Completely Nonsensical

A really appropriate quote:

A panicked rush to ‘save the economy’ with a massive increase in federal spending now would be like trying to cure dysentery with Ex-Lax.

Pelosi's Fraud

1. Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says — in almost precisely these words — "We won. We get to do whatever we want."

2. She then brings in her cronies to write the "stimulus" bill we all supposedly need, while shutting out everyone else.

3. Taking gas for 2., she brings in a few selected Republicans, and semi-politely pretends to listen to their viewpoints before totally ignoring them.

4. She ram-rods the "stimulus" bill through the House, even though it has very little in it that could remotely be considered stimulus. (Just for starters, nearly all its spending is after the recession will already be over — unless it is prolonged by stupid governmental interference.)

5. Pelosi adds insult to injury by stating that Republicans who disagree with her are unpatriotic.

San Fran Nan makes me ashamed to be a Democrat!

Thoughtcrime Conviction

George Orwell would be proud!

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich has now been convicted in his impeachment trial and removed from office. And yet, as far as I have read, there was no actual wrongdoing even charged. Even for a conspiracy charge, there has to be some concrete act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Here, Blagojevich has been convicted of a thoughtcrime — or maybe of injudicious free speech. Or maybe it's just that he pissed of the legislators, and they don't like him. I don't like "Hot Rod", either, but this isn't right.

A few other thoughts:

• This demonstrates that, as bad as New Mexico politics is, Illinois is worse. (Yes, I know — given the history of the Chicago political machine, this should not be a surprise.)
• If dislike and piss-off are the criteria, as established by the Illinois legislature, it becomes likely that impeachment charges will be filed against each of the legislators — and lots of other elected officials and unelected bureaucrats.
• It appears Illinois' senators violated their oaths as impeachment judges in convicting the governor of non-crimes. This is the inverse of the 1999 presidential impeachment trial where a large number of Senatorial Democrats demonstrated their violation of their oaths by openly stating their beliefs the president had committed the crimes charged before voting "not guilty". (And at least, in that case, actual crimes were charged, even if they were the most minor of the charges that could have been brought.)
• While at the gym, I saw a writer from the Chicago Tribune being interviewed. He responded to Blagojevich's claim that President Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, should be considered a co-conspirator. He said this claim was obviously baseless because (quoting from memory) "He's already said 'I did nothing illegal.'" Of course, Blagojevich has also said "I did nothing illegal." So why — other than his biases and those of his employer — does he automatically credit this statement from one politician and not another?

Bait & Switch

It's a classic bait & switch. Congress decided to get into everybody else's business. They didn't just support a shift from analog to digical television — they mandated it. What's more, they mandated an end to most analog television broadcasting on a fixed date, February 17, 2009.

That's why there's been such an advertising blitz for months, telling everyong to get ready for the changeover date. That's why television stations all over the country have been spending a lot of money and time preparing and activating new digital transmitters.

And now, to complete the classic bait and switch, Congress is saying “Never mind!” At this very late date, just three weeks before the cutoff date, they're moving that date out to June. Their excuse is that not everyone is ready for the change. But, as a resident in the metropolitan area identified as being least ready, I note that the pressure for moving the date back is coming from areas much more ready than we are.

It all goes to show that Congress' word isn't worth the time it takes to hear it.

Why? What Are They Afraid Of?

Here's a question that needs an answer right here in the state of New Mexico.

The New Mexico legislature passed, and the governor signed, a bill to let the citizens see how their legislature operates. The cameras were purchased and placed in the Roundhouse (our state capitol building), and the infrastructure was prepared to support webcasting legislative sessions.

But there was a hang-up. The legislative leadership, in both the House and the Senate, decided they wouldn't allow the cameras to be used — and ordered them removed. They are now (reportedly) stored in the capitol basement.

Several legislators are fighting the leadership, even to the point of bringing their own webcams into (so far) committee sessions. We don't yet know how it's going to come out.

Meanwhile, there are some questions that need answers. Why don't the leaders of the legislature want to let the citizenry see them work? What are they doing that they're ashamed of? They claim they're afraid the legislators might start acting differently if the cameras were rolling. Based on what we have seen, that would probably be a good thing.

(One legislator is a bit more honest — he's afraid the cameras will catch him napping in the session, and that will show up in political ads in his next election race.)

Which Obama Will Govern?

