, and Duke's actions and inactions in response to Mangum's and Mike Nifong's lies.

I hope you have a nice day and are back tonight or tomorrow.



Tuesday, October 21, 2008

The Churchill Sereis – Oct.. 21, 2008

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

Yesterday I promised some comments about Churchill’s correspondence with Clementine during WW I when he served for a time in the trenches. What follows are impressions formed after reading many of their letters and some biographies of Churchill.

As many of you know Churchill went to the battlefield with his political career in ruins after the collapse of the Dardanelles expedition which he’d strongly backed. Had the expedition succeeded in capturing the Ottoman capital of Constantinople, the Allies would've been able to strengthen the Russians and keep them in the fight. They would also have outflanked the Germans.

Churchill received heavy, disproportionate and, according to many historians today, unfair blame for the expedition’s failure. Most people, including it seems Churchill at least for a time, thought his political career was over.

Churchill joined the active fighting for a complex of reasons. He felt he had a duty to contribute to the war effort. He recognized he had no influence at the time on decisions affecting the war. So by going into the trenches he was making his contribution. And being Winston Churchill, he could no more imagine himself standing by when his country was at war than we can.

Churchill, of course, was a graduate of the Royal Military College, had served as an officer under three sovereigns, fought in the Empire’s war on three continents, had often been shot at, twice had horses shot out form underneath him, and been taking a prisoner of war and escaped.

Churchill by temperament in 1915 wanted to serve his country; and since he could do that nowhere else but at the front, he was on his way to France.

When he got there he was received with resentment at first by the troops who viewed him as a failed politician. But he was a most unusual politician for he was also a trained, smart, experienced, battle-hardened and brave warrior.

The man who served under him soon learned that and came to respect and like him. Some even became lifetime friends.

Time is pressing. I’ll continue this tomorrow with a look at another reason Churchill want to the front: he thought service there might help him recover politically and once more be a force in government.

MSM hyping Powell’s endorsement

Gen. Colin Powell’s endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama is an important news story.
But instead of reporting it, MSM Obama-crats are hyping it.

At Politico, for example, Mike Allen & Jonathan Martin began their “report” with this “wow” sentence:

Retired Gen. Colin L. Powell, one of the country's most respected Republicans, stunned both parties Sunday by strongly endorsing Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for president on NBC's "Meet the Press" and laying out a blistering, detailed critique of the modern GOP.
Stunned both parties?

The endorsement had been expected for months.

Seth Wells at Huffington Post on Aug. 13 began:
Former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski tells the Huffington Post that he "expects" Gen. Colin Powell to endorse Barack Obama for president. …
NY Times columnist Bill Kristal and columnist Bob Novak are others who weeks ago predicted Powell would endorse Obama.

When it was announced Powell would appear on Meet the Press this past Sunday, many in Washington political circles speculated he’d use the occasion to endorse Obama.

Allen and Martin shouldn’t have used the Powell endorsement to hype for Obama. They’re supposed to be reporters, not cheerleaders.

But they weren’t the only MSMers “wowing” for Obama. Open some of the links in this U. S. News & World Report story and see for yourself.

Comment re:” Biden, Palin, Pelosi and Patriotism”

On the thread of Biden, Palin, Pelosi and Patriotism Anon @ 3:58 said

Biden is very good at blathering, in fact, it is what he does best ---- well, next to gaffing.
Biden’s very good at commuting, too.

Blathering, gaffing and commuting.

It must be his Senate training.

Thanks, Anon @ 3:58

Biden, Palin, Pelosi and Patriotism

CNN reports on a back-and-forth involving Gov. Palin and Sen. Biden. Give it a look and then look also below the star line where Speaker Nancy Pelosi and I say a few things.

CNN begins - - -

Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden ripped into recent comments by his Republican counterpart that suggested that some places in the U.S. are more "pro-America" than others.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told a fundraiser in Greensboro, North Carolina, on Thursday night:

"We believe that the best of America is in the small towns that we get to visit, and in the wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard-working, very patriotic, very pro-America areas of this great nation," she said.

"This is where we find the kindness and the goodness and the courage of everyday Americans," Palin added.

On Friday, Palin clarified her comments.

"It's all pro-America. I was just reinforcing the fact that there, where I was, there's good patriotic people there in these rallies, so excited about positive change and reform of government that's coming that they are so appreciative of hearing our message, hearing our plan. Not any one area of America is more pro-America patriotically than others," she said.

