Beer Tasting!

I joined some of my colleagues yesterday for a "Faculty Guided Beer Tasting & Reading" event, one in the "Know Your College, Know Your Colleagues" series sponsored by my department and the faculty union.

Presenting was Professor Matthew Lawrence, the author of Philosophy on Tap: Pint-Sized Puzzles for the Pub Philosopher. He's got a book page with his biographical information. And he's got an interview at the Huffington Post, "Interview with a Philosopher: On Beer and Thought."

We tasted five beers. Here's Matt's slide for Weihenstephaner Hefe Weissbier, a German hefeweizen.

Here's the beer list on the host's refrigerator:

In addition to Weihenstephaner, we tasted Boulevard Brewing Tank 7 Farmhouse Ale (Kansas City); Fuller's ESB (London): Alesmith Horny Devil Belgian Strong Ale (San Diego); and Left Coast Brewing Old Rasputin Russian Imperial Stout (Fort Bragg).

Here's the Rasputin Stout:

Matt recommended Hi-Time Wine Cellars in Costa Mesa for its wide selection of beers. I asked about picking up some of that Rasputin Stout for myself. Excellent beer. Shoot, they were all good.

Check the links for the beer pages and enjoy.

I'll see you at the pub!

Democrats v. Humanity

Via the Looking Spoon, "Here's a Hard Truth About Liberals Apologizing for Evil."

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney Gets Hammered With New Questions on #Benghazi

At Business Insider, "Jay Carney Gets Blasted Over Benghazi."

And at Twitchy, "Paging Candy Crowley: Jay Carney repeats debunked Benghazi lie from presidential debates."

#Benghazi Blows Wide Open — Scrubbed White House Talking Points Are Scandal's Smoking Gun

There's a tremendous amount of news, and still the scrubbed talking points are getting traction. The Benghazi scandal is getting to big to ignore.

Here's ABC's lead story trending at Memeornadum, "Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference."

And from Ron Fournier, at National Journal, "Scrubbing the Truth from Benghazi":

The White House has long maintained that the talking points were drafted almost exclusively by the CIA, a claim that gave cover to both President Obama and his potential successor, Clinton. “Those talking points originated from the intelligence community,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said in November, adding that the only editing by the White House or the State Department was to change the word "consulate" to "diplomatic facility." Nuland’s emails prove him wrong. As I wrote yesterday (“Why Benghazi is a Blow to Obama and Clinton"), Obama has earned the trust of most Americans but credibility is a fragile thing.

More at the link.

And see Stephen Hayes' long report, at the Weekly Standard, "The Benghazi Scandal Grows."

Kate Upton 'Hottest Supermodel on Earth'

Well, she's at least continuing her reign as the "it girl" of the moment.

At London's Daily Mail, "Bombshell Kate Upton defends her 'natural' breasts and voluptuous body as she lands first US Vogue cover."

The Inconvenient Truth About Benghazi

From Peggy Noonan, at the Wall Street Journal, "Did the Obama administration's politically expedient story cost American lives?":

The Benghazi story until now has been a jumble of factoids that didn't quite cohere, didn't produce a story that people could absorb and hold in their minds. This week that changed. Three State Department officials testifying under oath to a House committee changed it, by adding information that gave form to a growing picture. Gregory Hicks, Mark Thompson and Eric Nordstrom were authoritative and credible. You knew you were hearing the truth as they saw and experienced it. Not one of them seemed political. You had no sense of how they voted. They were professionals. They'd seen a bad thing. They came forward to tell the story. They put the lie to the idea that all questioning of Obama administration actions in Benghazi are partisan and low.

What happened in Benghazi last Sept. 11 and 12 was terrible in every way. The genesis of the scandal? It looks to me like this:

The Obama White House sees every event as a political event. Really, every event, even an attack on a consulate and the killing of an ambassador.

Because of that, it could not tolerate the idea that the armed assault on the Benghazi consulate was a premeditated act of Islamist terrorism. That would carry a whole world of unhappy political implications, and demand certain actions. And the American presidential election was only eight weeks away. They wanted this problem to go away, or at least to bleed the meaning from it.