Barack Obama took the oath of office last week to become the nation's 44^th president since the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. Now the question becomes which Obama will govern? He ran as a true leftist in the primaries, but moved to run as a centrist in the general election. During the campaign, I tended to believe the former as it was more consistent with his limited record. But it is also possible he has learned through the campaign process, and maybe since. It's also true that actually becoming president often changes people as the true scale of their new responsibilities becomes apparent.

To find out which Obama will govern, we'll have to wait to find out how he acts in office. Only firm actions will show. And, so far — already, there's been enough in his actions to piss off anyone who's been paying attention. He has appointed moderates and socialists (affiliation, not assessment). He has signed executive orders that people of different viewpoints have been able to interpret in radically different ways. So the bottom line is we still don't know.

Trying to be all things to all people makes a lot of people feel good, and a lot of others feel frustrated. The danger is it may end up coming across like trying to fool all the people all the time.

How Did Poe Really Die?

Monday is Edgar Allan Poe’s 200^th birthday, on January 19^th. And once again, as in every year since 1949, an unknown someone will probably leave three roses and a half-empty bottle of cognac at his gravesite Monday night.

The cause of Poe’s death remains unknown. He was found unconscious on the street in Baltimore, and taken to a hospital, where he died several days later without ever regaining consciousness. The mystery of Poe’s death has produced a lot of discussion over the years. Various authors have suggested a variety of possible causes for his death including delirium tremens, heart disease, epilepsy, syphilis, meningeal inflammation, cholera, and rabies. None of the speculations has been generally accepted, apparently because none explains the full set of observations. But it seems to me the real answer may be much simpler.

One key to the answer is to remember that a number of people have noted Poe’s reputation as a drunkard. He was known to drink — occasionally or frequently, depending on whose description is used — and was often seen in an inebriated condition. In fact, his drinking was the reason that his name was crossed out of the family Bible. But there was another piece to Poe’s reputation as well: He was known to have a very low tolerance for alcohol, and it was said of him that one glass of wine would put him “under the table”. This very low alcohol tolerance is characteristic of an individual with diabetes.

The other key comes from family history. At least parts of the Miller, Daffron, and Poe families were quite close. Elements of these three families traveled down the Ohio River together, settled in southeast Missouri, and intermarried over multiple generations. (These are collateral lines, not descendants; Edgar Allan Poe had no children.) And it is notable that diabetes is quite frequent among these families in the 20^th century, generation after generation.

The prior observations and this history suggest the possibility that Edgar Allan Poe was diabetic. (Diabetes could not be readily diagnosed or treated during Poe’s lifetime.) If so, he may have passed out in Baltimore due to low blood sugar, and not due to being drunk as has so long been asserted. And if that is the case, it adds to the tragedy of his early death as it raises the likelihood that he could have been revived at any time during those last days in the hospital by simply pouring some fruit juice in his mouth.

This description is not definitive. It is certainly possible the diabetic tendencies enterred these family lines from another direction and/or at a later time. Nevertheless, the combination of the family history of diabetes and the historical observations of Edgar Allan Poe is very suggestive. And this suggestion does explain the observations during Poe’s lifetime and at the time of his death.

New Mexico — A One-Party State

The Democrats have controlled the New Mexico state government for decades, with — just once in a while, to break the monotony — a Republican governor. But our Congressional delegation has normally been split between the parties — all long-serving office-holders.

But then Senator Pete Domenici announced his retirement, and all three of our Representatives went after his seat. As a result, with the swearing-in of the new Congress, New Mexico is now represented by nothing but Democrats.

Now we really are — completely — a one party state.

The Left's View of Israel and Gaza

I've never thought much of Roseanne Barr's talent, taste, intelligence, or morals, but this is pretty far out, even for her.

Roseanne Barr says

Israel is a NAZI state. The Jewish Soul is being tortured in Israel. The destruction of the jews in Israel has been assured with this inhuman attack on civilians in gaza. Hamas is the street gangs --- this is equivilent to los angeles attacking and launching war on the people of watts to attempt to kill the bloods and the crips.

Amazingly, that's still less stupid than HuffPo imbecile Lorelei Kelly's assertion that attacking Hamas is like attacking the Salvation Army.

I wonder what color the sky is in their world.

The Ku Klux Klan Lives On

... in the Middle East. Most recently, they demonstrated in Lebanon.

Meanwhile, the KKK's Gaza chapter continues its decade-long Jew-extermination efforts.

