Paula Broadwell's Emails

At The Daily Beast, "Exclusive: Paula Broadwell’s Emails Revealed."

And at London's Daily Mail, "'Who do you think you are? You need to take it down a notch': The 'cat-fight' emails sent by Paula Broadwell to 'Petraeus love rival' revealed."

Holly Petraeus Furious Over Husband's Affair

At Londons' Daily Mail, "Revealed: Petraeus's humiliated wife HELPED his mistress write biography... but 'furious' Holly is standing by cheating husband even though he is still in contact with ex-lover."

Inland Empire Previews Fate of California Republican Party

At the Los Angeles Times, "Republican losses show Inland Empire's political shift":

Stirred by a decade of astronomical growth, economic heartache and the rising political influence of Latinos, the Inland Empire proved treacherous territory last week for a Republican Party that just a decade ago considered it the new GOP frontier.

Voters in Riverside and San Bernardino counties on Tuesday elected three Democrats to Congress — two Latinos and a gay Asian American — after having sent only two Democrats to Washington in the last four decades.

Before the election, Republicans represented the city of Riverside in Congress, the state Senate and the Assembly. On Tuesday, Democrats took all three seats.

The rumblings of an impending seismic shift in Inland Empire politics have been heard for years, with pressure slowly building as the GOP's share of voters declined. California's new political boundaries, crafted last year, allowed pent-up Democratic power to push to the surface and reshape a political landscape that's now more evenly divided. Contests will be much harder to predict.

"The Inland Empire was the third bastion for the GOP after Orange County and San Diego," said Shaun Bowler, a political scientist from UC Riverside. "That's not true anymore, which is a worry for the Republican Party. They've got to work harder than they have in the past."

The new normal.

More at the link.

That's Mary Bono Mack at the photo. She took office under the widow's mandate when her then-husband, Sonny Bono, died in a skiing accident in 1998. Maggie's Notebook has more: "Connie Mack Mary Bono Mack: Connie Mack Lost Senate Bid – Mary Mack Lost House Seat."

RELATED: From George Skelton, at the Los Angeles Times, "GOP might never again hold power in California." (At Memeorandum.)

How Romney Lost

There are all kinds of reasons for Romney's defeat, and I'm sure most folks have their own theories (I don't think Romney ran an effective campaign, personally), but this report's fascinating, at WSJ, "How Race Slipped Away From Romney":

BOSTON—Mitt Romney is one of the wealthiest men ever to run for president. And yet the lack of money earlier this year stalled his campaign, and he never really recovered.

The GOP nominee emerged late last spring from a long and bruising Republican primary season more damaged than commonly realized. His image with voters had eroded as he endured heavy attacks from Republicans over his business record. He also felt compelled to take a hard line on immigration—one that was the subject of debate among his advisers—that hurt his standing with Hispanic voters.

More than that, Mr. Romney had spent so much money winning the nomination that he was low on cash; aides, seeing the problem taking shape, had once considered accepting federal financing for the campaign rather than rely on private donations.

The campaign's fate led on Wednesday to second-guessing and recriminations among Republicans chagrined that a seemingly winnable race slipped away. Some Republicans wondered whether the Romney campaign had misjudged the power of President Barack Obama's coalition, while others were questioning Mr. Romney's and the party's approach to immigration.

Back in spring, the Romney campaign's biggest worry was money. So the campaign's finance chair, Spencer Zwick, huddled with political director Rich Beeson to craft a complex schedule that took Mr. Romney to the cities that were prime real estate for fundraising.

It meant visits to places like California, Texas and New York—none of which were important political battlegrounds—while only allowing for quick side trips to swing states that Mr. Romney would need to win to become president.

On one level the strategy worked: Mr. Romney ultimately garnered some $800 million or more, putting him in close competition with Mr. Obama's robust fundraising effort.

But Mr. Romney paid a deep political price. The fundraising marathon reduced his ability to deliver his own message to voters just as the Obama campaign was stepping in to define the Republican candidate on its terms. Mr. Romney's heavy wooing of conservative donors limited his ability to move his campaign positions to the center, to appeal to moderate and independent donors.

The search for cash led him to a Florida mansion for a private fundraiser where Mr. Romney would make the deeply damaging, secretly recorded remarks where he disparaged and dismissed the 47% of Americans who don't pay taxes.

In the end, Mr. Romney lost nearly every swing state. Other factors contributed to his defeat, of course, including difficulty making voters warm to him and a dearth of support among Hispanics.

But in the eyes of top aides in both campaigns, that early summer period when Mr. Romney was busy fundraising was perhaps the biggest single reason he lost the election.

The Obama campaign spent heavily while Mr. Romney couldn't, launched a range of effective attacks on the Republican nominee and drove up voters' negative perceptions of Mr. Romney.

The problem: Mr. Romney had burned through much of his money raised for the primaries, and by law, he couldn't begin spending his general-election funds until he accepted the GOP nomination late in the summer.

The money crunch didn't totally take the Romney camp by surprise. Long before Mr. Romney secured the nomination, his closest advisers began plotting what it would cost to wage an effective campaign against Mr. Obama in the general election. Mr. Zwick, his finance chief, assumed the best way to handle cash needs would be to raise money from private donors, rather than accept the public financing the government offers presidential candidates, advisers said.

Mr. Zwick looked at fundraising markets in every state and sketched out a schedule for Mr. Romney, his wife Ann, and his yet-to-be-named running mate. He decided the payoff from fundraising was worth the investment of the candidate's time. Analytical decisions like that one were the campaign's mantra. In interviews, staffers called it the "Bain way."

In August, when Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan was announced as Mr. Romney's vice presidential pick, Mr. Ryan's fundraising schedule was released the same day: 10 events by the end of the month.

Mr. Romney's finance team was vigilant in its efforts to ensure fundraising jaunts would be worth his time. Every other month the campaign's state finance chairmen met for a roughly four-hour meeting with Romney staffers. During the meeting, fundraisers had to stand in front of their peers and report whether they had hit their fundraising target.

Keep in mind, while Romney was struggling, the Democrats were simultaneously running ads in those very swing states, hammering the GOP nominee as a greedy, rapacious capitalist downsizing jobs and destroying middle class prosperity. Places like Ohio were inundated with these attacks. The progressives lied ruthlessly. It was unrelenting, merciless, and literally evil in its single-minded focus on character assassination. Romney wasn't ready for it. I wrote about some of Romney's problems in September, but I had no idea about the money deficits.

