Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, 1926-2012

I can't find the entry now, but a few days back Walter Russell Mead noted that for all its faults, the New York Times remains the country's best newspaper for serious news reporting. And as my readers know, while I often flail away angrily at the Times' horribly biased reporting, I keep returning each and every day to read all the news that's over there, arguably "all the news that's fit to print," in the words of the paper's longstanding slogan.

In any case, I guess this makes the news of the passing of Arthur Sulzberger a bit more interesting and sad.

The obituary is here, "Publisher Who Transformed The Times for New Era":

Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, who guided The New York Times and its parent company through a long, sometimes turbulent period of expansion and change on a scale not seen since the newspaper’s founding in 1851, died early Saturday at his home in Southampton, N.Y. He was 86.

His death, after a long illness, was announced by his family.

Mr. Sulzberger’s tenure, as publisher of the newspaper and as chairman and chief executive of The New York Times Company, reached across 34 years, from the heyday of postwar America to the twilight of the 20th century, from the era of hot lead and Linotype machines to the birth of the digital world.

The paper he took over as publisher in 1963 was the paper it had been for decades: respected and influential, often setting the national agenda. But it was also in precarious financial condition and somewhat insular, having been a tightly held family operation since 1896, when it was bought by his grandfather Adolph S. Ochs.

By the 1990s, when Mr. Sulzberger passed the reins to his son, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., first as publisher in 1992 and then as chairman in 1997, the enterprise had been transformed. The Times was now national in scope, distributed from coast to coast, and it had become the heart of a diversified, multibillion-dollar media operation that came to encompass newspapers, magazines, television and radio stations and online ventures.

The expansion reflected Mr. Sulzberger’s belief that a news organization, above all, had to be profitable if it hoped to maintain a vibrant, independent voice. As John F. Akers, a retired chairman of I.B.M. and for many years a Times Company board member, put it, “Making money so that you could continue to do good journalism was always a fundamental part of the thinking.”

Continue reading.

Bret Baier Special Report: Evolving Narrative Over Benghazi Attack and Cover-Up

It's devastating. An absolutely devastating account.

Plus, at London's Daily Mail, "They DID know: Now White House admits they knew 'within 24 hours' that Al Qaeda was behind Libya attacks despite confusing public statements." (At Memorandum.)

Lacey Banghard Never-Ending L.A. Summer

An amazing woman, at Egotastic!, "Thank God It’s Funbags! Lacey Banghard Takes Off Her Swimsuit to Celebrate the Neverending L.A. Summer."

Canadian Held at Guantánamo Bay Is Repatriated

It's Omar Khadr, an al-Qaeda terrorist captured in Afghanistan in 2002.

The New York Times reports, "Sole Canadian Held at Guantánamo Bay Is Repatriated":

Born in Toronto, Mr. Khadr was mainly raised in Pakistan and Afghanistan by his father, Ahmed Said Khadr, who emigrated to Canada in 1977 from Egypt and eventually became a Canadian citizen. American and Canadian intelligence services identified him as a senior member of Al Qaeda. About a year after Omar Khadr’s capture, Ahmed Khadr was killed by Pakistani forces near the border with Afghanistan.

Omar Khadr’s mother, Maha, and his sister Zaynab lived on and off in Canada. In 2004, they provoked a sharp public reaction after appearing in a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation documentary about the family and seemed to condone the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States and condemned Canadian social values. They briefly operated a blog that also contained provocative remarks.

F-king raghead terrorist, the kid became of symbol of "human rights" violations while held at Gitmo. BCF has more, "Khadr Back in Canada."

He could get parole in Canada as early as next year.

More at Atlas Shrugs, "GITMO jihad killer Omar Khadr repatriated to Canada after White House pressure for release #Savage." (At Memeorandum.)

#ProudSavage: Mona Eltahawy Gone Mad!

Epic lulz at Atlas Shrugs, "Moe Moe Moe Moe Moe-nuh!"

Plus, "#ProudSavage Mona Eltahawy Defends Jihad Massacres of Innocent Civilians."

More from Anne Sorock at Legal Insurrection, "MTA changes ad rules and rewards Eltahawy stunt."

PREVIOUSLY: "Pamela Geller's 'Savage' Aren't Being Taken Down."

Voters May Reject California's Proposition 32

It's the big payroll protection initiative, which I'd love to see passing in November. But it's a hard sell, since the measure is deceptive. It indeed appears to contain major loopholes for big business, and is hence seen as punitive and unfair.

At the Los Angeles Times, "California voters leaning against campaign finance initiative":

SACRAMENTO — California voters appear poised to reject a November ballot measure that would ban political contributions by payroll deduction, according to a new USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll.

Forty-four percent of those surveyed said they opposed Proposition 32, which would eliminate the main fundraising tool of unions. Just 36% said they supported the measure, which would also bar corporations and unions from contributing directly to candidates.

Proponents of the measure, having focused squarely on unions in two past attempts to end paycheck deductions for political purposes, adopted the language of the Occupy Wall Street movement this time around and rebranded their campaign as an effort to curb the power of special interests.

An ad touting the measure says it would "cut the money tie between special interests, lobbyists and career politicians" and "put people back in charge." The supporters' core argument is that the initiative would apply "evenhandedly, without exception," to corporations and unions.

Campaign finance experts disagree, saying the measure would disproportionately hobble organized labor by prohibiting payroll deductions to collect campaign cash. Corporations, they say, rarely use such a method to raise political money, instead tapping executive checkbooks and company treasuries.

The labor-backed opposition campaign has hit on that theme, airing radio and TV ads for more than a month that paint the measure as a deceptive corporate power grab, complete with exemptions for business. So far, unions have raised more than $43.4 million to defeat Proposition 32, which is being bankrolled by Republican donors, conservative activists and business executives.

As a result, proponents "aren't able to convince voters this is a clean-government, stop-special-interests initiative," said Dave Kanevsky of the Republican polling firm American Viewpoint, which conducted the survey in conjunction with the Democratic company Greenberg Quinlan Rosner.

Indeed, when respondents heard arguments for and against the measure — supporters saying it would end influence peddling and opponents calling it phony campaign finance reform — opposition grew, with 48% saying they would vote against the initiative. Only 36% said they would vote for it.

"People are ready to believe that … corporations are spending this money to rig the system more for them," said Stan Greenberg, the Democratic pollster.

PREVIOUSLY: "Support Dwindles for Proposition 30's Multi-Billion Dollar Tax Hike."

Support Dwindles for Proposition 30's Multi-Billion Dollar Tax Hike

A majority still favors the initiative, according to the Los Angeles Times poll out this week. But support has declined as folks take a look at the measure, with concerns especially about waste and abuse in spending. The buzz at my college is abject alarm, since a failure to pass the law will result in massive cuts to programs. The administration has an entire slate of vocational programs, and so forth, that are scheduled to get the ax next year. And that's going to entail full-time tenured layoffs, which is frightening to anyone who's employed at the community colleges. There's little danger to core general education programs, like political science, so rest assured dear readers, your humble blogger is quite safe (and I've got seniority as well, which is another layer of protection from layoffs). But there's no telling what could happen ultimately. It's not clear how the state's public education system can continue without massive reforms, from top to bottom, including revisiting historic guarantees to universal access to all education-ready Californians.

See LAT, "Support slips for Brown's tax hike":

SACRAMENTO — Support for Gov. Jerry Brown's plan for billions of dollars in tax hikes on the November ballot is slipping amid public anxiety about how politicians spend money, but voters still favor the proposal, according to a new USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll.

The findings suggest that voters are leery of sending more cash to Sacramento in the wake of a financial scandal at the parks department, spiraling costs for a multibillion-dollar high-speed rail project to connect Northern and Southern California and ill-timed legislative pay raises.

Brown's measure would temporarily raise income tax rates on high earners for seven years and boost the state sales tax by a quarter-cent for four years in a bid to avoid steep cuts in funds for schools and other programs.

