Just a few weeks ago I would have given Newt Gingrich zero chance at becoming the Republican nominee for President.  Last summer his campaign basically collapsed under its own weight.  He was out of money, out of time and out of ideas.  He may literally have been the only person left who thought he was a legitimate candidate for President.

Even as late as today I thought this would boil down to a Mitt Romney vs. Rick Perry affair.  But, Newt was still hanging around by his fingernails and he just may have hit an inside straight in the biggest game of all.  Rick Perry self-destructed tonight when he couldn’t quite remember which three government agencies he would eliminate.  He flat out drew a blank and could not remember the Department of Energy.  It was the ultimate deer in the headlights moment and I think he is toast.  Herman Cain is also gone because of the sex scandals.  Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann and Jon Huntsman never were in the running.  Ron Paul remains Ron Paul.  He is fun to watch but was never a serious candidate for President.  That leaves two people standing, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.  At this point, against all odds, Newt definitely has a shot at winning the nomination.

 I must admit, I did not predict this.  I really thought Rick Perry would do better than this.  Perhaps he will be able to just laugh this off, but I doubt it.  It is really difficult to survive being laughed off the stage.  In many ways it is unfair, because all of us have drawn a blank at one time or another.  But, when it happens during a Presidential debate it is really bad. 

 This is so shocking and unexpected that almost anything could happen.  I wouldn’t even rule out a last minute entry by another candidate like Jeb Bush, or even Sarah Palin.  A lot of people in the Republican establishment will not sleep well tonight after this performance.  They aren’t thrilled with Mitt Romney, and Gingrich has a world class load of baggage.  I am positive there will be another mad rush to recruit Chris Christie, but that seems very unlikely to succeed.  For better or worse it is now the Mitt and Newt show.  May the best man win!

TDM

I cringe whenever I see Gloria Allred.  She is a disgusting ambulance chaser who never misses an opportunity to pontificate in front of a microphone.  She is shameless in her rush to exploit any potential opportunity.  She literally makes my skin crawl.

 However, I ran a nationwide claim department for many years and one lesson I quickly learned is that the truth is not dependent on whether or not you like someone.  I have had people I liked and admired tell me things that turned out to be incorrect.  In some cases they even believed what they said, but the facts proved them wrong.  I have also had total scumbags who I wouldn’t trust with a spare nickel tell the truth.  I learned to look at the facts and evaluate them on their own merit, without regard to my personal opinion about the person, or persons, involved.

 I have not personally investigated any of this, but it is clear that Cain has a huge problem.  His response has been pathetic with more time angrily dismissing this as a witch hunt with less than satisfactory answers to very specific questions.  There is an old saying among lawyers…When you have the facts, pound the facts.  When you don’t have the facts, pound the opponent.  When you don’t have the facts, and you can’t pound the opponent, just pound.  Cain has presented very few facts, but has done a whole lot of pounding.

 Ironically, this could have all gone away if he had just given a vague apology and pledged better behavior in the future.  But instead, he is trying to prove that all these women are liars.  They have morphed from being angry and embarrassed at what happened to furious.  How would you respond if the person whom you believe sexually harassed you was now calling you a liar?  If the sexual harassment was real, I can’t imagine anything that would make them angrier.

 I watched Anderson Cooper tonight, and I was taken aback at how well he handled this story.  He let Herman Cain tell his side of the story, without commentary other than to say it was an explicit denial.  But then the story took a deadly turn when Gloria Borgia, who is personal friends with one of the women, contacted her by phone and was given some additional information.  Gloria obviously has known this woman for several years and is a close friend.  She admitted that right from the start.  Ultimately, it made her reporting much more credible.  To summarize she said that the accuser told her that the charges against Cain were serious and consistent and that she definitely received a cash settlement in exchange for the harassment.  Unless I am very wrong, this woman is going to ooze credibility.  In addition, she apparently kept copies of her written complaint about Cain and has this well documented.  To cap it off, she is also a professional spokesperson.  She is now talking about having a joint press conference with the other accusers.  I fear that this will be devastating for Cain. 

