US Fears Impending Israeli Attack on Iran over Nukes

United States officials are  worried that Israel may attack Iran's nuclear facilities at any given moment, according to an Israeli televison station.

This fear is being driven by the union of Shaul Mofaz and his Kadima party with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

United States officials are  worried that Israel may attack Iran's nuclear facilities at any given moment, according to an Israeli televison station, 

This fear is being driven by the union of Shaul Mofaz and his Kadima party with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

According to a story on the Arutz Sheva website (referencing the Channel 10 item) U.S. officials believe a Likud-Kadima government could make a quick decision about an Israeli attack on Iran at any moment, even before the U.S. presidential elections in November.

The Americans have been operating under the assumption that early elections would be held in Israel which would likely postpone an Israeli attack of Iran at least until after the election. 

With Israeli politics stabilized and the current government likely to end its term as scheduled, the situation has changed and the US is worried.

It is generally accepted by the US, European and Gulf Arab states that Iran is developing a nuclear weapons program, not simply peaceful, energy applications.

The position of the Israeli minister of defense remains that "as long as Iran poses a threat to Israel with its nuclear program, all options are on the table."

Defense Minster Ehud Barak recently said, "I believe it is well understood in Washington, D.C., as well as in Jerusalem that as long as there is an existential threat to our people, all options to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons should remain on the table,"

"A military option is not a simple one," Barak added. "It would be complicated with certain associated risks. But a radical Islamic Republic of Iran with nuclear weapons would be far more dangerous both for the region and, indeed, the world."

Recent reports indicate that President Barack Obama is prepared to make a major concession to Iran on uranium enrichment which would allow five percent enrichment if Iran  takes other major steps to curb its ability to develop nuclear weapons.

(Summarized and excerpted from Arutz Sheva, Israel National News)

American Truism #15.

Team Obama Caught Lying About Gay Marriage Decision

Team Obama has just been caught in a lie, and most people probably haven't even realized it, yet.


A story in today's DAILY BEAST by media watcher Howard Kurtz essentially claimed that Obama's hand was forced into making a statement on his change of opinion on gay marriage because Vice President Joe Biden's endorsement of gay marriage on Sunday.


Kurtz' story says the Biden remarks "knocked the White House off what was supposed to be its message this week—student loans and economic issues.


But, this story, being pushed by the Obama camp, is a lie.


And here's how we know that:


Antonio Villaraigosa, Chair of the National Democratic Convention just blew Obama's cover story, and probably doesn't even realize (yet) what he's done.

Appearing on tonight's (Thurs, May 10th) JOHN KING USA (CNN) Villaraigosa said he had known for about two weeks that BHO would make a statement, changing his stand on gay marriage.


 "I did know a couple of weeks ago that something would be said soon . . . that the President would be making a statement soon on the issue."  - Antonio Villaraigosa


There's no ambiguity there whatsoever.  Villaraigosa answered a direct question from John King and said clearly that he had known something was brewing for two weeks.


So, why does this matter?  Who cares? 


It matters because the Obama camp has absolutely USED the media (including Howard Kurtz, who I LOVE) to make it appear that the President has been "struggling" with the issue of gay marriage and that the only reason he went public was because of Biden's "ill-timed" remarks.


According to Kurtz' DAILY BEAST article, "The declaration was not supposed to come this week. Instead, the White House had planned to dramatically unveil the shift shortly before the Democratic convention. But Obama had been agitated by Vice President Joe Biden’s own endorsement of gay marriage on Sunday, which knocked the White House off what was supposed to be its message this week—student loans and economic issues."

Kurtz goes on to say, "The president expressed his frustration to West Wing officials—some of whom questioned whether Biden had wandered off script or was trying to foster a change in policy—but Obama didn’t take up the issue with his No. 2. Asked about Biden's role in prodding him, Obama acknowledged to ABC "that I would have preferred to do it in my own time, on my own terms."