Fifty-five percent of registered voters say that they back such an increase, a drop from May, when 59% of voters supported it. The new poll shows 36% of voters opposed, with the remainder undecided.

Views swing widely by political affiliation. Among Democrats, 72% favor the proposal. Only 27% of Republican voters support it. Sixty-three percent of independent voters approve.

An intense opposition campaign could derail the governor's initiative, Proposition 30. Support drops to 48% when voters are presented with arguments they might hear before the Nov. 6 election. Foes of the measure say, for example, that government wastes too much of the money it already has.

"An ongoing debate can make this very close," said Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, one of two firms that conducted the bipartisan poll. The other company, American Viewpoint, is a Republican concern.

The USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences/Los Angeles Times poll surveyed 1,504 registered voters by telephone from Sept. 17 to Sept. 23. The margin of error is 2.9 percentage points.

Brown, whose approval rating has dipped 3 points since May to 46%, has said the state needs new taxes because budget cuts alone won't solve its financial problems. He's counting on voters like Gerardine Gauch to turn out on election day.

The 60-year-old prison psychologist from Monterey County said California is facing the hard reality that it's no longer a sun-splashed land "where everything goes fine forever."

"When you're growing up, you have to choose what's valuable and what's not," said Gauch, a Democrat. "And you have to pay for what's valuable."

Others are skeptical of Brown's vow to cut almost $6 billion from the budget if taxes don't pass, with public schools taking most of the hit. The threat hasn't budged voters like Anna Carson, a 60-year-old Republican from San Diego.

"They use education as the emotional hook," she said. "It's just baloney."

Tiffany Axene, a 32-year-old Republican from Riverside County, won't support the tax hikes either, even though she has four small children who could be bound for public schools. "I'm just tired of seeing people who make money get taxed and taxed," she said.

Younger Californians are some of Proposition 30's most consistent supporters, with 77% of registered voters ages 18 through 29 in favor. Support slides to 47% among respondents older than 64. Voters with children of school age or younger fall in between, supporting the measure 59% to 35%.

The outcome in November could be influenced by the 8% of respondents who are unsure how to vote — and by whether opponents of the proposal can muster the resources to sway them.

"The biggest question now is whether the opposition will have the money to get their argument heard," said Dan Schnur, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at USC and a former GOP political consultant.

I'll be voting against the initiative, since I've long held that the state's blue model of governance is unsustainable. If Prop. 30 fails it will force a round of major restructuring that could save the state billions in the long run, and that should be just the start of rethinking the out-of-control California big government boondoggle.

Ambassador Susan Rice Appeared on Five Sunday Talk Shows on September 16th to Claim Libya Attack Was 'Spontaneous'

Check out Stephen Hayes, at the Weekly Standard, "Permanent Spin":

For nine days, the Obama administration made a case that virtually everyone understood was untrue: that the killing of our ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya, was a random, spontaneous act of individuals upset about an online video—an unpredictable attack on a well-protected compound that had nothing do to with the eleventh anniversary of 9/11.

These claims were wrong. Every one of them. But the White House pushed them hard.

Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, appeared on five Sunday talk shows on September 16. A “hateful video” triggered a “spontaneous protest .  .  . outside of our consulate in Benghazi” that “spun from there into something much, much more violent,” she said on Face the Nation. “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.”

On This Week, Rice said the consulate was well secured. “The security personnel that the State Department thought were required were in place,” she said, adding: “We had substantial presence with our personnel and the consulate in Benghazi. Tragically two of the four Americans who were killed were there providing security. That was their function, and indeed there were many other colleagues who were doing the same with them.”

White House press secretary Jay Carney not only denied that the attacks had anything to do with the anniversary of 9/11 but scolded reporters who, citing the administration’s own pre-9/11 boasts about its security preparations for the anniversary, made the connection. “I think that you’re conveniently conflating two things,” Carney snapped, “which is the anniversary of 9/11 and the incidents that took place, which are under investigation.”

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. Intelligence officials understood immediately that the attacks took place on 9/11 for a reason. The ambassador, in a country that faces a growing al Qaeda threat, had virtually no security. The two contractors killed in the attacks were not part of the ambassador’s security detail, and there were not, in fact, “many other colleagues” working security with them.

The nature of the attack itself, a four-hour battle that took place in two waves, indicated some level of planning. “The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous,” Libyan president Mohammad el-Megarif told National Public Radio. When a reporter asked Senator Carl Levin, one of the most partisan Democrats in the upper chamber, if the attack was planned, Levin said it was. “I think there’s evidence of that. There’s been evidence of that,” he responded, adding: “The attack looked like it was planned and premeditated, sure.” Levin made his comments after a briefing from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.

Representative Adam Smith, a Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, agreed. “This was not just a mob that got out of hand. Mobs don’t come in and attack, guns blazing. I think that there is a growing consensus it was preplanned.” And according to CNN, Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy “has said that the attack appeared to be planned because it was so extensive and because of the ‘proliferation’ of small and medium weapons at the scene.” Not only was the attack planned, it appears there was no protest at all. Citing eyewitnesses, CBS News reported late last week: “There was never an anti-American protest outside the consulate.”

So we are left with this: Four Americans were killed in a premeditated terrorist attack on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, and for more than a week the Obama administration misled the country about what happened.

This isn’t just a problem. It’s a scandal.

More at that top link.

And see AoSHQ, "Obama Administration Directs Active Cover-Up of Benghazi Terrorist Attack; Media Enables and Joins."

And especially, "Rep. Peter King Calls for Resignation of Ambassador Susan Rice."

And check back for more reporting on this story...

Pamela Geller's 'Savage' Ads Aren't Being Taken Down

Foreign Policy has the background, "NYC’s transit authority changes advertising standards in wake of anti-Islam ads."

But see Pamela, "ENEMEDIA SPINS MTA'S REFUSAL TO DROP CAUSE-RELATED ADS":

The New York Times has run a piece, and Hot Air is running with it as if it's accurate, claiming that the MTA has changed its guidelines to be able to prohibit my AFDI pro-freedom ads. I disagree with that interpretation. The New York Times piece is inaccurate, putting as negative a spin as they can on the MTA ruling, out of their hatred for freedom and zeal to enforce Sharia blasphemy laws. Hot Air has been very late to the party and has not been following the story at all, so I'm not surprised that they're slavishly following the Times' lead.

The fact is, the MTA doesn't mean that it will be enforcing the Sharia or adhering to the blasphemy laws under Islamic law. The enemedia is assuming that they will prohibit our ad, but it is not necessarily so. And if they do, we will certainly fight back. It's fairly safe to say that the MTA is referring to prohibiting ads that genuinely incite to violence, such as ads from Occupy Wall Street calling for people to get guns and shoot businessmen and police. It's the same as it was before. If they block us, we'll sue again.

More at the link.

And scroll down for all the hot coverage at Atlas Shrugs. She's changing the world over there.

The Audacity of Corruption

Via Accuracy in Media:

Mama Gorilla Kisses Her Newborn Baby at Jersey Zoo

Amazing:

Rush Limbaugh: Obama Regime Won't Send the FBI to Libya, 'It's a Harmful Campaign Issue...'

Via Freedom's Lighthouse:

Christina Aguilera: 'Your Body'

At London's Daily Mail, "Gyrating on the bed, promiscuity and bleeding pink glitter... feast your eyes on Christina Aguilera's new video Your Body."

BWHAHAHA!! Reviled Internet Troll Walter James Casper III Still Pestering Gay Activist Blogger Months After Being Dissed on Twitter

Damn, it's almost October and the reviled Internet troll and racist anti-Semitic hate-blogger Walter James Casper III, a.k.a. Repsac3, is still demonically hassling gay activist writer Evan Hurst.