 I wish that I could just dismiss this as a smear campaign based on nonsense.  Unfortunately, what facts we know are far from helpful for Herman Cain.  So far, it is Herman Cain who has demonized people with little facts to support the accusations.  So far, it is Herman Cain who has had to change his story.  And, so far, it is Herman Cain who has given a version of events that is impossible to listen to with a straight face.  When Herman Cain says the only issue is that he pointed out that this woman was the same height as his wife and this resulted in a sexual harassment charge he has less credibility that Obama trying to say William Ayers was just a guy in the neighborhood.  Following is the LA Times article about the proposed news conference:

 http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-cains-accusers-20111108,0,7925369.story

 Sean Hannity spent most of his show last night trying to pass this off as a vast liberal left conspiracy.  It was a major mistake.  It has about the same amount of credibility as when Hillary Clinton tried to dismiss the Monica Lewinsky scandal as a vast right wing conspiracy.  It didn’t work when Hillary tried it, and it won’t work when Hannity tries it.  Because of the poor handling by the Cain staff, this has turned from a he-said-she-said case, with vague accusations from anonymous accusers, to a he-said-she-said-she said- she said-she-said-and-he-witnessed story.  I don’t predict a good result.

 TDM

It is clear that Herman Cain is the subject of a feeding frenzy by the main stream media.  The same media that totally ignored all the Obama scandals went into overdrive to cover this story.  It is a huge double standard, particularly when the same media downplayed the Clinton sex scandals and, more recently, the John Edwards’ scandal. 

 It is tempting to just dismiss the allegations as a liberal witch hunt.  A lot of people are sick and tired of the overwhelming bias by the main stream media.  But, just because you don’t like the way the main stream media is gloating over this story doesn’t mean they have their facts wrong.  In this case, there are more and more details emerging that have the ugly odor of truth.   In addition, Cain has done an extremely poor job of handling this.  He should have given a carefully written statement about saying things that were obviously misinterpreted and apologize to anyone he may have offended.  People like him and would prefer to cut him some slack.  But instead of doing that, Cain foolishly attacked the Perry campaign with absolutely zero evidence to support that allegation.  Then he said the women making these accusations were liars and the charges had no merit.  As a result, these women who would have been glad to just let this slide are now very likely to go public to defend their personal honor.  It is a battle that Cain did not need and one he cannot win.  Politico advised the Cain campaign that they were going to run the story several days in advance.  It is unbelievable that they were so unprepared to handle this.

In addition, it is important to remember that the reason the main stream media covers these types of scandals more for conservatives than for liberals is that it matters more.  Liberals did not care that Bill Clinton was obviously guilty of sexual harassment.  Ultimately, the Democrats in the United States Senate decided that staying in power was more important than the personal integrity of the Presidency.  They basically admitted that he committed perjury, but convinced themselves it didn’t matter because it was just about sex.  They flat out ignored the obvious sexual harassment involved in the Monica Lewinsky incident.  But, Bill Clinton would not have survived as President if he had been a Republican.  Not because of opposition from Democrats, but rather because Republicans themselves would not have tolerated his behavior.

This story could very likely end up hurting Herman Cain’s presidential campaign, if not ending it all together.  The bias in the main stream media has seldom been more obvious and more destructive.  But Republicans need to avoid falling into the conditional morality trap.  The bias and over enthusiastic reporting by the main stream media should not matter.  What should matter is the truth.  We must not allow the main stream media to destroy a candidate with false and inflammatory charges.  We should have held them more accountable for the “Bush lied; people died” misrepresentations.  But we must also avoid tolerating intolerable behavior just because we find the messenger to be disgusting.  There is a distinct possibility that Mr. Cain has a pattern of behavior that is not, and should not, be acceptable. 

In my opinion, the worst possible outcome would be for Republicans to decide that personal morality and ethical behavior doesn’t matter after all.  If Herman Cain is to win the Republican nomination, it must be because he is the best person for the job.  The worst possible reason to choose a candidate for President would be because of a knee jerk backlash in response to the unfair coverage by the main stream media.   If that happens: what distinguishes us from Democrats?