EVEN as I type this, CNN's Erin Burnett is reporting that Biden is being "thrown under the bus" for preempting Obama with his own statement.  Clearly, that's not true if people such as Villaraigosa have known about a pending Obama change for as long two weeks.


American Truism #14.

North Korean Rocket Launch Fails, Embarrasses Communist Government

On the 100th anniversary of Kim Il Sung's birthday, North Korea launched a long-range rocket, but the rocket failed soon after lift-off.


Sources in Japan, the United States and South Korea all report that the North Korean rocket broke up shortly after lift off, never leaving the atmosphere.


This is a major political embarrassment for the Communist North Korean government and yet another set-back for space or ballistic missile program.
The North Korean government seemingly was quite confident of its ability to pull off this rocket launch successfully.  


This is evidenced through the government's hosting of international journalists at the launch site.


According to the New York Times, "The three-stage rocket, called the Unha-3, blasted off from the Soehae launch site near North Korea's western corner with China, at about 7:39 a.m., the South Korea Defense Ministry said."


The Japanese government reported Thursday evening (April 12th) that the North Korean rocket flew for just over one minute, falling harmlessly into the ocean.


The United Nations Security Council will meeting on Friday (April 13th) to discuss a UN response to North Korea's actions.It is very likely that this failed rocket launch by North Korean will cause the United States to cancel promised shipments of food relief.


Nukes Next?


It has also been reported that North Korea has been planning a test of its nuclear arsenal in the coming days, to follow its rocket launch.  With the epic failure of its rocket, it is unclear if the North Korean government will push ahead with its planned nuclear detonation.


American Truism # 13.

Heart Attack & Chronic Cocaine Use Cause Whitney Houston's Drowning

Sadly, what we'd all suspected as the cause of Whitney Houston's death was confirmed today by the Los Angeles coroner's office.  

According to the Associated Press, Houston died from drowning in her hotel bathtub, but heart disease and chronic cocaine use were contributing factors to her death.


"Something happened that caused her to go down and we know that when she slipped under the water she was still alive," the Coroner said. "We have evidence of drowning since there was water in the lungs. 


"The 60% narrowing of her arteries "suggest a cardiac event complicated by the cocaine use" led to Houston's slipping underwater.

Whitney Houston was found submerged in the bathtub of her room at the Beverly Hilton Hotel and her death has been ruled as accidental. Bottles of prescription drugs were found in Houston's hotel room, but not in excessive amounts said the coroner's office.

Toxicology results showed that Houston had marijuana, Xanax, Flexeril (a muscle relaxant), and Benadryl in her system. 

The singer also had a heart disease that caused blockages in her arteries.  Houston died at the age of 48.  

A full autopsy report is expected to be released in two weeks.


American Truism #12.

(This story borrows heavily from an Associated Press story)

Some Real Truth: This American Life Comes Clean on Being Duped by Lying Apple Critic Mike Daisey

If American Truism is supposed to be about the truth, then it cannot always simply criticize.


Something I heard on the radio yesterday, is worthy of spreading to the far corners of the earth, for multiple reasons.


If you're a fan of National Public Radio (aka NPR), you're likely familiar with "This American Life (TAL)" hosted by Ira Glass.  TAL is a weekly public radio show broadcast on more than 500 stations to about 1.8 million listeners and holds itself to journalistic standards.


The show typically relates the true stories of everyday people, though not always. 
This week Glass and his producers announced that they had discovered a story TAL broadcast in January "contained significant fabrications." 


In a statement on TAL's website, Glass said, "We're retracting the story because we can’t vouch for its truth. This is not a story we commissioned. It was an excerpt of Mike Daisey's acclaimed one-man show "The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs," in which he talks about visiting a factory in China that makes iPhones and other Apple products.

Daisey has performed his Apple-bashing monologue in theaters around the country and, in the process, became a recognized "voice of criticism"


The short version is that Mike Daisey was looking to criticize working conditions in the factories of Apple's Chinese vendors, specifically Foxconn which manufactures iPhones and iPads in Shenzhen China.  Nothing wrong there, in fact the "intent" is to be applauded.


