The Discerning Texan

Cartoon by Brian Farrington (click to enlarge)

Applied to a healthy Democracy, what our media is doing today is certainly immoral, and arguably criminal--something akin conspiracy to commit fraud: only it isn't just one person being defrauded; it is tens of millions of us.

John Fund, writing in the Wall Street Journal, finds that it is high time that Obama comes clean--and he wonders why the media doesn't seem to care:

Walking the rows of media outlets at the Denver convention, I had no trouble finding reporters who complained the campaign was secretive and evasive. Ben Smith of Politico.com has written about Team Obama's "pattern of rarely volunteering information or documents, even when relatively innocuous." Politico asked months ago if Mr. Obama had ever written anything for the Harvard Law Review as a student. The Obama campaign responded narrowly, with a Clintonesque statement that "as the president of the Law Review, Obama didn't write articles, he edited and reviewed them." This month it turned out Mr. Obama had written an article -- but it was published a month before he became president.

Chasing the rest of Mr. Obama's paper trail is often an exercise in frustration. Mr. Obama says his state senate records "could have been thrown out" and he didn't keep a schedule in office. No one appears to have kept a copy of his application for the Illinois Bar. He has released only a single page of medical records, versus 1,000 pages for John McCain.

Then there's the house that Mr. Obama bought in 2005 in cooperation with Tony Rezko, his friend and campaign fund-raiser -- a move the candidate concedes was "boneheaded." Rezko was convicted in June of 16 counts of corruption. (Mr. Obama was not implicated in Rezko's crimes.)

Rezko's trial raised a host of questions. Was Mr. Obama able to save $300,000 on the asking price of his house because Rezko's wife paid full price for the adjoining lot? How did Mrs. Rezko make a $125,000 down payment and obtain a $500,000 mortgage when financial records shown at the Rezko trial indicate she had a salary of only $37,000 and assets of $35,000? Records show her husband also had few assets at the time.

Last April, the London Times revealed that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born billionaire living in London, had loaned Mr. Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before the day the sale of the house and lot closed in June 2005. Mr. Auchi's office notes he was a business partner of Rezko but says he had "no involvement in or knowledge of" the property sale. But in April 2004 he did attend a dinner party in his honor at Rezko's Chicago home. Mr. Obama also attended, and according to one guest, toasted Mr. Auchi. Later that year, Mr. Auchi came under criminal investigation as part of a U.S. probe of the corrupt issuance of cell-phone licenses in Iraq.

In May 2004, the Pentagon's inspector general's office cited "significant and credible evidence" of involvement by Mr. Auchi's companies in the Oil for Food scandal, and in illicit smuggling of weapons to Saddam Hussein's regime. Because of the criminal probe, Mr. Auchi's travel visa to the U.S. was revoked in August 2004, even as Mr. Auchi denied all the allegations. According to prosecutors, in November 2005 Rezko was able to get two government officials from Illinois to appeal to the State Department to get the visa restored. Asked if anyone in his office was involved in such an appeal, Mr. Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times last March, "not that I know of." FOIA requests to the State Department for any documents haven't been responded to for months.

After long delays, Mr. Obama sat with the editorial boards of the Sun-Times and Chicago Tribune in March to answer their questions about his connection to Rezko. He had no recollection of ever meeting Mr. Auchi. He also said he didn't understand a lot about house buying, and gave vague answers to other questions. Since then, he has avoided any further discussion of the Rezko matter.

Some inquiries could be cleared up if the Obama campaign were forthcoming with key documents. Mr. Obama claims that in buying his house in 2005 he got a low mortgage rate from Northern Trust bank because another bank made a competitive bid for his business, but his campaign won't reveal from which bank. While he has released 94 pages of documents relating to the Rezko sale, they don't include the single most important one -- the settlement statement that shows the complete flow of funds that were part of the house sale. When asked why that last key document isn't being released, the Obama campaign issued a boilerplate statement saying, "we have released documents that reflect every one of the final terms of the senator's purchase of the home." But key data are still being withheld.

The Obama campaign didn't hesitate to criticize Hillary Clinton for not revealing the names of donors to the Clinton Library, or John McCain for releasing only two years of tax returns as opposed to Mr. Obama's 10 years. Those were proper questions. But so too are requests for information from Mr. Obama, a man whose sudden rise and incompletely reported past makes him among the least-vetted of presidential nominees.

Reporters who decline to press Mr. Obama for more information now, whether it be on William Ayers or the Rezko-Auchi partnership, may be repeating an old mistake. Most reporters failed to dig deep enough into the Nixon White House's handling of Watergate before the 1972 election. The country was soon consumed with that scandal. Most reporters pooh-poohed questionable Whitewater real-estate dealings of the Clintons before Bill Clinton's 1992 election. Within months of his inauguration a tangled controversy led to the appointment of a special prosecutor and an endless source of distraction for the Clinton White House.

Richard Fernandez adds:

Examination by the press is part of the “quality control” process that a democracy relies on to ensure that no grossly unsuitable candidate gets the nomination of a major party. But when Bill Maher, surely no friend of the Republicans can say that the media coverage of Obama has become so biased that it’s embarssing there is little prospect that Obama will be asked any questions about Rezko, Ayers, Auchi, Mansour or anything else. Maher said

I think there is a problem, though, with the media gushing over him too much. I don’t think he thinks that he’s all that, but the media does. I mean, the coverage after, that I was watching, from MSNBC, I mean these guys were ready to have sex with him….It’s embarrassing.

People would be aghast if nobody was interested in inspecting Air Force One before it flew. But there is less worry about the need to inspect who gets aboard Air Force One before it flies. Does Hope and Change apply to reforming the media too?

In a healthy Democracy, the public has the right to expect the its news media to provide it with thorough and complete information about every candidate. When we (not they) are supposed to decide, then to deny us all the information is tantamount to trying to "fix" the elections for its "favorites". When the end result of the electoral process is to put a person in the White House who has enormous impact on the lives and welfare of every citizen, the extent to which the press goes out of its way to deny the facts about a candidate to the public is the extent to which the they are conspiring to defraud the people it is supposed to serve.

Note to Sean Hannity: it is now time to find another partner for your Fox show. Do not pass "Go"; do not collect $200... Alan Colmes has got to go.

First of all he brings no credibility whatsoever, all he ever seems to be doing is trying to shout over whoever else is talking. And we now see that at his core he is no different than any other Leftist ideologue--especially now that he has stooped to this... NOTE: the post has been deleted from Colmes' website--obviously he took it down--but fortunately Kim Priestap had already captured the screen. (See her post here). Nice try, Alan:


Click to enlarge this image of the post on Colmes website, before he took it down...

The hidden message in Colmes' post seems to be: if you are a woman thinking about taking on a "real" job (you know--one to break that "glass ceiling", like Governor or CEO or VP), just go ahead and abort that child now, lest some low-life scum accuse you later of not handling your own pregnancy properly. You will note: these are the same low-lifes who will go to the wall for an extra-legal Supreme Court decision that calls a prohibition to abortion by the citizens of a State an invasion of a woman's right to her own "privacy"--and are the same people who would then assail any Corporation that doesn't promote a woman who chooses to have a child over one who does not (i.e. who dares to put her family over her career).

Hypocrites.

If Hannity values his own credibility he needs to distance from Colmes--the sooner the better. But Rupert Murdoch should not leave it to Shawn: Alan Colmes should be fired. Immediately. The most important thing a news network has is its reputation; and if Murdoch cares about the reputation of his network, Fox should not be putting someone on the air who shows this kind of judgment by stooping to this level of sleazy attack.

At least now it is apparent to even the dimmest of bulbs what the Democrat Party really thinks of "womens' issues"--that is if you happen to be a woman who does not see the world as Democrats are "supposed to". Ever since Palin's big coming out on Friday it is clear that the holier-than-thou "champions" of womens' rights in the Democrat Party in reality do not care a whit about "womens' rights" or "gender rights" or any other rights--unless appearing to be "concerned" helps them to acquire power; in fact, the only thing that matters to these hypocrites when it comes to gender is that a "moral" woman must share their Socialist, politically-correct (when convenient to their cause, that is...) ideology.

