Parable of Why Johnny Can't Borrow

I was in Las Vegas recently, after the November 2nd election. While having a casual dinner at the Trevi restaurant in Caesar's Palace, our waiter Ralph asked where we were from. We told him Oklahoma and he asked about our economy there and specifically the housing market. We chatted about that and then he told us he bought a house two years ago just north of the city of Las Vegas. He paid $256,000 and thought his property, usually in a hot market, would surely gain equity. Just the opposite happened, of course, and I began schooling him about Bill Clinton's Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), and Barney Frank and Chris Dodd's coddling of it. Had I had the Parable of Johnny, I would have been finished with Ralph before dessert.

Why Johnny Shouldn't Have Borrowed - Housing Crisis

Within a year, Ralph's home was worth not much more than $150,000.

So, I've talked about the reason for all of our economic woes on this blog many, many times.  Rather than go through it again, Michael Prell at The Daily Caller has a post today that simplifies the roller coaster that repeated itself over and over again, until everyone wanting a house had one, whether they could pay for it or not. This is how I should have explained it to Ralph:

The "Parable of Why Johnny Can't Borrow:"

One day, Johnny woke up and decided to buy a house. But Johnny did not have enough money to buy a house. So he went to someone who did have enough money: Mr. Capitalist.

“Mr. Capitalist,” asked Johnny, “could you please loan me the money to buy a house?”

“Do you have good credit, a down payment, or proof of income?” asked Mr. Capitalist.

“No,” replied Johnny.

The End

And the end of the Global Financial Crisis.

The good news is that rather than abandon his home, which Ralph and his wife seriously considered, they refinanced and got their monthly payment greatly reduced and are once again hoping for a rise in equity.

Prell's article, QE2 vs the Titanic is a short and pithy narrative of the meaning and importance of capitalism and what happens when the free market is under assault. Prell is a strategist for Tea Party Patriots and the author of the forthcoming book, Underdogma: How America's Enemies Use Our Love for the Underdog to Trash American Power (release date January 20, 2011)

Related and Background:
Tracking the Mess of Fannie and Freddie
Financial Crisis Timeline: Republicans Warned of Economic Crisis
Bulldog Maxine Waters and her Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee

Tony Blair's SisInLaw Becomes Muslim: Lauren Booth Converts to Islam: What's Wrong with Craig Darby?

Tony Blair's sister-in-law, Lauren Booth, converted to Islam after visiting the Fatima a-Masumeh shrine in Iran, where she experienced a "shot of spiritual morphine." Booth is a "journalist and broadcaster. Her husband Craig Darby has complained of the difficulties of being a kept man. Odd for the husband of a Muslim. I wonder how that's working out?

Lauren Booth and Craig Darby

Booth works for Press TV, the English language Iranian news channel. She is currently on page 60 of the Koran. Hilarious. How many imprisoned woman dying in Iranian prisons will she write about? She is, of course, a sympathizer and advocate for Palestine. She is hoping to change Tony Blair's mind about Islam. Did I mention she's up to page 60 in the Koran?

Booth may have had several shots of something. In May 2009 she "divorced" her husband on Facebook after a fight. She changed her marital status to "single" and FB sent a message out to her followers. Her husband learned of her action sometime later. She apologized to him, but the next day he had a motorcycle accident and was in a coma for two weeks.

Get this, her husband actually allowed the UK's MailOnline to publish this embarrassing interview about their marriage?

As she drums her fingers on the desk, I have only to close my eyes and I'm aged 11, hopping up and down on one foot, pleading with Mum for cash to buy a Beano comic and a packet of gobstoppers.

But Lauren isn't my mum: she's my wife. We're supposed to be equals. I'm 39 years old and, by rights, should be at the peak of my career, adored by my kids, admired and pampered by my grateful missus. Instead, I'm a househusband with not a penny to my name.

That's why I'm here, cap in hand, asking for £10 pocket money to buy a round of drinks. No wonder I feel humiliated.

Like any woman, Lauren is utterly unpredictable. She might be the main breadwinner but, safe to say, she has definitely not lost this particular feminine streak. Some days her pink purse (yes, really) snaps open and she hands over a wodge of cash with no questions asked and only a dismissive wave of her hand.

Other times, one eyebrow will shoot up quizzically and I know I'm in for the third degree: 'How much money exactly? What's it for? Don't I know she's not made of money?'

Darby says he is a beer-swilling ex-paratrooper, just bursting with testosterone. She wears a hijab when she leaves home to pray at her local mosque and he stays behind and does the laundry. Sometimes he fails to sort the colored from the whites, or Lauren's silk undies from their daughters pajamas. Do you believe the beer-swilling ex-paratrooper story? I don't. This pitiful person says he feels like a Geisha Guy.

There's not a Muslim man on the face of the earth that would live the life of Craig Darby.

So how is Lauren's local imam gonna look at this? Of course, she can't pray with Muslim men. The imam may not pay much attention to her. Afterall, she's not a man, but...judging from all the above, she will find a way to catch her imam's eye - or die trying...literally.

The video is Booth speaking to a group of Muslims. She says she always loved the "religion." She thanks Allah for the peace she feels. Her husband is nowhere around. Her daughter delivers a message for the crowd. The UK's Muslim demographics are soaring.

Lauren Booth on Converting to Islam

Posted by Maggie @ Maggie's Notebook

Content Scrapers: Until I can figure out what to do about your confiscation of my work for your own website, please be sure to give a link back as shown above.

Blogger Quote of the Day 10-24-10: Ran at Si Vis Pacem

Okay, to begin with, I will not pretend that I've always known to what the Latin Si Vis Pacem translates. But I didn't have to look it up because Ran, the Dominus at Si Vis Pacem provides the translation in his banner, and it is advice we must hold dear: If you seek peace, seek first liberty. So visiting Ran, I found his latest post on the truth about Tea Parties finally being told in media such as the Wall Street Journal.

Peggy Noonan wrote the article to which Dominus refers. Noonan is always quote-worthy, but I loved this quote from Ran in response to her article:

In the end, it isn't even about The Won. It is about the statist-progressive totalitarian agenda. America is an idea, after all. American exceptionalism is merely the aggregate expression of individual achievement obtained with Libery. That's really all we Teapers want."

 Ronald Reagan and Peggy Noonan

Up top in the article is a portion of Peggy's Noonan's WSJ article: How the GOP was saved from Bush and the establishment. Can you guess who she credits? As Ran said, Noonan hit it out of the park. Please visit Ran and check out the article and the comments at Si Vis Pacem, and rejoice along with us, that some major media are beginning "to get it." And one more...another from the Hoover Institution, also printed in the WSJ.

Rush Limbaugh Calls Obama a Jackass, Ignoramous: Democrats Call G.W. Satan's Monkey

ABC's Steven Portnoy wrote yesterday that Rush Limbaugh had "taken his contempt of the president to a new level," when he called Obama a "jackass." Where was Portnoy when G. W. was in office and among other names, called "Satan's Monkey,"or General David Petraeus tagged General Betrayus by Obama funder George Soros? See the Rush Limbaugh video below calling Obama an "economic illiterate," an "economic ignoramous," an "idiot" where capitalism is concerned, and a "jackass." Source

Rush Limbaugh

View a list of "nicknames" for Bush at Doug Ross and Democratic Underground.