@evanhurst Now that the issue's cooled & no1's looking, any chance of your sending me that disappeared TWO CfA post? repsac3blogs@gmail.com
— J. Casper (@repsac3) September 20, 2012

What an embarrassing spectacle. A true loser exposes his psychiatric illnesses on the web for the entire world to see. He's deserving of all the vicious contumely he's so persistently earned. Gawd, what a total asshole, "Hatesac3"

I wrote about this at the beginning of August, and Repsac's stalking of Hurst dates back to July. The sick f-ker just won't let it go. After a while you have to bring in law enforcement to get this criminal off your back. See, "Walter James Casper III, Hate-Blogger and Internet Stalker, Harasses Gay-Politics Activist Evan Hurst on Twitter":

This is why hate-blogger Walter James Casper III, a.k.a. Repsac3, is blocked from my blog --- and this is why the evil "Hatesac" has been exposed, repudiated, and blocked all over the right wing blogosphere. When Zilla put up a huge "roll call" of conservatives supporting me against workplace intimidation, Hatesac3 infiltrated her comments and was promptly banned. As I wrote at the time: "RACIST = REPSAC's a nut case. A raving hatemonger and lunatic."

Yes, a raving hatemonger, and ever more dangerously, a pathological Internet predator. Keep away from this stupid f-ker, especially if you're an ethnic minority, a woman, or a Jew. Repsac's been spouting an increasingly venomous number of attacks on people, defending, for example, Maureen Dowd's universally discredited "slithering" slurs on Jewish neocons at the New York Times. See, "Walter James Casper III: Jewish 'Neocons' Should 'Stop Whining' About Being Slurred as 'Puppet Masters' for Bush/Cheney War Cabal."

Contacting the authorities is the best bet to stop this guy from harassing you on the Internet. See, "Intent to Annoy and the Fascist Hate-Blogging Campaign of Walter James Casper III."

Repsac3 = Dangerous Racist, Anti-Jewish Internet Stalker and Criminal.

Again, just stay away from that deranged pile of human excrement. And block him, on Facebook, on Twitter, and in your blog comments. When he emails, save those to hand over to the police for investigation. Someone like this needs to be behind bars and I'll be on the case until that time when the evidence piles up and we can put this guy away for good.

A White House Cover-Up on Libya

From Terence Jeffrey, at the Washington Examiner, "What did the White House know about Libya, and when?":

Upon hearing there had been an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans had been killed there and that this murderous assault had been carried out on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, a rational mind might be tempted to conclude that this had been a premeditated act of terror.

The Obama White House and State Department resisted the temptation.

On Sept. 12, the day after the attack, White House press secretary Jay Carney was asked whether "the attack in Benghazi was planned and premeditated." "It's too early for us to make that judgment," Carney said.

The next day, Sept. 13, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland subtly pointed to a YouTube video as possibly creating a motivation for the attack. Asked "whether the Benghazi attack was purely spontaneous or was premeditated by militants," Nuland replied, "[W]e are very cautious about drawing any conclusions with regard to who the perpetrators were, what their motivations were, whether it was premeditated, whether they had any external contacts, whether there was any link, until we have a chance to investigate along with the Libyans ... [O]bviously, there are plenty of people around the region citing this disgusting video as something that has been motivating."

There's more at the link, but if you have time, spend a few minutes with the video from the State Department press conference cited by Jeffrey. The passage mentioned is at about 13:40 minutes, but Nuland repeats the "cautious" line at numerous points and she's heavily stonewalling throughout. Interestingly, the reporters there --- and I don't recognize any of them --- are asking some excellent questions, on security, on possible motivations and terrorist coordination, and so forth. It's fascinating given that sources have been reporting all week that the administration knew within hours that this was a terrorist attack. Nuland was acting in political crisis mode. She's probably lying, and she was certainly covering for her boss, Hillary Clinton, and the White House.

RELATED: At AoSHQ, "Obama Administration Scrubs State Department Memo Denying Threat of 9/11 Terrorism From Internet."

Dorothy Rabinowitz Reviews 'Homeland'

The new season starts Sunday.

Rep. Allen West Brutally Slams Opponent Patrick Murphy

Via Legal Insurrection:

Rep. Peter King Calls for Resignation of Ambassador Susan Rice

At Twitchy, "Rep. Pete King calls for Ambassador Rice to resign; John Kerry defends, advises ‘deep breath’."

Shepard Smith Apologizes After Fox News Broadcasts Live Car Chase Suicide

This is weird, because I was just watching a live car chase this morning. See, "Mercedes-Benz Driver Leads CHP on 100 MPH Chase." The suspects stopped and at least four highway patrolmen surrounded the car with guns drawn. I thought something bad was going to happen. Nothing did this morning, but local stations have showed cops blow away folks on live TV before.

So now it turns out some crazy dude blew himself away live on Fox News today, and Shepard Smith was horrified that Fox showed the whole thing.

The New York Times reports, "As It Followed a Car Chase, Fox News Showed a Man Kill Himself."

Mike Huckabee Slams Obama Administration's Benghazi Cover-Up: 'We Have Been Flat-Out Lied To...'

There's some steady outrage, getting more intense by the day. Mike Huckabee makes one of strongest comparison to the Nixon administration's Watergate cover-up.

At Gateway Pundit, "Huckabee Goes There – Compares Benghazi Cover-Up to Watergate… Except 4 People Are Dead (Video)."

It was a planned orchestrated attack led by terrorists, terrorists, Bill. And this White House has to explain why it hasn’t owned up to that. Why it can’t say it. I think frankly, if this issue really gets traction that it deserves, and let it say it deserves, go back. Richard Nixon was forced out of office because he lied. And because he covered some stuff up. I will be blunt and tell you this. Nobody died in Watergate. We have people who are dead because of this. There are questions to be answered and Americans ought to demand to get answers...

More at Memeorandum.

And at the link there, Crooks and Liars:

Who could have seen this coming? Here we go with the next step in the ridiculous, drummed up, non-scandal, Benghazi-gate that the right wingers have all been losing their minds over for the last couple of weeks at Fox...

A U.S. ambassador and three others have died, the adinistration's response has been changing virtually by the day, and radical left-wing outlets like the completely idiotic Crooks and Liars call this a "drummed-up non-scandal"? This is what destructive hyper-partisanship looks like. Some people really will do anything to evade the truth, even attack others who want real answers when Americans have been killed. Progressives are truly depraved, but that's nothing new, of course.

Keep checking back for updates on the story...

Deliberate and Organized Attack in Benghazi

This is the latest spin on the administration's FUBAR response to the attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya.

See the Washington Post, "In statement, spy chief’s office defends evolving accounts of Benghazi attack, cites shifting intelligence":

The office of the nation’s spy chief issued a statement Friday defending the Obama administration’s accounts of the siege of U.S. missions in Libya, saying it only became clear in the aftermath that it was “a deliberate and organized terrorist attack.”

The statement appeared aimed at quieting criticism, mostly from Republicans, of the administration’s shifting characterizations of a Sept. 11 assault that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans. Officials initially described the attack as spontaneous but in recent days have said it was an act of terrorism with links to al-Qaeda.

The release from the office of Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. came as lawmakers sought more details about the siege in Benghazi. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee sent a letter to the State Department on Thursday posing questions about intelligence leading up to the attack and the adequacy of the security at U.S. compounds.

Shawn Turner, spokesman for Clapper, said that U.S. agencies have altered their assessments based on intelligence that has emerged through an ongoing investigation.

“In the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo,” Turner said. That information was conveyed to administration officials as well as members of Congress.

But analysts have since “revised our initial assessments to reflect new information indicating that it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists,” Turner said. “Some of those involved were linked to groups affiliated with, or sympathetic to al-Qaeda.”

The release marks a rare instance in which the intelligence director’s office has weighed in through a public statement on details of an event overseas, let alone one that remains under investigation during a presidential campaign. In an e-mail, Turner indicated that the director’s office, while seeking to stay out of the political fray, became convinced that it should clarify the intelligence community’s position.

“I put out the message because I think it’s important that people understand that early reports are often wrong or incomplete, but our intelligence community continues to work around the clock to gather details and understand exactly what happened in Benghazi,” Turner said.