However, as is often the case, Daisey fell short on the execution.  Waaay short.  In no uncertain terms, he lied.  He fabricated stories, people and conditions to fit his "Apple as the Bad Guy" world view.


And Glass called him on it.


As Glass described in a statement on TAL's website, "The China correspondent for the public radio show Marketplace tracked down the interpreter that Daisey hired when he visited Shenzhen China. The interpreter disputed much of what Daisey has been saying on stage and on our show. 


And, then, something amazing, something quite rare happened.  Glass and company RETRACTED their program.  Not only did they retract it, they spent an ENTIRE HOUR of airtime explaining what happened and falling on a sword, admitting they had not lived up to their own journalistic standards.


"Daisey lied to me and to This American Life producer Brian Reed during the fact checking we did on the story, before it was broadcast. That doesn't excuse the fact that we never should've put this on the air. In the end, this was our mistake," Glass said in a statement.


"We're horrified to have let something like this onto public radio.
Glass could have taken the route we see so often, issuing a brief statement saying, "Mistakes were made," and moved on, but he didn't.


The episode of THIS AMERICAN LIFE that I heard on the radio Saturday was riveting.  I joined the show about halfway through, and because I was driving a couple of hours, was able to catch it again, in its entirety a couple of hours later on a different NPR station.


This episode of TAL is not to be missed.  Read more about the entire situation here on TAL's website AND (not or) listen to the RETRACTION broadcast.  It is almost PAINFUL to hear the questions Glass asks of Daisey about the veracity of his story and why he lied to TAL staff. 

Long, long pauses in Daisey's responses punctuate Glass' cross examination.  It is obvious he is trying to come up with explanations for the lies without characterizing them as what they most obviously are, lies.  


My descriptions don't do it justice.  You REALLY need to listen to THE RETRACTION in its entirety.


I cannot commend Ira Glass and the staff of TAL enough for having the courage to admit a mistake and do everything they can to make it right.  That has to be tough for the TAL staff because the original episode was one of the show's most popular ever, with 888,000 downloads and 206,000 streams.


Glass recalls that Daisey gave him the runaround when TAL staff were going through their usual fact checking process.  "At that point, we should've killed the story," he said.  "But other things Daisey told us about Apple's operations in China checked out, and we saw no reason to doubt him. We didn't think that he was lying to us and to audiences about the details of his story. That was a mistake."


It's also instructive to read the news coverage of this story.  A simple Google News story for "Mike Daisey" is a good place to start.  


Daisey, shame on you.  TAL, bravo.


Now, I'm going to sit back and wait for the DOZENS of other media outlets that have hailed Daisey as a hero and voice of the oppressed to do the same thing that TAL did.  


As reported by Mark Kennedy in THE HUFFINGTON POST: 


"Daisey portrayed his work as fact during a media blitz to promote his critically acclaimed show, and he misled dozens of news and entertainment outlets, including the popular public radio show 'This American Life,' The Associated Press, The New York Times, MSNBC and HBO's 'Real Time with Bill Maher.'


Fess up, eat your crow and dedicate as much airtime or space to exposing Daisey's lies as you did to giving  this fraud a forum to present his fantasy as truth.


Ira Glass and "This American Life" did.  So can you.


American Truism #11.

Experts Discuss the Dire Consequences of an Israeli or US Attack on Iran

As I've said in a previous blog post, I understand Israel's concern over Iran possibly acquiring nuclear weapons.  And, I understand why Israel (or other neighbors of Iran) might want to launch a "preemptive strike" in order to keep Iran from weaponizing its atomic energy program.

Yet, the ramifications of an Israeli (or US) attack on Iran could be devastating for many reasons.  Here are a few of the things that such an attack might prompt and the people who've talked about these possibilities:

• Oil could skyrocket to $500 / barrel.
• All-out war could break out in the region.
• Iran, which hasn't weaponized it's nukes, might feel pressured to do so.