Rush Limbaugh on Barack Obama's Economic Medulla Oblongata

Bob Herbert: America Putting our Brains on Hold?

New York Times columnist, Bob Herbert writes this week about America's dismal lack of education and our fascination with waywards like Lindsay Lohan. He laments our lack of industrial might, the fewer students applying for college, decries our joblessness, the economy - and the overall leadership of the world that we have let slip through our fingers. Herbert says America has put our brains on hold, and "everyone" is to blame for this miserable state of our nation. That begs a response, don't you think? Don't miss the video below.

Bob Herbert

What would a conservative have to say to Bob Herbert when he asks "where is the serious and widespread engagement" on these issues? We would tell him he isn't paying attention to the Right sources. If he took a peek to the Right he would see that we are hemorrhaging information and angst.

Among Herbert's concerns are: teachers are not teaching a curricula that is "interesting and inspiring." Grade school sex-ed must not be self-fulfilling for our youngsters. Cleanse the schools of Marxist/Communist teachers and teach real history - the Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights - all stimulating and inspiring unless you are that Marxist/Communist teacher.

The struggle to strengthen the economy. Democrats wrecked it. They cheated responsible homeowners and rewarded irresponsible buyers. The plethora of easy money created swells of buyers, and the demand sent home prices soaring. When the adjustable rates kicked in, the irresponsible simply walked away. After all they had no home equity because they received a zero-down government loan. Banks sold the abandoned properties for far less than their customers paid for them, and the responsible homeowners in the neighborhood saw their home values plummet as well. It WAS the Democrats who deserve the blame. Blame Barney Franks, Maxine Waters and Chris Dodd.  Here are the facts.

We have to mention the reprehensible spending habits of Republicans during the Bush years, right? Bush took office in January 2001 and served until January 2009. Barack Obama came to the U.S. Senate in January 2005 and served until mid-November 2008. Despite his whiny claims that the deficit belongs to G.W., the truth is, long before Obama descended to the White House he voted for each and every Bush budget. This from Rush Limbaugh:

He [Obama]  never opposed anything about what Bush was doing.  He was always of the mind it wasn't enough.  Now, if the Democrats "inherited" any deficit, it was the fiscal year 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit in fiscal year 2007 was the lowest deficit in five years, the fourth straight decline in deficit spending.  After that, the Democrats in Congress took control of spending. They took control in 2007, and that includes Obama who voted for all of the budgets that Bush put forth.  He voted for every budget that busted whatever. 

He cannot say he opposed it.  He cannot say he differed from it.  He cannot say he warned everybody.  He was right in there! He voted for every one of those budgets, so if he "inherited" anything, he inherited from himself because he was right there.  His only complaint during the Bush administration was that they weren't spending enough. 

 In fact, Bush expanded the budget by $700 billion through 2008. Obama didn't fool with the small stuff. He added another $1 trillion. Here's a little tid-bit that you should know: "...Obama's budget" according to The Heritage Foundation, would add twice as much debt as G.W. Bush. 


About the loss of our "industrial might:" Blame the unions. There is no need to lay out the facts here. We all know them much too well. The terrible truth has been revealed. Union contracts give companies good reason to go overseas and be "industrial" at a much lower cost, which in turn may lead to higher stockholder benefits back in the states. Americans don't build factories overseas for the fun of it - it 's a business decision. Get the unions in line with wages and benefits and remove the heavy green regulations on energy and we become "industrial" again.

About fewer students applying for a college education: White and middle class students are often turned down at the college of their choice. Excellent grades aren't enough to gain admittance. Parents willing to pay for their child's degree - to pay retail for it - doesn't do a thing to enhance their White child's chances. Why? Because affirmative action is still alive and well at University. If your child wants to go to a state school outside of your home state, very few slots are available for Caucasians. Should your White child aspire to an Ivy League school - good luck. The stats are literally stacked against him/her. In general, those spots are only open to Hispanics and Blacks entering with scholarships and grants. Their SAT's are handicapped and they jump to the front of the line. Whites and Asians with impressive grades are often not considered at all.

"Being Hispanic conferred an admissions boost over being white ... equivalent to 130 SAT points (out of 1,600), while being black rather than white conferred a 310-point SAT advantage. Asians, however, suffered an admissions penalty compared to whites equivalent to 140 SAT points."

"To have the same chance of gaining admission as a black student with a SAT score of 1100, a Hispanic student otherwise equally matched in background characteristics would have to have 1230, a white student a 1410, and an Asian student a 1550."

When you tell your child all his/her life, that if he works hard, and gets good grades, he can go to almost any school he wants - then you find you have lied to him for years, it is beyond discouraging.

But long before university, school vouchers could change elementary education for the better. Republicans want vouchers. Democrats hate them. but vouchers are the bane of Democrats. Legislation often doesn't make it out of committee - even knowing public schools are a recipe for failure. It is all about the money. The government gives public schools a stipend for each student in a classroom. Democrats must live with choosing the money and unions over the children. 

Remember that one of the first things Obama did after taking office was to cut-off low-income blacks from scholarships to his daughter's school, the Sidwell Friends. Republicans fought for vouchers. Obama said he was open to them, he lied. Democrats had all the power but sided with the unions over the children. I dare you to watch the video below and tell me how exactly Democrats want better education.

Herbert said:

 According to a new report from the College Board, the U.S. is 12th among developed nations in the percentage of 25- to 34-year-olds with college degrees. The report said, “As America’s aging and highly educated work force moves into retirement, the nation will rely on young Americans to increase our standing in the world.”

The problem is that today’s young Americans are not coming close to acquiring the education and training needed to carry out that mission. They’re not even in the ballpark. In that key group, 25- to 34-year-olds with a college degree, the U.S. ranks behind Canada, South Korea, Russia, Japan, New Zealand, Ireland, Norway, Israel, France, Belgium and Australia. That is beyond pathetic.  

I agree - it is beyond pathetic, so maybe Bob Herbert will use his bi-weekly column to shame Democrats and their head-butting quest to put union interests ahead of education.


Herbert ends his article saying that after many years, and much accomplishment we led education worldwide, but we "foolishly applied the brakes." I agree. We wore out the brakes as we jammed them to the floor, desperately trying to stop the world and grab onto political correctness. In doing so, we dumbed down our schools, added worthless classes - even letting some students opt out of math and science because it was "hard." Now our brake pads are disintegrating and on fire, and there's no one in the "ruling" Democrat party committed to repairing them. Not everyone put their brains on hold, Mr. Herbert. I suggest those who did, get out of the way and let us handle it. Another suggestion from my hubby: "Bob, read Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams or Herman Cain please.


Glen Beck and a Washington D.C. Family on School Vouchers (video) 

 

Linked by:
 The Lonely Conservative who says There is Something Happening Here (and it's good news).

Doug Ross and Larwyn's Lynx - Thank you!

Taxing the Rich Will Not Make Us Prosperous!