Blagojevich Is Right

What was Illinois Governor "Hot Rod" Blagojevich to do? Yes, he got arrested and charged, and is probably as crooked as the rest of the Chicago political machine. But he is still the governor of the state of Illinois. And he had a problem.

A good chunk of that problem was created by the state legislature. They met to consider changing the law, as recommended by the governor, so a vacancy in a U.S. Senate seat would be filled by a special election instead of by appointment by the governor. But the legislature's Democrats decided they couldn't do that because, with the Democrats' corruption on all the front pages, they feared the seat might actually be won by a Republican. (!) As a result, since the law was not changed, the only legal way the Senate seat vacated by President-Elect Barack Obama can be filled is by the governor appointing someone to fill it.

But that creates another problem. The Congressional Democrats' leadership has said they will not allow anyone named by Governor Blagojevich to be seated. That means they are unwilling to allow Illinois to be represented by a Senator named in the only way provided for by Illinois law — which means they are unwilling to allow Illinois to be represented by two Senators as provided in the Constitution. And that gives them yet another problem since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1969, in the case of Adam Clayton Powell, that what the Senate leadership intends to do is unconstitutional — the Senate can expel a member, for cause and by a 2/3 vote of the full Senate, but they cannot refuse to seat a properly elected/appointed Senator.

So Rod Blagojevich, as governor of Illinois, was presented with this problem: He could follow the warnings and illegal orders of the Democrats' state and national leadership and leave Illinois without complete representation, or he could follow the state law and appoint a new Senator. In this instance, for good reasons or bad, he decided to follow the law.

Blagojevich is still the governor. There is no legitimate or legal basis for blocking or voiding this appointment to the Senate seat. Under these circumstances, anyone trying to block this appointment should have to spent a LOT of time in court, at their own personal expense. After all, violating the law is never part of a public official's job description. And, in this instance, the one following the law is Governor Blagojevich.

How Dare You Do What We Demanded!?!

Community organizers and organizations like National Community Reinvestment Coalition, a "community-based organization," used the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act to pressure banks and other financial institutions to grant mortgages to people with "insufficient borrower income levels." Now that so many of those loans — predictably — have gone bad, the Coalition has filed suit against two Wall Street rating services, saying the firms "knew or should have known" that the loans would go into default at a high rate. Thus the Coalition is suing the rating services for making it possible for the financial institutions to do what the Coalition was pressuring them to do. (!)

Seems to me the news is providing more and more "through the looking glass" kinds of stuff.

Two hat tips, here and here.

The Terror Attacks in Mumbai

An e-mail written by a friend of a friend — a man closely associated with the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel in Mumbai — provides more details from the terrorist attacks (the Islamist incursion) there. Information from that e-mail is extracted and summarized here (with some additions from other sources):

The e-mail was written at 10:45 last Friday morning, "after almost 37 hrs of sustained flushing out operations by the National Security Guard Black Cat commandos, Army, Navy, Air Force and the Police ...... a combined operation of all security forces." In it, he talked about the attacks, labeled by the media there as "India's 9/11" and considered an invasion of India, and the toll they took on the hotel staff. Battles were continuing, at that point, at the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel, at the Oberoi Hotel, and at the Nariman House (home of the Chabad House Jewish outreach center). He gives some specifics I haven't seen other places.

At least 17 senior hotel staff died in the terrorists' initial charge into the hotel, including chef Banja and the young chef Boris (son of the Taj's legendary Goan chef Cruz Rego of Divaar). Most of these were shot at point blank range. A number of other hotel staff members apparently also died protecting hotel guests. Seldom was anyone spared. (Even so, the staff apparently kept up their tradition of immaculate service as best they could.)

The terrorists moved to the executive suites on the sixth floor — corner suites 643-649. Escaped colleagues and others could only watch helplessly from near the Gateway of India as the terrorists attacked this section with guns and grenades, setting the suites on fire. The wife and two children of the hotel's general manager Karimbir Kang died in one of these suites while he helped shepherd hotel guests to safety.