Budget Deal Will Involve Spending Cuts?

Daniel Henninger talks to Stephen Moore. There won't be many spending cuts, as I've been saying.

Woman Runs Over Husband in Anti-Obama Rage

Well, can you blame her? The poor guy!

At iOWNTHEWORLD, "Wife Blames Husband For Obama Win and Runs Him Over."

Also at the Phoenix New Times, "Holly Solomon Blames Husband for Obama's Re-Election, Allegedly Rams Him With Her Car."

FEMA Deletes Rape Reference Tweet: 'No Doesn't Always Mean No...'

Well, I guess the FEMA troglodytes aren't up on the "world without rape" literature. To the guillotines!

Via Instapundit.

Walter Williams: Free Market Morality

Via Astute Bloggers:

Broadwell and Benghazi

Read it all at the link, from James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal.

And from the editors, "The Petraeus Probe":

Senate Intelligence Chairman Dianne Feinstein said Sunday she intends to investigate who knew what and when about l'affaire David Petraeus, and rightly so. The facts that are dribbling out suggest that all sorts of people knew about the CIA director's personal predicament—except the President for whom he worked.

If the leaks are correct, the FBI was investigating Mr. Petraeus for months. The unidentified sources claim that the bureau stumbled across the affair when his paramour, Paula Broadwell, sent a threatening email to another woman. The G-men then pursued the matter out of concern for a national security breach, which they say they never found.

Let's hope so, although it's hardly reassuring that the CIA chief was communicating with Ms. Broadwell via a Gmail account. Our operating assumption is that every Gmail account can be ransacked by hackers from China and elsewhere, no matter Google's GOOG +0.43% best efforts at security. For America's chief spook to leave himself vulnerable in this way is an astonishing lack of judgment for such a disciplined and experienced man.

It's also passing strange, not to say politically convenient, that these sources say the FBI alerted the White House for the first time at 5 p.m. on Election Day. The leakers say the bureau told Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who then advised Mr. Petraeus he would have to resign.

But why wait weeks to tell the White House if a CIA chief is compromised in a way that might force his resignation? A report of this kind had to have gone up the chain of command to FBI Director Robert Mueller, and probably to Attorney General Eric Holder. Did they not tell anybody at the White House, not even the general counsel? This is odd, if not a dereliction, and the information chain needs to be understood.

All the more so because House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has confirmed a news report that he was told by a whistleblower in late October about the Petraeus affair, and he then had his staff alert the office of FBI Director Mueller. Mr. Cantor deserves credit for showing discretion and good judgment in the middle of an election campaign.

But the same credit should not go to Administration officials if they kept this problem bottled up until President Obama was safely re-elected. No one wants to see Mr. Petraeus or his family further humiliated, but there are security implications that need to be explained.

Still more, "FBI Agent in Petraeus Case Under Scrutiny."

Hot Kyrsten Sinema Elected First Out Bisexual Member of Congress

Well, if folks are visiting from Google, trolling for some nude shots of Kyrsten Sinema, you should at least know that she's a far left-wing radical, so she'll be right at home with the Israel-hating Democrat Caucus in the Jew-bashing Democrat Party of President Barack Obama.

See: "Kyrsten Sinema, Bisexual Israel-Hating Antiwar Radical, is Face of Today's Democrat Party."

And see Weasel Zippers, "Radical Anti-Israel Democrat Declared Winner In Arizona U.S. House Race…" (At Memeorandum.)

Democrat Win Portends Doom of Progressive Statism

From Monty Pelerin, at American Thinker, "Obama's Election Seals Our Fate":

The Obama re-election dooms the country. It ensures that his philosophy will be imposed for another four years. His election ensures the continuing shift away from the Rule of Law, property rights, free men, and free markets. Obama's vision of how the world works ensures a dire economy until an economic collapse resets everything. The rest of the world, apparently bigger Obama supporters than U.S. voters, will not be immune from the consequences.

Read it all, at the link.

IMAGE CREDIT: The People's Cube, "In Progressive America Virtue Has No Value."

Red America Forced to Reconcile the Emerging Democrat-Secular Majority

I've been coping with last week's defeat with equanimity and humor, but it's hard, so I won't beat around the bush. If folks are discounting the thesis of the Democrat partisan realignment, they might find a reality check in the political future of California --- which looks to have a permanent progressive majority until we sink into the sea. Conservatives have to find a way to keep up the fight and not despair. My hunch is that the values of the founders, of liberty, self-government, law and free enterprise, will triumph one way or another, and the country will remain a beacon for those escaping tyranny around the world. But only time will tell, for the progs have got their claws into the system, and deep. A lot of conservatives can only find consolation in faith and family, and if things don't change they'll be an oppressed and persecuted minority whose traditional values are shunned.

This is the sense you get from reading the story of Beth Cox in Tennessee, at the Washington Post, "GOP’s Red America forced to rethink what it knows about the country." (Via Memeorandum.)

And then to get a sense of how vehemently Ms. Cox's values are condemned and ridiculed, read Kaili Joy Gray at the hate-site Daily Kos, "Republicans still having a sad about America's decline into socialism and decay because Obama."

I'm by nature an optimist. The election results are still sinking in for me, although, again, the California example is not all that heartwarming. The demographic divisions will be lasting, and I don't believe that Hispanics are a natural constituency for conservative values. I'll explain why in future posts, but in California the Hispanic demographic is deeply embedded in the welfare state regime and its voters backed Democrats to keep both benefits and taxes high. Political consultants can plug that fact into their magical vote-aggregating prediction machines, and choke on it.

I'll have more later...

Prop. 30 Won't Quench California's Big Government Thirst

At the Los Angeles Times, "Prop. 30 win won't guarantee state's fiscal safety":

SACRAMENTO — The election wasn't even over Tuesday when state Treasurer Bill Lockyer's phone started ringing. Activists of all stripes had the same message for him: With voters apparently poised to approve billions of dollars in tax hikes, it was time to spend more money.

"They had to be reminded the money has already been spent," Lockyer said.

As California tries to shake its national reputation as a financial bungler, policymakers in Sacramento will be managing an estimated $6 billion in annual revenue from Gov. Jerry Brown's newly approved tax plan, Proposition 30. The money is already included in the budget the governor signed last summer.