This has never been clearer than this weekend, as Obama's surrogates and media lapdogs have already started taking cheap shots at this mother of 5 who did the right thing; something that very few women in her position would do, despite knowing in advance that this child would likely be a Down's Syndrome child. How many women of her age and position would go through with the pregnancy, rather than go against her own moral beliefs about when life begins, its preciousness, etc.?

Yet the Left dares to attack her for this?

Is this not is after all the very definition of what "breaking the glass ceiling" is supposed to mean according to the "script"?

Palin is a wife a mother who also wanted a career, and who has now demonstrated that a woman with integrity and determination can have a family and reach the top. Sarah Palin is a perfect role model for little girls out there, according to this paradigm (and regardless of paradigm...). But now that she threatens the Democrat Party's hold on power--all that "womens' rights" stuff suddenly flies right out the window; and so now we have cretins like Alan Colmes coming out of the woodwork, inventing non-existent scandals and second guessing her (and her physician's) decisions during her pregnancy. Disgusting.

Colmes' is not the only example of this newly found Democrat "right" to second-guess a woman's "privacy", it is just the most recent and most shocking. Colmes is in good company, as evidenced here and here. And trust me, this is only the beginning: Sarah Palin is Barack Obama's worst nightmare, and the fact that the Left is already resorting to this kind of slimy behavior is living testament to their fear of her. Not to mention the fact that Palin has effectively killed Obama's expected "bounce".

This is sick stuff, folks. This. is. who. they. are; their one and only moral principle is: Absolute power justifies any means, absolutely.

If Obama's dissing of Hillary wasn't enough, slimy characters like these are now expediting the implosion of identity politics (at least as applied to women) within the Democrat party. Not that the disappearance of identity politics is a bad result; I only hope that Americans are paying close attention.

UPDATE: Rich Lowry reflects on Trig Paxon Van Palin. This reality, compared to the garbage coming from the Left is telling, to say the least (h/t Reliapundit).

UPDATE: Michelle reports that Andrew Sullivan is now joining the "Trig Palin Truthers":

Andrew Sullivan, who once gave me a “Malkin Award” for “excitably” asking questions about the Obama-Ayers connection, is chasing down the TRUE FACTS ABOUT TRIG PALIN like Alex Jones shambling after a 9-11 widow holding a chocolate cake.

Ace wrote me to suggest I “never link this {naughty word} again”, which is a request I’ll gladly accommodate. I don’t think I ever have linked him and I’m certainly not going to reward such a gauche display of Ted-Sampley-level rumormongering with a link, even in order to laugh at him.

Anyway: you know what this reminds me of? Those two nights in 2004 when both John Kerry and John Edwards made a point to bring up DICK CHENEY’S GAY DAUGHTER during their respective debates–a gratuitous, pointless, dank, greasy, creepy cheapshot that reveals the Left to lack class as well as discernment.

(Edwards smarminess at one minute in.)

I guess it’s different because Dick Cheney’s daughter actually was gay, whereas this is a bizarre fantasy. But in both cases: even if this were true, so what? And as I mentioned below, if it were true, it actually makes Palin look saintly in her devotion to family.

The calculated sneering at Dick Cheney’s kid blew up in the Dems’ face. While I don’t wish any more intrusion into the Palins’ family life, I kind of hope the unhinged Left–among whose ranks the oh-so-cultivated Sullivan is now comfortably perched–keep showing this angry, unhinged, bitter snarl to the American public as they indulge their first instinct: going after the candidate’s mentally challenged infant son and high-school aged daughter.

Boors and barbarians. Is there a decent core to the Left–or at least a politically savvy core to the Left–that is willing to take a stand for decency?

Well, thought I’d ask.

UPDATE: More here.

John Lott, economist, professor, and author of the most excellent Freedomnomics, zeroes in on Barack Obama's ever-changing positions regarding guns and concludes that Obama's recent lip-service to "supporting" gun rights is both dishonest and dangerous:

[...]

Yet, despite all the Democratic claims to the contrary, Mr. Obama is undoubtedly the most anti-gun candidate ever nominated by a major party for president.

A couple of weeks ago, Brian Schweitzer, Montana Democratic governor, told national reporters that Mr. Obama "Ain't ever going to take your gun away." An Obama adviser, Stanford Law Professor Larry Lessig, said recently on Hugh Hewitt's national radio show that "I think that he has always been an individual rights person on the Second Amendment." Another advisor, Professor Cass Sunstein at Harvard, told Time Magazine in June: "Obama has always expressed a belief that the Second Amendment guarantees a private right to bear arms." The list goes on.

The day the Supreme Court struck down Washington, D.C.'s gun ban, Mr. Obama claimed the court's decision merely ratified his own position. He told Fox News he had "said consistently that I believe that the Second Amendment is an individual right, and that was the essential decision that the Supreme Court came down on." So, has Mr. Obama consistently supported individuals' rights to own guns and opposed the D.C. handgun ban? Last November, Mr. Obama's campaign told the Chicago Tribune that "Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional." After the Illinois senator's statement supporting the Supreme Court striking down the ban, the campaign quickly disowned the Chicago Tribune quote as a staffer's "inartful attempt" to characterize his position.

Yet, Mr. Obama personally voiced support for the D.C. ban at other times. In February, he did this himself, not something that he could blame on a staffer.

ABC New's local Washington, D.C. anchor, Leon Harris, asked Mr. Obama: "One other issue that's of great importance here in the district as well is gun control ... but you support the D.C. handgun ban." Mr. Obama's simple response: "Right." When Mr. Harris said "And you've said that it's constitutional," Mr. Obama again says "right" and is clearly seen on tape nodding his head "yes."

But this is not new. Mr. Obama has a long history of supporting city gun bans. The Associated Press described his 2004 vote on a gun control bill: "He also opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation."

A candidate questionnaire shows that Mr. Obama supported a ban on handguns in 1996. In 1998, he backed a ban on the sale of all semiautomatic guns (a ban that would encompass the vast majority of guns sold in the U.S.) In 2004, he advocated banning gun sales within five miles of a school or park (essentially a ban on all guns sold in almost all the states). Possibly, even more importantly, he served on the board of the Joyce Foundation, probably the largest private funder of anti-gun and pro-ban groups and research in the country.

The Obama campaign "flatly denied" the 1996 statement supporting a ban on handguns, blaming it instead on a staffer from his state senate race who they said had incorrectly filled out the candidate questionnaire. But the Politico obtained a copy of the statement and found Mr. Obama's own handwritten notes on it indicating that he had personally checked and corrected answers.

His newfound support for gun ownership raises serious questions; not only where he stands on the gun issue, but also how trustworthy he is. With new legal cases being filed against Chicago's gun ban over the last couple of weeks, will some reporter finally ask Mr. Obama why he has not only never spoken out against Chicago's ban, he actively supported it? The release of the new Democratic National Platform's discussion of "what [gun control] works in Chicago" implies Mr. Obama still supports Chicago's gun ban. The platform also wants to take away so-called "assault weapons." Also unclear is what his position means for who he would nominate to the Supreme Court.

Trustworthy? Hitler was more trustworthy. If you strongly support Second Amendment rights for US citizens, Barack Obama is your worst nightmare.

MataHarley over at Flopping Aces has done tremendous investigative work and has developed a timeline on what the media is trying mightily (but will fail, thanks to this) to paint as a "scandal" involving Sarah Palin. This is pre-emptive, preventitive-medicine journalism at its finest. Read the whole thing.

Another example of the notion of Obama being "beyond the old politics", via Charles Johnson:

Suddenly appearing among the Google search results for “sarah palin gay,” a web site titled: Sarah Palin Supports Gay Rights.

Sarah Palin (GOV-Alaska-Republican), supports gay rights, says Anchorage Daily News.

Quote "Gov. Sarah Palin vetoed a bill Thursday that sought to block the state from giving public employee benefits such as health insurance to same-sex couples."

Quote ""It is the Governor’s intention to work with the legislature and to give the people of Alaska an opportunity to express their wishes and intentions whether these benefits should continue," the statement from Palin’s administration said."