The writer summarizes what he knows about the attacks — from observation, escaped staff members, and the news media (the Wall Street Journal has another summary):

A new expose on 'Z news' says that 2 of the terrorists had checked in earlier at the Taj while 2 young men had taken casual jobs 2-3 months back in the banquetting dept. The degree of planning that has gone into this strike amazes. The entire execution of the plan from its start at Karachi in a 'seized' Indian fishing vessel, the landing near Cuffe Parade, the grouping of 10 Pakistani and 2 local terrorists close to the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus and the railway headquarters at Badhwar Park, the diversionary tactics in blowing the gas station, the assault on backpack foreign tourists at the popular Cafe Leopold, the charge thru the weakly manned staff entry gate of the Taj hotel, the commando type movement thru the service galleys of the hotel in the first basement emerging up to the lobby, scattering bullets on all and sundry in the lobby at 10 pm, the swift move spraying bullets on staff and guests in the reception area and restaurants (including the Golden Dragon, Zodiac, Shamiana and Masala Craft) before sprinting up the grand stairway of the old Taj Palace ...... finally settling in the 6th floor .......... all speaks of intense planning. That the hotels were warned 2 months earlier by the Intelligence Bureau is now a standard warning carried out consciously by terror groups to give them time to study the security preparations of targets.^*   This has seldom failed as the psyche of fear and panic in India (or elsewhere) are now well understood by terror groups.

^* It has been noted since that the additional security measures put in place at that time, which were relaxed a few days before the attack, would have had no effect on the attack on the Taj as it occurred.

One of the things made possible by the terrorists' observations of Mumbai's responsive security preparations was the murders of the chief and senior members of the Anti-Terror Squad, and of the police commissioner, in the early phase of the attack.

The writer provides a good summary of what is behind this and similar attacks. He notes the terror outfits (i.e. Lashkar-e-Taiba, Harkat-ul Jihad al Islami, Jamiatul Mujaheedin, etc.) are all creations of the Al Qaeda. The ability of these terror outfits to cross India's borders and execute strikes whenever and wherever at will all speaks, he says, of the extreme decay of evil minds among us. He notes that "such minds have no religion, no faith, no colour and no language" — only evil.

Others are noticing their depravity, as well. The Muslim Jama Masjid Trust says the terrorists were not true followers of Islam and refused to allow their burial in the Badakabrastan graveyard they control. A trust spokesman said "People who committed this heinous crime cannot be called Muslim. Islam does not permit this sort of barbaric crime." Several Islamic scholars have backed the Trust's decision. Because of this Trust's influence, none of the seven other Muslim cemeteries is likely to accept the bodies, either, and their final disposition is in question. (Gee, maybe that's a good thing!)

Even with all the terror and destruction, the writer ends on a hopeful note.

Voices hope that this may be a divine blessing (in disguise) to unify all leaders, crossing all political and national barriers, all interests, thus creating one common aim for the good of all mankind.

The fight against terror. The beginning of a new world order.

The prophecy of Nostradamus, that of a new golden era in the World, of a long period of peace, may not be very far.

Voter ID Law Reinstated

The U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday reinstated Albuquerque's voter ID law. The appeals court relied on the landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in an Indiana case (the Crawford case) last spring that a photo ID requirement did not violate voters' rights, and reversed the ruling of an Albuquerque federal court last year that the photo ID requirement was unconstitutional because it wasn't applied identically for in-person and absentee voters.

The photo ID requirement was passed in 2005 by what City Councillor Sally Mayer described as "a huge margin". The ACLU opposed (and opposes) the requirement, and is considering its options; it may decide to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The reversal of the lower court's decision was reported in Tuesday's edition of the Albuquerque Journal (subscription required).

In my view, anyone who opposes a voter ID requirement is objectively promoting vote fraud.

Modified Campaign Signs

Steve Hayward, of National Review's The Corner has found a use for yard signs from the just-completed presidential campaign — he reported having a pair of modified campaign signs (one from each campaign) in front of his house the morning after the election. One is modified from a McCain-Palin sign,

and the other from a Obama-Biden sign.

These both look pretty good to me!

John McCain in New Mexico

John McCain was in Roswell last night -- his last stop on the way back to Arizona to vote. But he was back in New Mexico this afternoon. He had a rally, but that wasn't what he was really here for. He and his folks went up to the north side of Albuquerque, to a restaurant called El Pinto, where they picked up chile and salsa.

Now the campaign is over, and we are left with our hopes and our fears. Let us all pray that our hopes are fulfilled and our fears fail to manifest.

Sarah Palin & John McCain

Here's what I wrote to friends a month ago.