Arthur Laffer's op-ed in the Wall Street Journal is a must-read. He makes the case, using historical data, that we simply cannot tax ourselves into prosperity. To hear the liberal politicians and pundits talk, allowing the wealthy in America to keep more of the money they earn is tantamount to willfully starving babies. Nothing could be farther from the truth. High taxation brings about less work, less prosperity and poverty for more people. It's the opposite of spreading the wealth around, because tax receipts to the government actually decrease when tax rates are raised. The super-wealthy know how to get around paying those high taxes - they can afford expensive lawyers and accountants that most of us cannot.

Here's a sampling of what high tax rates for the rich has led to in the past.

Or perhaps you'd like to see how the rich paid less in taxes under the bipartisan tax rate increases of Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter? Between 1968 and 1981 the top 1% of income earners reduced their total income tax payments to 1.5% of GDP from 1.9% of GDP.

And then there's the Hoover/Roosevelt Great Depression. The Great Depression was precipitated by President Hoover in early 1930, when he signed into law the largest ever U.S. tax increase on traded products—the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. President Hoover then thought it would be clever to try to tax America into prosperity. Using many of the same arguments that Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are using today, President Hoover raised the highest personal income tax rate to 63% from 24% on Jan. 1, 1932. He raised many other taxes as well.

President Roosevelt then debauched the dollar with the 1933 Bank Holiday Act and his soak-the-rich tax increase on Jan. 1, 1936. He raised the highest personal income tax rate to 79% from 63% along with a whole host of other corporate and personal tax rates as well. The U.S. economy went into a double dip depression, with unemployment rates rising again to 20% in 1938. Over the course of the Great Depression, the government raised the top marginal personal income tax rate to 83% from 24%.

Is it any wonder that the Great Depression was as long and deep as it was? Whoever heard of a country taxing itself into prosperity? Not only did taxes as a share of GDP fall, but GDP fell as well. It was a double whammy. Tax receipts from the top 1% of income earners stayed flat as a share of GDP, going to 1% in 1940 from 1.1% in 1928, but at what cost?

We all know that there are lots of factors influencing tax revenues from the rich, but the number one factor has to be the statutory tax rates government tells the rich they have to pay. Not only do the direct income tax consequences of higher tax rates on those in the highest brackets lead to higher deficits, the indirect effects magnify the tax revenue losses many fold.

The intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy of the advocates for soaking the rich would be startling, if it weren't so prevalent. Laffer also pointed out how people like John Kerry and the late Howard Metzbaum have gone out of their way to avoid paying the taxes they advocate for everyone else.

Look at what just the talk of raising taxes is doing to the economy - the recession keeps hanging on and unemployment remains high. What's going to happen if they go and raise taxes on the very people they need to get us out of this? What they ought to do is make those tax cuts permanent, but there's no chance of that with this gang of class warriors running the show.

I don't know about you, but no poor person has ever given me a job.

Obama 2008 Win Sends Journolist into Ecstasy

Here's your unbiased media folks, you know, the ones who have baldly lied to you, lied to you by omission and declared war and claims of racism on anyone who did not vote for Barack Obama. Enjoy these tidbits of Journolist ecstasy, along with some hate speech. NASCAR fans, don't miss the quote on the last line of this page.

Dateline November 4th, 2008: Snippets of elitists on JournoList from The Daily Caller - Thanks to Jonathan Strong (The affiliations shown below are as of the date quoted)

Josh Bearman, LA Weekly: 11 months ago I burst into tears by myself on a plane while watching Hardball when my mind wandered to the image of President Obama being sworn in. I've been fighting it ever since. [interesting that Bearman travels by air by himself].

Michael Tomasky, The Guardian: I'm just jelly. Lord!

Harold Pollack, University of Chicago: I am awed by the responsibility we have taken on. Tomorrow a desperately ill African-American woman will present at my university hospital for care, and she will be turned away. She will expect us to live up to what we feel tonight. So we've got a lot to live up to.

Dateline November 7th, 2008:

Michael Cohen, New America Foundation: Mark Penn and Bob Shrum. Anyone who uses the expression "Real America." We should send there ass to Gitmo!

Spencer Ackerman: Let's just throw Ledeen against a wall. Or, pace Dr. Alterman, throw him through a plate glass window. I'll bet a little spot of violence would shum right the f**k up, as with most bullies.

Eric Alterman, Author, What Liberal Media: F**king NASCAR retards...

Rich Lowry on How Obama will Argue Against Arizona Immigration Law

Are you puzzled about how the U.S. Government will argue against Arizona adopting and following Federal immigration laws? I was puzzled, but I think Rich Lowry has it sorted out.

Eric Holder and Barack Obama

The Obama administration's plan of action is to execute the Federal law "carefully," meaning they use discretionary enforcement, rather than following the letter of the law, which makes enforcement mandatory.

And all that amounts to an indirect way of saying that the Obama administration is willing to tolerate the presence of millions of illegal aliens in this country, and that, as far as it’s concerned, this preference constitutes the unalloyed law of the land...

In other words, such mandatory enforcement of the law conflicts with the executive’s discretionary enforcement of the law. If Arizona’s statute is in keeping with the letter of the laws as passed by Congress, so what? The executive can selectively pick and choose which elements of those laws to honor, and then on that basis quash state statues even if they mirror the handiwork of Congress.

Will a court accept, that not following the law is a lawful stance?

As Lowry said, "if nothing else, the state of Arizona has smoked out the Obama administration," and put a spotlight on the administration's disinterest in detaining illegals.

In May 2010, I said the same thing. In an early response to Arizona's new law, John Morton the head of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) said when Arizona hands over illegals picked up with the authority of the new law, he may not "accept" them, and said it is not "not good government" to criminalize the presence of illegals. I commented that "being in this country illegally hangs on the discretion of whomever is in power. Charles Krauthammer said this administration is "lawless" and indeed it is, including the Department of Justice. At one time I though the lawlessness was creeping, but with mandated health care,  the New Black Panther voter intimidation case, and now Obama's lawsuit against Arizona, the lawless leaders are in full gallop.

Listen to this excellent commentary from Charles Krauthammer



Charles Krauthammer - Lawless Administration (video)
Linked by Storm'n Norm'n

Magdi Khalil and Abdallah al-Hadlaq Support Israel's Stopping the Flotilla

Magdi Khalil is an Eqyptian-American writer and Abdallah al-Hadlaq is a Kuwaiti journalist. On Al Jazeera TV Khalil blamed increased hostility toward Israel on Western anarchists and said Arab discourse has fueled "illusions and hatred."  Abdallah al-Hadlaq, a Kuwaiti journalist writing in Al-Watan, supported Israel's stopping of the terror flotilla. Both men maintain that it was well-know the flotilla was not peaceful.

Magdi Khalil

Magdi Khalil's June 15th appearance on Al-Jazeera TV - a contentious interview - he noted the terrorist connections of the flotilla, which includes The Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (IHH). Khalil calls IHH "a terrorist organization." 