Because the White House could not tolerate the idea of Benghazi as a planned and deliberate terrorist assault, it had to be made into something else. So they said it was a spontaneous street demonstration over an anti-Muhammed YouTube video made by a nutty California con man. After all, that had happened earlier in the day, in Cairo. It sounded plausible. And maybe they believed it at first. Maybe they wanted to believe it. But the message was out: Provocative video plus primitive street Arabs equals sparky explosion. Not our fault. Blame the producer! Who was promptly jailed.

If what happened in Benghazi was not a planned and prolonged terrorist assault, if it was merely a street demonstration gone bad, the administration could not take military action to protect Americans there. You take military action in response to a planned and coordinated attack by armed combatants. You don't if it's an essentially meaningless street demonstration that came and went.

Why couldn't the administration tolerate the idea that Benghazi was a planned terrorist event? Because they didn't want this attack dominating the headline with an election coming. It would open the administration to criticism of its intervention in Libya. President Obama had supported overthrowing Muammar Gadhafi and put U.S. force behind the Libyan rebels. Now Libyans were killing our diplomats. Was our policy wrong? More importantly, the administration's efforts against al Qaeda would suddenly come under scrutiny and questioning. The president, after the killing of Osama bin Laden, had taken to suggesting al Qaeda was over. Al Qaeda was done. But if an al Qaeda offshoot in Libya was killing our diplomats, the age of terrorism was not over.

So clearly stated. And so ridiculously devastating. This is not going away.

Continue reading.

Is Leftist School Indoctrination Unstoppable?

From Bruce Thornton, at FrontPage Magazine:

Rush Limbaugh weighed in recently on the Republicans’ on-going debate about what went wrong in November. Elaborating on his earlier comment that he was “ashamed of America,” Limbaugh said, “The Left has beaten us. They have created far more low-information, unaware, uneducated people than we’ve been able to keep up with . . . I’ve always had a Civics 101 view of the country: People get what they want, they vote what they want, and they get the way they vote.” He added that the Democrats “control the education system . . . pop culture, movies, TV and books” and use that control to create “dependency” among voters.

Some may think this is a dog-bites-man observation, but it’s worth looking more closely at the most important item in Limbaugh’s list––the educational system. Everything else Limbaugh mentions is made possible because of the deep corruption in public education from kindergarten to university.

We often focus on the ideological biases of the university, where the more lunatic examples of political correctness get the most attention. But in education as in economics, there is a trickle-down effect. The grandees at the elite universities train the PhD’s who go on to second and third tier institutions, where they in turn train the students who get high school and grade school teaching credentials. They also write most of the textbooks that end up in K-12 classrooms. Thus the progressive ideology metastasizes throughout the educational system, determining the curriculum, the textbooks, and the point of view of the teachers. At that level the ideas may be garbled, half-baked, incoherent, and a collection of clichés and slogans. But they are still toxic and effective at transmitting a world-view to impressionable minds.

When my kids were in public school I witnessed this process over and over. Questionable leftist ideas I had to sit through in graduate seminars turned up regularly in my kids’ English and history courses and textbooks. In the Marxiste interpretation of history, for example, traditional historical narratives reflect the “false consciousness” of capitalism’s academic publicists justifying and “mystifying” a history marked by oppression and atrocities in service to a dehumanizing capitalist ideology.

The founding of the United States, then, was not about things like freedom and inalienable rights, but instead reflected the economic interests and power of wealthy white property-owners. The civil war wasn’t about freeing the slaves or preserving the union, but about economic competition between the industrial north and the plantation south. The settling of the West was not an epic saga of hardships endured to create a civilization in a wilderness, but genocide of the Indians whose lands and resources were stolen to serve capitalist exploitation. Inherent in this sort of history were the assumptions of Marxist economic determinism and the primacy of material causes over the camouflage of ideals and principles.

In the 60’s this narrative was married to identity politics: the defining of ethnic minorities and Third World peoples on the basis of their status as victims of this capitalist hegemony and it imperialist and colonialist mechanisms, which justified the plundering, oppression, and exploitation of the non-white “others” with racist notions of their natural inferiority. Various strains of postmodernism added a cultural relativism that put out of bounds any judgments of a culture’s values, since all such standards reflect the economic needs of the dominant power. Soon feminism added women to the list of victims sacrificed to the white-male power structure. Edward Said’s historically ignorant and tendentious Orientalism rationalized the failure of the Muslim Arab Middle East in the same way. Soon Said’s book expanded beyond Middle East studies to condition the way generations of English and history professors approach their traditional subjects––as narratives justifying an unjust, racist, exploitative Western power of which all right-thinking people should be ashamed.