Background: We have seldom made a political contribution; the only one I can think of is one we made to one of the re-election campaigns for Senator Pete Domenici. We have never attended a political rally for any candidate. We have never had a political bumper sticker on any of our cars, though for part of that time that may have been influenced by military political prohibitions. (Don't get ahead of me, now!)

Nearer background: John McCain has not been my candidate. I have strongly objected to some of the bills he has sponsored -- McCain-Feingold and Kennedy-McCain come immediately to mind. John McCain is still not my candidate -- except by comparison to Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. You may remember what I wrote more than a year ago, that New Mexico governor Bill Richardson was the only Democrat running who was worth considering. That's still the case -- and he's been out of the race for some time now.

Current observations: From what I read and what I hear in conversations, McCain's selection of Alaska governor Sarah Palin for the VP spot has been making a BIG difference. Crowds have gotten big. Money is pouring in. Volunteers, too. Offices all over the country have described the difference as "like a switch being thrown." It's added an excitement factor to his campaign.

Since Gov Palin was named, I've seen three sorts of reactions. The Left and the yellow dog Democrats (who would vote for a yellow dog before they would vote for a Republican) -- and I know a number of folks in both categories -- have been negative. [I noted and commented on some of that reaction here.] Of course, those folks would have a negative knee-jerk reaction about ANYONE on a Republican ticket. For the rest, the reaction has varied with how much they knew about Palin. Those who have known about her record have been positive. Those who have not known about her have been unsure -- but have tended to become more supportive as they have learned about her. Yes, my circle of acquaintance might be a factor, and these advantages could be thrown away, but I don't see a downside as of now.

There seems to be some tactical good news in this pick, too. Obama spent quite some time ignoring McCain and trying to make the case that he has more experience than Palin. To do that, he's had to lie about both his experience and hers -- ignoring her governorship and pretending that going where his campaign manager tells him to go is executive experience. Independent of anything else, his focus on comparing himself to Palin makes clear he can't compare to McCain, which will have an effect on everyone but the committed Left and the yellow dog Democrats.

For myself: I knew a lot more about Gov Sarah Palin than most folks. I'd actually been running across material on her for some months. Some was from folks who said things like "I wish McCain would select her for VP, but it'll never happen." I tended to agree with that assessment. But I was also impressed with her drive, and with what she's accomplished in Alaska in a relatively short time. And then what they thought would never happen, did happen. And it made a difference. For us, McCain's willingness to stake out a position in this manner and select someone with real reform and issue (especially energy) credentials got us to make a contribution to his campaign.

It is said a candidate's VP selection gives a view into the candidate's head. Obama's selection said his "change" mantra was BS, eyewash. McCain's selection seemed to put a different light on even the things he's done that I objected to. It seems to emphasize his mission orientation, and the resulting willingness to take "half a loaf" to get SOMETHING -- ANYTHING -- to get something done. It reminded me of my Dad muttering at the director when something went wrong at his TV station "Do SOMETHING, even if it's WRONG!" (And, clearly, I believe he gave up far too much to Feingold and Kennedy, for example, to get some kind of bill.) But it also suggests that, given the opportunity, McCain would prefer to be a true reformer. This selection made us much more positive about supporting and voting for him.

That enthusiasm, and a friend's wife who works in a political office and moonlights for the McCain campaign, got us tickets to the event when John McCain and Sarah Palin came to Albuquerque the Saturday after the Republican convention ended. 6000 tickets were given out, in about a day. Then a bigger room (exhibit hall) was obtained, and the campaign said others should just show up. MANY did. Even so, the press reports just said "over 6,000" attended. Like most people, we were behind the podium; not many were in front, between it and the TV cameras. The good thing about where we were was that, being higher, we could actually see the platform and the speakers -- and we have the pictures to prove it.

Now we need to find bumper stickers. The one for my wife's van should be one that says "I'm voting for Sarah -- and that old guy she's running with". And one for my car -- maybe "Another Democrat for McCain". Yes, I am aware that wearing McCain bumper stickers puts our cars at risk for damage.

One more thing: A friend (actually more than one) asked me if I thought Palin would be a good president, a question with particular relevance because of McCain's age and long-term physical damage. Under these circumstances, that is a legitimate question. My answer is that one can argue the hypotheticals of whether she would make a good president. But if John McCain's age kicks in and he drops dead, I'd MUCH rather see Sarah Palin in the White House than either Barack Obama or Joe Biden. Plus, of course, she starts today with a lot more experience than Harry Truman had, for example, when he succeeded FDR -- and much more executive experience than either Obama or Biden. And she'll get more between now and whenever it might be needed. (I should say, too, that my friends started off being pretty negative, but have since made contributions to the McCain-Palin campaign.)

