Above the post update:

Below I speculated that Ayatollah Khamenei's decision to lead the Friday prayers at Tehran University would be the time the regime says enough is enough. Looks like it.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader, has told Mir Hossein Mousavi to stand beside him as he uses Friday prayers at Tehran University to call for national unity. An army of Basiji — Islamic volunteer militiamen — is also expected to be bussed in to support the Supreme Leader.

Seems there's a not too subtle "or else" included in that call for unity.

Original Post:

More protests today with a major rally in Tehran to commemorate those killed in earlier debates clashes.

In response to a call by the leading opposition candidate in the June 12 presidential election, Mir Hossein Mousavi, the massive procession streamed toward Imam Khomeini Square largely in silence, then broke into chants against Ahmadinejad and alleged electoral fraud, witnesses said.

"Death to the dictator!" some chanted. "Where are our votes?"

Press TV, an English-language version of Iranian state television, said the crowd numbered in the "hundreds of thousands" and described the rally as "peaceful." It said Mousavi, in a brief address to the crowd, called for "calm and self-restraint." A Mousavi Web site estimated the gathering at more than 1 million people, the Associated Press reported.

The march, billed as a show of mourning for at least seven protesters killed after a huge demonstration Monday, came after Iran's elite Guardian Council Thursday invited the four presidential candidates to a special meeting Saturday to review their concerns. The council, a 12-member panel of senior Islamic clergy and jurists, is charged with confirming the election results. It is investigating allegations of fraud and has agreed to a limited recount in places where irregularities are found.

Photos from the march here.

Twitter continues to be an invaluable source of information on events. Remember when the Obama administration was given credit for asking Twitter to postpone a scheduled down period so Iranians could keep using it? Turns out it was the idea of someone originally brought to the State Department by Bush/Rice (via Jim Treacher's, um, Twitter feed).

Michael Totten has a good post up about Mousavi, who he is and what he may become.

Though I'm pessimistic about the guy, there may be some reasons to be hopeful about Mousavi. He's a devout Muslim but at the same time his wife and daughters are professionals and he seems comfortable with that. On the other side he was Prime Minister under Khomeini and sat on his hands during religious crackdowns and political purges, so his claims to be a reformer and supporter of liberty sound less than credible. Also, we can never forget he was fully cleared by the Guardian Council and Khamenei.

The reality is if, and it's a huge if, Mousavi does some how become President, the conditions under which it will happened means the power arrangements in Iran will have drastically changed along with the expectations of Mousavi's supporters. He'd have to make more than token efforts to live up to them.

A Mousavi victory that dismantled the theocratic structure of Iran's government would be a huge victory for the US. Unfortunately, it's also the one our government seems to be rooting against at this point. more...

Posted by: DrewM at 12:45 PM | Comments (3)
Post contains 751 words, total size 5 kb.

Elizabeth Hasselbach maybe, sorta, kinda could be considered a "journalist." If you squint. So, maybe one journalist gave to Palin/McCain.

The tally: 130 to Obama, 4 to Palin/McCain.

The MSM always insists that 1) it has no political bias at all and 2) to the extent they maybe, kinda, sorta have a political bias, they are pros and can keep it under control.

Why would they assert something so ridiculous? If a Muslim group accuses them of exhibiting anti-Muslim bias, they don't pooh-pooh that charge. They immediately have meetings with the group, put a panel on the subject on Nightline, elevate a Muslim journalist to some sort of bias-ombudsman position, etc.

They take such charges of bias seriously, in other words, so long as the charges come from groups associated with the left.

It's only when Republicans charge bias they dismiss the complaints and refuse to make any attempts at amelioration at all.

That demonstrates that their bias against conservatives is very strong, not weak and controllable as they insist. Women, blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, etc. can all charge bias and expect a receptive, if not groveling, hearing.

Only one group gets the "that's absurd" treatment.

They are so biased they know it for damn-sure, and don't want to even give the charge oxygen. And they sure the hell don't want to impose rules on themselves -- a "political minority" watchdog in their organization, for example -- that might actually serve to restrain that bias.

Eh. I abhor them.