And here's the editorial at WaPo, "Stop playing politics with the Benghazi attack":

THE OBAMA administration’s descriptions of what happened Sept. 11 in the Libyan city of Benghazi have evolved in a way that some — including congressional Republicans — find suspicious. Initially, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton described an “attack” in which “heavily armed militants” assaulted a U.S. compound, leading to the death of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Four days later, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice said that “extremist elements” had joined a demonstration outside the U.S. Consulate against an anti-Muslim video.

By the end of last week, White House spokesman Jay Carney was calling the incident a “terrorist attack” but adding that it was likely “the result of opportunism” and not planned. But then Wednesday, Ms. Clinton suggested that al-Qaeda’s North African branch, operating from a safe haven in Mali, could have had a hand in the assault. Al-Qaeda and other terrorists, she said, “are working with other violent extremists to undermine the democratic transitions underway in North Africa, as we tragically saw in Benghazi.”

Critics see in this a deliberate attempt by the administration to portray the Benghazi violence as a spontaneous response to the video, as opposed to a terrorist attack that was timed for Sept. 11 and possibly planned by al-Qaeda. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and three other Republicans have demanded in a letter that Ms. Rice explain how she “could characterize an attack on a U.S. consulate so inaccurately,” while a group of congressmen accused the administration of adopting “a pre-9/11 mind-set — treating an act of war solely as a criminal matter.”

In fact, political calculations appear to have infected the rhetoric of all sides. The White House was slow to place the modifier “terrorist” in front of the word “attack,” at a time when President Obama claims credit on the campaign trail for the “decimation” of al-Qaeda. He continued to focus on the offending video — which also provoked demonstrations outside U.S. embassies in Cairo and around the Muslim world — long after it became clear that the Benghazi attack was the work of well-organized combatants who, among other things, accurately aimed mortar fire at an unmarked U.S. compound located half a mile from the consulate...

I'll have more later...

The Obama Administration's Benghazi Coverup

From Michael Graham, at the Boston Herald, "Prez weaves a web of lies":

A week after U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens was killed in an attack on the consulate in Benghazi, President Barack Obama sent U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice out to tell us, “What happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction . . . as a consequence of the video, that people gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent.”

Actually, Mr. President . . . no. There was no “spontaneous reaction.” It was a terrorist attack, and nothing but a terrorist attack.

For two weeks, Obama’s spokesman told us that this deadly attack was just a movie review gone wrong. As Jay Carney said on Sept. 18, “We saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack.”

Actually, Mr. President . . . no. Multiple sources confirm that your administration knew it was a “preplanned,” “premeditated attack” within 24 hours. Far from having “no evidence,” your administration had already identified a possible target for retaliation within a day of Stevens’ murder.

Last week, Obama sent Secretary of State Hillary Clinton out to say the FBI was on top of the investigation in Libya. FBI Associate Deputy Director Kevin Perkins told Congress on Sept. 19 that an investigation was underway.

Actually, Mr. President . . . no. As of this writing, no FBI agent has even arrived in Benghazi. CNN reports the “crime scene” has yet to even be secured.

And on Tuesday, Mr. President, you gave a speech at the United Nations about the violence against America, in which you mentioned YouTube a half-dozen times, but didn’t use the word “terrorist” or “terrorism” once.

Actually, Mr. President . . . that’s just pathetic.

More at the link.

And check Fox News, "Top intelligence official backtracks on Libya story, says initial assessment premature" (at Memeorandum).

Libya Terrorists Bragged About Attack on U.S. Consulate

Eli Lake keeps digging away at this story, at the Daily Beast, "Intercepts Show Attackers on U.S. Consulate in Benghazi Bragged to Al Qaeda" (at Memeorandum):

Conversations monitored by U.S. intelligence show Ansar al-Sharia jihadists boasted to Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb about the attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and others—more evidence the assault was not a spontaneous reaction to the anti-Muslim video.

In the communications, members of Ansar al-Sharia (AAS) bragged about their successful attack against the American consulate and the U.S. ambassador, according to three U.S. intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast anonymously because they were not authorized to talk to the press.

At this stage there is no consensus inside the U.S. intelligence community that AQIM planned the attack, but the communications are more evidence that the attack was no spontaneous reaction to an Internet video, as the Obama administration had said for the first nine days after the attack.

This week, Obama administration officials are coming around to the view that the assault on the consulate in Benghazi was a planned terrorist attack. Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon on Thursday, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said, “As we determined the details of what took place there and how that attack took place, it became clear that there were terrorists who planned that attack.”

After the attack, there were multiple pieces of intelligence that strongly pointed to al Qaeda. The Daily Beast reported Wednesday that early intelligence pointed to al Qaeda, including strong leads on four of the attackers, and the location of one of those attackers. That said, the intelligence community did not offer Congress or senior Obama administration officials any consensus analysis on the perpetrator of the attack in those early days after it occurred...

Continue reading.

Plus, here's an interesting piece at Foreign Policy, "Kerry, Rice position themselves on Benghazi attack."

I'll be interested to see why Susan Rice continued to claim a spontaneous attack in Libya days after the event and in the midst of administration knowledge of the truth, including information on the Ambassador's notebook. Is she covering up for the president? What did she know and when did she know it?

More later...

Americans for Prosperity Ohio Bus Tour – Obama's Failing America

Robert Stacy McCain's got some excellent coverage.

See, "VIDEO: AFP’s Jen Ridgely Talks About ‘Obama’s Failing Agenda’ Ohio Bus Tour" and "Get on the Bus! AFP Leads ‘Obama’s Failing Agenda Tour’ Across Ohio."

BONUS: "ROMNEY RALLY IN TOLEDO: Huge Crowd Stands in Line in the Rain!"

Kirsten Powers: Media May Be Complicit in Another Terrorist Attack on America

The media's certainly helping to perpetuate a cover up, and if it turns out that information on planning was known prior to the attack, then that would be complicity in terrorism.

See Kirsten Powers on Fox News yesterday, via Right Scoop, "Kirsten Powers: The media may be complicit in another terrorist attack on America."

Red States' Income Growing Faster Than Blue States'

Some of the income gains were due to an increase in transfer payments in Republican states, but the key is that in a number of red states the rise in income is driven by energy-friendly economic development, and the differences between the Democrat states are dramatic.

At USA Today:

Income is growing much faster in Republican-leaning "red states" than in Democratic-tilting "blue states" or the pivotal swing states that will decide the 2012 presidential election, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

Personal income in 23 red states has risen 4.6% since the recession began in December 2007, after adjusting for inflation. Income is up just 0.5% in 15 blue states and Washington, D.C., during that time. In the dozen swing states identified by USA TODAY that could vote either way Nov. 6, income has inched ahead 1.4% in 4 ½ years. The big drivers of red state income growth: energy and government benefit payments such as food stamps.

By contrast, Democratic blue states are more affluent but were hit harder by the downturn. Connecticut, dependent on the financial industry, suffered the largest income drop except swing-state Nevada. Yet Connecticut residents still make $10,000 a year more on average than people in fast-growing North Dakota.

When averaged nationally, the robust gains in red states and meager gains in blue states produced a national growth rate remarkably similar to that in the swing states.

USA TODAY analyzed income data released this week by the Bureau of Economic Analysis to compare how red, blue and swing states have fared through June 30. The difference in income gains is partly because blue states are richer and more populated than red states — 42% of the nation's income vs. 30% in red states. Also, the economic recovery since the recession officially ended in June 2009 has been distributed unequally around the country.

North Dakota, a red state, tops the nation in income growth thanks to an oil boom. Other major energy states — Alaska, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas — are solidly Republican, polls show. Poor, southern red states depend heavily on government transfers for income and benefited from increases in Medicaid and other federal programs.

There's more at the link, including a very cool graphic.