At a rally in Mesilla, New Mexico, on Friday, Biden responded to those comments in a vociferous tone.

"I hope it was just a slip on her part and she doesn't really mean it. But she said, it was reported she said, that she likes to visit, 'pro-American' parts of the country," he said to loud boos.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told a fundraiser in Greensboro, North Carolina, on Thursday night:

"We believe that the best of America is in the small towns that we get to visit, and in the wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard-working, very patriotic, very pro-America areas of this great nation," she said.

"This is where we find the kindness and the goodness and the courage of everyday Americans," Palin added.

On Friday, Palin clarified her comments.

"It's all pro-America. I was just reinforcing the fact that there, where I was, there's good patriotic people there in these rallies, so excited about positive change and reform of government that's coming that they are so appreciative of hearing our message, hearing our plan. Not any one area of America is more pro-America patriotically than others," she said.

At a rally in Mesilla, New Mexico, on Friday, Biden responded to those comments in a vociferous tone.

"I hope it was just a slip on her part and she doesn't really mean it. But she said, it was reported she said, that she likes to visit, 'pro-American' parts of the country," he said to loud boos.

"It doesn't matter where you live, we all love this country, and I hope it gets through. We all love this country," he said. "We are one nation, under God, indivisible. We are all patriotic. We all love our country in every part of this nation! And I'm tired. I am tired, tired, tired, tired of the implications about patriotism." "It doesn't matter where you live, we all love this country, and I hope it gets through. We all love this country," he said. "We are one nation, under God, indivisible. We are all patriotic. We all love our country in every part of this nation! And I'm tired. I am tired, tired, tired, tired of the implications about patriotism." ...

The entire CNN story's here.



Let’s hope CNN got the Palin-Biden exchanges right.

Now to Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who recently said House Republicans were “unpatriotic” for not attending a meeting on the $700 billion bailout package.

Turns out they hadn’t even been invited. (You can read more and view a video clip of the news conference at which Pelosi called the Republicans “unpatriotic” here.)

Even if the Republicans had been invited and boycotted the meeting for some reason, say lack of proper notice or failure to agree beforehand on an agenda, would Pelosi have been justified in calling the Republicans “unpatriotic?”

I don’t think so.

I'm sorry I can’t tell you what Sen. Biden or any other top Democrat, including Sen. Obama, thought of Pelosi's “unpatriotic” remark because I can't find any news report of any top Dem speaking out and criticizing Pelosi.

And, of course, the Dem news organizations such as the NY and LA Times, NPR, WaPo and the Raleigh N&O have said nothing I could find either, although they’ve all reported often on anything President-presumptive Barack Obama perceives to be an aspersion of his patriotism.

It’s the old double standard, folks.

Last thought: Biden was blathering when he said, "We all love this country."

I wish that was true, but it's not.

There isn't much point pretending it is unless you're hustling voters.

Hat tip: BN

Raleigh N&O is OK with ACORN fraud

P. J. Gladnick at today - - -

It seems like the editorial departments of liberal newspapers across America are going out of their way to assure us that ACORN, which has been been submitting massive numbers of fraudulent "voter" registrations, is really doing nothing much to complain about. And if you do complain, you should shut up as the Los Angeles Times told John McCain or you are just playing politics as the Raleigh News & Observer asserted today in an editorial (emphasis mine)

:The Associated Press reports that the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now is under investigation by the FBI for possible involvement in voter registration fraud. That follows Republican complaints that the group, which has signed up over a million new voters nationwide, including 27,000 in North Carolina, is abetting fraud by submitting false registration forms to election officials. Last week John McCain made the startling charge that ACORN may be "on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history."

Gladnick made a great catch.

His post ends with that last line in his bold from the editorial.

Reading on in the editorial you see the N&O pay a passing nod to honest voting and then get to the read purpose of its editorial which is to play the race card to justify vote fraud.

The N&O says:
ACORN, for its part, asserts that no illegal vote has ever been tied to it -- and it submitted nearly 2 million registrations in 2004 and 2006. So is this an election issue or a political issue?