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson 

Former Chief of Staff for US Secretary of State Colin Powell

• Iran is prepared to launch 11,000 missiles on Israel and the United States.

Ghazanfar Roknabadi

Iranian Ambassador to Lebanon

• Iran could close the Strait of Hormuz with mines, driving up the cost of oil.
• Extensive conflict could break out between Israel and Hezbollah, or Israel and Hamas.

Mark Fitzpatrick

Director, Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Program,
International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS)

• Iran and groups like Hezbollah might engage in terror attacks following an attack on Iran.

Daniel Byman

Counter-terrorism Expert, Brookings Institute

American Truism # 10.



Midnight Approaches: Israel Prepares for Attack on Iran with Bunker Buster Request

Following President Obama’s address to AIPAC in which he gave the “green light” to Israel for an attack on Iran, Israel has now requested advanced "bunker-buster" bombs and refueling planes from the United States, according to a Reuters report.

These bunker buster bombs and planes would significantly improve Israel’s ability to carry out successful bombing attacks on Iran's underground nuclear sites.

That's not just MY opinion.  That supposition comes straight from an unnamed Israeli official.

As reported by Reuters, it appears that the US received the request for bunker busters and refueling planes during Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's recent visit to Washington.

Other reports claim the US might supply the hardware, but only under the condition that Israel promises not to attack Iran THIS YEAR.

JUST NOT THIS YEAR?  But, 2013 would be fine?  Sounds like a political calculation on the part of Team Obama.

I’m not making a judgment here.  When all is said and done, maybe Israel has no other choice.  I believe it’s possible for a rational person to come to that conclusion, yet recent events seem to indicate that Israel is hell bent on destroying Iran’s nuclear capabilities, WITH or WITHOUT the aid and comfort of the United States.

In a recent article musing upon the entire Israel / Iran / US relationship and likely outcomes, Jeffrey Goldberg, national correspondent for THE ATLANTIC  noted, “I don't believe the leaders of Iran are Nazis, but they certainly do talk like Nazis, and they've oriented their foreign and defense policies around the extermination of the Jewish state."

A White House spokesman denied that requests for bunker busters and refueling planes were made during the Netanyahu / Obama meetings.  But, we all know that could simply be semantics and that back channel discussions could have already taken place.   This alternative channel may very well have been Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

The White House wouldn’t confirm or deny a possible DOD possible role, saying only, "I would refer you to other officials.”

Unnamed sources on the US side confirm that these conversations DID take place between Netanyahu and Panetta.  The same source claims no deals were finalized.

While many agree that Obama’s AIPAC speech was indeed a “green light” to attack Iran and its nuclear capabilities, it still puts the Obama administration in a tight spot.

An Israeli-Iranian war would create tough political sledding for Obama in this US election year.  Such a conflict would almost certainly send oil and gas prices skyrocketing, a condition which hold great political peril for Obama.  Yet, being seen as weak on Iran and lukewarm in his support of Israel could be even worse for Obama.

None of the parties involved wants to see an Israeli-Iranian conflict.  And, while its neighbors are no great fans of Iran, a unilateral attack on the trouble-making nation might be all the excuse its neighbors need to unleash “attacks of solidarity” on Israel.

Pressure is growing on all sides, and no one appears to be willing to stand down or blink, which may make armed conflict between Israel and Iran inevitable.

While unlikely, one possibility is that taking recent events into account, Iran could decide to make a preemptive strike of its own against Israel.  This is unlikely because it would allow Israel to strike at Iran with practically no limits while giving Iran’s neighbors the cover they’d need to sit on the sidelines.  Still, the behavior of Iran’s political and religious leadership rarely follows conventional wisdom.

Obama is between a rock and a rockier place, unlikely to get any softer in the coming weeks.  He can’t be the president who allowed Iran to have a nuclear bomb.  He also can’t be the president that allowed Israel to launch a preemptive strike on Iran.  And the LAST thing he wants to do is commit American military power and lives into a new Middle East conflict.