Posted by: Ace at 12:18 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.

I think one of the most harmful concepts to American society is Diversity. The word is trumpeted by the left as vital in every facet of our lives. If any segment of society does not have the perfect mix of minorities then we have somehow failed and remedial action is required. I disconcur. Institutional racism has been gone for a long while now and if there are areas where minorities are under-performing then it is time for some "face in the mirror" introspection not to parrot "It's just another lie, perpetrated by the man, tryin' to keep a brother down". It would be nice if we could live in the post-racial world our President claims to inhabit, but it's still identity politics as usual. Here is a sad example.

Good gravy sir, I would have hoped that turning out the best Naval officers possible would have been the number one priority. Pardon me for assuming that you might have an interest in our country's security rather than a bizarre fixation on the hue of a cadet's skin. WTF? Well it's a well-known fact that a wise Latina officer will most likely make a better commander than a fluorescent, white boy from the Midwest. The article discusses the much lower standards required for minorities to gain admission to the Academy. We are actually putting all those minority sailors who they are trying to model their officer corps after at risk by denying them the best possible leadership. What a disgraceful, un-American thing to do.

Posted by: Uncle Jimbo at 12:00 PM | Comments (8)
Post contains 332 words, total size 2 kb.

This seems like huge news. I have no idea why the MSM aren't carrying this message. It seems like it's only being reported by Iowahawk, for some reason.

A Special Message to the People of Iran

By Barack Obama
President of the United States

Greetings. As president of United States -- or, if you prefer, the Great Satan -- I have have been following with keen interest the vigorous post-election debate and vibrant political dialogue which has been taking place in your great and noble Islamic Republic of Iran over recent days. It has been both educational and fascinating, and as a sports fan I have thrilled to the pageantry, the suspense, and the fast-paced, hard-hitting action. I have to say It's been as exciting as a double overtime game seven NBA final between the Lakers and Celtics! Like millions of others around the world, I can't wait for the exciting conclusion of your distracting nail-biter so I can finally focus on my big health care project at the office. (Now that's what I call a real crisis!) But no matter who prevails in your hard-fought contest, you can rest assured that I will be out there in the stands watching, and ready to congratulate the team who brings home Tehran's coveted Golden Centrifuge Cup.

Thanks to James.

Posted by: Ace at 11:14 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 240 words, total size 1 kb.

Not sure if North Korea's missile threat followed this, but I'd guess it did.

The U.S. military is tracking a flagged North Korean ship suspected of proliferating weapons material in violation of a U.N. Security Council resolution passed last Friday, FOX News has learned.

The ship, Kang Nam, left a port in North Korea Wednesday and appears to be heading toward Singapore, according to a senior U.S. military source. The vessel, which the military has been tracking since its departure, could be carrying weaponry, missile parts or nuclear materials.

"It is believed to be 'of interest,'" a senior U.S. official told FOX News.

This is the first suspected "proliferator" that the U.S. and its allies have tracked from North Korea since the United Nations authorized the world's navies to enforce compliance with a variety of U.N. sanctions aimed at punishing North Korea for its recent nuclear test.

The ship is currently along the coast of China and being monitored around-the-clock by air.

The apparent violation raises the question of how the United States and its allies will respond, particularly since the U.N. resolution does not have a lot of teeth to it.

The resolution would not allow the United States to forcibly board the ship. Rather, U.S. military would have to request permission to board -- a request North Korea is unlikely to grant.

North Korea has said that any attempt to board its ships would be viewed as an act of war and promised "100- or 1,000-fold" retaliation if provoked.

Posted by: Ace at 10:59 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 277 words, total size 2 kb.

This is an act of war.

It permits -- nay, it demands -- a strongly-worded letter and a serious diplomatic snubbing.

North Korea may fire a long-range ballistic missile toward Hawaii in early July, a Japanese news report said Thursday, as Russia and China urged the regime to return to international disarmament talks on its rogue nuclear program.

Ah, Obama. Seems like the North Koreans have him figured out.

Pity Americans weren't so prescient.

Admission: I have to admit that in some ways I was interested in seeing the effect of Obama's blase attitude towards North Korea.