Coghill said he’s interested in a new plan that would allow state employees to designate one person — maybe a same-sex partner, but also possibly a family member or roommate — who would be eligible for state-paid benefits. But the employee would have to pay to add that person to his or her benefits."

Sarah Palin’s veto gave gays the same rights as married couples in Alaska.

A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote for gay marriage.

Interesting. There’s nothing else on the page. This sure looks like the work of the dastardly right-wing anti-gay attack machine, doesn’t it?

But look who’s really behind this.

In the Linux console, if you enter the following commands, you can learn the secrets of a political dirty trick. First, look up the host of ‘sarahpalingayrights.com’ to get the site’s IP address.

host sarahpalingayrights.com
sarahpalingayrights.com has address 74.208.74.232

Then use the same command to look up the domain name pointer of that IP address.

host 74.208.74.232
232.74.208.74.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer obamadefense.com

Well, well. “Obamadefense.com,” eh?

And what happens if you enter obamadefense.com on your browser’s address line?

Why, you’re redirected to none other than FightTheSmears.com, the official Barack Obama site that’s supposed to be defending him against smears.

Looks like they may have a second purpose: to generate a few smears of their own.

For Obama this is not about "issues" or getting beyond "old politics"; this is not someone interested in "bringing people together"--this is the same old same old, the 'Chicago Way'.

I don't know if I have ever seen in my lifetime a candidate who so often repeatedly tells outright lies about both his own positions--and about those of his opponents. The irony here, i.e. that Obama's official "anti-smear" website is actively engaged in creating smear websites to distort the views of Obama's opposition, is trumped only by the silence of big media on the campaign's serial hypocrisy and the exponentially rising count of the contradictions in Obama's own videotaped statements...

Obama is taking the art of lying to a whole new level.

Ah, those egalitarian, Napa valley white-wine sampling "let's rise above petty politics" left-wing nutjobs; one day in, and they are already putting out calls for dirt, any kind of dirt on Sarah Palin. Ace has an excellent post up today on what Obama's so-called "new kind of politics" is really about (red emphasis is mine; note--there is a bit of colorful language herein):

And the Hunt Is On!

Lefties are furiously scouring the internet for Sarah Palin's old position papers on NAFTA.

Just kidding. They say they want to keep the debate elevated and discuss the issues, but that is, of course, like so much of what they say, an utter lie. Mitigated only by the fact they're so self-deluded about their own righteous virtue and lofty intellectualism they almost believe it themselves.

So what are they looking for?

Well, check out the search which just landed on my site. And the various lefty sites encouraging searching in this direction.

Here's an example from Craigslist...

got a be a pic out there somewhere. Will the religious hardliners vote for a woman that was in a swimsuit competition?

Their counterpart Taliban wouldn't.

But the lefty blogs are alive with the hopes of a swimsuit pic that will disgust all of us crazy vagina-fearing right-wingers.

Stay classy, left wing. Stay classy, and stay deluded.

Do you honestly fucking believe anyone's going to be put off by a young woman wearing a fucking swimsuit?

Projection ain't just a river in Egypt.

The Obamabots really aren't going to try to reverse that reputation for misogyny any time soon.

Friendly Fire: No pics of Sarah Palin in scandalous beachwear yet, but some minor collateral damage inflicted -- CNN reporter John Roberts, back in the eighties, in Toronto, I think, hosting some stupid teenage video show or somethin'.

But lookin' cool.

You search for one of ours in a swimsuit, we post one of yours in Huey Lewis hand-me-downs. And that's the Chicago way.

Surely no leftwinger could ever trust someone who once wore a mullet.

Thanks to Rev. E. Buzz Miller and CJ.

SHAME SHAME SHAME!!! The extra caps are for extra outrage.

Persistent Ain't They? Another google hit, now for "Sarah Palin bikini."

Internet detectives or just horndogs?

And More and More: Sarah Palin swimsuit; Sarah Palin wore a bikini.

I have to point out these are all different searches, conducted at different times. The same idiot can't keep clicking on my site thinking suddenly I'm going to have the bikini pics I didn't have the other three times.

So, I guess I'm going to keep getting hits for Sarah Palin swimsuit competition searches, with people searching for hot pictures of Sarah Palin in a bikini, or even totally hot gubernatorial action.

It's ridiculous. It's not like Governor Sarah Palin once posed for Victoria's Secret wearing nothing but high heels and a clown nose or something.

I'm just saying, whatever you do, if you want to avoid unwanted Google interlopers, don't post anything about Sarah Palin and her secret bikini pictures, Sarah Palin and the "Air Force Two," or homoerotic pillowfights between Governor Sarah Palin and Smurfette.

More reports of manufactured smear-mongering over at Jawa:

As we speak, there are rumors buzzing the blogosphere that Sarah Palin is not the wholesome "hockey mother" of five we've all been presented with.

This was inevitable. When a relatively unknown politician takes national stage for the first time, there's always the risk that previously unknown facts will emerge at inconvenient times. Thus, a candidate's political opponents will scour the tubes of the internets looking for such things. It just happens.

Thus, it should not be surprising to see allegations that Sarah Palin (aka "Miss Wasilla 1984" and runner-up for "Miss Alaska") is not, in fact, the real mother of her fifth child (the one with Down's Syndrome--some claim the child is actually her teenage daughter's child), that she experimented with drugs (e.g., marijuana), that she is a bad mother engaging in what amounts to child abuse, that she has been known to gallavant onstage in front of hundreds of men (and on camera) half-naked, wearing a two-piece bikini swimsuit (or "bathing suit" as some call it), that there is a bootleg video out there somewhere showing her with an entire hockey team, that she once had some scandalous pictures taken with a Wasilla moose, etc., etc. The list goes on.

Thus, it wouldn't be at all surprising to see a DailyKos post sometime soon along the lines of the following:

Depending on who you believe, Sarah Palin may have been fully naked (aka nude) at certain points, wore scandalous lingerie at other points, and even engaged in wild sex acts in private that would be positively scandalous in public. Although the full details are still unavailable, it's come to light that Sarah Palin repeatedly exploited a blue-collar Eskimo worker for her own private amusement in the bedroom, and that she had sex with him on at least four separate occasions. It's also well-known in Alaska that Sarah Palin got pregnant (i.e., was impregnated) by a young snowmobile racer (see photo at right). (The snowmobiler openly admits he is the father of Palin's child. Palin claims she was impregnated by her husband Todd.)

The allegations don't stop there. There are credible allegations of moose-tipping, topless dancing, multiple pornographic (aka "porn" or "sex") videos, racketeering, cronyism, mooning, cohabitation, miscegenation, conspiracy, onanism, Mormonism, Catholicism, murder, usury, short-sheeting, infidelity, cover-ups, animal sex (including bestiality), abortion, prostitution, polyamory, embezzlement, bribery, barratry, buggery, peeing in the snow, smuggling, an orgy or two, satan worship, Santaria (aka "voodoo"), flatulence, corruption, nepotism, nihilism, dildo usage, oral sex, nudity, cleveland steamers, dirty sanchezes and various icky gay / lesbian activity (i.e., sodomy) taking place in Alaska, the very state Sarah Palin promised to clean up. Some claim that Paris Hilton, Britney Spears and Angelina Jolie have all visited Palin's state on occasion--and engaged in who knows what sort of illicit behavior.

Whatever happened, you can bet the crack team of amateur sleuths at Daily Kos will find it.

As disgusting as this call-to-arms for a partisan sleaze-hunt may be, the other side of the coin is that any ugly scurrilous reporting that attempts to attack Palin in this manner in the media--especially if it is heresay--might backfire big-time on the nutroots, to the point of almost guaranteeing a landslide for John McCain and Sarah Palin (yes, I used the "l" word...).

Think about it--this is playing with fire: the neo-feminists represented by disaffected Hillary supporters don't much like seeing other women with a shot at the golden ring being dragged through the mud--especially as a zero sum game designed to benefit another man's ambitions--by destroying the woman's reputation and good name. For example, I don't know many feminists who were happy at all with the way that Kobe and his defense team (and the legions of LA gangsta types who applied pressure) treated that girl out in Colorado--no matter what really did or did not happen in that room. The ends do not always justify the means, especially when it comes to feminists who feel that their gal has already been dissed once by the Obama smear machine.