Now, don't get us wrong. Voter fraud is a serious offense, destructive of democracy. It must be thwarted at every turn -- while keeping the registration and voting process as hassle-free as possible. ACORN's methods, which involve paying people to sign up new voters, do indeed bear seeds of trouble. …

One result is that there have been instances this year, in Connecticut, Indiana and Texas, in which a significant percentages of the registration forms turned in by ACORN appear faulty -- that is, faked. Another is that in recent election years a small number of the group's part-time workers or employees have been indicted, and some found guilty, of offenses linked to registration shenanigans. They get no sympathy here.
So the N&O editors claim to take vote fraud seriously, but ACORN’s actions are really no big deal. “Vote suppression” is what upsets the N&O as it goes on to say:
It's equally the case, however, that in recent years we've seen apparent efforts to deter presumably Democratic-leaning citizens from voting. These include misleading phone calls, excessive purging of voter rolls in advance of elections and efforts to snarl polling places by putting newly registered voters through the wringer. …
At the N&O “putting newly registered voters through the wringer” means asking for valid photo ID, the very mention of which upsets the N&O as it does Jimmy Carter, Al Sharpton and Chicago’s Mayor Daley.

The entire N&O editorial's here.

Hat tip: Archer 05

Monday, October 20, 2008

The Churchill Series - Oct>. 20, 2008

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

In March, 1916, Churchill was at the front commanding a battalion of the Royal Scots Fusiliers. His adjutant, Archibald Sinclair, was due for leave. Churchill arranged for Sinclair to stay in London with Clementine and the children in the house they were sharing with his sister-in-law, Gwendeline (always called “Goonie” in the family) and her children. Goonie’s husband, Jack,Churchill’s younger brother and only sib was at the time serving in the eastern Mediterranean.

On March 22 Clementine wrote Churchill to tell him of “Archie’s” arrival. She had just started the letter when the Editor of the Manchester Guardian (now called The Guardian) arrived. He had some advice for Churchill which Clementine passed on before telling Churchill about Archie:

My Darling,

Your letter announcing Archie’s immediate arrival has just come and I have been hastily arranging things for his reception – I am so glad he is coming here especially as he will bring more immediate news of you ----

I was interrupted by the visit of [Manchester Guardian Editor] Mr. C. P. Scott.

While he was here Archie arrived & was therefore able to deliver your letter in person.

Mr. Scott is glad that you still feel that your proper sphere is in the House of Commons, but is very anxious that your return should not make an unfavourable impression – He thinks the right opportunity should be waited for and then seized at once. ….

I am struck by Archie’s appearance – He looks pale and careworn. He cares for you much & takes your affairs to heart I think.

He seems to me to need rest and distraction.

He has gone to have a Turkey [Turkish bath] & is returning to dinner – I will write again later – Keep a level mind my Darling & a stout heart.

Your loving,

I’ll comment further on this letter tomorrow.

For now, these few items: Churchill and Sinclair formed a deep friendship that lasted until Churchill’s death.

During WW II Sinclair served as Secretary of State for Air.

Sinclair was 24 when he visited Clementine.
Clementine’s letter is found on page 192 of Speaking for Themselves: The Personal Letters of Winston and Clementine Churchill, Edited by their daughter Mary Soames.

MSM silent on Jon Stewart 's Palin expletive

Mary Katharine Ham reports at the Weekly Standard’s The Blog - - -

Speaking to a college audience in Boston, Mass. Friday, "Daily Show" host Jon Stewart used his stand-up routine to respond to Sarah Palin's comments about "pro-America" parts of the country, shedding the profanity restrictions that govern his Comedy Central show.

"She said that small towns, that's the part of the country she really likes going to because that's the pro-America part of the country. You know, I just want to say to her, just very quickly: [expletive] you," Stewart said to raucous applause.

Palin addressed a North Carolina fund-raiser Thursday night saying, "We believe that the best of America is not all in Washington, D.C. We believe...that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, very pro-America areas of this great nation."

The comment was quickly picked up by media outlets and the Obama campaign, whose spokesman Bill Burton asked in an e-mail to reporters, "What part of the country isn’t pro-America?"

Stewart didn't let his own harsh language stop him from criticizing John McCain and Palin for divisiveness.

"I can't take it anymore...After eight years of this divisiveness, we're back to this idea that only small-town America is the real America," he said.

The Manhattan native accused the Republicans of "writing off whole swaths of the country," saying "cities are just a lot of towns piled on top of each other in one place."

During the same routine, however, he seemed to write off Palin's rural swath of the country, referring to the governor's home not as Alaska, Wasilla, or Juneau, but as "the woods."