American Truism #9.

It’s Time to Go for Rush Limbaugh

Rush, ole buddy, I think it’s time to finally pack it all in. 

Your latest faux pas is yet another example of the fact that you’re simply out of touch and trying to be controversial just for the sake of controversy.

That’s a tired old trick.

In the late 1980s, you were great.  I listened to all three hours of your radio show every day at work.  The main thing about your show back then was that you were engaging and funny.  Really funny. 

The homeless updates, jabs at “feminazis,” Ted Kennedy parodies and endless other bits that skewered left-wing sacred cows were hilarious.  I even paid good money to see you in person back then and you were fabulous.

Now, you’re just mean.   And, mean people suck.

THAT’s why you’re losing listeners and why you’re losing advertisers left and right.

You’re not doing the conservative movement any favors with this.  You're hurting it, and you know it.

I hate that it’s come down to this, but I think it’s time to unplug the EIB golden microphone.  You’ve had a tremendous run, but it’s over. 

You're not going to weather this storm.

American Trusim #8.

Obama Gives Israel the Green Light to Attack Iran

In a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) , President Obama today gave Israel the green light to launch a preemptive strike on Iran to prevent the Iranians from fully developing their nuclear weapons capabilities.

On CNN, Obama's remarks were portrayed opposite this analysis, both by the CNN host and by her guests.  They characterized Obama’s remarks as too soft and non-committal and critical of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Here’s what Obama said to AIPAC:

“We all prefer to resolve this issue diplomatically.  Having said that, Iran’s leaders should have no doubt about the resolve of the United States, just as they should not doubt Israel’s sovreign right to make its own decisions about what is required to meet its security needs.

"I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say.  That includes all elements of American power . . . including a military effort to be prepared for any contingency.

"We are investing in new capabilities. We’re providing Israel with more advanced technology, the types of products and systems that only go to our closest friends and allies.  Make no mistake, we will do what it takes to preserve Israel’s qualitative military edge because Israel must always have the ability to defend itself, by itself, against any threat.  

Later in the same address, President Obama said, ""For the sake of Israel's security, America's security, and the peace and security of the world, now is not the time for bluster; now is the time to let our increased pressure sink in. … Now is the time to heed that timeless advice from Teddy Roosevelt: Speak softly, but carry a big stick."

These remarks have been interpreted as meaning that Obama is loathe to use military action against Iran, and that he is at odds with the Israelis.

I disagree.

I believe this is Obama's way of creating "cover" for himself in the event that Israel decides it must attack Iran before it is nuclear capable.

According to CNN reports, earlier in the day at the AIPAC conference, Israeli President Shimon Peres warned "Iran will be stopped."  Israel "does not seek" war he said, adding: "Peace is always our first option. But, if we are forced to fight, trust me, we shall prevail."

Speaking just before Obama, Peres said,"The United States and Israel share the same goal: to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. There is no space between us. Our message is clear: Iran will not develop a nuclear weapon."

"Iran is an evil, cruel, morally corrupt regime," Peres said. "It is based on destruction. It is an affront to human dignity. Iran is the center, the sponsor, the financier of world terror. Iran is a danger to the entire world. It threatens Berlin as well as Madrid, Delhi as well as Bangkok." 

Israel and Iran are on an all-but-assured collision course.  The Israeli government will NOT allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons, but after his rhetorical attacks on the Bush administration for its actions in Iraq, Obama cannot afford to be seen as launching a possibly unnecessary attack on Iran, even in the defense of Israel.

However, as he has intimated today, Obama will not intervene if Israel determines that a preemptive strike against Iran is necessary.

Look for a strike within 90 days or less.

American Truism # 7.

Ron Paul to be Romey Running Mate?

Could Ron Paul possibly be planning to serve as the second banana on a Romney-Paul GOP ticket?  Should we get used to saying, "Vice President Ron Paul?"