With a bright new face like Sarah Palin, now in position to be the Vice President--unprecedented for any woman in American history--any sleazy attempt by amateur thuggish nutroots to smear her may backfire on them exponentially with the pantsuit brigade.

Still the fact that they are even trying to do this is telling in itself: welcome to the "new politics and discourse" of Barack Obama and his followers.

Peggy Noonan, herself one of the greatest living political speechwriters, has a brilliant moment on MSNBC MSDNC; not so much by discussing the vacuity of what Obama actually did--or more accurately did not--say (e.g. she ignored the typical State of the Union litany of fuzzy ideal outcomes like "we will provide ivy league education for every child...", "prosperity for all", yada yada...), but rather on the media's mighty attempt to make the reality of Obama's stern-and-bordering-on-angry, yet substance-free speech live up to all the hype that preceded it. What follows was too much to evan allow the Obamanites on the set of MSNBC MSDNC to keep a straight face. Great stuff, courtesy of Ace):

I am ecstatic that Sarah Palin is about to be was selected for McCain's VP pick. It is a bold move I was hoping for, but quite honestly did not expect McCain to make--but the fact that he did has me enthusiastic for this ticket for the first time since it became apparent that McCain would be the nominee.

Short video from Palin's big moment here via Allah:



Here is a recent interview of Palin by Larry Kudlow (h/t Glenn and sisu):



Read sisu's commentary also.

Formal announcement to come within the hour. That giant hissing sound you hear is hot air rapidly escaping from the Obama balloon.

UPDATE: The Obama campaign has already come out with what can only be called a cheap shot and partisan smear on Palin (did they forget she has been a Governor of the largest state in the Union for the last two years?):

“Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency. Governor Palin shares John McCain’s commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil and continuing George Bush’s failed economic policies — that’s not the change we need, it’s just more of the same,” said spokesman Bill Burton.

Ed Morrissey answers the criticism buried in the Obama partisan rhetoric:

First, though, let’s assess the risk. Palin has served less than two years as Governor of Alaska, which tends to eat into the experience message on which McCain has relied thus far. At 44, she’s younger than Barack Obama by three years. She has served as a mayor and as the Ethics Commissioner on the state board regulating oil and natural gas, for a total of eight years political experience before her election as governor. That’s also less than Obama has, with seven years in the Illinois legislature and three in the US Senate.

However, the nature of the experience couldn’t be more different. Palin spent her entire political career crusading against the political machine that rules Alaska — which exists in her own Republican party. She blew the whistle on the state GOP chair, who had abused his power on the same commission to conduct party business. Obama, in contrast, talked a great deal about reform in Chicago but never challenged the party machine, preferring to take an easy ride as a protegé of Richard Daley instead.

Palin has no formal foreign-policy experience, which puts her at a disadvantage to Joe Biden. However, in nineteen months as governor, she certainly has had more practical experience in diplomacy than Biden or Obama have ever seen. She runs the only American state bordered only by two foreign countries, one of which has increasingly grown hostile to the US again, Russia.

And let’s face it — Team Obama can hardly attack Palin for a lack of foreign-policy experience. Obama has none at all, and neither Obama or Biden have any executive experience. Palin has almost over seven years of executive experience.

Politically, this puts Obama in a very tough position. The Democrats had prepared to launch a full assault on McCain’s running mate, but having Palin as a target creates one large headache. If they go after her like they went after Hillary Clinton, Obama risks alienating women all over again. If they don’t go after her like they went after Hillary, he risks alienating Hillary supporters, who will see this as a sign of disrespect for Hillary.

For McCain, this gives him a boost like no other in several different ways. First, the media will eat this up. That effectively buries Obama’s acceptance speech and steals the oxygen he needs for a long-term convention bump. A Romney or Pawlenty pick would not have accomplished that.

Second, Palin will re-energize the base. She’s not just a pro-life advocate, she’s lived the issue herself. That will attract the elements of the GOP that had held McCain at a distance since the primaries and provide positive motivation for Republicans, rather than just rely on anti-Democrat sentiment to get them to the polls.

Third, and I think maybe most importantly, Palin addresses the energy issue better and more attuned to the American electorate than maybe any of the other three principals in this election. Even beyond her efforts to reform the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, she has demonstrated her independence from so-called “Big Oil” while promoting domestic production. She brings instant credibility to the ticket on energy policy, and reminds independents and centrists that the Obama-Biden ticket offers nothing but the same excuses we’ve heard for 30 years.

Finally, based on all of the above, McCain can remind voters who has the real record of reform. Obama talks a lot about it but has no actual record of reform, and for a running mate, he chose a 35-year Washington insider with all sorts of connections to lobbyists and pork. McCain has fought pork, taken real political risks to fight undue influence of lobbyists, and he picked an outsider who took on her own party — and won.

This is change you can believe in, and not change that amounts to all talk. McCain changed the trajectory of the race today by stealing Obama’s strength and turning it against him. Obama provided that opening by picking Biden as his running mate, and McCain was smart enough to take advantage of the opening.

Also from The American Thinker: The Case for Palin

UPDATE: McCain campaign returns fire on the Obama knee-jerk reaction (emphasis mine):

McCain aide Jill Hazelbaker:

It is pretty audacious for the Obama campaign to say that Governor Palin is not qualified to be Vice President. She has a record of accomplishment that Senator Obama simply cannot match. Governor Palin has spent her time in office shaking up government in Alaska and actually achieving results -- whether it’s taking on corruption, passing ethics reform or stopping wasteful spending and the ‘bridge to nowhere.’ Senator Obama has spent his time in office running for President.

MORE: The Editors at NRO weigh in.

Hugh Hewitt: An EXTRAORDINARY Choice. Yes it is.

Mark Levin speaks for the Conservative Wing:

Few have been more critical of Sen. McCain than I, both here and on my radio show. And I have long said on my radio show that his selection of a running-mate will be key in determining my enthusiasm for his candidacy. If McCain has, in fact, chosen Gov. Palin, then count me in with both feet. It would be a terrific choice.

Palin is by all accounts a principled conservative and government reformer who can contribute mightily to the decision-making that occurs in the White House. She has more executive experience in her two years as governor than Obama, Biden, and McCain combined. She is a mother of five in what appears to be a loving and functioning family. And she is someone Republicans, conservatives, and others can rally behind in the future.

From a purely tactical aspect, Palin would knock the legs out from under Obama's monopoly hold on "change." And attacks on her "inexperience" will only highlight one of Obama's greatest vulnerabilities — and he's at the top of the Democrat ticket. And because Hillary Clinton spent months telling women voters that they are being dissed by Obama, some percentage of women who normally would not vote for McCain will take a second look if Palin's on the ticket. There is no question that a Palin selection would cause the Obama camp headaches.

I should add that if Palin is the choice, this also suggests that McCain may not be as stubborn as portrayed — and that's a good thing given his positions on a number of issues that have given conservatives heart-burn. At least it gives us some hope in that regard.

All and all a well-delivered speech, as expected; plenty of panache and charisma and confidence--but the same old tired platitudes and very little substance; basically the same lies Democrats have been telling (and not following through on for the last 30+ years. And

It was well delivered, but it did not live up to the hype and to the grandiosity of the venue.

Don Surber has done a bit of fact checking on some of Obama's talking points, and has found them wanting:

1. “Four years ago, I stood before you and told you my story – of the brief union between a young man from Kenya and a young woman from Kansas who weren’t well-off or well-known, but shared a belief that in America, their son could achieve whatever he put his mind to.”

FACT: His father went back to his wife and son in Kenya and had little to do with Obama, while his mother married his stepfather and they moved to Indonesia.

2. “But the record’s clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush ninety percent of the time. Senator McCain likes to talk about judgment, but really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush was right more than ninety percent of the time? I don’t know about you, but I’m not ready to take a ten percent chance on change.”