 TDM

This is a story that is being ignored by the main stream media, including Fox News.  The FBI just released a video regarding the major Russian spy ring discovered operating in the U.S.  The following article described this in detail: 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/31/fbi-releases-russian-spy-ring-papers-video/?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl14%7Csec3_lnk1%7C108859

Note:  The White House intervened and stopped the arrest of these spies:

The swap was Washington’s idea, raised when U.S. law enforcement officials told President Barack Obama it was time to start planning the arrests. Agents launched a series of raids across the northeast after a decade of intensive surveillance of the ring, which officials say never managed to steal any secrets.

The case was brought to a swift conclusion before it could complicate the president’s campaign to “reset” U.S. relations with Russia, strained by years of tensions over U.S. foreign policy and the 2008 Russian-Georgian war. All 10 of the captured spies were charged with failing to register as foreign agents.

This is stunning!  The FBI investigates a spy ring for a decade.  They alert President Obama that it is time to start making arrests and Obama responds by giving the spies a get out of jail card before anyone can even question them.  What was the rush!   Shouldn’t someone have asked the obvious question?  Why was President Obama so anxious to get these spies out of town?  Was it really just a naïve attempt to “reset” our relations with Russia?  Or was it that too many of these spies had successfully integrated Democratic political circles.  At least one spy was directly connected to a major Hillary Clinton fundraiser?

They came; they saw, and Obama hustled them out of town.  Someone should really find out why.

TDM

On January 27, 1973, President Nixon signed the Paris Peace According ending the Vietnam War.  At that time the North Vietnamese had agreed to cease fire.  The Viet Cong also agreed, but by that time they were so weak they were barely recognizable.  The Viet Cong had been virtually wiped out as a result of the 1968 Tet Offensive.  The following article from Clemson is one of the more accurate accounts of the meaing of the Tet Offensive:

http://www.clemson.edu/caah/history/facultypages/edmoise/viet8.html

Note:  When the population did not rise up to support them, and the ARVN did not collapse, a large proportion of these men were killed. This weakened the NLF organization in the countryside very drastically, and it never completely recovered.

Nixon promised U.S. Air Power support to our ally, South Vietnam, in exchange for their agreement to sign the treaty.  If you want to ready more on the treaty, the attached link is to the history.com link:

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/paris-peace-accords-signed

If this agreement had been honored, the United States would have been the victor.  Both sides agreed to withdraw from Laos and Cambodia and the DMZ at the 17^th Parallel remained the provisional dividing line.  There was a vague agreement to re-unify Vietnam, but the North promised to not use military force to achieve that goal.  This is similar to the agreement to unify Taiwan and China.

The main provisions are outlined in the following:

https://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/Notes_Paris_Peace.htm

There was a new according signed in June of 1973, strengthening the agreement.  Following is the link to that agreement:

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/kissinger-and-le-duc-tho-sign-new-peace-agreement

At this point, the Democratic congress intervened and made sure our involvement in Vietnam ended and that no peace agreement could be successful.

On July 1, 1973 Congress voted to end all bombing in Cambodia after August 15, 1973

By December 31, 1973 our military contingent in Vietnam was down to 50 people

On August 9, 1974 Richard Nixon resigned as President of the United States

On August 20, 1974 U.S. aid to Vietnam was cut from $1 billion to $700 million

On December 13, 1974 North Vietnam attacked the Phuc Luong province.  The U.S. failed to respond.

On January 14, 1975 Secretary of Defense Schlesinger warned congress that the U.S. was failing to keep its promise to support South Vietnam.

On January 25, 1975, President Ford sends a special message to congress warning them of the desperate need to support Vietnam and accurately predicting the consequences.  Following is a transcript of that message:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=5216#axzz1bpYcDJ6b

It was ignored.

Saigon fell on April 30, 1975.

The United States Military did not lose the Vietnam War.  There is zero evidence that North Vietnam thought a military victory was remotely possible.  It was lost by the Democratic Congress.  They not only refused to allow Gerald Ford to use our military force to enforce the peace treaty, they cut off all military aid to South Vietnam.  After a Democrat Congress and a Democratic President decided to fight the war in Vietnam, after a Republican President found a way to end it with honor, Democrats in congress threw it all away with little or no regard for the fate of our allies or the sacrifice of our troops.  The only thing worse than losing a war; is to win it and then throw it all away as if it never mattered.