The bloodletting that has become a ritual part of assembling the state budget is expected to fade. But some of the issues that have made California's financial problems so persistent remain and could still create a budget gap if things don't go as planned.

In essence, analysts say, voters have stabilized the patient, but surgery may still be required.

Brown has long acknowledged that fixing the state's fiscal problems will require more work. He told reporters last week that "there are no cure-alls" and pledged to hold the line against new spending. As the former seminary student often does, he used a biblical allusion to make his point.

"We need the prudence of Joseph," he said.

The governor's plan will increase the state sales tax by a quarter-cent for four years and raise levies on high earners by one to three percentage points for seven years. Passage of Proposition 30 prevents billions of dollars in education cuts and gives the state an opportunity to end the fiscal year without a deficit for the first time in five years.

But California still has the lowest credit rating of any state. Its tax system is unstable. Borrowing costs remain high, and there are signs that the Brown administration's current $91.3-billion budget may be fraying at the seams as savings fail to meet expectations.

"By no means is California out of the woods yet," said Kil Huh, a director at the Pew Center on the States in Washington. "They've built up a set of challenges that are daunting for any state."

For starters, swings in the stock market can have an outsize effect on California's budget because the state relies so heavily on income taxes paid by the wealthy. In 2010, the richest 1% of Californians earned 21.3% of the income in the state and paid 40.9% of the state income taxes, according to the most recent government data available.

Gabriel Petek, an analyst at Standard & Poor's, noted that California has, over time, decreased more reliable sources of revenue, such as fees on motor vehicle registrations, while increasing less dependable ones, such as income taxes.

Revamping the tax base is politically treacherous. Voters approved strict limits on property taxes in 1978 with Proposition 13, which has since been considered the third rail in California politics.

"If I was dictator of the state, I would look at it," said Kim Rueben at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington. "I'm not sure it will ever be looked at."

The responsibility for handling state finances now is expected to fall completely to Democrats, who are poised to gain a supermajority in each house of the Legislature. Republicans would no longer be able to block tax increases, which require a two-thirds vote.

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) said in an interview Friday that changes in the tax system can bring "political peril" and are not high on his agenda.

California could also face budget gaps when Proposition 30's tax hikes expire. Administration officials are banking on improvements in the economy to make up for the loss of extra tax revenue then.

Some Republicans fear Democrats will increase spending so much that they'll try to make the tax hikes permanent.

Make them permanent?

You think? All that and more, now that California's a one-party state with a permanent Democrat majority. An earthquake couldn't sink us into the as fast as the progressives.

Stacy Peralta's 'Bones Brigade'

Peralta's new documentary is in theaters.

And here's the review at the Los Angeles Times, "Review: 'Bones Brigade' rides a skateboard back to the '80s."

Paula Broadwell Interview With Jon Stewart on The Daily Show (VIDEO)

At London's Daily Mail, "Petraeus mistress Paula Broadwell's awkward interview with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show."

MSNBC, the 'Anti-Fox' Network, Sees Itself as Voice of Obama's America

A wholly unexceptional puff piece at NYT, "MSNBC, Its Ratings Rising, Gains Ground on Fox News" (via Memeorandum):

On Tuesday night, with a minute to go until the polls closed in the battleground state of Virginia, the MSNBC hosts Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews received word through their earpieces that the state was too close to call, according to the election analysts at MSNBC’s parent, NBC News.

“I think that’s pretty significant,” Mr. Matthews said, optimistically, as a commercial break wrapped up. Virginia, a state that had voted to elect a Democratic presidential candidate only once in 40 years — Barack Obama in 2008 — was not leaning toward Mitt Romney as some Republicans had predicted it would.

Inside the NBC “Sunday Night Football” studio that MSNBC was borrowing for the night, the stage manager loudly called out, “Here we go.” Ms. Maddow softly repeated, “Here we go,” and reported the news to three million viewers.

When President Obama won Virginia and most of the other battleground states on Tuesday night, ensuring himself a second term as president, some at MSNBC felt as if they had won as well.

During Mr. Obama’s first term, MSNBC underwent a metamorphosis from a CNN also-ran to the anti-Fox, and handily beat CNN in the ratings along the way. Now that it is known, at least to those who cannot get enough politics, as the nation’s liberal television network, the challenge in the next four years will be to capitalize on that identity.

MSNBC, a unit of NBCUniversal, has a long way to go to overtake the Fox News Channel, a unit of News Corporation: on most nights this year, Fox had two million more viewers than MSNBC.

But the two channels, which skew toward an audience that is 55 or older, are on average separated by fewer than 300,000 viewers in the 25- to 54-year-old demographic that advertisers desire. On three nights in a row after the election last week, MSNBC — whose hosts reveled in Mr. Obama’s victory — had more viewers than Fox in that demographic.

“We’re closer to Fox than we’ve ever been,” said Phil Griffin, the president of MSNBC, who has been trying to overtake Fox for years. “All of this is great for 2013, 2014 to keep building.”

In some ways MSNBC, which until 2005 was partly owned by Microsoft, is where Fox was a decade ago — in the early stages of profiting from its popularity. The channel receives a per-subscriber fee of 30 cents a month from cable operators; CNN receives twice that, and Fox News at least three times as much.

“When Microsoft was involved with MSNBC, it was viewed as kind of lacking in direction; I don’t think the channel had much leverage raising rates,” said Derek Baine, a senior analyst for SNL Kagan. “Maybe they will have some more leverage on this postelection.”

If Fox sees itself as the voice of the opposition to the president, MSNBC sees itself as the voice of Mr. Obama’s America. Its story resembles that of so many other cable channels. It hit on a winning strategy (antiwar liberalism led by Keith Olbermann at 8 p.m.), added similar shows (like Ms. Maddow’s at 9 p.m., which became the channel’s tent pole when Mr. Olbermann left in 2011) and then sold its audience as something more: a community of passionate, like-minded people.

Many progressives (and conservatives) now view the channel as a megaphone for liberal politicians, ideas and attacks against those who disagree. Such a megaphone — clearly marked, always on — has never existed before on television.

More at the link.

The network's the voice of the socialist elements that are destroying the country's traditional political culture. Whether these changes are permanent remains to be seen, but you can bet your bottom dollar that the Maddow-Matthews cabal will be pulling the levers that bring this nation down.