"McCain made an interesting vice presidential choice," he said. "I like the woods...I just don't know if I would pull my vice president out of the woods randomly."

Stewart also joked about Palin's recent statements on Barack Obama's links to domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and Obama's abortion stances, distorting her statements[.]...

The media has devoted hundreds of stories of late to the tenor of audience comments at McCain-Palin rallies, fretting about "rage" and "incitement" by the campaign, but the only account of Stewart's appearance is a one-sentence mention in the Boston Globe, and his abusive Palin comments are not included.

Ham's entire post's here.


You can bet if a prominent McCain supporter had said “Expletive you, Obama,” if would be the MSM’s lead story that day.

But what Jon Stewart did is different.

Stewart wasn’t directing his obscenity at the MSM’s candidate or his running mate.

MSM news orgs have different standards for different parties.

But shhh. We’re not supposed to know that.

Thank heavens for the small group of reporters and commenters with the integrity to bring us news most of MSM hides from us.

Race looks to be tightening

If you believe some of Obama’s MSM tankers, the race is over.

But polls tell a different story.

Rasmussen this morning - - -

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows Barack Obama attracting 50% of the vote while John McCain earns 46%. Obama has been at the 50% level of support for seven of the past eight days while McCain has been at 45% or 46%. Obama’s lead has been in the four to six point range on each of those eight days.

This suggests that the race may be tightening a bit. Prior to the past week, Obama had enjoyed a five to eight point advantage for several weeks. ...

And CNN just an hour ago - - -

With two weeks and one day until election day, a new national poll of likely voters suggests the race for the White House may be tightening up.

In a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Monday, 51 percent of likely voters questioned Friday through Sunday back Barack Obama for president, with 46 percent supporting John McCain.

That 5 point advantage for Senator Obama, D-Illinois, is down from an 8 point edge he held over Senator McCain, R-Arizona, in the last CNN/ORC national poll, conducted October 3-5....

The full Rasmussen report's here; CNN's is here.

What McClatchy’s Pruitt says and what he delivers

Yesterday I posted N&O partisan swill and race pass for Obama in response to the N&O’s editorial page endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama. The post links to the editorial’s full text.

This post today includes a comment I left on the endorsement thread and the full text of an email N&O senior editor Linda Williams sent to newsroom staff the morning following Gov. Sarah Palin’s acceptance speech at the RNC.

I end the post with McClatchy CEO Gary Pruitt definition of journalism and a few comments of mine.

My thread comment - - -

You don't say a word about the racist, anti-American Jeremiah Wright, unrepentant terrorist Will Ayers, or convicted felon Tony Rezko whom Sen. Obama befriended and built his public career with.

Why not?

Obama said his Grandma was "a typical white person."

You didn't say whether that's like saying "a typical Jew."

Why not?

You tore into those Duke boys, but you gave Obama a race pass.

Josephus Daniels “lived” in your editorial.


Senior editor Linda Williams’ email was sent by someone at the N&O to former N&O columnist G. D. Gearino who posted it along with context information at his eponymous blog. He offered no comment on the email itself lest he sway readers.

Williams’ email to N&O newsroom staff - - -

A few comments on some good work in today’s paper:

–A lively front page that gave our readers plenty to talk about.

Has the political right truly turned the corner and will cease to demonize opponents on so-called moral issues, or are we witnessing the boldest, most cynical, most hypocritical political spin in modern history?

What is one to make of John McCain’s greeting at the Twin Cities airport yesterday of America’s most famous baby mama with a warm hug, and the apparent attaboy pat on the shoulder for the self-described “f***ing redneck” baby daddy?

Are we now celebrating teenagers’ raging hormones?

The claims department feature (see 8a) is a great reader service. I would like to see more scrutiny of the “facts” in Sarah Palin’s speech last night.

Now to our local politicians….Is Kenn Gardner just an inept liar or a man so greedy that he doesn’t care whether we think he’s an inept liar as long as he gets paid?
–A newsy and entertaining Triangle&Co. front.

I’d bet that Barry Saunders is hearing a lot of amens this morning as well as feeling a lot of hate. Good. A columnist should stir ‘em up. Much of America may have forgotten, but the black community has a very long memory of Republicans demonizing black unwed moms.

The black wire–radio and a growing black blogesphere–is crackling this morning with wicked “Juno” jokes. In general, black bloggers ( A warning to the easily offended, the name is a big clue) are having a great time with the GOP show in Minneapolis.