The politicizing of the universities has led to two ill effects...

Continue reading.

Yeah, it's pretty awful out there. You have to deprogram your kids at home.

Cleveland Man Charged With Kidnapping and Rape

At the Wall Street Journal, "Charges Filed in Abduction: Police Report Describes Nightmare Scenario of Three Women Chained in Cleveland Home."

I'll have more on this later. I'm still trying to comprehend the enormity of evil. And I'm not sure why the brothers weren't also charged.

Robert Oscar Lopez Attends 'Schools for Subversion' at Luxe Hotel in Los Angeles

I mentioned that the event Monday night featured a rousing question and answer session. One animated participant was Professor Robert Oscar Lopez of California State University, Northridge. He mentioned that he'd been granted tenure, despite the stifling leftist political correctness on campus. He's apparently unable to get conference and grant funding on campus because of his conservative political views, however.

Professor Lopez is a regular contributor at American Thinker. His most recent piece is "Four Tiers of Failure: How the LGBT Lobby Dominates."

I blogged one of his essays in January, "Yes, Homosexuality's a Lifestyle Choice."

He seemed like a nice guy. But I never got a chance to introduce myself. He ended up leaving before the Q&A wrapped up.

PREVIOUSLY: Schools for Subversion: How Public Education Lays the Foundation for University Radicalism," and "Back From 'Schools for Subversion'."

Anne Hathaway Sports See-Through Dress and Platinum Hair Style 2013 Met Gala

I like that do!

At London's Daily Mail, "Braless Anne Hathaway leaves little to the imagination in racy see-through dress as she storms Met Ball with new platinum cropped hair do."

Many Americans Say They Can't Retire Until Their 70s or 80s

Well, I'll keep working until I'm at least 65.

I'm going to need the money!

At the Los Angeles Times:

It’s the new retirement: More than four in 10 Americans think they’ll have to work into their 70s or 80s because they can’t afford to retire, according to a new survey.

One in 10 people expects to toil into their 80s, while 32% expect to be on the job into their 70s, according to the report by insurer Northwestern Mutual.

On average, those surveyed expect to leave work at age 68. However, the report points out, that doesn’t jibe with reality.

The mean age of those already retired is 59, the study said.

An increasing number of people figure they’ll simply work longer to make up for inadequate nest-egg savings these days, not realizing how layoffs, poor health or other forces pushed their forebears out of the workforce far sooner than they wanted...

Continue reading.

Men Fake Orgasm? 'A quickened pace, a few moans, dramatic thrusts and a hasty retreat and most women, apparently, are none the wiser...'

Well, this is interesting.

At London's Daily Mail, "Could you tell if your man faked an orgasm? Shockingly, it's not as easy as you might think..."

Faking it just ain't happening in my experience.

Never heard of it. Must be a left-wing metro-sexual thing?

Or a crossover homosexual thing, the freaks. Yeah, those YMCA boys probably fake it all the time to keep their homo lovers from going all psycho. Wouldn't want to be strangled with some hardcore bondage gear or anything, that's for sure. Better to do the quick thrust thing and fake being all hot and bothered.

#Boston Bomber Relative of Tamerlan Tsarnaev is Prominent Jihadi

At Atlas Shrugs:

But but but Philip Mudd, former Deputy Director of National Security, FBI and the former Deputy Director of Counterterrorist Center for the CIA, said the bomber[s] "doesn’t have much of an ideological background."

"Exclusive: Dagestani Relative of Tamerlan Tsarnaev Is a Prominent Islamist" TIME Magazine via Yahoo, May 8, 2013

Last year, when Tamerlan Tsarnaev spent six months in the Russian region of Dagestan, he had a guide with an unusually deep knowledge of the local Islamist community: a distant cousin named Magomed Kartashov. Six years older than Tsarnaev, Kartashov is a former police officer and freestyle wrestler—and one of the region’s most prominent Islamists.