FACT: True. Logic does not follow that McCain has poor judgment. Considering Bush was re-elected by a majority — a re-election feat no Democrat has enjoyed since FDR — shows that perhaps the American public agreed with Bush most of teh time, at least through his first 4 years.

3. “You see, we Democrats have a very different measure of what constitutes progress in this country.”

FACT: True.

3. “Change means a tax code that doesn’t reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it.”

FACT: His vice presidential candidate has a son who is a lobbyist.

4. “I will cut taxes -– cut taxes -– for 95% of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.”

FACT: Under George Walker Bush the number of working Americans who pay no federal income tax rose from 29 million to 45 million, or roughly 30% of all people who work. It is doubtful that he could eliminate taxes for another 90 million earners to raise that percentage to 95%.

And they would still have to pay FICA, and with the employer match, that 15% of one’s pay.

5. “I will end this war in Iraq responsibly, and finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.”

FACT: He called for withdrawing our troops unilaterally by March 31, 2008, despite the agreement by most observers that this would devastate Iraq and according to a New York Times editorial which advocated this position, possibly genocide.

That’s hardly responsible.

By the way, the war is over. We won. Iraqis want us to drive home safely. Please tell Obama.

Update: Vodkapundit is at it again.

Nuremberg Nazi Party Rally Photos
(click to enlarge)

When was the last time you heard about a Presidential Candidate trying to use the Justice Department to prosecute and silence a well-researched campaign ad--using the First Amendment as a primary argument--which explores in disturbing depth some very discomforting associations between himself and unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers (who was quoted in 2001 as saying, "I am sorry we didn't bomb more...")

Last time I checked my Constitution, the First Amendment was crafted to allow ordinary citizens to speak up TO power, not to allow the powerful to squelch any and all dissent in an election. This is something the Brownshirts and Blackshirts of the 30's made quite ubiquitous, but I honestly have never seen anything like it in American politics. If the Obama campaign is willing to go this far now as a candidate, what then might a President Obama do to squelch, prosecute, harass, or audit political enemies. Any and all.

Perhaps is admiration of China extends also to its "re-education" camps?

I have called Obama and his cadre "Stalinists" on this blog before, which many may have considered to be hyperbole: but the further this campaign progresses , the more confident I am that what I was saying was no exaggeration. Not even close.

First: here is the ad Obama and his comrades are trying to silence:



Guy Benson weighs in at The Corner, and every word of what he has to say is true. The words "authoritarian" and "intimidation" are well chosen. The problem is that this is what happens in a police state, not in the United States... until now:

Stanley Kurtz's appearance on the Milt Rosenberg radio program in Chicago last night provided an unsettling look into the authoritarian tactics being employed by the Obama campaign to stifle and intimidate its critics.

I happened to be in the WGN studios for the entire affair because my friend, Zack Christenson, produces the show in question. He was aware of my previous reporting on the Obama-Ayers connection and kindly invited me to sit in on the two-hour interview. (For full disclosure, I work for two other radio stations in Chicago, WIND, and WYLL).

As I arrived at the downtown Chicago studios a few hours before show time, the phones began ringing off the hook with irate callers demanding Kurtz be axed from the program. It didn't take long to discover that the Obama campaign—which had declined invitations to join the show for its duration to offer rebuttals to Kurtz's points—had sent an "Obama Action Wire" e-mail to its supporters, encouraging them to deluge the station with complaints.

Why? Because, naturally, Kurtz is a "right-wing hatchet man," a "smear merchant" and a "slimy character assassin" who is perpetrating one of the "most cynical and offensive smears ever launched against Barack."

Evidently, much of Obama nation is composed of obedient and persistent sheep. They jammed all five studio lines for nearly the entire show while firing off dozens of angry emails. Many vowed to kick their grievances up the food chain to station management. After 90 minutes of alleged smear peddling, Milt Rosenberg (a well-respected host whose long-form interview show has aired in Chicago for decades) opened the phone lines, and blind ignorance soon began to crackle across the AM airwaves. The overwhelming message was clear: The interview must be put to an end immediately, and the station management should prevent similar discussions from taking place.

One female caller, when pressed about what precisely she objected to, simply replied, "We just want it to stop!" Another angry caller was asked what "lies" Kurtz had told in any of his reporting on Barack Obama. The thoughtful response? "Everything he said is dishonest." The same caller later refused to get into "specifics." Another gentleman called Kurtz "the most un-American person" he'd ever heard. Several of the callers did not even know Stanley's name, most had obviously never read a sentence of his meticulous research, and more than simply read verbatim from the Obama talking points.

As Rosenberg repeatedly pointed out that Team Obama had been offered the opportunity to take part in the conversation, the agitated masses adapted their argument to suggest it was outrageous to request an interview from the Obama campaign in the thick of the DNC. Delivering the line of the night, Rosenberg countered, "The Obama national headquarters is just down the street from here. They obviously have the time to send out these angry emails, but they can't walk a few blocks to our studios?"

Throughout the open-line segments, Rosenberg and Kurtz wore incredulous expressions. The hostile callers were so bereft of any legitimate argument, there was little to do but sit back and marvel at what was going on.

The experience was surreal, amusing, and chilling. In a matter of hours, a major national campaign had called on its legions to bully a radio show out of airing an interview with a legitimate scholar asking legitimate political questions. Coupled with the Obama campaign's recent attempts to sic the DOJ on the creators of a truthful political advertisement —which also happened to feature Obama's relationship with an unrepentant terrorist— last night's call to action represents an emerging pattern. Any criticism of Obama's unknown past is to be immediately denounced as a "smear," and the messenger is to be shut down at all costs.

Stanley Kurtz is poring through mounds of documents (access to which was initially blocked) in a public university's library that (a) establish a deeper link between a major party presidential nominee and a man who is proud of bombing US government buildings, and (b) shed light on said candidate's brief, unexplored executive experience. It's entirely understandable why the Obama campaign would prefer that the files remain out of the public eye until at least November 5, but Kurtz's careful research is completely within the bounds of reasonable inquiry. One might even argue it's vital that a man who may be the next leader of the free world be thoroughly vetted.

Team Obama is fast becoming the campaign that cried "smear." They labeled the National Right to Life committee "liars" for providing evidence of some unpleasant facts about their candidate's record on a series of infanticide votes. This tendency to lash out and engage in baseless name-calling not only smacks of desperation; it also may foreshadow an Obama presidency's strategy in handling unfavorable media reports and sources.

If anyone still believes reinstating the Fairness Doctrine isn't a top priority for the American Left, last night's example offered a stark and alarming wake-up call. Still not convinced? For goodness sake, read Jonah's book.

UPDATE: Here is the podcast of the full show.

You need to listen to that show. It speakes volumes and volumes, far beyond what could be said here.

More from Gateway Pundit:

The Obama Camp is waging war against conservative author Stanley Kurtz for daring to investigate Obama's close connections to terrorist William Ayers.

Obama organized its storm troopers to attack a Chicago radio program for having Kurtz on as a guest.
The Swamp reported:

Sen. Barack Obama's campaign organized its supporters Wednesday night to confront Tribune-owned WGN-AM in Chicago for having a critic of the Illinois Democrat on its air. (Listen to the interview.)

"WGN radio is giving right-wing hatchet man Stanley Kurtz a forum to air his baseless, fear-mongering terrorist smears," Obama's campaign wrote in an e-mail to supporters. "He's currently scheduled to spend a solid two-hour block from 9:00 to 11:00 p.m. pushing lies, distortions, and manipulations about Barack and University of Illinois professor William Ayers."

Kurtz, a conservative writer, recently wrote an article for the National Review that looked at Obama's ties to Ayers, a former 1960s radical who later emerged as a school reform advocate in Chicago.

The Chicago Tribune posted the Obama email that was sent to Obamatrons on Stanley Kurtz:

Text of the e-mail the Obama campaign sent to supporters:
August 28, 2008

In the next few hours, we have a crucial opportunity to fight one of the most cynical and offensive smears ever launched against Barack.