Obama Administration Knew of Petraeus Infidelity in Late-Summer 2012

It wasn't just the FBI that was aware of Petraeus's affair last summer, but top officials in the administration. The Wall Street Journal reports, "FBI Scrutinized on Petraeus: Complaints by Female Social Planner Led to Email Trail That Undid CIA Chief":

A social planner's complaints about email stalking launched the monthslong criminal inquiry that led to a woman romantically linked to former Gen. David Petraeus and to his abrupt resignation Friday as Central Intelligence Agency chief.

The emails began arriving in Jill Kelley's inbox in May, U.S. officials familiar with the probe said. Ms. Kelley, who helped organize social events at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Fla., told the Federal Bureau of Investigation about the emails, which she viewed as harassing, the U.S. officials said.

That FBI investigation into who sent the emails led over a period of months to Paula Broadwell, Mr. Petraeus's biographer, with whom he was having an extramarital affair, according to the U.S. officials.

FBI agents were pursuing what they thought was a potential cybercrime, or a breach of classified information.

Instead, the trail led to what officials said were sexually explicit emails between two lovers, from an account Mr. Petraeus used a pseudonym to establish, and to the destruction of Mr. Petraeus's painstakingly crafted image as a storied Army general.

Mr. Petraeus admitted to an affair in a letter to CIA employees announcing his resignation.

In the aftermath of the investigation, some lawmakers are aiming criticism at the FBI and the Obama administration, including Attorney General Eric Holder, who knew about the email link to Mr. Petraeus as far back as late summer. A House Republican leader also learned of the matter in October. Some argue that Mr. Petraeus shouldn't have resigned; others said that the FBI should have formally notified Congress earlier.

The top Senate Democrat on intelligence issues said Sunday she would investigate the FBI's handling of the inquiry, and why the matter wasn't shared earlier with Congress.

"It was like a lightning bolt," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) on "Fox News Sunday." "This is something that could have had an effect on national security. I think we should have been told."

Read it all at the link.

And listen that Fox News report and interview with Rep. Peter King at the clip.

It's simply astonishing the number of questions that are being raised. And the White House doesn't want Petraeus testifying? The whole thing's obscene.

Lots more at Memeorandum.

Heidi Klum Leaves Little to the Imagination in Skimpy Gown at MTV Europe Music Awards

Amazing.

At Londons' Daily Mail, "Frock horror: Heidi Klum shocks in revealing tie-up blue and gold dress as she arrives to host the MTV EMAs."

Lots of pictures at the link.

Remembering California's More Than 700 Who Made the Ultimate Sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan

At the Los Angeles Times, "California's Iraq and Afghanistan war dead remembered."

A Progressive Surge

The editors at The Nation spike the football:

A country reeling from one disaster has dodged another. While President Obama’s re-election inspires varying degrees of hope among progressives, it has evoked one common sentiment: relief. Democracy may not be reborn, but a living symbol of plutocracy was defeated by the voters on November 6.


It’s worth remembering, before Mitt Romney settles into a comfortable 1 percent retirement from politics, that his victory would have imperiled the security of all but those insulated by extreme wealth from concerns like being able to find safe, warm housing in the wake of a hurricane. A Romney/Ryan win would have been viewed as a validation of a radical individualist worldview that runs counter to every value progressives hold dear. It would have collapsed the space the left needs to gain strength, and it would have empowered social forces—from the religious right to the Tea Party voter-suppression machine to Wall Street and corporate elites—that form an intractable bloc of opposition to progress for all those struggling for equality and opportunity in today’s United States.

This right-wing coalition was defeated at the polls by a “rising American electorate,” a coalition of women, African-Americans, Latinos, the young and unionized blue-collar workers in Midwestern battleground states. These voters not only provided Obama with his margin of victory but carried several stalwart progressives in high-profile Senate races to exhilarating wins: Massachusetts’ Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard Law School professor who emerged as a champion in the fight to regulate the financial sector, took Scott Brown’s seat despite a furious effort by Wall Streeters to stop her; Ohio’s Sherrod Brown, who despite a deluge of negative Super PAC ads, costing upward of $31 million, overcame his Republican rival with his populist labor-based campaign; and Wisconsin’s Tammy Baldwin, who prevented a vulnerable Democratic seat from being snatched by former Governor Tommy Thompson and will become the first out gay or lesbian to serve in the Senate, where she will join the ranks of a record number of women senators. Thank you, voters, for that fitting response to the Republican war on women.

More at that top link.

And see also iOWNTHEWORLD, "U.S. Communist Party Crows Over Obama Victory."

PHOTO CREDIT: The White House on Flickr, "President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama embrace Vice President Joe Biden and Dr. Jill Biden moments after the television networks called the election in their favor, while watching election returns at the Fairmont Chicago Millennium Park in Chicago, Ill., Nov. 6, 2012. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)."

Looks like Obama's about to start bawling again. Sheesh.

'Cloak and Shag Her'

At Director Blue, "BEST PETRAEUS AFFAIR HEADLINE: It's the New York Post Hands Down, No Contest."

I've got additional scandal coverage going live overnight, so check Bad Blue in the meanwhile, and Instapundit.

Petraeus Benghazi Scandal: 'Social Liaison Officer' Jill Kelley Identified as Second Woman

Boy, the weaves of this tangled web are being unraveled, and it just sordid and spiteful.

At the New York Post, "Petraeus' mistress sent harassing e-mails to military liaison: official."

And at London's Daily Mail, "Revealed: The glamorous social liaison officer who complained to FBI about emails from Petraeus's 'jealous' biographer mistress."

Lots of photos at that second link, and more at Memeorandum.

And check this out, from Israel National News, "Broadwell: Petraeus Knew of Benghazi Plea for Help":

Military expert Paula Broadwell, who was allegedly improperly involved with resigned CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus, confirmed in October that the CIA annex in Benghazi asked for reinforcements when the consulate came under attack on September 11. She also acknowledged that "there was a failure in the system."

Broadwell was speaking at her alma mater, the University of Denver, on October 26. Her lecture, which is on YouTube under the title "Alumni Symposium 2012 Paula Broadwell," now has added value, because based on the recent disclosures, it can now be assumed that she indeed knew exactly what it was that Petraeus knew about the attack.

Broadwell confirmed the reports on Fox News that the CIA annex asked for a special unit, the Commander in Chief's In Extremis Force, to come and assist it. She also said that the force could indeed have reinforced the consulate, and that Petraeus knew all of this, but was not allowed to talk to the press because of his position in the CIA.