–Lots of interesting people stories in the sports section about college athletes and the pros. For those following tennis’ sibling rivalry, Serena has gained a slight lead by beating older sister Venus in the U.S. Open quarterfinals.

–Good, timely story–and an inviting headline (Life over breasts)– on the Life, etc. cover

Folks, Williams’ email is really something, isn’t it?

For the record, the N&O tells readers its news reporting is "fair and accurate."

There are people who believe that, just as there are people (mostly very young) who believe the Easter Bunny brings all those baskets.

And that brings us to McClatchy CEO Gary Pruitt’s definition of journalism published in the Aug./Sept. 2003 American Journalism Review:

"Quality newspapers provide complete, thorough coverage of local, national and international news and features so that people can be fully informed, participate in civic life and just live a better life--from recipes to the actions of city councils and the United Nations.

"Newspapers are the sole remaining mass medium in each local market, so they are essential in not only informing readers but also in creating a sense of cohesion within a community. No other medium or institution, including government, can play that role given the fragmentation of audiences that has occurred in all other forms of media."
I like what Pruitt says. The kind of newspaper he describes would be a great asset to our community and country.

The trouble is the Raleigh News & Observer is the kind of newspaper you’d expect senior editor Linda Williams and other N&O journalists like her to publish.

What’s the name of your community’s newspaper? What’s it like? Is it like what Pruitt says or what he delivers in Raleigh?

Sunday, October 19, 2008

N&O’s partisan swill and race pass for Obama

McClatchy’s liberal/leftist Raleigh News & Observer today endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for president.

No surprise, that.

If you read the paper’s news columns, you know it’s been in the tank for Obama since before the May Democratic primary in which he handily defeated Sen. Hillary Clinton.

But a few things about the lengthy endorsement did surprise me.

It made no mention of Wright, Ayers and Rezko.

I wasn’t expecting much, but I didn’t think the N&O would totally ignore Obama’s close ties to the racist, anti-American Wright, the unrepentant terrorist Ayers and the convicted felon Rezko.

Given the importance of the three in shaping Obama’s thinking and advancing his career, I expected the N&O would devote at least a few sentences to them, albeit the kind that would mellow out their natures, actions and Obama’s longstanding, close ties to them until this year when they became political liabilities.

I thought the N&O would offer something like: “We eschew Rev. Wright’s less temperate “snippets” as we do some of Professor Ayers’ 60s radicalism. The same is true of those of Mr. Rezko’s efforts which have brought him attention he did not seek. However, since Sen. Obama has severed whatever ties he might have had to the preacher, educator and businessman, we see no reason for public concern.”

The N&O presented its endorsement as a carefully reasoned, informed judgment. A few sentences such as I’ve suggested might have helped the more gullible readers think that’s what they were getting.

But an Obama editorial endorsement that fails to discuss in any serious way his extensive and very troubling relationships with Wright, Ayers and Rezko shouldn’t fool anyone: it can’t be anything but partisan swill.

One of the most disturbing things Obama's said this year occurred in March when he told an interviewer his grandmother was a “typical white person.”

Obama had said the day before that when he was growing up, she'd made some racist remarks that made him “cringe.”

I’m sorry he had those experiences but his remark about “a typical white person” made me cringe the way I do when I hear someone say “He’s a typical black person.”

Obama should have been pressed by MSM to at least explain and possibly apologize for his remark just as Sen. McCain would have been had he said someone was “a typical black person.”

Obama’s “typical white person” remark, some race cards he’s played during the campaign, most notably and disgustingly against former President Bill Clinton, and his tolerance for, if not embrace, of Jeremiah Wright’s pervasive, intense racism all should have been examined by the N&O.

But it’s editorial says nothing about any of that.

The N&O gives Obama a complete race pass.

And yes, the N&O's the newspaper that slimed, lied about and endangered the Duke lacrosse players with its publication of the Vigilante poster, all the while decrying what it said were racist remarks made by the players. [Subsequent inquiry has led to the conclusion that at most two players each made a racial remark in response to a provocative remark by “the second dancer” hired to perform at the Duke lacrosse party; that remark being, according to the dancer, Kim Roberts, “little dick white boys.”]

Having pounded the lacrosse players for racial remarks, the N&O now ignores Sen. Obama's documented and more extensive racial remarks as well as his close friendship and generous financial support of one of America's best known racists.