Tonight, WGN radio is giving right-wing hatchet man Stanley Kurtz a forum to air his baseless, fear-mongering terrorist smears. He's currently scheduled to spend a solid two-hour block from 9:00 to 11:00 p.m. pushing lies, distortions, and manipulations about Barack and University of Illinois professor William Ayers.

Tell WGN that by providing Kurtz with airtime, they are legitimizing baseless attacks from a smear-merchant and lowering the standards of political discourse.

Call into the "Extension 720" show with Milt Rosenberg at (312) 591-7200

(Show airs from 9:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. tonight)

Then report back on your call at http://my.barackobama.com/WGNstandards

Kurtz has been using his absurd TV appearances in an awkward and dishonest attempt to play the terrorism card. His current ploy is to embellish the relationship between Barack and Ayers.

Just last night on Fox News, Kurtz drastically exaggerated Barack's connection with Ayers by claiming Ayers had recruited Barack to the board of the Annenberg Challenge. That is completely false and has been disproved in numerous press accounts.

It is absolutely unacceptable that WGN would give a slimy character assassin like Kurtz time for his divisive, destructive ranting on our public airwaves. At the very least, they should offer sane, honest rebuttal to every one of Kurtz's lies.

Kurtz is scheduled to appear from 9:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. in the Chicago market.

Calling will only take a minute, and it will make a huge difference if we nip this smear in the bud. Confront Kurtz tonight before this goes any further:

http://my.barackobama.com/WGNstandards

Please forward this email to everyone you know who can make a call tonight.

Keep fighting the good fight,

Obama Action Wire

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It also appears the Obama Camp is still not being honest about his relationship with terrorist Bill Ayers.
The relationship between Obama and Ayers runs deeper. In 1993 Philanthropist Walter H. Annenberg pledged 500 million dollars to a school reform initiative called the Annenberg Challenge . This is where William Ayers comes in:

When three of Chicago's most prominent education reform leaders met for lunch at a Thai restaurant six years ago to discuss the just-announced $500 million Annenberg Challenge, their main goal was to figure out how to ensure that any Annenberg money awarded to Chicago "didn't go down the drain," said William Ayers, a professor of education at the University of Illinois in Chicago. Ayers, who was at that lunch table in late 1993, helped write the successful Chicago grant application.

So in 1995 The Chicago Annenberg Challenge Fund was created. They received 49.2 million dollars. Ayers and his two colleagues went on the form a "working group" that soon comprised over 70 members. But Ayers was a main figure in this working group as he himself says on his website:

Co-Founder and Co-Chair, Chicago School Reform Collaborative (The Annenberg Challenge), 1995-2000.

Want to guess who the working group, which morphed into the Chicago School Reform Collaborative , picked to lead the the fund? That's right..Barack Obama was tapped to be the first Chairman of the Board of the newly created Chicago Annenberg Challenge fund.

The working group went on to form the CSRC which acted as amongst other things a consultant to the fund. Now , does Obama really expect us to believe that while serving as the chairman of the board of the CACF he had no contact with William Ayers? And what exactly did Ayers see in Obama to have selected him for this important role? Look at it this way..would Ayers have picked someone who holds MY views..or someone who hold views closer to his own?.If you know anything about these far-left radicals it's that they have very little tolerance for people who don't think like them.
Hat Tip Bruce

Power Line has more on the attacks on Kurtz.

More from the Editors of National Review:

Kurtz has written extensively, and with characteristic attention to factual detail, about Obama’s early career as a “community organizer,” his cultivation of benefactors in the most radical cauldrons of Chicago politics, his long-time pastor’s immersion in Black Liberation Theology, his ties to anti-American zealots, and the years in the Illinois state legislature this self-styled agent of change spent practicing the by-the-numbers left-wing politics of redistribution and race-consciousness, remaining soft on crime and extreme on abortion.

This has led Kurtz, naturally, to scrutinize the relationship between Obama and one of his early political sponsors, William Ayers. Ayers, as we have previously detailed, is a confessed terrorist who, having escaped prosecution due to surveillance violations that came to light during his decade on the lam after a bombing spree, landed an influential professorship in education at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC). As he has made clear several times before and after helping to launch Obama’s political career, Ayers remains defiantly proud of bombing the Pentagon, the U.S. Capitol, and other targets. He expresses regret only that he didn’t do more. Far from abandoning his radical politics, he has simply changed methods: the classroom, rather than the detonator, is now his instrument for campaigning against an America he portrays as racist and imperialist.

Obama supporters risibly complain that shining a light on the Obama/Ayers relationship is a “smear” and smacks of “guilt by association.” A presidential candidate’s choice to associate himself with an unrepentant terrorist would be highly relevant in any event — does anyone think the Obamedia would keep mum if John McCain had a long-standing relationship with David Duke or an abortion-clinic bomber?

But we are talking about more than a mere “association.”

Bluntly, Obama has lied about his relationship with Ayers, whom he now dismisses as “a guy who lives in my neighborhood.” Ayers and Obama have made joint appearances together; they have argued together for “reforms” of the criminal justice system to make it more criminal-friendly; Obama gushed with praise for Ayers’ 1997 polemical book on the Chicago courts; and they sat together for three years on the board of the Woods Fund, a left-wing enterprise that distributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to their ideological allies. Most significant, they worked closely together on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC).

The CAC records, said to comprise 70 linear feet of files, have long been maintained at the library of the UIC, the public university where Ayers teaches. This summer, Kurtz made an appointment to review them and, after being assured access, was blocked from seeing them by library administrators, who stammered about needing permission from the “donor” — whom they declined to identify. Kurtz energetically raised public awareness to the stonewalling, and the library finally relented this week. That is, as Barack Obama prepares to accept the Democrats’ nomination tonight, the records of his only significant executive experience just became available for review on Tuesday.

Kurtz began his review, and on Wednesday was invited on Milt Rosenberg’s radio program to discuss it. Rosenberg is a Chicago institution. His program, “Extension 720,” has aired for more than 30 years — a civil forum where knowledgeable guests from across the political spectrum discuss important issues in revealing two-hour interviews. What happened Wednesday night was stunning, as even the normally unflappable Rosenberg observed.

The Obama campaign — which has emissaries appearing everywhere — declined Rosenberg’s invitation to have a representative appear on the program and respond to Kurtz’s factual assertions. The campaign did, however, issue an “Obama Action Wire” that encouraged supporters to contact the program (telephone information was provided) and use scripted “talking points” to disrupt Kurtz’s appearance, which it deemed “unacceptable.” As the Politico’s Ben Smith reported, the campaign also urged supporters to demand that Rosenberg scrap the appearance of Kurtz, whom the campaign libeled as a “smear-merchant” and a “slimy character assassin.” The rant was reminiscent of the work of the left-wing media “watch-dog” Media Matters for America.

Other than denigrating Kurtz for being conservative, Obama’s operatives have provided no response to the substance of his claims. In their only pretense of engaging him, they accuse him of telling “a flat out lie” that Ayers recruited Obama for the CAC. Though it is a reasonable inference that Ayers recruited Obama, the careful Kurtz has stopped short of making it — observing only that Obama offers no explanation of how he was recruited if not through Ayers, his friend and the CAC’s driving force.

The station, WGN, has made a stream of the broadcast available online, here, and it has to be heard to be believed. Obama’s robotic legions dutifully jammed the station’s phone lines and inundated the program with emails, attacking Kurtz personally. Pressed by Rosenberg to specify what inaccuracies Kurtz was guilty of, caller after caller demurred, mulishly railing that “we just want it to stop,” and that criticism of Obama was “just not what we want to hear as Americans.” Remarkably, as Obama sympathizers raced through their script, they echoed the campaign’s insistence that it was Rosenberg who was “lowering the standards of political discourse” by having Kurtz on, rather than the campaign by shouting him down.

Kurtz has obviously hit a nerve. It is the same nerve hit by the American Issues Project, whose television ad calling for examination of the Obama/Ayers relationship has prompted the Obama campaign to demand that the Justice Department begin a criminal investigation. Obama fancies himself as “post-partisan.” He is that only in the sense that he apparently brooks no criticism. This episode could be an alarming preview of what life will be like for the media should the party of the Fairness Doctrine gain unified control of the federal government next year.