Now we have a Democratic President who is prepared to throw away any chance at victory in Iraq.  Don’t be surprised if there are loud calls from Democrats to cut for cutting off all military aid to Iraq.  I expect Iran to challenge us in Iraq almost immediately after the last troops leave.  I expect Obama to ignore that challenge.  Unfortunately, I also expect similar results to what happened in Vietnam. 

Today the main stream media tends to blame the entire Vietnam War on Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, although it was Johnson, not Nixon who started that war.  And it was the Democratic Congress, not Gerald Ford, who lost it.  We can expect, after Iraq disintegrates, that the main stream media will blame it all on George Bush.  Barack Obama will be barely mentioned.  I also predict that 36 years later the main stream media will continue to lie about what happened. 

 Today the media contantly reminds us that the lesson of Vietnam is that we were caught in a quagmire in a war we could not win.  The real truth is that military superiority may win on the battlefield but that doesn’t mean a lot if congress is dominated by a bunch of spineless liberals who don’t seem to notice or care.

TDM

According to the following CBS News report, this is how Hillary Clinton responded to the death of Muammar Qaddafi:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20123348-503544.html

If President Bush or any of the Republican candidates for President had said this the main stream media would have hyperventilated.  It is incredibly tasteless and irresponsible.   Obama himself traveled the globe apologizing for the U.S. allegedly interfering in other countries.  The hypocrisy and stupidity of the liberal left is jaw dropping.

Geraldo Rivera was so thrilled that he called this the Obama doctrine.  Apparently our new foreign policy is to just kill anyone who gets in the way and let someone else pick up the pieces.  In this case he is counting on good results from the French and the Germans.  They have both done so well in the past!

I am glad Qaddafi is gone.  But, in recent years, he was no longer a threat to us.  We basically waited until his political base collapsed and then bombed the remnants into submission.  It was a good demonstration on how sophisticated air power can destroy an inferior military, operating in a desert, with accuracy and precision.  However we are yet to learn what is left behind.  We are very good at killing people.  Is that the new American foreign policy?

It appears as if there are at least 13 different tribes ruling different parts of Libya.  These tribes pretty much agreed on getting rid of Qaddafi, but not much else.  Odds are very high that they will quickly turn on each other.  After the Tsar was over thrown in Russia, there was a provisional government promising freedom and democracy.  It lasted 8 months. The provisional government, made up of moderates, was never able to establish control.  The communists took over complete control after a bloody civil war.  The rest is history.  That is the problem with moderate governments.  They are quickly overwhelmed by people more than willing to resort to unthinkable violence. 

Libya is likely to go one of two ways, both bad.  It will either descend into lawless anarchy or a new strong man will come in and take over.  Any strongman is probably going to need support from the Muslim extremists.  The least likely result is freedom and democracy.  That is only possible if someone strong enough to take control and provide security takes over and then willingly relinquishes control to a democratic government.  That odds of that happening in Libya are very low.

The real lesson of Iraq was that democracy without security is anarchy.  The U.S. had to send in the surge to take control of the country before there was even a potential for a self-sustaining democracy.  Thanks to Obama’s run for the exits, Iraq too may descend back into chaos.  Unfortunately if that happens in Iraq, Iran will quickly try to step into the void.  They will be opposed by Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations.  Keep in mind that Iran allegedly tried to kill the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. 

In Libya, Obama may have just unleashed a bloody civil war.  In Iraq, he may have turned a relatively stable situation into a violent regional war.  Most regional experts predict that if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, so will every other major country in the Middle East.  The risk of a nuclear conflict will become extremely high.  The only thing certain is that things in Iraq are far more likely to deteriorate than to improve.