In 2011 Kartashov founded and became the leader of an organization called the Union of the Just, whose members campaign for sharia law and pan-Islamic unity in Dagestan, often speaking out against U.S. policies across the Muslim world. The group publicly renounces violence. But some of its members have close links to militants; others have served time in prison for weapons possession and abetting terrorism—charges they say were based on fabricated evidence. For Tsarnaev, these men formed a community of pious young Muslims with whom he could discuss his ideas of jihad. Tsarnaev’s mother, Zubeidat, confirmed that her son is Kartashov’s third cousin. The two met for the first time in Dagestan, she said, and “became very close.”

Since April 19, when Tsarnaev and his younger brother Dzhokhar were publicly identified as being the key suspects in the bombing of the Boston Marathon, investigators have been trying to work out how they were radicalized to the point of wanting to kill and main people in the United States, the country the brothers had called home for much of their lives. (Tsarnaev was killed during a manhunt for the two men in Boston; his younger brother was shot but survived and has been charged with acts of terrorism including using a weapon of mass desctruction resulting in death. If convicted he could face the death penalty.) Much of the investigators’ attention has focused on Tsarnaev’s visit to Dagestan in 2012. It appears that investigators have only recently begun exploring Tsarnaev’s links to his cousin.

On May 5, three agents from Russia’s Federal Security Service, the agency known as the FSB, interrogated Kartashov for the first time about the Boston bombings, according to his lawyer, Patimat Abdullaeva. The FSB agents were interested in whether Kartashov and Tsarnaev had ever discussed Islamic radicalism, Abdullaeva says.

Kartashov told them that they had, but claimed that Tsarnaev was the one trying to “pull him in to extremism,” says the lawyer, who spoke to Kartashov soon after the interrogation. (It was impossible to ask Kartashov about this directly; he has been in jail since April 27 after a brawl with police in northern Dagestan, and prison officials denied TIME’s requests to visit him or have him answer questions in writing. His lawyer agreed to pass a reporter’s questions to him in jail.) In recounting her client’s replies, the lawyer said: “Kartashov tried to talk [Tsarnaev] out of his interest in extremism.”

Kartashov told the FSB roughly the same story, Abdullaeva says, and it matches the accounts of five other men in Dagestan who know Kartashov and spent time with Tsarnaev. All of them dismiss the notion that Tsarnaev was radicalized in Dagestan. Instead, the picture that emerges from their accounts is of a young man who already carried a deep interest in Islamic radicalism when he came to Russia from his home in Massachusetts. But that curiosity evolved during his visit. The members of Kartashov’s circle say they tried to disabuse Tsarnaev of his sympathies for local militants. By the end of his time in Dagestan, Tsarnaev’s interests seem to have shifted from the local insurgency to a more global notion of Islamic struggle–closer to the one espoused by Kartashov’s organization.

Continue reading.

Michelle Malkin Slams Juan Williams' #Benghazi Ignorance: 'Only Somebody Who Did Not Honestly Watch That Comprehensive Hearing Today ... Could Remain in This Bubble of Unreality...'

Juan Williams were utterly pathetic. He had no business even going on the air:

Hillary Clinton's Chief of Staff Told Greg Hicks Not to Talk to Congress

At the Wall Street Journal, "The Benghazi Awakening":

Miracles happen, and even the sleepy Washington press corps seems to have paid some attention to Wednesday's House hearing on the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission last September in Benghazi. What they and the public heard is the beginning of a real accounting for a security failure that killed four Americans.

We say "beginning" because the entire story still isn't clear, in particular the roles played by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama before and after the attack. But the hearing led by House Republicans, amid months of media sneering, gave the civil servants who were on duty that September night a chance to give their side of the story.

Gregory Hicks, the former deputy chief of mission at the embassy in Tripoli, recalled his last conversation with Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who told him, "Greg, we're under attack." Mr. Hicks said he knew then that Islamists were behind the assault. In other words, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's public claim at the time that an anti-Islam YouTube video spurred the assault was known inside the government to be false when she and White House spokesman Jay Carney said it.