Here are some reminders about what and who Bill Ayers is. These are the events that he and wife Bernadine Dorn orchestrated as leaders of the Weather Underground:

Ayers reminder (Hat Tip: AliVeritas - Stolen from TSchmereL):

For those who have forgotten or weren’t born yet here is a list of a few of the activities. Just think if this were happening today:

7 October 1969 – Bombing of Haymarket Police Statue in Chicago, apparently as a “kickoff” for the “Days of Rage” riots in the city October 8-11, 1969. The Weathermen later claim credit for the bombing in their book, “Prairie Fire.”

8 October-11, 1969 – The “Days of Rage” riots occur in Chicago in which 287 Weatherman members from throughout the country were arrested and a large amount of property damage was done.

6 December 1969 – Bombing of several Chicago Police cars parked in a precinct parking lot at 3600 North Halsted Street, Chicago. The WUO stated in their book “Prairie Fire” that they had did the explosion.

27 December-31, 1969 – Weathermen hold a “War Council” meeting in Flint, MI, where they finalize their plans to submerge into an underground status from which they plan to commit strategic acts of sabotage against the government. Thereafter they are called the “Weather Underground Organization” (WUO).

13 February 1970 - Bombing of several police vehicles of the Berkeley, California, Police Department .

16 February 1970 – Bombing of Golden Gate Park branch of the San Francisco Police Department, killing one officer and injuring a number of other policemen.

6 March 1970 – Bombing in the 13th Police District of the Detroit, Michigan. 34 sticks of dynamite are discovered. During February and early March, 1970, members of the WUO, led by Bill Ayers, are reported to be in Detroit, during that period, for the purpose of bombing a police facility.

6 March 1970 – “bomb factory” located in New York’s Greenwich Village accidentally explodes. WUO members die . The bomb was intended to be planted at a non-commissioned officer’s dance at Fort Dix, New Jersey. The bomb was packed with nails TO INFILICT MAXIMUM CASUALTIES UPON DETONATION.

30 March 1970 – Chicago Police discover a WUO “bomb factory” on Chicago’s north side. A subsequent discovery of a WUO “weapons cache” in a south side Chicago apartment several days later ends WUO activity in the city.

10 May 1970 – Bombing of The National Guard Association building in Washington, D.C..

21 May 1970 – The WUO under Bernardine Dohrn’s name releases its “Declaration of a State of War” communique.

6 June 1970 – The WUO sends a letter claiming credit for bombing of the San Francisco Hall of Justice; however, no explosion actually took place. Months later, workmen in this building located an unexploded device which had apparently been dormant for some time.

9 June 1970 - Bombing of The New York City Police Headquarters .

27 July 1970 - Bombing of The Presidio army base in San Francisco. [NYT, 7/27/70]

12 September 1970 – The WUO helps Dr. Timothy Leary, break out and escape from the California Men’s Colony prison.

8 October 1970 - Bombing of Marin County courthouse. [NYT, 8/10/70]

10 October 1970 - Bombing of Queens traffic-court building . [NYT, 10/10/70, p. 12]

14 October 1970 - Bombing of The Harvard Center for International Affairs [NYT, 10/14/70, p. 30]

1 March 1971 - Bombing of The United States Capitol . “ [NYT, 3/2/71]

April, 1971 – abandoned WUO “bomb factory” discovered in San Francisco, California.

29 August, 1971 - Bombing of the Office of California Prisons . [LAT, 8/29/71]

17 September 1971 - Bombing of The New York Department of Corrections in Albany, NY [NYT, 9/18/71]

15 October 1971 - Bombing of William Bundy’s office in the MIT research center. [NYT, 10/16/71]

19 May 1972 - Bombing of The Pentagon . [NYT, 5/19/72]

18 May 1973 - Bombing of the 103rd Police Precinct in New York.

28 September 1973 - Bombing of ITT headquarters in New York and Rome, Italy . [NYT, 9/28/73]

6 March 1974 - Bombing of the Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare offices in San Francisco.

31 May 1974 - Bombing of The Office of the California Attorney General.

17 June 1974 - Bombing of Gulf Oil’s Pittsburgh headquarters.

11 September 1974 – Bombing of Anaconda Corporation (part of the Rockefeller Corporation).

29 January 1975 - Bombing of the State Department in (AP. “State Department Rattled by Blast,” The Daily Times-News, January 29 1975, p.1)

16 June 1975 - Bombing of Banco de Ponce (a Puerto Rican bank) in New York

September, 1975 – Bombing of the Kennecott Corporation.

October 20, 1981 - Brinks robbery in which several members of the Weather Underground stole over $1 million from a Brinks armored car near Nyack, New York. The robbers murdered 2 police officers and 1 Brinks guard. Several others were wounded.

1981 “Guilty as hell. Free as a bird. America is a great country,” Ayers said when interviewed by David Horowitz.

September 11, 2001 “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” Ayers is quoted in NYT article

Does Ayers' involvement in being involved in these terrorist crimes and murders not justify one in asking the question: just what in the world was Obama doing forming close ties to this man??

If John McCain just happened to be "friends" or serve on a board with Timothy McVeigh in the past, would it not warrant a few questions as to why, what went on during that association and "friendship", and what it says about McCain's judgment? Of course it would.

And--of course--this is why you are seeing the true Stalinist colors of Obama here in doing whatever is necessary to shut down this line of inquiry. Only one problem: this isn't the Soviet Union (not yet anyway...).

Oh, this one is rich... first Berlin, now this?

Cartoon by Michael Ramirez (click to enlarge)

Michael Totten puts the Russians' lame excuses to shame, and Laughing Wolf gives it a stirring introduction and quotes some of the more poignant passages. But you will want to read the whole thing

LW is right; this is one of the more informative and gripping accounts I have read in some time:

UPDATE: There are reports that Michael Totten's site is under cyberattack, which is not surprising. I'm able to get in, but if you can't keep trying. If the URL changes, I will update the link.

Pravda. It means truth, though in Soviet parlance that word does not mean what you think it means, just as peace didn't. Peace meant the absence of all opposition, and truth had a rather flexible definition. Yet, that doesn't mean that there is not real objective truth.

Today, Michael J. Totten provides some real Truth About Russia in Georgia in what is one of the best pieces of journalism I've ever seen on the region and the history there, much less the current conflict. Pay particular attention to the fact that the briefing he got as vetted by Thomas Goltz.

Today, it is a distinct pleasure to give you more truth on Russia, the Soviet Union, and life under and after. Today, I introduce you to Mzia, and the first part of the reality of her life in Georgia.

My friend asked me to help find old bed sheets for her child’s birth. She was in labor. We gathered water and candles. We went to the dark hospital to help her deliver her baby.

The Russians had cut off all natural gas and electricity to Georgia. A very cold winter was starting. Many people died and old people were especially helpless.

Because we had no hope in Georgia, my brothers left the country to try to provide for their families. I went into the forest to find wood to burn. My mother and I made the fire on the third floor under the stairs inside an eight story building. The people of the building gathered with us for warmth and food.

We lived in the darkness. We stood in long lines for water. Every day I would walk 7 kilometers to my godmother’s house for any flour or sugar she could spare on that day. Then I would walk 8 kilometers each way to University to study. The auditorium was freezing. Sometimes the professors would invite us to their houses and give us weak tea to share while we learned.

This is not so long ago as you may think. This is not a made up story. This is my true life. This was 1991 in Georgia. You may know Georgia from the story of Jason and the Argonauts. King Aaetes and Princess Medea (where “medicine” comes from) were leaders of the Georgian Kingdom of Colchis. You see Georgia in the news now and may not even realize this is the same land.

My name is Mzia (Muh-zee-uh). I live in America and my husband is from Texas. Our daughter is four years old and our son is three. I am on my way to becoming a United States citizen and I am very happy about this. I am from Georgia and grew up in the Soviet Union under Russian domination.

My mother was a teacher and my father was a renowned scientist in the Soviet Union. His travels included Hungary, Germany and Italy, where he learned about different systems of government. This was monitored by KGB.