It’s a real shame the liberal left is so busy celebrating to realize that Obama is the polar opposite to the foreign policy they have been demanding for decades.  I wouldn’t exactly call this less interference by the U.S.  But where are the anti-war protests.  Whether you agree with the need for this operation or not, it was a blatant display of arrogant U.S. military force with little or no regard to the ultimate outcome.  Unfortunately, Hillary described the Obama foreign policy to perfection:  “we came, we saw, we killed.” 

TDM

Anyone who watches President Obama speak and does the slightest amount of research, quickly realizes that he is a habitual liar.  Sadly the main stream media rarely notices.  But Fast & Furious is a scandal that is not going to go away and this time we have some very serious people asking some really important questions:

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2011/10/house-republicans-ask-obama-for-information-on-fast-and-furious/

In March, during an interview on Univision, when discussing Fast & Furious, Obama said that neither he nor Attorney General Holder authorized it.  That statement is creating serious problems for Obama.  The problem is that about a month later Erik Holder, testifying under oath before congress, said that he had only learned about Fast & Furious a few weeks ago.  We already know that there are e-mail copied to Holder discussing this program as early as July of 2010.  Obama could literally be called as a witness to show that Holder committed perjury.  Someone must have told Obama that Holder had not authorized Fast & Furious, otherwise how did Obama know that.  It’s pretty hard to believe that Obama will ever admit to knowing about it before Holder.  This is the kind of smoking gun statement that cannot be ignored.  According to this report, Representatives Chaffetz and Trey Gowdy wrote the following question in a letter addressed directly to Obama:

To that end, if you knew the Attorney General did not authorize “Fast and Furious” how did you learn that and when did you learn that?” Reps. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, and Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., wrote. “If you knew Attorney General Holder did not authorize it, inherent in that response is knowledge of who did authorize it.”

There are numerous reports that Fast & Furious involved a lot more than the ATF. According to the following article, there was full cooperation between ATF, ICE, the DEA and the IRS.  They are described as full partners by William Newell, the former head of the Phoenix office of the ATF:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/07/video-atf-agent-who-implemented-fast-a

The main stream media is way behind the curve in reporting on this story, but that is likely to change.  The stench has become overwhelming and thanks to Obama’s interview on Univision, it is now tied directly to the President of the United States.  No news agency can continue to ignore a story of this magnitude.  No one from either political party is even hinting that Fast & Furious was a good idea. 

Keep in mind that Obama didn’t need to authorize this to have a problem; he just needed to have participated in the cover-up.  Suddenly, the question:  “what did the President know and when did he know it” becomes extremely important.  It is increasing clear that there has been a major cover-up of this fiasco.

Anyone who has ever worked for any branch of the Federal Government quickly learns one simple truth.  The agencies are loath to work together.  That is one reason for the success of 9-11.  It is extremely unlikely that the ATF, ICE, The DEA and the IRS just got together and created this puppy.  Instead this was such an obviously bad idea that a more likely outcome would be for any agency approached by ATF to recognize a chance for glory and blow the whistle.  This kind of cooperation, particularly for such a really dumb idea, is only possible when orders come from the very top.  At a minimum, that would involve both Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano.  Guess who both of them report to?

Keep your eye on the birdie.  The White House needs a major distraction and they need it now.  There are reports of our troops massing at the Pakistani border with Afghanistan.  Obama recently ordered troops into the Sudan.  The administration is suddenly making a lot of loud noise about Iran.  Gaddaffi’s death is convenient, but it won’t solve the problem.  If this administration was willing to authorize something like Fast & Furious to solve an embarrassing mistake, what would they be willing to do to escape the consequences?

TDM

In March of 2009, Hillary Clinton blamed the increase in Mexican violence on guns obtained in the U.S:

http://americaswatchtower.com/2009/03/26/hillary-claims-that-the-us-is-reponsible-for-violence-in-mexico-and-obamas-plot-for-gun-control/

Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade,” she said. “Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians

Obama repeated this charge on a visit to Mexico in April of 2009:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/17/obama-blames-us-guns-in-mexico/?page=all

Obama even claimed that 90% of the guns recovered in Mexico came from the U.S:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/apr/16/barack-obama/Obama-claims-90-percent-guns-used-Mexico/

The problem was that this simply was not true.  The ATF was forced to admit that in fact only 17% of guns recovered in Mexico could be traced back to the U.S.  The other 83% of guns recovered couldn’t be tracked at all.  This created a huge problem for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the entire anti-gun crowd.  They looked foolish when the real numbers came out.