From MEMRI:

Magdi Khalil: Whenever there is an incident, Israel does 'damage control.' This is part of the Israeli defense tactics. These are successful people, not like Ahmadinejad, who said that Security Council Resolution 1929 should be thrown into the garbage bin. They deal with things seriously. These people know the meaning of world opinion. 

And here, Khalil also blames "leftist anarchists in the West" for renewed hostility toward Israel by the West.

Magdi Khalil: The Islamists, along with the leftist anarchists in the West and some neo-Nazis, have renewed the hostility towards Israel and the West. 

The interviewer tries to quiet Khalil, but it doesn't work, as he points out that the number of people killed in Arab police stations is much higher than those killed in Israeli-Arab wars. (yes, he said "wars.")

Politics and Capitalism quotes Khalil chiding Israel for actually believing the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan's characterization of the flotilla activists as "peaceful people." Khalil said simply, the Turkish PM is an "Islamist" and should not be trusted.

Abdallah Al-Hadlaq, writing that the organizers were supporters of "the terroristic Hamas," Hizbullah, al-Qaeda and Global Jihad, Abdallah Al-Hadlaq said the flotilla was "a pre-planned provocation against Israel," and the [Israeli] soldiers had no choice but to respond." Investigative Project quotes him saying "the world is obsessed" with Gaza while ignoring other important world events, and there is a double standard when it comes to Israel:

Hadlaq explains that there is a "terrible silence, lack of consideration, and indifference that has overcome the world…with regard to more important and more valuable [issues] that merit attention far more than this murky piece of land called the Gaza Strip."

Iran is specifically pointed out by Abdallah. Read the story at Investigative Project on Terrorism and The Elder of Ziyon.

This CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) blog quotes Abdallah al-Hadlaq responding to a Breaking the Silence condemnation of Israel, saying he rejects Gaza's many and varying accusations war crimes committed by Israel, saying the IDF follows international law and obeys order "despite the stress of battle."

However these allegations are to be rejected because the IDF has proved that its troops follow international law and obey orders despite the stress of battle. These testimonies lack sourcing or corroboration, thus preventing any conclusions from being drawn... Furthermore, it was the ostracized Hamas that caused much grief when it fired dozens of Qassam missiles at innocent civilians in the southern towns and villages of Israel. The IDF had no choice but to fight back causing the deaths of 1400 Palestinians, half of them civilians used as human shields by Hamas, in addition to the 5,000 wounded. Israel lost just 10 soldiers and 3 civilians.

I find this very encouraging, and hope these two men can live their lives to a ripe old ages, but I can hear the fatwas now.

H/T to notalemming at twitter

Stanley McChrystal Rolling Stone Mag: McChrystal Comes to Washington for Dress-Down or Firing

General McChrystal gave a Rolling Stone Magazine freelancer unprecedented access to the every day life of fighting the war in Afghanistan. Apparently, the writer 'came, saw, listened and wrote' and  McChrystal is now the target of Obama's wrath for some very cheeky and disrespectful remarks he and his top senior aides made. McChrystal will face his Commander-in-Chief and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates at a meeting of the administration's monthly Security Team meeting - today. By the way, Rolling Stone tells us that McChrystal voted for Barack Obama. See an important update below.

General Stanley McChrystal

The writer of the Rolling Stone piece, Michael Hastings, accompanied McChrystal to an out-post in the Kandahar area of Afghanistan. A 23-year-old soldier had just died as he entered a booby-trapped home.
Unit Commanders sought permission to blow-up the property, and that permission was denied:

One soldier at the outpost showed Hastings, who was traveling with the general, a written directive instructing troops to "patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will have to defend yourself with lethal force.

During a tense meeting with Ingram's platoon, one sergeant tells McChrystal: "Sir, some of the guys here, sir, think we're losing, sir."

This from Washington Post writers Londono and Shear (linked above):

McChrystal has championed a counterinsurgency strategy that prioritizes protecting the population as a means to marginalize and ultimately defeat the insurgency. Because new rules sharply restrict the circumstances under which air strikes and other lethal operation that have resulted in civilian casualties can be conducted, some soldiers say the strategy has left them more exposed.

So as  McChrystal let loose, and let fly, we know our troops are not fighting a war, rather they are commanded to "win the hearts and minds of the locals" and they are dying at an astonishing rate. Is this the way McChrystal wants to fight this war, or is this his best effort considering restriction placed on him by the Obama administration?

We ask what McChrystal was thinking when jokes were made about Joe Biden (who is uniquely qualified to be joked about), when he said meeting with Obama was "disappointing," the President of the United States was "unprepared," and is quoted saying National Security Adviser Jim Jones is a "clown," "stuck in 1985."

We are told McChrystal is "uniquely qualified" to lead our troops in that mean country, but is Barack Obama "uniquely qualified" to command McChrystal?

The article, titled “The Runaway General,” appears in the magazine later this week. It contains a number of jabs by McChrystal and his staff aimed not only at the President but at Vice President Biden, special envoy Richard Holbrooke, Karl Eikenberry, the ambassador to Afghanistan, and others.

McChrystal described his first meeting with Obama as disappointing and said that Obama was unprepared for the meeting. National Security Advisor Jim Jones is described by a McChrystal aide as a “clown” stuck in 1985. Others aides joked about Biden’s last name as sounding like “Bite me” since Biden opposed the surge

The media is calling for his head. Senator John Kerry, just minutes ago said nothing is more important than our mission in Afghanistan, and he advises everyone to stay cool and calm for at least a couple of days. In other words, he seems not to recommend an immediate firing. He is not alone in his opinion.

In a day and time when 17 Afghanistan pilots can be brought to the U.S. and allowed to disappear into the heart of America, and the administrative arm of the U.S. Air Force sees it as an "immigration" problem, I think we have a huge problem. Winning the hearts and minds of Muslims in a Muslim country centuries behind the rest of the world, who hang 7-year-old-boys is not going to happen. What was and is Stanley McChrystal thinking?

So what do you think? Will McChrystal be fired or only humiliated? Who knows, maybe McChrystal will quit. I think he is beyond frustrated. Any real soldier would be.

Update 6-22-12:55 a.m. EDT:

Generals run war according to the Rules of Engagement (ROE) written for a specific engagement. So if things are not going swell in Afghanistan, who wrote the rules of engagement? It appears that McChrystal and the Pentagon came up with winning the hearts and minds of the people, perhaps after Obama made it clear that that was his goal.

Going back to September 2009:

U.S. forces have been told to exercise extreme caution before ordering airstrikes.

By exercising so much restraint, the U.S. military may sacrifice a key firepower advantage on the battlefield and expose ground troops to more risk, some officers and analysts say.

"There is a tradeoff," said Col. Gian Gentile, a former battalion commander in Iraq who has publicly criticized counterinsurgency doctrine. "You reduce civilian casualties, but you potentially increase your own casualties."

Doug Macgregor, a retired Army colonel and military historian, says the emphasis on having conventional forces trying to win over the population is futile.

"You surrender whatever military advantage you have by compelling the U.S. conventional soldier or Marine to fight on terms that favor the enemy, not the American soldier or Marine," Macgregor said.