"The challenge has been the fog of war, and the greater challenge is that it's political hunting season, and so this whole thing has been turned into a very political sort of arena, if you will," she said. "The fact that came out today is that the ground forces there at the CIA annex, which is different from the consulate, were requesting reinforcements.

The alumni video is here.

Lots more at Memeorandum.

This story's just now getting rolling. Broadwell had all kinds of inside information, drawn apparently from her access to Petraeus. When added all together, dating back to September 11, 2012, the Benghazi scandal truly is of the magnitude of Watergate, and graver still, for Americans were killed and the causes of their deaths covered up.

I'll have more...

Sunday Cartoons

At Reaganite Republican, "Reaganite's Sunday Funnies."

And at Jill Stanek's, "Stanek Sunday funnies: “Forward” edition."

CARTOON CREDIT: Net Right Daily.

Forward! Canada Lures Energy Workers from U.S.

Well shoot, it's not like it's a tight labor market in the U.S. energy sector, or anything.

At the Los Angeles Times, "Canada looks to lure energy workers from the U.S.":

EDMONTON, Canada — With a daughter to feed, no job and $200 in the bank, Detroit pipe fitter Scott Zarembski boarded a plane on a one-way ticket to this industrial capital city.

He'd heard there was work in western Canada. Turns out he'd heard right. Within days he was wearing a hard hat at a Shell oil refinery 15 miles away in Fort Saskatchewan. Within six months he had earned almost $50,000. That was 2009. And he's still there.

"If you want to work, you can work," said Zarembski, 45. "And it's just getting started."

U.S. workers, Canada wants you.

Here in the western province of Alberta, energy companies are racing to tap the region's vast deposits of oil sands. Canada is looking to double production by the end of the decade. To do so it will have to lure more workers — tens of thousands of them — to this cold and sparsely populated place. The weak U.S. recovery is giving them a big assist.

Canadian employers are swarming U.S. job fairs, advertising on radio and YouTube and using headhunters to lure out-of-work Americans north. California, with its 10.2% unemployment rate, has become a prime target. Canadian recruiters are headed to a job fair in the Coachella Valley next month to woo construction workers idled by the housing meltdown.

The Great White North might seem a tough sell with winter coming on. But the Canadians have honed their sales pitch: free universal healthcare, good pay, quality schools, retention bonuses and steady work.

"California has a lot of workers and we hope they come up," said Mike Wo, executive director of the Edmonton Economic Development Corp.

The U.S. isn't the only place Canada is looking for labor. In Alberta, which is expecting a shortage of 114,000 skilled workers by 2021, provincial officials have been courting English-speaking tradespeople from Ireland, Scotland and other European nations. Immigrants from the Philippines, India and Africa have found work in services. But some employers prefer Americans because they adapt quickly, come from a similar culture and can visit their homes more easily.

Right.

The Canadians need workers to power their energy sector. The Obama regime wants immigration reform to power our Democrat welfare sector.

Nope, America's not relinquishing global economic leadership to our competitors. No sir. Everything's fine and dandy. Just move along. Nothing to see here.

IMAGE CREDIT: iOWNTHEWORLD, "Running On Empty."

UPDATE: Linked at Blazing Cat Fur and Lonely Conservative. Thanks!

Progressives Launch Revenge on Applebee's as Company Downsizes in Response to ObamaCare

Look, I wrote about this yesterday.

The business community's had the writing on the wall for sometime. The election simply cleared up the uncertainty in the decision-making environment. Gateway Pundit has the video, "NY Applebee’s CEO Zane Tankel Says He Won’t Hire Because of Obamacare (Video)."

And taking their go-ahead from the Thug-in-Chief, the progressives have launched retaliatory attacks. At London's Daily Mail, "Calls to boycott Applebee's after CEO threatens hiring freeze and layoffs over Obamacare."

More at Twitchy, "Applebee’s targeted after franchisee mulls hiring freeze in response to Obamacare," and "Libs call for boycott of Papa John’s as CEO anticipates cut in workers’ hours."

Plus, "Insanity: Papa John’s, Olive Garden, others attacked as racist for anticipated responses to Obamacare."

Boeing Veterans Day Video: 'Their Story'

This is running on television. Saw it earlier today:

BONUS: From Bruce Kesler, at Maggie's Farm, "Veterans Day: We Don't Know What the Future Holds, But We Know Who Holds the Future."

Image Problem: Cathy McMorris Rodgers Says GOP Needs to Become 'More Modern'

This is interesting.

McMorris Rodgers is making the case for better salesmanship, or "saleswomanship," as the case may be.

At The Hill, "McMorris Rodgers: GOP needs to be more ‘modern’ not ‘moderate’":

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) on Sunday said the GOP didn’t need to adopt “more moderate” positions, but rather needed to become “more modern” by being better inclusive of women and minorities.

“I don't think it's about the Republican Party needing to become more moderate. I really believe it's the Republican Party becoming more modern,” said McMorris Rodgers, during an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

More at the link.

Former Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, seen at the longer clip at the link, is having none of it. He blusters about how moderate vs. modern is "a distinction without a difference."

Right.

My sense is that McMorris Rodgers is hesitant to sell out conservative values --- she's been a leader on fiscal conservatism in Congress --- and wants to make the case for the better articulation of conservative principles. I don't know if the "modern" argument is the winner, but ether way, adopting "moderate" positions will only strengthen progressivism. This is the left's meme since the election, that the GOP is extremist, although it's just more of the same "Operation Demoralize," only of the post-campaign variety.

'I voted to fix it, you voted for the stupid short sighted @ssh0les who broke it...'

Here's this must-read ass-stomping comment at Small Dead Animals:

Featured Comment:

Davenport said: "I'm going to head off The Phantom here, who doubtless will show up shortly with some rant about how this is all FEMA's fault'."

I love it:

Do you want to know why the power is STILL off on Long Island, Davenport? Read this here: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Sandy-LIPA-Outages-Power-Long-Island-Defense-Military-178115341.html

In it you will find reference to a report from 2006, SIX YEARS AGO, which found that Long Island Power Authority had not done the basic maintenance required to secure the power grid from weather damage. The maintenance they're talking about here is tree cutting mostly, and replacing bad power poles.

I lived in New York in the 1990's. I could have written that report. The f-ing power went off every time it snowed because they didn't cut trees and the trees ripped the lines down. They also didn't plow the roads, but that's a story for another day.