Maybe it’s just me, but operation Fast & Furious looks like a really convenient solution to the problem.  The ATF allowed the guns to “walk” and be transported to Mexico.  It appears as though some of the famous stimulus money was provided to speed along the process.  One could make the argument that Fast & Furious did a lot more than ignore gun walking; it encouraged and enabled gun walking.

Why would anyone think this is a good idea?  It is hard to believe that some local ATF supervisor dreamed this up.  That makes no sense at all.  The Obama administration was on record complaining about the number of guns being shipped to Mexico.  Any ATF official in his or her  right mind would only recommend proposals to reduce gun trafficking.  That is what people do!  If your boss is upset about something, you find a way to fix the problem.  I can’t even imagine the logic that would cause an ATF official to propose something like Fast & Furious under the circumstances.

But what if someone needed evidence of guns being smuggled into Mexico?  What if, say, the President and the Secretary of State had both been embarrassed by making absurdly false accusations about the number of guns being smuggled to Mexico?  Wouldn’t it be great if there was a recovery of a lot of guns in Mexico that could be traced back to the U.S?  Wouldn’t that help show that the President & the Secretary of State were right all along?  Suddenly Fast & Furious makes sense. 

The only think we know for sure is that both Hillary Clinton & Barack Obama made absurdly false claims about the number of gun recovered in Mexico that could be traced back to the U.S.  We also know that Fast & Furious was implemented in September, 2009, just a couple months after their very public and embarrassing lie was exposed.  That sure seems like more than a coincidence!

The following article from the LA Times reveals some critical information:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/03/nation/la-na-atf-guns-20111004

The following excerpt from the memo is chilling:

Either way, he added that “it’s not going to be any big surprise that a bunch of US guns are being used in MX, so I’m not sure how much grief we get for ‘guns walking.’ It may be more like, ‘Finally they’re going after people who sent guns down there’ “

Please note that they are not surprised to discover that a lot of U.S. guns are being used in Mexico.  Really?  If only 17% of the guns being recovered in Mexico could be traced back to the U.S., wouldn’t finding a “lot” of U.S. guns in Mexico be a big surprise?   There also doesn’t appear to be much surprise or concern over the gun walking.  The only concern was with regard to how to avoid the blame.  They decided it would be ok because “Finally they’re going after people who sent guns down there.”

This is far more consistent with an administration more interested in proving U.S. guns were walking to Mexico than slowing down the process.  There is not even a hint of a concern that guns originating in the U.S. are being used by murderous thugs to kill people in Mexico. 

Today Obama saId that the “People who have screwed up will be held accountable:”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/obama-on-fast-and-furious-people-who-have-screwed-up-will-be-held-accountable

That was an interesting choice of words.  Did they screw up by allowing all those guns to migrate to Mexico, or did they screw up by getting caught?  Perhaps if Obama used a little of that stimulus money to install mirrors in the White House he might have more success in identifying the person responsible.

 TDM

The occupy wall street fiasco was probably inevitable.  After all, President Obama has been deliberately inciting class warfare.  He never resists the opportunity to point his finger at someone.  This is normally done right after he finishes giving a stern lecture about finger pointing.  It is similar to the way he preaches about the need for a bi-partisan approach right after he gets done blaming everything on Republicans.  Now, after demonizing Wall Street, the banking system in general and the Global Economic system, Obama tells the protestors they are right, then warns them not to demonize people.

 http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/052226f8-f80c-11e0-a419-00144feab49a.html#axzz1b3aiZxIw

 The protestors are understandably confused.  This is so bad it has even been noticed by the New York Times:

 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/17/nyregion/occupy-wall-street-trying-to-settle-on-demands.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all

 In the ultimate irony, after the NYT points out that these guys don’t have a clue, it reaches the following conclusion:

 The influence and staying power of Occupy Wall Street are undeniable: similar movements have sprouted around the world, as the original group enters its fifth week in the financial district. Yet a frequent criticism of the protesters has been the absence of specific policy demands.