Mr. Hicks said he briefed Mrs. Clinton that night, yet the father of victim Tyrone Woods says she later told him that the YouTube video maker would be "prosecuted and arrested" as if he were responsible for Benghazi. Stranger still, Mrs. Hicks says Mrs. Clinton's then chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, ordered him not to give solo interviews about the attack to a visiting Congressional delegation. Aficionados of the Clinton Presidency will recall Ms. Mills as one of Bill Clinton's impeachment lawyers.

After Stevens and an aide were killed at the mission, the militias turned on the CIA annex nearby. On the advice of the military attaché in Tripoli, Mr. Hicks said he asked for U.S. fighter planes to fly over the complex in an attempt to scare the attackers away. Libyans had seen U.S. air power during the NATO military intervention in 2011 and might have fled. But Mr. Hicks was told no planes were available. Early the next morning, two Americans died in a mortar attack on the CIA compound.

The Pentagon says no F-16s were on call that night, but why not? Why weren't contingency plans in place? The State Department's supposedly independent review panel said in December that "there simply was not enough time for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference." The review blamed lower level officials for the security failure and didn't even bother to interview Mrs. Clinton. Mr. Hicks says he was "effectively demoted" after Benghazi from "deputy chief of mission to desk officer."

Mr. Hicks also revealed that four special forces soldiers at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli were ordered by U.S. African command not to join a State team headed to Benghazi. The soldiers were the remaining parts of a 16-member security team that had been pulled from Tripoli the previous month. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey recently told another House panel that the African command stopped no one from aiding those besieged in Benghazi. That contradicts Mr. Hicks's account....

The immediate press spin on Wednesday's hearing is that there was no "smoking gun" proof of a cover-up, as if that is the only reason to find out what happened. It's clear enough already that senior Administration officials knew in September they had a politically potent debacle on their hands and did their best to delay and obfuscate any accounting. All of this warrants further investigation, and such oversight is part of Congress's job.

And watch the video from Hannity's opening segment earlier tonight. Reps. Jason Chaffetz and Trey Gowdy are interviewed.

And see Hot Air, "Hicks: Higher-ups at State told me not to talk to GOP congressman about Benghazi; Update: “Effectively demoted”." (At Memeorandum.)

Devastating New Testimony on Obama Administration's Benghazi Cover-Up

You can't come away from watching these hearings and not just shake your head at the immense bankruptcy and corruption of our top Democrat administrative officials, including President Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other leftist hack bureaucrats who politicized the response to the attack on the Benghazi consulate. But as devastating as this is, it's already clear that the left-wing partisans in most mainstream media outlets are determined to pooh-pooh today's hearings, and especially the explosive testimony of Gregory Hicks, former deputy Chief of Mission in Libya. Here's Michael Hirsh at National Journal, for example, "Benghazi: Incompetence, But No Cover-up." And also Joe Klein, at Times, "Benghazi Again." (Via Memeorandum.)

I'm going to have more on this throughout the night.

Meanwhile, Fox News Special Report had riveting coverage this afternoon:

And the opening segment with Bret Baier is here, "Benghazi Hearing - Obama Admin Lied & People Died - Wake Up America Our Country In Danger."

Also, from Bryan Preston at Pajamas Media, "7 Things We Learned from the Benghazi Whistleblower Hearing."

Plus, from the editors at the San Diego Union-Tribune, "Benghazi cover-up clear beyond a doubt":

As the events surrounding the Benghazi tragedy become increasingly clear, the Obama administration should no longer even try to deny it has covered up the truth in scandalous fashion.

We now learn that as a U.S. diplomatic outpost in the eastern Libyan city was being attacked by terrorists on Sept. 11, 2012 — an assault that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and State Department official Sean Smith, a San Diego native — embassy officials in Libya’s capital tried to get the Pentagon to scramble fighter jets over Benghazi in the hopes of deterring further attacks.

When the Pentagon refused, according to testimony slated for Wednesday from deputy embassy head Gregory Hicks, American officials tried to get four U.S. Special Operations troops dispatched to Benghazi early the next morning. They were told to stand down, Hicks said, according to a partial transcript of his testimony.

That morning, a second attack — on a CIA complex near the diplomatic outpost — led to the deaths of CIA contractors Glen Doherty of Encinitas and Tyrone Woods of Imperial Beach.

All of this is bad enough. But even more perplexing is the Obama administration’s continued refusal to come clean about exactly what transpired that horrific night — details that are finally emerging and casting the administration in a shameful and dishonorable light.