I wrote all the above before watching the first presidential debate. (Actually, most of it a couple of weeks before.) Yes, we watched the debate. And we saw nothing new. Obama continued to perform as the Chicago (Richard J. Daley) Machine politician he is. He'll say anything to win, no matter how what he says conflicts with either or both of reality and what he's said before. He figures once he gets in he can do whatever he wants. (Hey, it worked before -- that's how the Senate got its most left-wing member.) Meanwhile, McCain was McCain, as he's always been. As usual, he's trying too much to get along. That translates into too many times when he's let Obama get away with his false statements. (I had a fantasy earlier this week that McCain stayed in Washington and sent Sarah to the debate in his place. And she chimed in multiple times with "But Barack, that's not what you told so-and-so. That's not what you said in this debate/speech/interview.")

That's what I wrote to friends a month ago. Nothing has happened since to change these opinions. I will cast my vote tomorrow for John McCain and Sarah Palin.

Barack Obama, Chicago Machine Politician

When I lived in Chicago, I saw the way that city's political machine operates. It was and is dirty and corrupt. It's the reason "dirty Chicago politician" became a trite phrase. That's important this year because, as Canadian columnist David Warren notes

Mr. Obama was from his political beginnings the darling of a Chicago political machine, notorious for both corruption, and harbouring radicals. His very smoothness and articulacy, even his blackness, made him their golden boy, assuring him of financial patronage along his way.

Warren also commented on how unlikely it is that one can picture Obama standing up to Congress, much less facing down our enemies abroad. He continues

Whereas, I can easily imagine Ms. Palin digging in her formidable heels, and the only question -- a fair one, mind -- is, does she know enough about the mechanics of Washington and world affairs? (And to be even more fair: does Mr. Obama?)

In my view, Obama's background as a creature of the Chicago political machine is more than enough by itself to tell me not to vote for him. But there are other things that raise additional questions about him. I wrote about some of them here. My personal favorite for sheer egotism and bravado is what he said when he clinched the presidential nomination:

I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.

There are other reasons to oppose Obama's election, as well. Good summaries of those can be found here and here. More than enough reasons to oppose the most leftist and radical, inexperienced and unqualified individual ever to be nominated for President of the United States.

What's Good for the Democrats

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid made a lot of promises in 2006 to get a majority of Democrats elected in both houses of Congress. How have they done with those?

The behavior of the economy is notable. Most of the economic damage during the Bush Administration has been in the last two years, since the Democrats took over Congress. Here's what some of that damage looks like.
To be fair, some of the damage coming up now wasn't produced by actions of the Pelosi-Reid Congress. Some of it was produced by the actions of Democrats in previous Congresses, like the actions in the Carter and Clinton Administrations that got Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac making the bad loans that have now come home to roost and brought about the current economic crisis.

That's not saying the Republicans are blameless. They certainly didn't get the job done when they had control of Congress, either, though some of that was due to Democrat obstructionism. And it can be argued that many elements of the economic cycles may be out of the control of Congresses and Presidents. Even so, it's worth keeping in mind while listening to the evening news that

        What's bad for the country is good for the Democrats

Covering Up For Obama

The Los Angeles Times still won't release the tape from the going-away party for former PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi at which Barack Obama apparently said some very kind things about him. Obama was joined there by his friends, and Khalidi's, domestic revolutionaries Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.

The Times won't either publish a transcript of the tape or post the video. It pretends the couple of sentences on Obama's comments it buried in a story six months ago constitute "a detailed account". It claims their source gave the tape to the news media (them) on condition that they not release it, and "The Times keeps its promises to sources." And now the Times has asserted that "To break that agreement might put the source of the tape in jeopardy."

There are a couple of conclusions to be drawn from this:

1. There is something incredibly damaging on the video, from which the Times wants to protect Barack Obama.
2. Some of Obama's supporters may well react violently against anyone perceived to have done anything to jeopardize the Coronation of The One.

It seems to me there are good reasons why Mahmoud Admadinejad, Hugo Chavez, and the U.S. Communist Party all want Barack Obama elected President of the United States.