You want to know why they don't cut the f-ing trees Davenport? It isn't because they are stupid, it isn't because they don't know, it isn't because private enterprise is inherently corrupt, it isn't even because union workers are a bunch of rent-seeking layabouts. Its because every time they go to cut down a tree, some local Greenies get up a petition or a court order to make them stop. So they stop. So the trees break and knock down the power lines. Same thing all over the North East until you get up into snow country, where even the f-ing tree huggers know better.

Well -this- time it all came home to roost the same day, and every overhanging branch from New Jersey to Connecticut took out a line.

UPDATE: My good friend Norm Gersman comments: "This post is absolutely incorrect. I live in an area as leftie as any. our trees by the wires are annually cut , and look ridiculous, no one says a bad word because it must be done. the present problem of down wires was caused mostly by falling trees a good distance from the wires. what are we going to do? Clear cut every tree for 100 feet on either side of the wires?"

Norm's in Great Neck, which is the focus of this story cited by the writer at SDA, "Officials Want Military to Take Over Power Restoration on Long Island":

LIPA [Long Island Power Authority], which had earlier set a goal of restoring 90 percent of all customers by Wednesday, has declined to respond to the withering criticism. Officials say the company was focused on restoring power and not engaging in a debate with politicians.

Newsday reported Friday that LIPA was warned as long ago as 2006 that it was not prepared to handle a major storm, that it badly needed to replace outdated technology and did not keep up with critical maintenance.

Among the issues the utility was warned about include a 25-year-old computer system not capable of tracking outages, and failures to keep up with basic tasks like replacing rotting poles and trimming trees near power lines, the paper said.

Well, LIPA isn't taking interviews at the moment, so I'll come back to this debate, LOL!

Email Shows Difficulties of GOP Hispanic Outreach

I meant to post on this the other day, from Robert Stacy McCain, "You Stay Classy, Luis Cortez!":

Unless luiscortez@hotmail.com is a parody account, I think the e-mail he sent me eloquently refutes certain Republican arguments for “Latino outreach”:

Nice article pal. Let me simply explain what happened to your pathetic white party. yes, white party. not white republican party, just white party. it all boils down to laziness. first, you jackasses brought the black as slaves to work your fields because you were too fucking lazy to do it yourselves. what happened? the slaves fucked your white women and multiplied their population while the white man was getting drunk and fishing. then, incredibly, after not learning your god damm lesson the first time, you import latinos in the latter part of the 20th century to work your construction and blue collar jobs. and what happened, they fucked your white women and multiplied their populations while you were getting drunk and watching Nascar. But worse for you, this time you really did yourselves in! why!!?? because the last time, you imported slaves from Africa. A long ways from here. This time you imported them from Latin America!! Now they are not only coming to America to work, they are bringing their whole families and starting families here!! When will you jackass white people learn???!!! Mccain, you are not “The other Mccain”. You are just another fucking idiot white man! Now get the fuck out of the country and let the latinos lead you jerkoff!

Thank you for explaining this, Mr. Cortez: Hispanics who vote Democrat don’t do so because of policy issues, but because they identify the Republican Party with white people and a lot of Hispanics hate white people.

Continue reading.

The Left's Values Voters

From Christopher Caldwell, at the Weekly Standard, "Values Voters Prevail Again":

Had this presidential campaign been a chess match, one move would have merited a row of exclamation points. A chess master will violate the rules of strategy as neophytes understand them (“You’re gonna lose your Queen!”) but only because he sees possibilities on the board that are invisible to others.

In January, the Obama White House set out to pick a fight with the Catholic church over contraception. A Health and Human Services directive ordered that all insurance plans cover contraception, morning after pills, and sterilizations with no exceptions for religious conscience. This looked like an act of folly. Not only was it an affront to the free exercise of religion, but Catholics are the largest group of swing voters in the country. They are heavily concentrated in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and other potential swing states. And it was in the name of Obamacare—the most unpopular federal program in living memory—that the administration thumbed its nose at them.

The Obama campaign understood that “reproductive rights” are similar to “gun rights.” Even if the number of people who care about protecting them is small, all of them vote on the issue. And in a country that now has as many single women as married women, the number is not small. President Obama won the Catholic vote on the strength of a landslide among Hispanics. (Non-Hispanic Catholics opposed him 59-40 percent.) His pollster Joel Benenson credits him not just with identifying new demographic groups but also with figuring out how to appeal to them. “He won,” Benenson wrote in the New York Times, “because he articulated a set of values that define an America that the majority of us wish to live in.” For this election he is right.

Not since Jimmy Carter has a Democrat won an election this way. “Values” campaigns have favored Republicans. The journalist Thomas Frank warned in his book What’s the Matter with Kansas? that Republicans were talking about the Bible and gays and abortion in order to distract attention from their failed economic agenda. “People getting their fundamental interests wrong is what American political life is all about,” Frank wrote. In Republicanism he saw a movement “of working-class guys in Midwestern cities cheering as they deliver up a landslide for a candidate whose policies will end their way of life.”

That is elegant writing, but the argument was wrong in three ways...

Keep reading.

Caldwell's most important point is that the Democrats are forcing their values on the rest of America, and Obama is the Enforcer-in-Chief.

IMAGE CREDIT: The People's Cube, "Sandra the Riveted of the Grift Generation."

'If the President wanted to send a gesture of magnanimity in victory, this wasn't it...'

At the Wall Street Journal, "The President's Tax Bludgeon":

Mr. Obama's hard line will cheer his left flank, which wants him to drive Republicans into submission on taxes and everything else. Apart from the joy of humiliating the GOP, the calculation seems to be that tax rates don't matter to the economy. So raise rates with impunity, pocket the extra revenue, and only then discuss whether to cut any spending or reform the tax code or entitlements.

But to what end? Congress's Joint Tax Committee estimates that raising taxes on income over $250,000 ($200,000 if you're single) will raise $823 billion over 10 years on a static revenue basis. That includes all revenue from increases in marginal income tax rates, capital gains, dividends, reinstating the phaseouts of deductions for the wealthy and also treating dividends as ordinary income.

That's only $82 billion a year in extra revenue when the federal deficit in fiscal 2012 was $1.1 trillion. So even if Mr. Obama gets his way, his tax increase would only cut the deficit by about 7.5%. And that assumes the tax increase would have no impact on economic growth. If growth slows below its already paltry pace, tax revenue would rise by less than expected despite the higher rates.