North Korea likes to threaten and bluster to get concessions and extort money from the West. To some extent, acknowledging the dangerous nature of the regime plays into its hands, because once a president acknowledges the threat as serious, he is forced to act, and at some point he's forced to resolve the issue.

As with Bush: Ultimately he had to "resolve" the issue, and wound up granting some concessions in exchange for -- supposedly -- the Norks shuttering some nuke-fuel plants temporarily.

Hardly a major reward in return. The North Koreans have not respected a single promise they've ever made. They're blackmailers, and a blackmailer is only appeased by a payment until he needs money again.

So I was curious to see if simply pretending North Korea didn't exist would have the same effect that ignoring a crying baby has -- eventually the baby learns that crying does not bring mommy rushing in, and stops with all the racket.

I didn't think Obama's "Don't worry, be happy" policy would work, but I did think there was a small chance it would, and while I wouldn't have favored it myself, I was interested to see if his "close your eyes and wish the monsters away" strategy might actually wind up having a positive effect.

But that does not seem to be the case. The other possible outcome -- that North Korea would escalate its bluster into actual threats of war and actual acts of war -- seems to have occurred.

If North Korea does this -- indeed, if they continue merely threatening to launch missiles at or near the US -- I cannot imagine that the US response can be less than a full shock-and-awe decapitating strike on the entire North Korean military, government, and command and control apparatus. 72 hours of bombing every government building, every military HQ, and every artillery piece into oblivion.

But it's now the Age of Obama, so I guess I'm going to have to begin imagining that North Korea can shoot missiles at the US with impunity.

Flaming Skull: This is more important than the last article. So I'm giving this one the skull.

Posted by: Ace at 10:14 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 505 words, total size 3 kb.

"Political courage," Obama-style:

In one exchange, according to the GOP aide, the White House lawyers explained that inspector general Walpin was not working well with the board of the Corporation for National and Community Service, which oversees AmeriCorps, and the administration believed that IGs should work well with the leadership of their agencies. Eisen said he knew that removing Walpin might be seen as an action that would raise questions. "But [Eisen] said that what they did in trying to fix the situation was an act of political courage -- and 'political courage' is the phrase they used," says the aide.

The lawyers would not answer specific questions about documents regarding Walpin's firing.

Go figure.

Apparently the government is rife with senile IGs. Because Obama is firing them like gangbusters, the law he co-sponsored be damned.

He was appointed with fanfare as the public watchdog over the governmentÂ’s multi-billion dollar bailout of the nationÂ’s financial system. But now Neil Barofsky is embroiled in a dispute with the Obama administration that delayed one recent inquiry and sparked questions about his ability to freely investigate.

The disagreement stems from a claim by the Treasury Department that Barofsky is not entirely independent of the agency he is assigned to examine — a claim that has prompted a stern letter from a Republican senator warning that agency officials are encroaching on the integrity of an office created to protect taxpayers. …

The dispute comes as Grassley, ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, is looking into the abrupt firings within the last week of two other inspectors general -- one of whom was fired by the White House and the other by the chair of the International Trade Commission.

Both inspectors general had investigated sensitive subjects at the time of their firings.

Grassley is now concerned about whether a pattern is emerging in which the independence of the government’s top watchdogs — whose jobs were authorized by Congress to look out for waste, fraud and abuse — is being put at risk.

Posted by: Ace at 10:06 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 393 words, total size 3 kb.

Is this a big deal?

I'll tell you it is. Because the NYT's changed headline just had the intended effect on me.

I had just read, about an hour ago, that the WSJ and NYT poll had both found some danger for Obama as the public's mood shifts.

With [health care and climate change] initiatives and others pending, is Obama's window for major legislative action beginning to close?

That's the question raised by a pair of new surveys, both of which show overall support for Obama's policies slippling. The latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found small but measurable drops in Obama's approval rating and his handling of the economy. "These rising doubts threaten to overshadow the president's personal popularity and his agenda, in what may be a new phase of the Obama presidency," the Journal suggests in its dramatic write-up of the poll, while MSNBC quotes pollster Peter Hart saying: "There is no more smooth sailing for the administration. They are going to have to navigate in pretty choppy waters.”