The N&O's editorial today was as naked an example of giving someone a race pass as anything Josephus Daniels ever wrote.

I was surprised the N&O didn't even bother with some kink of fig leaf. The editors must have thought nobody would notice.

The N&O editorial’s here.

Country and Party

The Ex-Prosecutor commented in response to Barone: "The coming Obama thugacracy" with a very thoughtful statement about party affiliation. I want to share Ex-P’s comment with you, after which I’ll say some things about where I stand on party affiliation. Then it’s your turn.

Before reading on you may want to take a look at the Barone post.

Here’s the Ex-Prosecutor - - -

I agree with this post. However, I believe that the Republicans have brought all of this on themselves, and unfortunately, as the article points out, on the rest of us.

The first vote of my life was for Barry Goldwater and, since then, I have been a very dependable Republican voter and contributor. Since then, I have seen the Republican Party shift away from long-time members such as myself. Former Senate majority leader Howard Baker was a moderate Republican, meaning that he was conservative on fiscal issues and moderate on social issues.

These days, the only way he could make it past the Republican primary in Tennessee is if two conservatives split the conservative vote. In fact, this happened in our last election to the benefit of the moderate candidate.

Senator Baker was known as the "Great Conciliator." Today, I see few conciliators in the Republican Party, for the party would not tolerate positions taken by a present day Howard Baker.

I have made quick comparisons of the Republican party platforms over the past years. They are reflective of and responsive to the problems and issues of the time, including the cold war, Roe v. Wade, abortion and same-sex marriage. That of 1976 blisters the Democrats, but would be an indictment of the current Republican party.

It may be that the issues and problems of our time make compromises much more difficult. However, the current Republican party has placed much greater emphasis on social issues and ignored the party's most basic beliefs, as set out in the 1976 platform, as to the role of government and individual rights.

In short, I want to be a member of the Republican party of 40 years ago.

Thanks, Ex-P.

As for my party affiliation, I’m registered as an “unaffiliated” voter.

I almost always vote a split ballot.

If you pushed me to say more than that, I’d answer you this way: I’m not a Republican, but I can’t be a Democrat.

The U.S. military is America’s most essential organization.

Take it off the board and the killers dominating Pakistan’s tribal areas, practicing genocide in parts of Africa, and teaching women and children to make themselves human bombs in Iraq and Israel would soon be over here.

I don’t want that so I always look at both parties and ask myself how they’re treating our military.

Neither party treats our servicemen and women nor their families as well as they ought to be treated.

But the Rs don’t slime our military and put our servicemen's and women’s lives at greater risk the way too many Dems do.

I’m not just talking about the rank-and-file Dems in Move who help pay for and endorse things like a General Betray Us ad.

Or those who jump on and hype anything that reflects poorly on our military without waiting for facts or by ignoring them outright. A lot of Dems controlling news media are that way as are millions who approve such media.

If it was just millions of rank-and-file Dems engaging in that reprehensible behavior, I’d say their leaders need to rein them in and allow that maybe I could be a Dem.

But when it comes to sliming our military and thereby putting our serving forces lives at greater risk than need be, many Dem leaders lead and others won’t call them out for what they are.

Ted Kennedy at the time of Abu Ghraib said Saddam’s prison system’s been re-opened under U. S. military direction. Dick Durbin compared our military at Gitmo to the Gestapo and Pol Pot’s killers. Jack Murtha announces our Marines at Haditha have killed civilians “in cold blood.”

Their calumnies have been used to great effect by America's enemies.

There’s really no need for al Qeada to make up lies to inflame sentiment against our troops and recruit future terrorists. Al Qaeda only needs to quote the lies of Kennedy, Durbin and Murtha.

Traveling around the world I hear and read those lies quoted back by everyone from the well-intentioned, but uninformed to the chronic, zealous anti-American including, especially, the Jew-haters.

There’s a lot more I could say about all this, but I've said enough to make my point to reasonable people.

There are other reasons why I couldn’t be a Dem and I’ll post on a few of them soon.

Now where are you in terms of party affiliation?

Lincoln on "spreading the wealth"

A blog friend sent along the following - - -

I thought this quote ... is very appropriate in the context of current issues concerning " spreading the wealth " and class warfare:

"Property is the fruit of is a positive good in
the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich,
and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who
is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and
build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe
from violence when built."

Abraham Lincoln
Source: March 21, 1864 - Reply to New York Workingmen's
Democratic Republican Association".