Netanyahu Demands 'Red Line' on Iran

At the Wall Street Journal, "Israeli Leader Calls for Plan on Iran."

Plus, see Alana Goodman, at Commentary, "AP, Reuters Reportedly Post Bibi “Heil” Photos."

Johnny Lewis, 'Sons of Anarchy' Star, Allegedly Kills Landlady Then Dies in Fall

A frankly bizarre story, at the Los Angeles Times, "'Sons of Anarchy' actor was unraveling."

And at London's Daily Mail, "Revealed: Scientology past of Katy Perry's ex-lover and star of The O.C. who 'killed his 81-year-old landlady' and died in roof fall six DAYS after leaving jail."

Free Obama Phones

Update on the 47 percent, via Marooned in Marin:

'Wake the F—k Up'

At the New York Post, "Samuel L. Jackson debuts profanity-laced pro-Obama ad."

Robert Spencer: 'Any Moral Person Would Support Our Campaign'

Well, radical leftists like Mona Eltahawy aren't moral persons, but listen to Robert explain things at the clip:

And at Jihad Watch, "NYC MTA refuses to buckle to Leftist/Islamic supremacist intimidation, rules political ads will continue to run."

Security Fears Hobble Libya Attack Investigation

The story is becoming way too big for the big media outlets to sweep under the rug. The New York Times is now doing the kind of critical reporting that we should have seen from the first day of this debacle. See, "Security Fears Hobble Inquiry of Libya Attack":

BENGHAZI, Libya — Sixteen days after the death of four Americans in an attack on a United States diplomatic mission here, fears about the near-total lack of security have kept F.B.I. agents from visiting the scene of the killings and forced them to try to piece together the complicated crime from Tripoli, more than 400 miles away.

Investigators are so worried about the tenuous security, people involved in the investigation say, that they have been unwilling to risk taking some potential Libyan witnesses into the American Embassy in Tripoli. Instead, the investigators have resorted to the awkward solution of questioning some witnesses in cars outside the embassy, which is operating under emergency staffing and was evacuated of even more diplomats on Thursday because of a heightened security alert.

“It’s a cavalcade of obstacles right now,” said a senior American law enforcement official who is receiving regular updates on the Benghazi investigation and who described the crime scene, which has been trampled on, looted and burned, as so badly “degraded” that even once F.B.I. agents do eventually gain access “it’ll be very difficult to see what evidence can be attributed to the bad guys.”

Piecing together exactly how Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans died here would be difficult even under the best of conditions. But the volatile security situation in post-Qaddafi Libya has added to the challenge of determining whether it was purely a local group of extremists who initiated the fatal assault or whether the attackers had ties to international terrorist groups, as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton suggested Wednesday may be the case.

The Libyan government has advised the F.B.I. that it cannot assure the safety of the American investigators in Benghazi. So agents have been conducting interviews from afar, relying on local Libyan authorities to help identify and arrange meetings with witnesses to the attack and working closely with the Libyans to gauge the veracity of any of those accounts.

“There’s a chance we never make it in there,” said a senior law enforcement official.

Continue reading.

PREVIOUSLY: "Benghazi-Gate."

Benghazi-Gate

The Blaze reports, "'Benghazi-Gate': Lawmakers Demand Answers as Obama Administration's Inconsistent Libya Story Falls Apart."

And see the editorial at the Wall Street Journal, "The Libya Debacle":

In his United Nations speech on Tuesday, President Obama talked about the September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya and declared that "there should be no doubt that we will be relentless in tracking down the killers and bringing them to justice." What he didn't say is how relentless he'll be in tracking down the security lapses and intelligence failures that contributed to the murders. Let's say there's some doubt about that.

None of the initial explanations offered by the White House and State Department since the assault on the Benghazi consulate has held up. First the Administration blamed protests provoked by an amateurish anti-Islam clip posted on YouTube. Cue Susan Rice, the U.N. Ambassador and leading candidate for Secretary of State in a second Obama term: "What happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction . . . as a consequence of the video, that people gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent."

Administration officials also maintained that the diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt, the site of the first attacks this September 11, were properly defended and that the U.S. had no reason to prepare for any attack. "The office of the director of National Intelligence has said we have no actionable intelligence that an attack on our post in Benghazi was planned or imminent," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said last week, calling the security measures in place there "robust."

Cell phone video footage and witness testimony from Benghazi soon undercut the Administration trope of an angry march "hijacked" by a few bad people. As it turned out, the assault was well-coordinated, with fighters armed with guns, RPGs and diesel canisters, which were used to set the buildings on fire. Ambassador Chris Stevens died of smoke inhalation. Briefing Congress, the Administration changed its story and said the attacks were pre-planned and linked to al Qaeda.

You'd think this admission would focus attention on why the compound was so vulnerable to begin with. But the Administration wants to avoid this conversation. The removal of all staff from Benghazi, including a large component of intelligence officers, would also seem to hinder their ability to investigate the attacks and bring the killers to justice.

Journalists have stayed on the case, however, and their reporting is filling in the Administration's holes. On Friday, our WSJ colleagues showed that starting in spring, U.S. intelligence had been worried about radical militias in eastern Libya...

Imagine the uproar if, barely a month before Election Day, the Bush Administration had responded to a terrorist strike—on Sept. 11 no less—in this fashion. Obfuscating about what happened. Refusing to acknowledge that clear security warnings were apparently ignored. Then trying to shoot the messengers who bring these inconvenient truths to light in order to talk about anything but a stunning and deadly attack on U.S. sovereign territory.

Four Americans lost their lives in Benghazi in a terrorist attack that evidence suggests should have been anticipated and might have been stopped. Rather than accept responsibility, the Administration has tried to stonewall and blame others. Congress should call hearings to hold someone accountable for this debacle.

Well, a good chunk of the media are complicit in helping to cover up the story. As I've argued, this is shaping up to be a massive scandal and I'm glad GOP members of Congress are starting to make a stink. At the clip Senator Bob Corker calls the administration's stonewalling a disgrace, it's "Benghazi-Gate." That's got quite a ring to it. Indeed, this morning Da Tech Guy tweeted that had such events taken place during the Nixon administration, "Tricky Dick" would have been able to serve out his 8 years in office uninterrupted. It's simply unreal what's happening during this administration and the American people need a full hearing.

Check back for developments...

Israel Must Be 'Eliminated'

At the Wall Street Journal:

'To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle."

—George Orwell

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaks at the United Nations today, which also happens to be Yom Kippur, the holiest day on the Jewish calendar. The timing is apt because when it comes to Iran and Israel, the hardest thing for some people to see or hear is what Iranian leaders say in front of the world's nose.

"Iran has been around for the last seven, 10 thousand years. They [the Israelis] have been occupying those territories for the last 60 to 70 years, with the support and force of the Westerners. They have no roots there in history," Mr. Ahmadinejad told reporters and editors in New York on Monday.

"We do believe that they have found themselves at a dead end and they are seeking new adventures in order to escape this dead end. Iran will not be damaged with foreign bombs. We don't even count them as any part of any equation for Iran. During a historical phase, they [the Israelis] represent minimal disturbances that come into the picture and are then eliminated."

Note that word—"eliminated." When Iranians talk about Israel, this intention of a final solution keeps coming up. In October 2005, Mr. Ahmadinejad, quoting the Ayatollah Khomeini, said Israel "must be wiped off the map." Lest anyone miss the point, the Iranian President said in June 2008 that Israel "has reached the end of its function and will soon disappear off the geographical domain."

He has company among Iranian leaders. In a televised speech in February, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei called Israel a "cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut," adding that "from now on, in any place, if any nation or any group that confronts the Zionist regime, we will endorse and we will help. We have no fear of expressing this."

Major General Hassan Firouzabadi, chief of staff of the armed forces, added in May that "the Iranian nation is standing for its cause that is the full annihilation of Israel."

Continue reading.