From George Will June 20, 2010, tells of Officers requesting permission to hit a location, and that permission being denied - Americans died:

"There were villagers laughing at the U.S. casualties" and "two suspicious individuals were seen fleeing the scene and entering a home."

U.S. forces "are no longer allowed to search homes without Afghan National Security Forces personnel present." But when his unit asked Afghan police to search the house, the police refused on the grounds that the people in the house "are good people." 

Another example from Will, when a unit asked for artillery fire on an enemy position and that request was denied, they asked for permission for a "smoke mission," firing an "illumination round" that shows an enemy position.

This request was granted -- but because of fear of collateral damage, the round was deliberately fired one kilometer off the requested site, making "the smoke mission useless and leaving us to fend for ourselves."  

Sweetness and Light posts the entire Rolling Stone article. The following seems to shed a lot of light on the "rules of engagement:

From the start, McChrystal was determined to place his personal stamp on Afghanistan, to use it as a laboratory for a controversial military strategy known as counterinsurgency. COIN, as the theory is known, is the new gospel of the Pentagon brass, a doctrine that attempts to square the military’s preference for high tech violence with the demands of fighting protracted wars in failed states. COIN calls for sending huge numbers of ground troops to not only destroy the enemy, but to live among the civilian population and slowly rebuild, or build from scratch, another nation’s government – a process that even its staunchest advocates admit requires years, if not decades, to achieve.

The theory essentially rebrands the military, expanding its authority (and its funding) to encompass the diplomatic and political sides of warfare: Think the Green Berets as an armed Peace Corps. In 2006, after Gen. David Petraeus beta-tested the theory during his “surge” in Iraq, it quickly gained a hardcore following of think-tankers, journalists, military officers and civilian officials. Nicknamed “COIN-dinistas” for their cultish zeal, this influential cadre believed the doctrine would be the perfect solution for Afghanistan. All they needed was a general with enough charisma and political savvy to implement it. As McChrystal leaned on Obama to ramp up the war, he did it with the same fearlessness he used to track down terrorists in Iraq: Figure out how your enemy operates, be faster and more ruthless than everybody else, then take the fuckers out.

And this look at McChrystal's viewpoint in September 2009:

 "What I'm really telling people is the greatest risk we can accept is to lose the support of the people here," Gen. Stanley McChrystal told CBS's "60 Minutes" in an interview aired Sunday night.

"If the people are against us, we cannot be successful. If the people view us as occupiers and the enemy, we can't be successful and our casualties will go up dramatically."

So the question is, how's that working out for you? We know how it's working out for the troops.

h/t FloppingAces

Related and Background:
Obama Repeats Mistakes in Afghanistan: Purposeless Engagement 

Marines in Afghanistan - A Death Run Every Day

Taliban Siraj Haqqani Rape Murder Tape


Linked by:
 Reaganite Republican with a round of what others are saying.

Caught Him with a Corndog has a Jeff Duntz perspective on what McChrystal did and is doing.

Ruth Marcus Doesn't Get Republicans: O'Reilly Clears Up the Pelosi Jail Sentence

I have sent three emails to Bill O'Reilly, one to Fox and Friends, two to Rush, one to Megyn Kelly, one to Neal Cavuto and two to Tom Coburn. I think I caught O'Reilly's attention. The issue: Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn's treatment of a constituent who asked about a jail sentence for noncompliance with the health care mandates. Then, Ruth Marcus, writing at the Washington Post just had to point out that something "weird" is going on in the Republican party. I think I can explain it to her. Readers, I know this is my fourth post on Coburn's townhall. I can't help myself.

 Bill O'Reilly

Coburn told the woman it was not the intention to put anyone in jail. And he indicated that she got her erroneous information from watching Fox News. He went on to call Nancy Pelosi a "nice lady," and when the townhall crowd groaned, he lectured them again, and again blamed it on watching Fox. He also had the audacity to ask the crowd - after the groans - if they knew her, or had met her? Well, of course they did not, or most did not. We don't live and hang on Capitol Hill. We are not quite in the Senator's league. The question was disingenuous.

What he didn't say, but should have said, is this:

The House of Representatives put a prison penalty in their bill. The Senate took it out. Nancy Pelosi tried to impose a prison penalty, but the Senate denied it.

Now that's the truth. Instead, he left everyone thinking the Oklahoma woman was just a sucker for Fox News and didn't know what she was talking about.

So, tonight on O'Reilly's Talking Points, he reported when and where the jail sentence was a part of proposed legislation. Now, both O'Reilly and Coburn know the truth. And now we can safely say that Nancy Pelosi is not such "a nice lady."

I hope Coburn is feeling a bit of shame for demeaning one of his voters. If you want to see the identifying parts of Pelosi's legislation with the prison sentence, you'll find it here.

Ruth Marcus

In the meantime, Ruth Marcus writing for The Washington Post believes "something weird" is going on in the Republican Party because Republican Senator Tom Coburn is getting some blowback about his remarks. I assure you, Ms. Marcus there is nothing weird about Republican's criticism of Coburn's rare, but not completely unusual, moment of arrogance.

Yes, Senator Coburn is very conservative. But what does that have to do with anything? Afterall, we are not Democrats. We do not march in lockstep. We are Republicans and we don't shy away from pointing out when one of our own, living in the rarified air of Washington, D.C., takes a moment to lift his chin and be obnoxious.

You, Ms. Marcus, point to Coburn's "moment of civility," but no...when you don't have the details, and your response is inadequate, and you intimate that your own consitutent just believes everything she hears, that's rude. It's not civil.

But when you say Coburn's answer was "accurate," a Democrat would see it that way. It's "accurate," but there's a backstory...an important backstory...that Senator Coburn should have known about. Afterall, his constituent knew it.

About Senator Jim Inhofe and Tom Coburn being "twins," you should know, Ruth, that Coburn and Inhofe are unlikely ideological twins. Inhofe is always conservative, Coburn is generally conservative. I often praise, applaud and honor Senator Coburn. I am a fan. I vote for him. I have every right to criticize him - and remember, I am not a Democrat blindly following rubes who think they are so totally incredible - like Al Gore, Charlie Rangel, Nancy Pelosi, and Maxine Waters.

Coburn and his wife are very friendly with Democrats, including the former Senator from Illinois, Barack and his wife Michelle. They have a "friendship." So maybe he has a similar "friendship" with Nancy and hubby, and perhaps spends some quality time at the vineyards. I don't know. I don't much care (I care a little, but...).

So the story isn't that there is something weird going on in the Republican party. The story is that Coburn was not well-informed and he was patronizing of his constituent, and he needn't judge Oklahomans for watching Fox. It's just not a good idea.

The first video below is O'Reilly's interview with Tom Coburn a couple of days ago, and at this time, neither of them knew there was a jail sentence at one time. Coburn is so lame in this video. The second video is of tonight's Talking Points, with O'Reilly explaining Pelosi's "jail sentence."