Rick Santorum would have you think so, after the most recent GOP presidential debate.  Because it appeared that Paul was coordinating his attacks on Santorum during the Arizona debate, Rick is hinting that the two have struck a deal to "gang up" on him.

The UK's Daily Mail quotes Santorum as saying to reporters, "It was interesting to me that if you watch Ron Paul when he came into the debate, he wrote negative things about Rick Santorum down because when he started to get questions he would immediately pick up his paper and start mentioning Santorum stuff."

Hmm.  Romney - Paul.  (Mitt & Ron, maybe.)

Doesn't really roll off the tongue, but from an electroal point of view, it might make sense.

Clearly, Romney is the "safe" choice for republicans.  He's conservative enough to capture mainstream GOP voters, and safe enough for country club republicans.  Santorum may be sewing up the far right, but the far right isn't big enough to capture the nomination or win the general election.

By adding Paul to his side, Romney would bring a whole new demographic to his campaign, the younger, more independent-thinking, socially moderate voter that supports Paul so strongly.  For now, it looks like Paul supporters will cast their votes for him no matter what his ultimate chance for capturing the nomination.

But, if Paul's base see's an alliance with Romney as the best chance of getting their man to within a heartbeat of the presidency, they might fall in line behind Mitt.

I think all of this is much ado about nothing, that Santorum is just whining because two of his opponents are attacking him as "the frontrunner" (today).

Yet, a Romney-Paul pairing might just be what the GOP needs in order to come together and oust Obama from the White House.

American Truism # 6.

Bobbi Kristina May be in Crisis: Reportedly High During & After Mother's Funeral

There are reports that Whitney Houston's daughter, Bobbi Kristina appeared to be under the influence at her mother's funeral and that she was later found getting high in a hotel room, just hours after the cermony.

If this is the case, she desperately needs some Truth, from family and loved ones.

The Times of India is reporting that Bobbi Kristina almost didn't make it to the singer's burial and looked 'wasted' and 'glassy eyed.'

Other repors said Bobbi Kristina had disappeared and was getting high after her mother's nearly four hour emotional funeral.

First, let's hope that this is sensationalism and is simply incorrect.  The last thing that family needs right now is a crisis with another family member, especially Whitney's daughter.

Yet, the stories seem to come from reputable sources (Times of India / NY Daily News, etc.).

A source quoted by RADAR Online said, "The true cause for concern is that the Houstons feel absolutely powerless to do anything about Krissy because she is an adult and they are afraid to push her too hard for fear of driving her away."

Hopefully, this is my last Whitney Houston-related post, but this is worth a moment of thought.

American Truism #5.

Why Attack Aretha? She Gave Whitney Houston R-E-S-P-E-C-T, and TRUTH

Recent media stories would have one believe that the Queen of Soul, Aretha Franklin, purosely disrespected Whitney Houston's memory in a televised NBC interview with Al Roker and THAT is the reason she ultimately did not sing at Houston's funeral.

At least one story found it odd that NBC had removed the interview from its website, yet it IS possible to find the story (thank you YouTube) if you're patient enough and resourceful enough.

I watched the Al Roker interview of Aretha Franklin expecting to hear her claim that Whitney couldn't hold a candle to her or maybe saying that Whitney turned to the dark side or SOMETHING.

Instead, what I saw was a very balanced view of Houston's life, struggles and death, unlike most of the coverage seen since Houston's death which were either sensationalized and macabre or exultations proclaiming Houston to be a faultless angel.

No, in this story, Franklin's sadness comes through.  It is obvious that she understands what a tragic and unnecessary waste Houston's death was. 

Coverage of the piece implies that something Franklin said must have offended Houston's family.  But, if that's the case, I simply don't see it.

The ONLY thing that one could stretch into a dig might be the highlighted remark below, but I would strongly disagree.  Here is a partial transcript of the NBC interview in question: 

AF = Aretha Franklin -- AR = Al Roker

AF:  “When one has as much success as she did, almost overnight, and she had phenomenal success overnight, so I’m sure it was very overwhelming for her at times.  You get a lot of adoration when people like you.  It’s easy to lose sight of yourself. 