The Obama administration’s lengthy trail of deception and denial goes back to the very beginning, when the attacks were mischaracterized as a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam YouTube video. U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice made the claim repeatedly, and when it became glaringly obvious the video had nothing to do with the attack, Rice was offered up as the sacrificial lamb and yanked from consideration as Hillary Clinton’s successor as secretary of state.

Two other witnesses said Clinton and an aide tried to cut the State Department’s own counterterrorism bureau out of the loop as they and other Obama administration officials contemplated how best to respond to, and characterize, the attacks. One witness, counterterrorism official Mark I. Thompson, said his account was suppressed by the official investigative panel convened by Clinton. He, too, is scheduled to testify Wednesday.

With the latest revelations, it’s looking more and more like a government that’s either incompetent, dishonest or both. The Pentagon says it’s going to “review” Hicks’ testimony, while a State Department spokesman continues to insist the inquiry is “politicized.”

If anything’s politicized, it’s the Watergate-like cover-up, which began in the midst of what then appeared to be a very close presidential election. And that’s only fueling speculation that Democrats in the administration and Congress are more interested in saving face than in coming clean — because now that Obama has been re-elected, they don’t want Benghazi to hurt Clinton’s future political aspirations.

Shameful, just shameful.

Stay tuned.

Obama's Commencement Speech at Ohio State Would Have Perplexed the Founders

From Roger Pilon, at WSJ, "Graduates, Your Ambition Is the Problem":

Civic education in America took a hit on Sunday when President Obama, giving the commencement address at The Ohio State University, chose citizenship as his theme. The country's Founders trusted citizens with "awesome authority," he told the assembled graduates. Really?

Actually, the Founders distrusted us, at least in our collective capacity. That's why they wrote a Constitution that set clear limits on what we, as citizens, could do through government.

Mr. Obama seems never to appreciate that essential point about the American political order. As with his countless speeches that lead ultimately to an expression of the president's belief in the unbounded power of government to do good, he began in Columbus with an insight that we can all pretty much embrace, at least in the abstract. Citizenship, Mr. Obama said, is "the idea at the heart of our founding—that as Americans, we are blessed with God-given and inalienable rights, but with those rights come responsibilities—to ourselves, to one another, and to Well enough. But then he took that insight to lengths the Founders would never have imagined. Reading "citizenship" as standing for the many ways we can selflessly "serve our country," the president said that "sometimes, we see it as a virtue from another time—one that's slipping from a society that celebrates individual ambition." And "we sometimes forget the larger bonds we share, as one American family."

Not for nothing did he invoke the family, that elemental social unit in which we truly are responsible to one another and to future generations—by law, by custom, and, ideally, in our hearts. But only metaphorically is America a family, its members bound by tendrils of intimacy and affection. Realistically, the country is a community of individuals and private institutions, including the family, with their own interests, bound not by mutual love but by the political principles that are set forth in the Constitution, a document that secures and celebrates the freedom to pursue those interests, varied as they might be.

Alas, that is not Mr. Obama's vision. "The Founders left us the keys to a system of self-government," he went on, "the tool to do big and important things together that we could not possibly do alone." And what "big and important things" cannot be done except through government? On the president's list are railroads, the electrical grid, highways, education, health care, charity and more. One imagines a historical vision reaching as far back as the New Deal. Americans "chose to do these things together," he added, "because we know this country cannot accomplish great things if we pursue nothing greater than our own individual ambition."

Notice that twice now Mr. Obama has invoked "individual ambition," and not as a virtue. For other targets, he next counseled the graduates against the "voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's the root of all our problems, even as they do their best to gum up the works."

The irony here should not go unnoticed: The opponents that the president disparages are the same folks who tried to save the country from one of the biggest pieces of gum now in the works: Mr. Obama's own health-care insurance program, which today is filling many of its backers with dread as it moves toward full implementation in a matter of months.

None of that darkens Mr. Obama's sunny view of collective effort. What does upset him, still, is the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis: "Too many on Wall Street," he said, "forgot that their obligations don't end with their shareholders." No mention of the Federal Reserve, or Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Community Reinvestment Act, or the many other "big and important things" government undertook before the crisis hit, things that explain the disaster far better than any Wall Street greed. None of that fits in Mr. Obama's morality play. For that matter, neither do the Constitution's checks and balances. When the president laments that "democracy isn't working as well as we know it can," he is not talking about those big, misbegotten public projects but about the Washington gridlock that has frustrated his grander plans.future generations."