Well, O will just go after more revenue, taking the tax hikes to lower levels of income. They'll get creative about it, but they'll do it one way or another.

2012 Election Marks a Political Realignment

Here's more along the lines I argued the other day, at the Los Angeles Times, "Nonwhite voters and cultural shifts make 2012 election pivotal":

The 2012 election marked the point at which a new American electoral coalition solidified its hold on politics, one built on the country's growing nonwhite population and on cultural changes that have given younger voters of all races a far different outlook on political issues from that of their elders.

The impact could be seen not just in Obama's reelection and Democratic successes in the Senate, but also in statewide referendums on same-sex marriage in which advocates of equal rights for gays and lesbians unexpectedly won four out of four. In 2004, conservatives put marriage referendums on the ballot in hopes of boosting their prospects; just eight years later, the political impact had completely reversed.

If the new coalition holds, future historians will look back at this campaign as one, like Franklin D. Roosevelt's in 1936 and Richard M. Nixon's in 1972, that marked a long-term realignment of the nation's politics.

If it holds. One enormous difference separates Obama's reelection from Roosevelt's and Nixon's: Those were landslides; Obama won narrowly. Millions of votes remain uncounted, but the president's victory margin probably will be about 2.5 percentage points. Nor did he succeed in carrying large numbers of House candidates into office with him.

That difference measures the enormous weight of a poor economy, which pulled down Obama's prospects and imperils the support he assembled.

"One way to interpret this involves changing cultural values and demographics. When those things come together, you get these pivot elections, and that's what this was," said UCLA political science professor Lynn Vavreck.

But "the economy is a huge thing here," she added. The economy this year grew just fast enough for a candidate with the advantage of incumbency to win. "If it doesn't grow more quickly, the Republicans will win in 2016," she said.

As noted, the thing about realignments is that the evidence for them is in future elections. If the GOP takes back the presidency in 2016, or even 2020, the current Democrat resurgence will look like a function of a particular time and a particular candidate --- not a long term secular trend toward large-state progressive governance. It sure does look like something deeper and structural, no doubt. But Republicans still control the governorships in a majority of the states, and they retained control of the U.S. House of Representatives. We won't be seeing Democrat Party hegemony in government, which is the true hallmark of realignment. And we're still too polarized around competing conceptions of the role of government in society. That's quite different from the years of the New Deal realignment, where government continued to expand even during the 1950s under President Eishenhower.

Because Progressives Are All About 'Robust Debate' - Ann Coulter Disinvited From Fordham Speaking Event

The universities are the centers of ideological hatred and progressive intolerance, so this is no surprise.

At The Blaze, "UNIVERSITY PRES. SCOLDS STUDENTS FOR INVITING ANN COULTER TO SPEAK: ‘DISAPPOINTED’ WOULD BE ‘TREMENDOUS UNDERSTATEMENT’."

And at the school's newspaper, The Fordham Observer, "UPDATED: McShane Responds to College Republicans’ Cancellation of Ann Coulter Event."

Here's the letter from President McShane:

The College Republicans, a student club at Fordham University, has invited Ann Coulter to speak on campus on November 29. The event is funded through student activity fees and is not open to the public nor the media. Student groups are allowed, and encouraged, to invite speakers who represent diverse, and sometimes unpopular, points of view, in keeping with the canons of academic freedom. Accordingly, the University will not block the College Republicans from hosting their speaker of choice on campus.

To say that I am disappointed with the judgment and maturity of the College Republicans, however, would be a tremendous understatement. There are many people who can speak to the conservative point of view with integrity and conviction, but Ms. Coulter is not among them. Her rhetoric is often hateful and needlessly provocative — more heat than light — and her message is aimed squarely at the darker side of our nature.

As members of a Jesuit institution, we are called upon to deal with one another with civility and compassion, not to sling mud and impugn the motives of those with whom we disagree or to engage in racial or social stereotyping. In the wake of several bias incidents last spring, I told the University community that I hold out great contempt for anyone who would intentionally inflict pain on another human being because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, or creed.

“Disgust” was the word I used to sum up my feelings about those incidents. Hate speech, name-calling, and incivility are completely at odds with the Jesuit ideals that have always guided and animated Fordham.

Still, to prohibit Ms. Coulter from speaking at Fordham would be to do greater violence to the academy, and to the Jesuit tradition of fearless and robust engagement. Preventing Ms. Coulter from speaking would counter one wrong with another. The old saw goes that the answer to bad speech is more speech. This is especially true at a university, and I fully expect our students, faculty, alumni, parents, and staff to voice their opposition, civilly and respectfully, and forcefully.

The College Republicans have unwittingly provided Fordham with a test of its character: do we abandon our ideals in the face of repugnant speech and seek to stifle Ms. Coulter’s (and the student organizers’) opinions, or do we use her appearance as an opportunity to prove that our ideas are better and our faith in the academy — and one another — stronger? We have chosen the latter course, confident in our community and in the power of decency and reason to overcome hatred and prejudice.

Joseph M. McShane, S.J., President

And from the College Republicans, who collapsed faster than a New Jersey roller coaster in a hurricane:

The College Republicans regret the controversy surrounding our planned lecture featuring Ann Coulter. The size and severity of opposition to this event have caught us by surprise and caused us to question our decision to welcome her to Rose Hill. Looking at the concerns raised about Ms. Coulter, many of them reasonable, we have determined that some of her comments do not represent the ideals of the College Republicans and are inconsistent with both our organization’s mission and the University’s. We regret that we failed to thoroughly research her before announcing; that is our error and we do not excuse ourselves for it. Consistent with our strong disagreement with certain comments by Ms. Coulter, we have chosen to cancel the event and rescind Ms. Coulter’s invitation to speak at Fordham. We made this choice freely before Father McShane’s email was sent out and we became aware of his feelings – had the President simply reached out to us before releasing his statement, he would have learned that the event was being cancelled. We hope the University community will forgive the College Republicans for our error and continue to allow us to serve as its main voice of the sensible, compassionate, and conservative political movement that we strive to be. We fell short of that standard this time, and we offer our sincere apologies.