 This movement will spread, for a while, because of support from the far left main stream media.  If you want to understand this world view, just read the words to Imagine by John Lennon:

Imagine

John Lennon

• Imagine there’s no heaven
• It’s easy if you try
• No hell below us
• Above us only sky
• Imagine all the people
• Living for today
•  
• Imagine there’s no countries
• It isn’t hard to do
• Nothing to kill or die for
• And no religion too
• Imagine all the people
• Living life in peace
•  
• You may say I’m a dreamer
• But I’m not the only one
• I hope someday you’ll join us
• And the world will be as one
•  
• Imagine no possessions
• I wonder if you can
• No need for greed or hunger
• A brotherhood of man
• Imagine all the people
• Sharing all the world
•  
• You may say I’m a dreamer
• But I’m not the only one
• I hope someday you’ll join us
• And the world will live as one

The problem is that Imagine does not describe utopia, it describes anarchy.  Someone has to plant the fields and grow the crops or we will all starve.  Someone has to build the homes or we die from lack of shelter.  Someone has to make the clothes or we are all naked.  The police are necessary, because someone has to use force to suppress criminals or they simply trample anyone who gets in their way.  Countries are necessary because history is full of tyrants determined to rule the world by force.  Religion reminds us of the difference between good and evil and right and wrong.  People without religion are too often people without moral restraint.  When I read and think about the world described in Imagine, I imagine a nightmare.

Things will change quickly.  There is a limited amount of time people can spend sitting around the camp fire singing “kum ba yah” before the sewage starts to back up and they run out of food.  I guarantee you there are some serious people who are already working overtime to control and exploit these protestors and the naïve media that is supporting them.  It is just the way things work.

President Obama and several top Democrats are openly embracing this movement.  It is a huge mistake.  They are foolishly comparing this to the Tea Party.  But the Tea Party is primarily composed of hard working citizens, including business owners, who know exactly what they want.  The want lower taxes, less government regulation and more adherence to the U.S. constitution.  The contrast between the two groups could not be starker.  Democrats tried this once before in 1968 and 1972 by aligning themselves with the anti-war protestors.  That is how Richard Nixon, perhaps the most unpopular U.S. President in our history, got elected twice.

Eventually this movement will run out of steam.  The main stream media will go back to singing Imagine still desperately searching for the impossible dream.

TDM

The alleged plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to the United States is more than a little strange.  Following is the latest report from CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/11/justice/iran-saudi-plot/index.html?iref=obnetwork

In another report, CNN reports that some analysts are more than a little skeptical:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/12/us/analysis-iran-saudi-plot/

Apparently Iran chose a used car salesman from Texas to reach out to the Mexican drug cartel in the desperate attempt to find someone stupid enough to do the deed.  This seems more than a little weird.  That doesn’t mean it isn’t true.  The CIA tried to hire the Mafia to off Fidel Castro and those clowns came up with some really weird and incredibly stupid plots.  None of them came close to working.

This guy was a U.S. citizen, but it does not appear that he was given all that much due process:

U.S. authorities arranged with Mexican officials for Arbabsiar to be denied entry into Mexico, a senior counterterrorism official said.

From there, he was placed on an airplane to New York, where U.S. agents interrogated him for 12 days, obtained a confession and compiled dozens of intelligence reports, the official said.

I wonder if he was given his Miranda rights.  It would also be interesting to know what interrogation techniques were used.  I sure hope no one deprived him of any sleep or asked him any tough questions.  I wonder if anyone in the main stream media even noticed.  And, by the way, his co-conspirator is missing. 

The only thing we know right now is that this is weird.  We also know it is a convenient distraction for Erik Holder who has been caught lying to congress about Fast & Furious.  Holder almost immediately used this as an excuse to avoid answering any questions during a recent news conference.  He was too busy keeping us safe to deal with trivial issues, like committing perjury.

This story is too juicy for anyone in the main stream media to ignore.  Odds are high there will be some very interesting and important developments.

TDM