In Spain, Austerity and Hunger — and Riots

The New York Times had this report on Tuesday, "Spain Recoils as Its Hungry Forage Trash Bins for a Next Meal."

And then that night, intense rioting broke out:

Der Spiegel has more, "Autumn of Discontent: Turmoil over Austerity Hits Spain and Greece."

FBI Agents Still Not in Benghazi, Libya; Consulate Still Not Secure

Yet more f-ked up news on the administration's Muslim world clusterf-k, from CNN, amazingly:

'It's the closest thing to real freedom I've ever known...'

This is a great story, at the Los Angeles Times, "A Utah man and his ghost town: a love story":

WOODSIDE, Utah — Roy Pogue has loved a lot of things in his 63 years — like his wife, Chris, and her little Daffy Duck tattoo, not to mention the couple's six children.

Yet few things have made his heart go flip-flop more than a dry-gulch piece of land out in the middle of Utah's nowhere.

Sometimes, love truly is blind. A lot of words describe Pogue's backside-of-beyond parcel, where rust rules and the thermometers have all surrendered to the cold and the heat. One of those words is Godforsaken.

More than 700 dusty, rocky acres in all, the spread sits along the trickling Price River, under the boxy shadow of the Book Cliffs. Like Pogue himself, a man in bib overalls, handlebar mustache and well-oiled cowboy hat, the property exudes a bit of Wild West panache: At its core is a creaky old ghost town complete with an abandoned gold mine, cold-water geyser and a supposed onetime hide-out for the outlaw Butch Cassidy when he wasn't riding with the Sundance Kid.

But now, in a move that breaks Pogue's heart, he's put it all up for sale. Despite its scruffy "as is" condition, he's asking a pretty price: $3.9 million.

Potential buyers might see only isolation and neglect: a jumble of abandoned trailers, water tanks, squat-looking shacks and the shell of an old service station, all surrounded by a fence to keep out vandals.

If most towns rise up out of the desert, this one just lies there. But for Pogue, the place has been a refuge.

The little hamlet of Woodside, located along a lonely rural highway three hours southeast of Salt Lake City, was already long abandoned when Pogue settled here, but that suited him just fine. A disabled veteran from the nearby town of Moab who had a hard time finding steady carpentry work, Pogue says that in his 20 years here, he's ruled his own fate: He's been a one-man sheriff, judge, jury and good Samaritan.

Over the years, he made ends meet by ranching, farming (yes, farming) and running his gas station. And for a long time he made it work. For 70 miles along isolated U.S. Route 6, between the towns of Price and Green River, it's been just Pogue and a herd of free-range llamas. But maybe not for much longer.

After decades of sweat, labor, battles with the federal government over cattle and water rights, fights with his wife, who prefers people to llamas — and, finally, declining health — Pogue performed the toughest chore of his life: pounding in the for-sale sign.

"This place has meant so much to me," he said, sweating under a relentless midday sun. "It's the closest thing to real freedom I've ever known in my life. At this price, it might be a cold day in hell before someone buys it. And maybe that's good."

RTWT.

Obama's Pitbull Media

I think "lapdog media" is too mild. Obama's press flacks are pitbulls, and they're lethal.

See Mona Charen, "The Obama Press Votes Early":

“Stop it. This is hard. You want to try it? Get in the ring.”  — Ann Romney

Mrs. Romney’s exasperation with conservative critics is understandable. The mainstream press has been like a school of piranhas swarming around her husband. To receive fire from her own side as well — even constructive advice — may seem too much to bear.

Mitt Romney is facing perhaps the most corrupt and tendentious coverage in presidential history as members of the fourth estate eschew any semblance of integrity in their attempt to skew interpretations in favor of their pinup, Mr. Obama.

The examples would fill volumes....

In the first hours of the violence that engulfed U.S. embassies on September 11, Romney was lambasted by the press for criticizing a sitting president and for issuing a statement prematurely. Of course, when Obama criticized Bush in 2007 for an attack on a base in Afghanistan, he received no such condemnation.

We are now witnessing the slow-motion implosion of the Obama-administration narrative about what happened in Benghazi. Not only did the Obama administration insist, from the beginning and before ascertaining the facts, that the attack on our ambassador and three other Americans was a case of a protest gone wild over an Internet movie, they maintained this obvious deception for nearly two weeks.

As early as September 12, Rep. Mike Rogers (R., Mich.) and officials at the Defense and State departments were questioning the White House version. “This was a coordinated attack, more of a commando-style event. It had both coordinated fire, direct fire, indirect fire,” Rogers commented the day after the attack.

Yet four days later, Obama sent U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to the Sunday-morning political shows to insist that the attack on Americans was basically a negative movie review. Some news organizations are reporting that there was no protest over the Internet film in Benghazi at all, just a coordinated terror attack featuring a former Guantanamo detainee. Do not expect days or weeks of coverage about what a scandal this represents, about the administration’s failure to provide adequate security to American diplomats, about the administration’s persistence in a lie long after it was obvious that the attack in Libya was a terrorist strike.

There's more at that top link. I'm almost in shock thinking of how reprehensible the Libya debacle is, and that's without even factoring in the administration's cover up and the media's enabling. Team Romney should not let this story fall by the wayside. It's a story of perhaps the most corrupt and incompetent foreign policy in American history, made worse by the fawning Obama-media.

What Do Radical Islamists and Progressives Have in Common?

From Donald Thornton, at ThyBlackMan, "Radical Islamists and Radical Leftists: The eerie similarities" (via Instapundit):

These events [across the Mulsim world] have shed light on a disturbing parallel that I believe must be examined. The eerie similarities between radical Islamist all over the world and radical Leftist that reside right here in America. Because their ultimate goals are synonymic. A nation; dare I say a world, under submission to their will.

I believe these two ideologies are clear and present dangers to America and the world at large. Because both; at their core seek to suppress any speech or expression that is contrary to their worldview. Free speech has to be the first and most protected foundational pillar of any new nation.  And it must be re-enforced perpetually in any existing nation that has adopted it.

The ideology of radical Islam has no place for dissent, compromise, freedom of expression or speech. It seeks to rule by the sheer force of fear, intimidation, criminalization and tyranny. Terrorism is its dominant mode of operations. It will not tolerate any opposing views or critiques. To say or do anything that it deems insulting of its worldview is worthy of imprisonment or even death. Its influence is so strong that it persuades the emotionally unstable to commit horrific acts terrorism. Its desire is total submission to its will.

Likewise in the same way contemporary liberalism/progressivism uses the same M.O. The ideology of the radical Left has no place for dissent or freedoms that do not comport to their worldview. It seeks to intimidate via boycotts, petitions, protests’ and lawsuits.

Dare to speak ill about or challenge any of its holy doctrines, which include: Abortion on demand, Gay Rights/Marriage, Evolution, Unions/Collective Bargaining Rights, Open-ended Civil Rights, Global Warming, Reducing Social Programs, just to name a few…

And the campaign of policing, isolating and ideologically terror begin with a vengeance, a type of jihad against those who oppose its failed worldview.

Lock up that thought criminal.

Karl Rove Breaks Down the Obama-Enabling Public Opinion Polls

From O'Reilly's show last night:

That New York Times poll is a disastrous outlier. I wrote about it here: "Skewed and Unskewed Polls." The race is going to tighten, but again, I'm looking for a Mitt Romney lead in some of these surveys. Once you throw out the bad samples, Obama's still leading. The Republican ticket needs a game changer. And that's got to be the debates or it's simply over.

But check back for more...

Obama Administration Knew It Was al-Qaeda Within 24 Hours

This story is not new to me, since the word's been out for awhile, but the coverage is getting wider and more critical.

From Eli Lake, at the Daily Beast, "U.S. Officials Knew Libya Attacks Were Work of Al Qaeda Affiliates."

At the video is Rep. Buck McKeon, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. He's outraged at the incompetence and fraud this administration's foisting on the American people:

That clip's from last Friday, but Ed Morrissey has an update from yesterday, "House Armed Services chair: Obama admin hiding truth on Libya until after election."