Bill O'Reilly and Tom Coburn (video)    O'Reilly Discusses Pelosi's Jail Sentence

Tulsa World Leonard Pitts Racist Remarks About Tea Partiers

This is as unprofessional as a newspaper gets. Columnist Leonard Pitts, printed in the Tulsa World has decided to take as gospel the claims of members of the Black Congressional Caucus that Tea Partiers called the Caucus the "n" word, and someone even spat on Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO-5th). Pitts carries the lies like a badge of honor and doesn't even bother to the us "alleged" word.

Congressional Black Caucus

Before printing an incendiary piece like this, I would think there should be some proof - some confirmation, before you begin labeling people racists. This is a low as a newspaper and/or a columnist gets. There are many, many videos of the Congressmen walking through the protesters and in not a single one of can you hear the "N" word. The group was videoed up close and personal. You can tell the camera was very close to the protesters. Really, it is just vile to do what Leonard Pitts has done.

One of Pitts' opening snippets:

So it turns out that, contrary to what I argued in this space a few weeks back, racism is not "a major component" of the so-called tea party movement. I am informed of this by dozens of tea party activists indignant and insulted that I would even suggest such a thing.

In other news tea party protesters called John Lewis a "nigger" the other day in the shadow of the U.S. Capitol. For the record, Lewis wasn't their only target. 

Pitts just thinks it is a shame that Black Caucus member, and civil rights activist Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) had to hear these terrible words. After all, Lewis "faced it in Nashville in 1960," "he faced it on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma."

Lewis said "they were just shouting, harassing...." Really...shouting? No one heard it.

"Never did I hear any type of racial slur," said William Owens, a black Tea Party activist from Nevada who joined in the D.C. protests Saturday.

In fact, Lewis didn't hear it either. He passed the charge to a "colleague." Remember when Lewis compared John McCain to George Wallace? Remember that Whites are not allowed membership in the Congressional Black Congress. I assume the current members believe Whites, or Hawaiians, or Native Americans, or Asians have no good interest in the welfare of Blacks.

Mr. Pitts, meet your Congressional Black Caucus, the CBC, that fawned and swooned all over Raul and Fidel Castro in their 2009 visit to Cuba. Digraceful! Despicable!

From Human Events' Humberto Fontova

Last week, the Stalinist regime that jailed and tortured the longest suffering black political prisoner in modern history (Eusebio Penalver) rolled out the red carpet for six gullible  members of the U.S. Congressional Black Caucus. All of these U.S. legislators met with “President” Raul Castro while a lucky three secured back-stage passes to meet Fidel himself.

“He looked directly into my eyes!” gasped Rep. Laura Richardson (D-Calif.) “and then he asked: how can we help President Obama? Fidel Castro really wants President Obama to succeed."  

"It was quite a moment to behold!" hyperventilated Rep. Barbara Lee. (D-Calif.) “Fidel Castro was very engaging and very energetic." 

“He’s one of the most amazing human beings I’ve ever met!” gushed Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.)   

“Raul Castro was a very engaging, down-to-earth and kind man,” according to Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) “someone who I would favor as a neighbor. It was almost like visiting an old friend," (A Freudian slip, perhaps? Bobby Rush, after all, was a card-carrying Black Panther who did prison time.)

[HUMBERTO FONTOVA] Racism is one of the cornerstones of the Castro regime. As Fidel's close friend and ally, the murderous Ernesto "Che" Guevara, once said, "The Negro is indolent and spends his money on frivolities, whereas the European is forward-looking, organized and intelligent...We're going to do for blacks exactly what blacks did for the Cuban revolution. 

Remember when Rep. Barbara Lee, Caucus head, said Rep. Joe Wilson's yell "you lie" during an Obama speech was racist? What? Wilson was referring to Obama's spin on health care, and today we know Wilson's words to be true, and none of it has anything to do with race.

The Portland Civil Rights Examiner pointed out that many of the 42 members of the CBC ended up in Congress courtesy of the disgraced ACORN facing multiple charges of voter fraud.

To further the hypocrisy of this group, a very high percentage of these people got into their offices through what is now a Taxpayer funded partisan Democrat group. ACORN, which according to its own manifesto reads like The 25 Points of Hitler's Nazi Party  - which they mildly name “ACORN People's Platform”  the only difference being that ACORN’s Manifesto is written in less threatening language, the better to be consumed by those who refuse to disseminate what their words and goals actually mean! The icing on this cake of hypocrisy is they claim to be Non-Partisan…. If this is their definition of  “Non-Partisan” then indeed, pigs are flying. (Or is that Swine Flu?)

These claims are likely a battle cry for Tea Partys. The Temple of Mut reports that their Tea Partys will now do their own videography of their events to guard against charges from those following in the footsteps of the Congressional Black Caucus. Isn't that sobering? The American people must defend themselves from Congress.

Our Tea Party group is now actively seeking videographers for our events. We are planning ahead, as it has become obvious that when the media want to promote a template, they are willing to buy any statement outright to promote that world-view. No investigation needed — move right along people and accept Obamacare as a done deal. Therefore, we intend to capture and release as much videotape as we can get of our future rallies, including our April 15th events. THIS is how true Americans respond under the pressure of lying, tyrannical representation.

Caucus member Rep. Andre Carson (D-IN) said he heard ni**er at least 15 times - yet not another soul heard it. Cleaver said it was a "chorus." No one other than the Caucus heard it - in fact no other Caucus member is claiming to have heard it. Watch the videos. If this epitaphet was uttered 15 times you would hear it on at least one of the videos all over the Internet. We will see how this fleshes out as Andrew Breitbart has offered $10,000 to be donated to the United Negro College Fund (UNCF) for proof of just 1, not 15, audible utterance of the "N" word coming from the crowd around the Caucus that day.

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver said he was spat upon. There are stories of arrests - but the Capitol police said they arrested no one. That story proved to be that Cleaver was accidentally "sprayed upon," not "spat upon." A Capitol Hill policewoman was standing right next to Cleaver and there were no arrests. It was an accident and not a significant one. Cleaver magnanimously said he would not press charges. I would think not, and besides, Cleaver couldn't i.d. the man, or he probably would have stooped that low.

However, U.S. Capitol Police said the protester was never arrested. He was only detained and put in handcuffs, then released.

Sgt. Kimberly Schneider, spokeswoman for the Capitol Police, told FoxNews.com the individual was released because Cleaver couldn't identify him.

"There were no elements of a crime, and the individual wasn't able to be positively identified," she said. "(Cleaver) was unable to positively identify."

Mr. Pitts, need we remind you that the CBC shot their own video footage - and it proved nothing. There weren't even any cell phone photos from staffers. What you have done is inexcusable, and it is a disappointment that my own paper, The Tulsa World, stooped to print it. It is a terrible, terrible thing to label a group of Whites, or any group, racist with no proof...no proof except the word of the Black Caucus which has never hesitated to label anyone and everyone a racist if it benefitted them.

Others Talking about the Congressional Black Caucus and Leonard Pitts:
The BlogProf

Greenspan Didn't See Subprime Crisis Coming: Warning Bell Would Not Go Over Well With Congress

Former head of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, and husband of NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell, said he didn't see the subprime crisis coming. He must have been looking left.