The New York Times/CBS News poll reached similar conclusions, finding that the public is increasingly concerned about the budget deficit and that fewer than half of respondents approve of Obama's handling of health care and the auto industry. So is Obama's presidency really slipping away?

Now, the WSJ poll I linked last night. The NYT poll I hadn't heard of, so I clicked on it. The headline...

Obama Poll Sees Doubt on Budget and Health Care

...instantly said "snoozer" to me and I navigated away. I didn't bother to read it. The headline successfully dissuaded me from reading or linking the poll.

But the article originally ran with a more interesting headline, as the Rhetorican notes.

In Poll, Obama Is Seen as Ineffective on the Economy

Now that is a headline that demands you read the article.

Similarly, the WSJ article on their own poll went from...

Rising Doubts Threaten to Overshadow ObamaÂ’s Agenda

to...

Public Wary of Deficit, Economic Intervention

Two newspapers published a poll finding growing doubts about Obama. Both started the day with strong, punchy, grabby headlines that suggested strongly that Obama was approaching serious trouble. And both, within a night, changed their headlines to be bland and protective of Obama.

I suggest this is no coincidence. The Obama White House is scared shitless about the public changing its mind in a hurry, and they want to continue the "Everyone loves Obama" narrative they currently have going, which helps keep public opinion on his side. Because if everyone loves Obama, you'd have to be weird not to, right?

That bandwagon effect may not be huge, but if a mere 5% of the public is so soft-minded as to simply parrot whatever opinion they believe is predominant, that's worth a ten point net swing from one side to the other. And in a 53-46 country, ten points is obviously decisive.

So last night Axelrod or Emmanuel (or even Obama himself; he's done it before) called the editors of the NYT and WSJ and yelled some and maybe told them they were "feeding into right-wing propaganda" (one of their favorite claims when seeking to pressure the liberal press) and both papers dutifully walked back their original headlines.

Both papers buckled. They had originally determined that their polls said X but after a White House fixer yelled at them and hurt their feelings they decided it meant Y instead.

Strange days. Strange, pathetic, disgusting days.

This suggests that Obama knows full well how tenuous his paper-thin popularity really is. They're desperate to avoid even a mention in a big newspaper that maybe Obama isn't all that popular after all, or that his popularity may soon be ending. They can't, and won't, have that.

Posted by: Ace at 09:42 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 649 words, total size 4 kb.

Well, no. He didn't say that. That was Al Gore shouting like a mental defective about Bush six or seven years ago, observing that rule that presidents and vice-presidents shouldn't criticize their successors. A rule that, for reasons I can't even begin to guess at, the MSM claims only applies to Republicans.

But Bush did finally break his silence on Obama, even as he tried not to criticize him and insisted he wouldn't criticize him. The quotes:

I know it's going to be the private sector that leads this country out of the current economic times we're in," the former president said to applause from members of a local business group. "You can spend your money better than the government can spend your money."

...

"Government does not create wealth. The major role for the government is to create an environment where people take risks to expand the job rate in the United States," he said to huge cheers.

...

"The way I decided to address the problem [of terrorism] was twofold: One, use every technique and tool within the law to bring terrorists to justice before they strike again," he said, adding that the country needs to stay on offense, not defense. On Guantanamo, which while in office Mr. Bush said he wanted to close, the former president was diplomatic.

"I told you I'm not going to criticize my successor," he said. "I'll just tell you that there are people at Gitmo that will kill American people at a drop of a hat and I don't believe that -- persuasion isn't going to work. Therapy isn't going to cause terrorists to change their mind."

Thank you, Mr. President.

It's so nice to say that.

Posted by: Ace at 09:09 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 297 words, total size 2 kb.

Refusing to accept advertising from groups opposing the health care scheme.

ABC claimed it wasn't running an informercial for ObamaCare -- and yet, even when someone wants to pay them to get their views aired, ABC refuses.

Posted by: Ace at 08:49 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 85 words, total size 1 kb.