This is the scandal of the Obama administration's tenure in office. The administration lied to the American people, and top officials told reporters to "f*ck off" when questions starting getting too hot. The press is behind the curve, but can't let it go forever. The New York Times has this out in today's paper, for example, "Clinton Suggests Link to Qaeda Offshoot in Deadly Libya Attack."

I'll have more...

In Any War Between the Civilized Man and the Savage, Support the Civilized Man

I'd post every single entry at Atlas Shrugs if I could. Pamela's blog is off the charts with moral clarity. Head over there for an historic tutorial on freedom of speech and moral backbone in the face of totalitarianism.

These Are Not 'Bumps in the Road'

An excellent ad.

Also at the Los Angeles Times, "Romney hits Obama for calling Middle East troubles 'bumps in road'."

President Obama Speech to U.N. General Assembly, September 25, 2012

The full speech is here.

And Jennifer Rubin just rips into Obama, rightly --- and righteously --- so, "Obama’s speech at the United Nations":

President Obama is so soaked in the State Department/Western European/ leftist intellectual goo of moral relativism and disdain for core American values that I doubt he understood how offensive were his remarks at the United Nations today.

After fessing up that our embassy people were killed by terrorists (he doesn’t say what kind, however) and reciting that violence is never justified he then once again denounced the anti-Islam video. And he delivers this:

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.

Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims and Shia pilgrims. It’s time to heed the words of Gandhi, “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.”

Together, we must work towards a work where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies. That’s the vision we will support.

Where to begin?

Continue reading.

Michelle Malkin Slams Shameless Lying Liar Stepanie Cutter's 'War on Women' Lies

Michelle's on fire, as usual:

Sarah Shahi

Via Maxim:

GOP Bid for Senate Control Fading?

I don't know actually if the GOP's lost all hope on regaining the Senate, but this piece at the Los Angeles Times is reasonable: "Democrats gain favor in battle for Senate."

One thing noted there (and elsewhere recently) is that there's a noticeable uptick in voter optimism on the economy, which should dampen prospects for Republicans a bit. I'm reminded of 2008 and the financial crash of late October. McCain was still running strong in the race and I thought he might still win. But his campaign imploded and got all off track --- with the candidate suspending his campaign to return to the Senate to work on a bailout package that ended up not being the final bailout package --- and economic issues sealed the election for Obama and the Democrats. This year unemployment rates and presidential approval ratings were trending against Obama's reelection, but O's been seeing his approval ratings spike up around 50 percent in most recent polls. While there's some debate on the accuracy of the polls, it's clear that we're not in as deep a trough of pessimism that would elevate the GOP ticket to an easy win. There's still pessimism --- Americans still think the country's on the wrong track --- but that pessimism isn't as pronounced as it's been in earlier months.

More on all of this as we go along...

Joe Compton, 11, Struck by Lightning in Swindon, England

I imagine this is everyone's worst nightmare, and it's happened to an 11-year-old boy in Britain.

See Telegraph UK, "Weather: boy, 11, struck by lightning in front of classmates leaving school." He'd be dead if it weren't for the paramedics, who, on the scene quickly, were able to revive him. And yet he's still fighting for his life. I'll be saying prayers for him.

Also at London's Daily Mail, "Schoolboy, 11, left fighting for his life after being struck by lightning outside his school."

Skewed and Unskewed Polls

I mentioned this morning that I'm not going to engage in conspiracies about how all the polling is biased toward Obama and the Democrats. Some polls are biased because any poll will have a systematic error as a feature of the methodology. Whether there's an actual demonstrable left-wing tilt to a survey will depend on a lot of factors. Polling organizations will adjust their poll samples to reflect larger census data for various demographic groups, for example. A survey can adjust samples to reflect partisan identification trends for some earlier time period, like the last election. A lot of conservatives, Ed Morrissey comes to mind, likes to compare polling samples to the level of partisan turnout in previous elections. That makes sense but such analyses rely on conjecture and estimation. The factors that contributed to turnout in a prior election may or may not recur in the upcoming election, so estimating polling bias against present trends such as voter enthusiasm is basically unscientific. There's some excellent learned guesswork going on, but conclusions are unsystematic.

So again I'm interested in all this right-wing angst at the current polling trends. My recent piece at PJ Media piqued my interest especially, since the comments there were decidedly unhappy with the suggestion that Romney was imploding, an argument based on actual campaign flubs as well as a growing gap in most of the recent polls. The fact is, President Obama's bump after the conventions has been significant and sustained. That should be non-controversial. That said, any poll putting Obama up by 9 or 10 points over Romney in the swing states is likely an extreme outlier, as Reliapundit argued today, "MORE BS POLLS FROM THE LEGACY MEDIA: NYTIMES HAS OBAMA NEARLY 10% UP IN OHIO AND FLORIDA." Other polls show those states as closely fought, within the margin of error. I expect at this point Obama is up in both those states by just a couple of points, and if so, GOP voter enthusiasm could indeed put Romney ahead on election day. So it ain't over until its over, no doubt.

That said, let's check in with Jay Cost, at the Weekly Standard, "Are the Polls Tilted Toward Obama?"

I can't get a pullout quote from that, so read it all. Cost first touches on some of the points I've raised above about weighting and estimation of previous voter coalitions. But the more interesting thing is Cost's historical analysis of partisan retention. The GOP has a stronger record of keeping partisans in its column on election day. If those trends hold for 2012, then as we get closer to election day, the Obama convention bounce should largely evaporate and Romney should hold a slight advantage if partisan defection rates are factored in. All of this assumes that survey samples are not biased towards Democrats, and that "true partisanship" is teased out with follow up questions for those who first identify as independents. The Monkey Cage has a worthwhile post on that, "Polling Biases and Their Potential Impacts."

So basically, all this big hubbub about 10-point Obama margins in Ohio and Florida is indeed bullshit. But those polls showing Obama with a slight edge are probably accurate, especially when compared to polling trends over the last few months and when compared to contemporaneous surveys. As I said this morning, I'll be more excited when I see some polls with Romney holding a slight edge rather than Obama. So far Romney hasn't been able to pull up neck-and-neck in the horse race. That's what should be worrying conservatives --- Romney's year-long failure to secure an edge in the polls --- not the so-called huge left-wing bias to the entire polling universe. I just don't think there's that big a leftist bias, and I'm surprised to see some on the right entertaining conspiracies. On that point I don't normally refer to Erick Erickson, who I personally think is an asshole, but on this he's right, "On Polls and Polling":

I do not believe the polls are all wrong. I do not believe there is some intentional, orchestrated campaign to suppress the GOP vote by showing Mitt Romney losing. I actually believe that Mitt Romney trails Barack Obama. I think Republicans putting their hopes in the polls all being wrong is foolish. But I also believe the polls are reflecting a bigger Democratic strength than is really there.

More at the link.

And check Allahpundit at Hot Air for the backlash he's getting for posting polls critical of the GOP ticket, "Which polls are, or aren’t, legitimate?" Allah's describing the kind of harsh response I got at PJ Media last week.

No doubt there'll be more to this story, but I'll close with some red meat for the hyper-partisans looking to utterly destroy the Dems on November 6. It's Dick Morris with an extremely bullish take on the race, which has even Sean Hannity saying, nah (via Nice Deb):

Latest New York Times Poll Shows Obama Pulling Out Huge Lead in Ohio and Florida

I'm expecting the race to tighten, especially in the swing states, but NYT indicates that O's pulling out a commanding lead.

What's up with that?

Astute Bloggers has the lowdown, "MORE BS POLLS FROM THE LEGACY MEDIA: NYTIMES HAS OBAMA NEARLY 10% UP IN OHIO AND FLORIDA":

THE SAMPLE DOESN'T REFLECT THE LIKELY TURNOUT AT ALL.

THE SAMPLE HAS 9% MORE DEMS THAN REPUBLICANS, AND GIVES OBAMA A 9% LEAD.