In a Soviet country, you are expected to be certain things. We were expected to be communists, and atheists. Georgian people adopted Christianity as the official state religion in the 4th Century A.D. We had to fear being discovered as religious people under the Russians. But we kept our trust in God.

I can remember being sick in bed once as a child. My mother had a cross hanging in the bedroom. People wouldn’t see it in the private room but on this day my father’s colleagues came to the house for supper. One of the guests wanted to see me and wish me good health. He saw the cross with Jesus and became very angry! The next day this was the important subject at my father’s place of work. I remember after that day my mother no longer kept the cross on the wall. From then on, my mother kept it inside of a chest of drawers and inside of our hearts.

Another difficulty for my father was the Communist Party. My father refused to join them. I remember he would say the Soviet economy can not last long. My father died when I was thirteen because of incorrect medical prescriptions. He was never to see his prediction come true.

My grandfather had been a hard working agriculturist. He was a target of the Red Army in 1921 when they first conquered our beloved Georgia. Georgia had a long history of independence – frequently interrupted - for more than 2000 years. It has one of the world’s oldest living written and spoken languages. Archeologists discovered ancient cave cities in Georgia with depressions and storage hollows for fermentation purposes. It is believed by many scientists that wine was invented in Georgia. The Georgian word for wine is “ghvino,” and many think the basis of “vino.”

My brother, Malkhaz, is a successful artist. When he attended art college he would sometimes steal away to attend an Orthodox Church service. Other students and the KGB would stage interventions to teach him the folly of going to church. They would preach to him that when he turned to this fake God, he was turning against the true gods of communism, Lenin and Stalin.

The Russians forced a culture of neighbor spying on neighbor. They held extreme distrust of anyone who was not a member of the communist party. They tried to enforce that Russian be the only language. They wanted to destroy the Georgian culture. They erased and ruined ancient treasures of religious art. Language, culture, and religion are basic rights, but to the Russians these are ways to freedom. Therefore, they could not remain.

The Russians see freedom as a kind of danger. They believe this threat to the government can not be tolerated. Before the Russians, Georgia was conquered by other powers: Mongolia, Persia, the Byzantine Empire. We have always fought hard to keep our language and our culture.

The Russians were asked to help us defend against the Persians in the early 19th century and forgot to leave until early last century. Then they left only until 1921 when they forced us to be part of Soviet Union.

I finished school in 1988 and the Soviet Union started to collapse. This was an incredible time! In my young mind a whole new world started to open! The Nationalist Democratic movement leaders taught us that Georgia could regain the independence the Red Army stole away in 1921. We had hope.

I remember my elders were fearful. But my younger generation dreamed of being a free democratic nation in the 20th Century.

On April 8th 1989 I was asked with school friends to go to the television studio in Tbilisi for an interview about education. As soon as we arrived we had to leave through an emergency exit. The station was blocked by Russian tanks. I can never forget what this was like.

The next day thousands of peaceful demonstrators gathered with prayer books and candles. They went to the main Government building to defend the constitutional right of the republics to sovereignty. Russia wanted to remove this right. We had no separate government but it was important to us to keep our separate identity. At 3:00AM Russian tanks and soldiers cleared Rustaveli Street. They used shovels and poison gas. Sixteen people, mostly women, were killed. Even a young school girl was slain. Hundreds were injured in a stampede and poisoned by the gas. I remember the fear of the gas there in the days after. Russia made it clear that we had no right to express discontent. It was very sad. We knew our women were killed by the Red Army. This is after Georgian men, our protectors, were forced to fight and die for Russia’s horrible war of conquest against Afghanistan. Russia controlled the radio, television and newspapers. But we knew what happened.

I saw people throw the Soviet flag and stepping on them as a way to protest the Russian tanks surrounding my eight story “Khrushchev” apartment building. We wanted an end to communism in Georgia. We wanted a new, free, humane, democratic country. We saw this as the beginning. We elected President Zviad Gamsakhurdia with 85% of the vote. He died very mysteriously. Many believe the Russians assassinated him.

In 1991 Georgia declared independence. The Russians left, but for a very big price. Nobody that leaves Russian control is ever forgiven for thinking that they can aspire to anything better. Right away Russia gave arms to minority separatist groups in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. These groups were promised the land once the Georgians were driven away and ruined. A civil war began. The Georgians had no real army. And we were destroyed by the separatists in the provinces.

On August 14th in 1992 when Russians provoked the war inside Georgia Eduard Shevardnadze sent a message to the democratic world asking for help to Georgians to keep their sovereignty and end the war started by Russians using separatist leaders in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, but nobody got involved, nobody showed interest in that matter. So Russia became the only player in Caucasus region.

I remember very clearly that the separatists were burning Georgian books from schools and churches. I remember many Georgian refugees that had no food or shelter. We watched hundreds of thousands of the ethnic Georgian majority displaced and many thousands killed in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. We watched mothers and children killed and bodies mutilated.

The Russians forced Georgia to accept Russian ‘peacekeepers.’ The Georgians were never allowed to come back. The Russians gave the separatists that helped them passports. They made the Ruble the only currency in the separatist area, but they still pretend to be neutral. To my mind it is important to see how Russia and its supporters ignore Georgia’s will - then and now. Georgia’s history and Georgia’s rights are treated today the way they were treated then, as if they did not matter.

We rejected communism. Therefore, Russia rejected us. They denied Georgia any food, fuel, medicine when the Soviet Union fell, and they controlled all of this. They stole everything they could when they left. What they could not take, they destroyed.

Many believe the Russians came back to Georgia now because they never forgot. They never forgave us for embracing democracy, they wanted us to pay. Really, it is a celebration that Georgia survived at all. For almost seventy years we suffered under communist brutality. Georgians were not allowed to thrive under the Russians. We worked hard as a nation to relearn how to think and how to live free.

And now today all we have done is being taken, again.

Stay tuned, as there is more to come from Mzia and on all that is happening.

A line must be drawn.

Stephen Green represents my thoughts quite well--hell I think I'll go get a vodka...

Cartoon by Michael Ramirez (click to enlarge)

Richard Fernandez discusses the recent deployment of US Naval vessels to Georgia. Very interesting information here (read the whole thing):

The allied naval flotilla now in the area is a blue-water force and may in certain respects be superior to the Russian Black Sea Fleet, whose flagship the cruiser Moskva was reported damaged in combat by the Georgian navy. A Burke-class destroyer is considerably more powerful than anything the Georgian Navy could have deployed. While it is extremely unlikely that any actual naval confrontation will occur (Cold War Rule Number 1) there could be a return to Cold War era harassments between the two forces. At any rate, the Russians have sought to impede the ships not by naval means, but by denying the ships access to the land. The AP reported: “Around Georgia’s main Black Sea port city of Poti — outside any security zone — signs seemed to point to a prolonged presence. Russian troops excavated trenches, set up mortars and blocked a key bridge with armored personnel carriers and trucks. Other armored vehicles and trucks parked in a nearby forest.”

But the game can be played both ways. Since the port is technically Georgian, one wonders whether Russian supply ships would be allowed to dock there without permission from Tbilisi. In the end, neither side might have the port. And the presence of a possibly superior US naval force in the Black Sea, which carries a third of Russian seaborne commerce can only be disquieting to Moscow. Especially if the current naval force is only a harbinger of more to come. As previous posts have noted, the Georgian crisis will essentially be a Naval and Air game. OIF, while it soaked up the ground forces, actually liberated US Naval Forces from having to blockade the Gulf, spared the USAF from having to enforce a No-Fly Zone and gave them bases within flying range of the Black Sea.

The arrival of the USS Mount Whitney is interesting because it implies that the “relief operation” might get much larger. By exploiting the fear generated by the Russian incursion into Georgia, the USN may position a presence in the Black Sea than heretofore, something Russia probably doesn’t want. But how will they stop it without directly confronting the US? Maybe they should consider cashing in their chips and remove their forces from Georgia proper. Moscow has made its point but to carry things further may no longer be to Russia’s advantage.

Just be glad that John Kerry is not in the White House right now.