Alan Greenspan and Andrea Mitchell

That was in 2007. In 2009 Greenspan said he was "mystified" by the Subprime market. Once he got a clue, however, he admits he could have done something to stop the certain disaster:

While Mr. Greenspan acknowledges that he could have done something to avert the housing crisis, he contends his hands were tied.

"If we tried to suppress the expansion of the subprime market, do you think that would have gone over very well with the Congress?...When it looked as through we were dealing with a major increase in home ownership, which is of unquestioned value to this society -- would we have been able to do that? I doubt it."

Mr. Greenspan said that if he had taken steps to prevent the crisis, the outcome would have been painful.

Greenspan should have handled Congress, which demanded the Community Reinvestment Act  (CRA) providing loans to people who could not afford them. The Federal Reserve is set apart from, and is independent of, Congress. The truth is, by doing his job, Greenspan would have alienated his uber liberal wife from her progressive high-profile friends. Can you imagine NBC or MSNBC forced to report that Andrea's husband was trying to shutdown loans to minorities? What Greenspan allowed to happen to this country should have him behind bars.

While president of the Federal Reserve, Greenspan's pertinent responsibilities, and those of his successor, Ben Bernake, were the following:

...influencing monetary and credit condition in the economy to achieve maximum employment, stable prices and moderate long-term interest rates

...regulating banking institutions to ensure the safety and soundness of the nation's banking and financial system, and protect the credit rights of consumers

...maintain stability of the financial system and containing systemic risk that may arise in financial markets

Both Greenspan and Bernanke failed miserably in their duties to the American people, and yet Bernake still heads the Feds. The outcome of the crisis has been beyond painful, especially for those who refused to pay inflated prices for their homes and refused to sign a loan they could not afford - yet find no money available to them for their own business ventures or home improvements.

Read about the Democrat agenda in the Community Reinvestment Act:
Tracking the Mess of Fannie and Freddie

Maxine Waters: Bailout Bankers Grilled

Linked by An Ol' Broad's Ramblings - Thank you sweet friend!

WaPo Skews Joe Stack's Manifesto?

Clifton at Another Black Conservative catches WaPo's Jonathan Capehart doing some heavy-handed editing to Joseph Andrew Stack's suicide/rant/manifesto. Surprise, surprise, an omission here, an omission there, and a mad man's words just might make him appear to be a Tea Party enthusiast. And a  an unsuspecting reader might think Stack's politics were in line with Janet Napolitano's "far right wing extremists," like maybe, returning warriors and retired vets.

If you missed the big story of Joseph Andrew Stack flying his small plan into a 7-story office building in Austin, Texas this week, killing himself and one other, wounding many, while attempting to take down the IRS offices there, you can read that story here.

Here's what Jonathan Capehart said:

There's no information yet on whether he was involved in any anti-government groups or whether he was a lone wolf. But after reading his 34-paragraph screed, I am struck by how his alienation is similar to that we're hearing from the extreme elements of the Tea Party movement.

When you sit a a big important news desk, at an elite newspaper like the Washington Post, and you can't make the latest sensational story what you want it to be, what do you do? Well, maybe you leave out the inconvenient parts. That's what JonathanCapehart appears to have done in his reporting on the suicide pilot's last words.

Capehart kind/sorta covers himself by saying "here are excepts I was able to snag before the FBI took Stack's site down," but of course, the complete manifesto is all over the Internet. You can read it here. The text in green text below are quotes from Stack that Capehart omitted.

Stack seemed to be suicidal mainly because of the IRS. Everything led back to taxes. He was distressed that religious organizations get tax breaks not available to the individual taxpayer, and he called the Catholic Church "vulgar" and "corrupt," and he referred to "the monsters of organized religion," making a "mockery of people who earn an honest living." "The inquisition is still alive and well today in this country."

Stack railed about GM receiving government assistance, and Capehart printed that, but Stack's diatribe against health care was curiously omitted...because this is no Tea Party position:

Yet at the same time, the joke we call the American medical system, including the drug and insurance companies, are murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple, and this country’s leaders don’t see this as important as bailing out a few of their vile, rich cronies.  Yet, the political “representatives” (thieves, liars, and self-serving scumbags is far more accurate) have endless time to sit around for year after year and debate the state of the “terrible health care problem”.  It’s clear they see no crisis as long as the dead people don’t get in the way of their corporate profits rolling in.

Tea Partiers like their health insurance. They want government to stay the heck away from it until the critical issues can be fixed - like tort reform and buying private insurance in the open marketplace, or across state lines. Tea Partiers want to retain their choices and promote competition among private insurers - never government-directed insurers, and they want the lawsuit scams to stop for the good of physicians, hospitals and patients.

Capehart omits Stack's remarks on patriotism -  the "incredible stupidity of the American public; ...you know, all that "crap about their "freedom...." When was the last time you heard Tea Partiers characterize freedom as "crap?"

Capehart ignores that as an 18-year-old college student, Stack was broke...was living on peanut butter and bread (or Ritz crackers when I could afford to splurge). But most college students are broke, and by the time a student reaches his 50's, chances are it will be a fond memory, not a battlecry. At the time he was living off peanut butter and bread, Stack met an elderly widow, who's husband's pension was raided by management and unions. The widow ate "cat food" to survive! Stack decided at the tender age of 18 he would never trust "big business."

Tea Party afficianados don't hate big business, because they know from big business comes small business, the lifeblood of America, and they would likely wear their "broke" stories as a badge of honor.

Capehart skips over Stack's comments about having a new wife and "a boatload of undocumented income," which led to a newly hired, but dishonest accountant. Over and over, Stack talks about the government stealing from the middle class - but that is not a Tea Party position. Tea Partiers want everyone to pay their fair share and not one penny more - no matter how much you have, or do not have. Everyone should be vested in our country, and no one should be penalized because of what they have, or do not have.

Then Capehart skips over Stack's stark disdain of G.W. Bush:

The recent presidential puppet GW Bush and his cronies in their eight years certainly reinforced for all of us that this criticism rings equally true for all of the government.

And somewhere in this, Stack says "violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer." Again, not a Tea Party position, but it would be a position of CNN and the Huffington Post.

At the end of Stack's rant, he closed with these two quotes, both of which Capehart omitted.

The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.

How can we ignore that the communist creed quoted by Stark sounds noble,  is intended to be a noble statement - but was left out of Capehart's analysis. Why? Because it is decidedly unAmerican, and decidedly unTeaParty-ish.

The capitalist "creed," however, accuses every American of gullibly serving up taxes to the tax masters, without knowing we are doing so, while others greedily feed out of our trough. Among those actually paying taxes, there is no gullibility, and that's why Tea Partiers want smaller government. But one thing you won't find among the general Tea Party population, is the mindset that violence is the only answer, including racking up a body count, his and those around him, or those who loved him, as the only way to make America set up and take notice. Both are a part of Stack's manifesto.

So what do you think? Could Capehart have actually not been able to "snag" enough of Stack's manifesto to point out the obvious, or did he just choose not to?  Visit Another Black Conservative and read his comments on Joseph Capehart's agenda.