IF THE DEMS TURNOUT LIKE THEY DID IN THE LAST ELECTION, THEN OBAMA LOSES.

OBAMA'S WEAK FUNDRAISING AND SMALL CROWDS OFFERS INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF THAT HE IS NOT AS POPULAR NOW AS HE WAS IN 2008.

THE 2010 ELECTION PROVES THE GOP IS MORE ENERGIZED - AS DO ROMNEY RYAN CROWDS AND FUNDRAISING.

That's solid, although I'm interested to see some comparative polling data. The Florida Times Union has this, for example, "President Obama holds slight lead over Mitt Romney in Times-Union Florida poll" (via Memeorandum):

Overwhelming majorities with black and Hispanic voters have helped President Barack Obama to a slim lead in the Times-Union’s Insider Advantage/Majority Opinion Research Florida Presidential Poll released Tuesday.

Among likely voters, 49 percent favor Obama for November’s election and 46 percent like Mitt Romney.

One percent backed other candidates and 4 percent were undecided.

The poll of 540 Floridians has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.1 percentage points.

A Washington Post poll, also released Tuesday, shows Obama leading Romney, 51 percent to 47 percent among likely Florida voters. Among all registered voters in the state, the poll shows Obama up by 9 points.

Well now, that's not quite so dramatic.

That said, I'm not going to freak out with those right-wing polling conspiracies that have been making the rounds in the conservative fever swamps. Romney's trailing. He's been trailing for a long time. We need to see some swing states polling with Obama trailing before I'll be real confident about the GOP's prospects.

More at Memeorandum.

Elizabeth Warren Not Licensed to Practice Law in Massachusetts

William Jacobson has been on fire with his huge scoop on Elizabeth Warren's likely criminal misrepresentations while holding her teaching position at Harvard.

See, "Elizabeth Warren’s law license problem."

And the story's getting national coverage, which is great! See, "Elizabeth Warren’s law license problem on Fox News today."

BONUS: Idiot faux-libertarian Mark Thompson tried to smack down William, at the laughable League of Ordinary Gentlemen, "No, Elizabeth Warren Did Not Engage in the Unauthorized Practice of Law."

And in response, William made mincemeat of that idiot Thompson, "No, Mass. Board of Bar Overseers has not exonerated Elizabeth Warren."

EXTRA: IBD weighs in, "Elizabeth Warren Busted Defending Big Corporations Without Law License":

Warren is a proven liar, hypocrite and fraud, and ought not darken the halls of the U.S. Senate as an expert witness let alone a member of that august body.

Ouch.

The 10% President

Be sure to read this phenomenal editorial at the Wall Street Journal: "The annotated Obama: How 90% of the deficit becomes somebody else's fault."

Mona Eltahawy Defaces Pamela Geller's 'Savages' Ad at New York's Times Square Station

The New York Post reports, "EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: Woman defaces 'anti-jihad' ad in Times Square station."

And there's more at Pamela's, "Mona Eltahawy Arrested for Assaulting Pro-Freedom Blogger While Defacing AFDI Pro-Freedom Ad." (Via Memeorandum.)


Eltahawy said she had a right to deface the advertisement, claiming that her actions were protected as "free speech." The police were obviously not pleased.

NFL's Substitute Officials Are a Joke

According to Bill Plaschke, at the Los Angeles Times, "NFL losing credibility with each blown call by replacement refs":

Hail Mary. Holy hell.

On the final play of the final game of one of the most shameful weekends in NFL history, a last-gasp pass from the Seattle Seahawks fell from the sky into the arms of the Green Bay Packers on Monday night.

Touchdown, Seattle. Chaos, NFL.

Three weeks of gross incompetence by unqualified replacement officials crystallized in two moments Monday night that pushed the league's integrity to the brink.

In one moment, Packers safety M.D. Jennings clearly intercepted a final-play pass while falling upon Seahawks receiver Golden Tate in the end zone, preserving an apparent 12-7 Green Bay win.

In the next moment, the replacement officials ruled that Tate had made the catch, and upheld that ruling after replay review, giving the Seahawks a 14-12 victory.

Said Packers Coach Mike McCarthy: "I've never seen anything like that in all my years in football."

Hall of Fame quarterback Troy Aikman tweeted: "These games are a joke."

It's finally happened. After three weeks of forgetting the rules, losing track of the ball, and haphazardly administering this country's national pastime as if they were salesmen on vacation from Foot Locker, the replacement officials have finally done serious, irrevocable damage. The arrogant NFL's middle-school and small-college substitutes for the locked-out regular officials have finally, actually, literally made one wrong call that decided the outcome of a game.

It was one of the worst calls in the history of the league, yet it might turn out to be one of the best calls if humiliated Commissioner Roger Goodell was listening to the message it sent.

Give it up. Settle this labor dispute. Settle it now. Your power play didn't work.

That's a great piece. RTWT.

Plus, I guess it's no surprise, but the despicable progressives are trying to score political points on this, and over unions too. Amazing. See the consistently dishonest Steve Benen at Maddow's blog, "Scott Walker discovers the value of union workers." And at the anti-Israel, Soros-backed hate-site Think Progress, "Paul Ryan Demands Return of Unionized NFL Referees: ‘It Is Time to Get the Real Refs’." (At Memeorandum.)

For some reason I don't think there's an accurate comparison between the NFL officials' union and, say, public sector teachers unions. But then again, folks like Steve Benen and the Think Progress anti-Semites probably back public teacher sexual predators over abused children and their parents. Because that's what's happened to the public unions these days. They've been horribly denuded of any basic decency from the constituency they ostensibly serve. They're completely unaccountable, and they're literally harming children. It's the other way around with the NFL's temporary referees. They're harming the game and they're on the way out.

But the idiot progs don't care about excellence. They only care about union power. Screw 'em.

The Democrats' Ronald Reagan

You can't beat this, at Weasel Zippers, "Newsweek: Trig Truther Andrew Sullivan Declares Obama “The Democrats’ Ronald Reagan”…":

Another Newsweek slobber-fest courtesy of Andrew Sullivan. Nice to see Newsweek embracing a paranoid conspiracy theorist as its favorite columnist...

A slobber-fest, no doubt. From the article:

If Obama wins, to put it bluntly, he will become the Democrats’ Reagan. The narrative writes itself. He will emerge as an iconic figure who struggled through a recession and a terrorized world, reshaping the economy within it, passing universal health care, strafing the ranks of al -Qaeda, presiding over a civil-rights revolution, and then enjoying the fruits of the recovery. To be sure, the Obama recovery isn’t likely to have the same oomph as the one associated with Reagan—who benefited from a once-in-a-century cut of top income tax rates (from 70 percent to, at first, 50 percent, and then to 28 percent) as well as a huge jump in defense spending at a time when the national debt was much, much less of a burden. But Obama’s potential for Reagan status (maybe minus the airport-naming) is real. Yes, Bill Clinton won two terms and is a brilliant pol bar none, as he showed in Charlotte in the best speech of both conventions. But the crisis Obama faced on his first day—like the one Reagan faced—was far deeper than anything Clinton confronted, and the future upside therefore is much greater. And unlike Clinton’s constant triangulating improvisation, Obama has been playing a long, strategic game from the very start—a long game that will only truly pay off if he gets eight full years to see it through. That game is not only changing America. It may also bring his opposition, the GOP, back to the center, just as Reagan indelibly moved the Democrats away from the far left.

I read the whole thing.

This kind of story would have never been published back when I started out in college. It's a partisan puff piece. RAWMUSCLEGLUTE is creaming all over Obama. It's perverse. And it's riddled with errors, naturally, but we won't see a full-court press to get an apology and retraction, as was the case with Niall Ferguson's recent cover story slamming Obama. The left went batshit crazy over that one, Paul Krugman especially. But Ferguson had the facts down cold, literally unassailable, which further enraged the netroots buttfreaks. They're literally a mob.