AR:  Did she ever talk to you looking for any sort of guidance or counsel?

AF:  No, but early on, I let her know then that if she needed any advice, and if she needed to talk about anything, she could always call me.

AR:  But the call never came.  And, so, Franklin watched from afar as Whitney’s success faded and she desperately tried time and again to regain her superstar status including the 2009 European tour, when dogged by rumors of alcohol and drug abuse, Whitney’s once magical voice, tragically let her down.

AF: She had a number of difficult evenings in Europe.  I watched that online myself.  I didn’t like what I saw happening.  The audience was very rude.  I’m sure she was totally devastated by the time it was over.

You know, when you’re a singer, and you can’t sing what it is you want to sing, when you can’t give the audience what you want to give, it’s very disheartening.

AR: Franklin says she saw something else in those scenes of anguish, that fighting spirit that her mother Cissy had instilled in Whitney.  That was still there.

AF:  She stood there, let me tell you, she stood there and with the heart of a champion, she went through it night after night. 

AR: At the end of 2011, Franklin says she finally saw hopeful signs that Whitney could finally resurrect her career, in a preview of “SPARKLE,” in which Whitney executive produced and starred in. 

AF:  She looked fresh, healthy.  She looked gorgeous, and I thought, ‘Yes, she has conquered her challenges and she’s on her way.' 

Certainly her body of work is going to go on for generations to come, from generation to generation. 

AR:  This ending, do you think it tarnishes it at all, or takes away from it?

AF:  No, I don’t.  I don’t think we should focus on the challenges that she had because in some ways, we all have challenges from time to time.  Look at the character of a person, and the character of a woman.  Think about the hits, and forget about the misses.

AR:  How are you going to remember her?

AF:  As an adorable young lady, as Cissy’s baby, a great artist, a very kind and giving person, a very sensitive young lady. 

AR:  Isn’t it ironic that it comes full circle, back to New Hope Baptist Church?

AF:  She didn’t just smile, she twingkled, so I wrote something with that in mind.  “Twinkle, twinkle, superstar, we don’t wonder where you are.  Up above the world so bright, like a diamond in the night.  Twinkle, twinkle, she’s still alone, I can’t believe that she’s gone.”

American Truism #4.

Media Matters Considered Digging up Dirt on Fox News Personnel, Endangers Tax-Exempt Status

Howard Kurtz reports on an internal memo from Media Matters which indicates the group at least CONSIDERED using Rupert Murdoch-type mud digging in an attempt to discredit employees of the conservative-leaning Fox News network.

Isn't THAT like the pot calling the kettle black? 

In a 2009 internal memo from the liberal media watchdog group, former Executive Karl Frisch says, "We should hire private investigators to look into the personal lives of Fox News anchors, host, reporters, prominent contributors, senior network and corporate staff."

Wow.  Way to win the debate in the marketplace of ideas.  This sounds like something J. Edgar Hoover might have done in the 1950s.

Oh, and BTW, Media Matters is (for the moment) a tax-exempt organization.  So, OUR tax dollars are helping to fund these Gestapo-like tactics.

Kurtz dissects the issue in a video interview with Vince Coglianese, senior online editor for the Daily Caller.  (See the Daily Caller's series on the issue here.)

Once Media Matters gathered up the requisite "dirt" on Fox personnel, the idea was to target them personally through attacks on their character via billboards in their communities and placing yard signs in their neighborhoods, as a few examples.

Further, the ideas discussed, included mud-slinging not only at Fox anchors and executives, but lower-level producers and other staffers.

To be fair, there is no evidence that Media Matters followed through on the tactics the Frisch memo describes, but the idea that a tax-exempt group would seriously consider this approach should concern all Americans, regardless of their political affiliation. 

Yet, Media Matters has not refuted the Daily Caller's story.

That alone speaks volumes.

American Truism #3.