Others talking about Jonathan Capehart:
Ace of Spades
Hot Air
Newsbusters

Sarah Palin Gridiron: Barney Frank Gridiron: Palin Addresses Death Panel

Sarah Palin and Barney Franks were the featured bi-partisian speakers at the winter Gridiron dinner with an audience of journalists - or as Palin referred to them, an "elite audience of leading intellectuals, or as I like to call it, a death panel."

Here's two more favorites from Palin:

As for the president, Palin joked that she was looking at a magazine cover of Obama and Chinese president Hu Jinato during an airplane flight. A nearby passenger stated, "Hu's the Communist," she related.

And, Palin said, "I thought he was asking a question." 

Staying with the book theme, she joked that “If the election had turned out differently, I could be the one overseeing the signing of bailout checks and Vice President Biden could be on the road selling his book, 'Going Rogaine.'

Politico couldn't really find anything funny in Franks' speech. There was one line from him - something about newspaper recovery (after a bailout, no doubt), Twitter and Claire McCaskill's lunch, which Franks is not interested in.

Lynn Sweet is talking about Sarah's "otter skin" handbag. You go Sarah! And Todd Palin's cummerbund featuring the North Star and Alaska's position on the globe.

One important thing to know is that the winter Gridiron dinner is always "off the record." In other words, the speechs are not public...BUT THIS YEAR...the Gridiron Committee broke that 100-year-old rule, and instead, before and after the speeches and the "songs" attendees were allowed to Twitter.

The evening ended with the "Gridiron Singers," performing a non-traditional 12 Days of Christmas that featured Rush Limbaugh and "two tea-bag goons:"

“On the first day of Christmas, Rush Limbaugh gave to me: A Marxist in a dead tree.

On the second day of Christmas, Rush Limbaugh gave to me: Two tea-bag goons.

On the third day of Christmas, Rush Limbaugh gave to me: Three hell-no's

On the fourth day of Christmas, Rush Limbaugh gave to me: Four bawling Becks

On the fifth day of Christmas, Rush Limbaugh gave to me: Five Sarah swoon-ins

On the sixth day of Christmas, Rush Limbaugh gave to me: Six health care death squads

On the seventh day of Christmas, Rush Limbaugh gave to me: Seven bug-eyed birthers

On the eight day of Christmas, Rush Limbaugh gave to me: Eight Cheney boomlets

On the ninth day of Christmas, Rush Limbaugh gave to me: Nine ACORN busters
On the tenth day of Christmas, Rush Limbaugh gave to me: Ten thundering mossbacks


On the eleventh day of Christmas, Rush Limbaugh gave to me: Eleven loony liberals

On the twelfth day of Christmas, Rush Limbaugh gave to me: twelve flaming liberals, hunted down in the wild and field dressed, medium well-done, seared on the fatty edges—“


And then Palin joined the chorus for the final line:


"Right next to the mashed potatoes," she sang.

Related and Background:

Sarah Palin to Speak at Winter Gridiron Dinner

Sarah Palin Talks with Rusty Humphries - Obama Birth Certificate "Fair Game"

Report from Columbia University urges help to preserve journalism: Philanthropic money to aid journalists?

The headline caught my eye. Journalism does indeed need preserving, but my ideas about how to do so were not even close to those laid out in the report.

I am thinking that journalism needs more of a scrubbing - a good clean-up, more about getting to journalist ethics. A report, co-authored by a former executive editor for the Washington Post, doesn't go there.

Len Downie, in a report commissioned by the Columbia University Journalist School, wants "nonprofits" (philanthropists) to step in and help financially, as well as lobby for government tax codes granting nonprofit status - and how about that suggested fee for telecom and internet users?

What about feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, getting children who need medical assistance to the right hospital, donating to DARE and diabetes, the Ronald McDonald House, AIDs, various adult cancers and heart associations and our local church and missions? Where do these elitists get the brass to ask nonprofits to syphon-off monies given by the "givers" in America?

Did I mention there is a tax in this plan? The report is asking "philanthropic organizations to support local reporting." That's where the tax comes in - or fees - to be gathered in some fashion from telecom or internet providers."

I might not object if a clear definition of "journalism," and adherence to that definition, must be met to get the nonprofit status. Of course, it all depends on the definition of the trade - like defining what "is is."

Next will be White House ordered legislation assuring that FOX News is excluded from "nonprofit status."

I cannot credit this report by linking to it, because the "original source" says I cannot (but never mind, they want me to donate to keep their less-than-honest endeavors alive) but go to Breitbart.com and use some keywords and you'll find it.

Maziar Bahari is Newsweek Reporter Tried in Iran

Maziar Bahari is a Newsweek reporter facing trial in Iran for "acting against national security."

Maziar Bahari

Iran is charging that Bahari admitted "filing unreal and biased reports from Iran which were driven by greed," and that Mr. Bahari admitted participating" in a Western media effort to promote irresponsible reporting in Iran." Newsweek says that Maziar Bahari was held without counsel from June 21st to June 30th. Bahari's attorney, Saleh Nikbakht, made this statement:

Any kind of interview and confession by these people who are being held in prison is invalid under the law and the Iranian constitution,

This Breitbart article says that Bahari is a Canadian-Iranian. Other reports show that he was born in Tehran, Iran in 1967. He is also a film maker and graduated Concordia University in Montreal. Bahari has been Newsweek's correspondent in Iran since 1998. Newsweek, of course, is demanding his return. Canada is working for his release also:

But in Ottawa on Monday, concern and outrage grew over what was in store for Bahari, a respected mainstream journalist, who had been posted to Tehran for Newsweek.

Canada planned to file a formal diplomatic protest Monday to Iranian authorities, and to dress down its Canadian envoy for the second time in a week following Bahari's weekend detention.

There is a lot of work by Bahari posted on this web, but this one is particularly ominous. Posted in NewStatesman on November 8, 2007, Bahari talks of Iran's meetings with Iran's ministry of intelligence - several of them, and gives this account of one interrogation regarding a meeting Bahari had set up with a teacher:

I get tired of talking after a while. Then, like Muhammad Ali in the seventh round of his fight with George Foreman, Mr Mohammadi snaps and starts to challenge me. He keeps on smiling. I wish he wouldn't. Why do I think an American publication is interested in talking to Iranian dissidents?...Mr Mohammadi is now targeting my integrity as a journalist, explicitly trying to make a connection between me and a dissident, suggesting that we both work as agents of the Great Satan and that we are part of a bigger plot to topple the Islamic government. If this session had been with previous Mr Mohammadis a few years ago, I would be scared of a pending trial and imprisonment for something I had never done - a destiny that befell many of my friends and colleagues. But what makes this Mr Mohammadi tolerable is his half-hearted approach to the whole thing. His expression is not a grin or a smirk. He almost feels sorry for himself and asks for your sympathy. He looks genuinely confused and somehow out of his depth. His bosses have come up with a conspiracy theory and asked Mr Mohammadi to validate it. He is a smart man and has been down this road many times since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. It's never worked in the past and he really doesn't think it will work now. Mr Mohammadi knows that he's wasting his time and mine. He knows that his government should reform itself if it wants to survive.

Read the entire post here. This man is in serious trouble. Maziar Bahari