Well, Obama's a tyrant with tyrannical rhetoric disguised as "community."

Fascist asshole.

More at the link.

Obama's Benghazi Lies Begin Unraveling Today

The hearings are now live on Capitol Hill.

I'll have lots on them tonight.

Meanwhile, from the Washington Examiner, "Obama's Benghazi Lies Begin Unraveling Today."

And Katie Pavlich from this morning's Fox & Friends:

Operation Smear Benghazi Whistleblowers

From Michelle Malkin:

It’s on. As the White House grapples with a growing backlash over its Libya lies and lapses, President Obama’s apologists are gearing up for battle. Put on your hip-waders. Grab those tar buckets. Get ready for Operation Smear Benghazi Whistleblowers.

Capitol Hill hearings this Wednesday on the deadly 9/11 consulate attack by jihadists will feature three compelling witnesses, all State Department veterans: Gregory N. Hicks, deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya and highest-ranking U.S. diplomat in the country at the time of the Benghazi jihad attacks; Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine who now serves as deputy coordinator for operations in the agency’s Counterterrorism Bureau; and Eric Nordstrom, a diplomatic security officer who was the top security officer in Libya.

Nordstrom first testified last fall about how State Department brass spurned his requests for increased security at the compound. Hicks and Thompson are coming forward publicly for the first time this week with more damning evidence contradicting Team Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s claims about the administration’s response the night of the attack and in the ensuing months of cover-ups.

According to the House Oversight Committee, Hicks reportedly will refute Team Obama’s claims that nobody was told to stand down and that all military resources available were used in the rescue efforts. As Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi to save lives during the attacks, Hicks says the team received a phone call from the U.S. Special Operations Command Africa telling them “you can’t go” and that the decision was “purely political.”

The State Department press office already has accused Victoria Toensing, attorney for one of the Benghazi whistleblowers, of “lying” about administration pressure on her clients. Left-wing operatives funded by billionaire George Soros have taken to Twitter to mock reports of fear and intimidation among the new witnesses. White House press secretary Jay Carney continues to sing “Long, Long Ago” and deny all wrongdoing.
And one anonymous State Department official told Fox News reporter James Rosen that Hicks and Thompson have “axes to grind.”

Continue reading.

Also, from Marc Thiessen, "A Benghazi bombshell." (At Memeorandum.)

Plus, at Daily Mail, "Dick Cheney slams Obama administration's Benghazi performance." (At Memeorandum.)

Pamela Geller Nailed Rick Perry's Jihad Problem — And She's Vindicated Big Time With Outing of Holocaust Denier David Cole

Back during the primaries I wrote at least one post on this, "Is Rick Perry 'Pro-Sharia'?" I looked over some of the curriculum at the time and it didn't look good. Pamela had the goods, but she took heat from the right blogosphere's pro-Perry crowd.

Well, we had lots of new developments on this yesterday. Zilla reports, "Bed Down With Holocaust Denying Fraudsters, Wake Up And Eat Crow." And at iOWNTHEWORLD, "Pamela Geller is a Shrieking Harpy Flashback!!!"

And at Pamela's, "ACE AND WEASEL'S #1 SOURCE ON ISLAMIC CURRICULUM DENIAL IS HOLOCAUST DENIER DAVID COLE, MEA CULPA?," and "PERRY MAFIA PUNKED, "BECLOWNED" INDEED."

More at Jihad Watch, "'Source' who 'debunked' story of Rick Perry's Islam whitewash curriculum turns out to be Holocaust denier with false identity."

BONUS: At Da Tech Guys, "A Simple Fact about Pam Geller & Robert Spencer:

I’ve never understood the willingness of people, particularly on the right to go after Pam & Robert. I particularly don’t get the people who seem to have it in their minds they are all in this for the cash.

Forget about the cash. Even conservatives sometimes struggle to stay on the right side of decency and right. Pamela doesn't. That's why I'm always by her side.

PHOTO CREDIT: Norman Gersman.