#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!"