Ted Conrad, President Emily Harman, Vice President Joe Campagna, Treasurer John Mantia, Secretary

This is how the left wins. Coulter's routinely "disinvited" from universities, which serves no one but the progs themselves, who thump their chests in victory while sharpening knives for the next slash attack on vigorous debate. They simply can't stand their programs to be challenged, especially by someone as effective as Ann Coulter.

Jesse Jackson, Jr. Would Resign From Congress in Plea Deal on Corruption Charges

The Chicago way.

At The Conservatory, "Jesse Jackson, Jr. Reportedly Copping Plea Including Resignation from Congress."

And The Hill, "Report: Plea deal would end Rep. Jackson's career in Congress," and CBS News Chicago, "Former U.S. Prosecutor Negotiating Plea Deal For Jackson Jr."

Remember this guy was reelected while sitting on the inside of the Mayo Clinic. It's time for the f-ker to go.

John Podhoretz Parts Ways With Literary Commentary Writer D.G. Myers

Here's the story, "A Note."

And here's D.G. Myers' angry response, "Statement on my firing."

Myers claims that Podhoretz terminated their relationship because of the former's aggressive advocacy of same-sex marriage. Podhoretz in turn vehemently denies the allegation and frames the dispute as a matter of editorial purview. Myers was insubordinate to write about political topics on Commentary's exclusively literary blog.

Note that Commentary's main blog is heavily edited. All posts are discussed among writers and reviewed by at least two editors. On the other hand, Myers had a completely free hand at the literary blog, as long as he stayed within the topical parameters. Once he went off on an apparent diatribe against conservatives on gay marriage at the literary blog (a post he deleted at once when called out for insubordination), he'd abused the trust that was invested in him.

Read the whole thing, in any case. It's interesting to see the curtain back pulled back on the editorial process at the magazine, which is one of my very favorites.

EXTRA: I'll link straight to Myers' attack on conservatives at the main Commentary blog. Apparently a goofier version at Literary Commentary is what got the guy in trouble: "GOP Can’t Be the Party of Old White Men."

UPDATE: Linked at The Other McCain, "Podhoretz ‘Evolves’ on Gay Marriage; Editorial Insubordination, Not So Much."

Professor Grover Furr Denies Stalin's Crimes Against Humanity

The guy's a Stalinist holocaust denier.

At The Other McCain, "The Stalinist at Montclair State."

The murderous brutality of Stalin is one of the best-established facts of 20th-century history, and whatever “research” Professor Furr claims as the basis for his bizarre revisionism is likely akin to the “research” of Holocaust deniers, 9/11 Truthers and other fringe crackpots.

The crime is that this guy is teaching at a public university. It's not surprising, though. Recall my post on Professor Robert Farley, who claims to be an expert on counterinsurgency, who showed "Che" for his students in class: "Patterson School of Diplomacy, University of Kentucky, Screens Steven Soderbergh's Che to Commemorate Fiftieth Anniversary of Bay of Pigs."

America's campuses are the training ground for the revolutionary cadres. For more on this, lots more, see Legal Insurrection, "“Shock the System” week at College Insurrection."

Permanent Part-Time Is the New Normal

At the Wall Street Journal, "Health-Care Law Spurs a Shift to Part-Time Workers" (via Blue Collar Philosophy):

RT @mdrache: Dear Liberals, if you're upset about corps going to PT to avoid Obamacare, you should have read the law before you passed it.
— Melissa Clouthier (@MelissaTweets) November 10, 2012

Some low-wage employers are moving toward hiring part-time workers instead of full-time ones to mitigate the health-care overhaul's requirement that large companies provide health insurance for full-time workers or pay a fee.

Several restaurants, hotels and retailers have started or are preparing to limit schedules of hourly workers to below 30 hours a week. That is the threshold at which large employers in 2014 would have to offer workers a minimum level of insurance or pay a penalty starting at $2,000 for each worker.

The shift is one of the first significant steps by employers to avoid requirements under the health-care law, and whether the trend continues hinges on Tuesday's election results. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has pledged to overturn the Affordable Care Act, although he would face obstacles doing so.

President Barack Obama is set to push ahead with implementing the 2010 law if he is re-elected.

Pillar Hotels & Resorts this summer began to focus more on hiring part-time workers among its 5,500 employees, after the Supreme Court upheld the health-care overhaul, said Chief Executive Chris Russell. The company has 210 franchise hotels, under the Sheraton, Fairfield Inns, Hampton Inns and Holiday Inns brands.

"The tendency is to say, 'Let me fill this position with a 40-hour-a-week employee.' "Mr. Russell said. "I think we have to think differently."

Pillar offers health insurance to employees who work 32 hours a week or more, but only half take it, and Mr. Russell wants to limit his exposure to rising health-care costs. He said he planned to pursue new segments of the population, such as senior citizens, to find workers willing to accept part-time employment.

He described the shift as a "cultural change" toward hiring more part-timers and not a prohibition against hiring full-timers.

CKE Restaurants Inc., parent of the Carl's Jr. and Hardee's burger chains, began two months ago to hire part-time workers to replace full-time employees who left, said Andy Puzder, CEO of the Carpinteria, Calif., company. CKE, which is owned by private-equity firm Apollo Management LP, offers limited-benefit plans to all restaurant employees, but the federal government won't allow those policies to be sold starting in 2014 because of low caps on payouts. Mr. Puzder said he has advised Mr. Romney's campaign on economic issues in an unpaid capacity.

Home retailer Anna's Linens Inc. is considering cutting hours for some full-time employees to avoid the insurance mandate if the health-care law isn't repealed, said CEO Alan Gladstone.

Mr. Gladstone said the costs of providing coverage to all 1,100 sales associates who work at least 30 hours a week would be prohibitive, although he was weighing alternative options, such as raising prices.

Suck it, progs.

You voted for it. You're stuck with it ---- with a life of less prosperity and well-being.

Benghazi Will Unravel With the Sex Angle

Interesting comments from Charles Krauthammer, at the clip.

PREVIOUSLY: "Petraeus Mistress is Paula Broadwell," and "David Petraeus Resigns as Director of CIA."

'Wednesday'

From Mark Steyn, at National Review, "The Edge of the Abyss":

Amid the ruin and rubble of the grey morning after, it may seem in poor taste to do anything so vulgar as plug the new and stunningly topical paperback edition of my book, After America — or, as Dennis Miller retitled it on the radio the other day, Wednesday. But the business of America is business, as Calvin Coolidge said long ago in an alternative universe, and I certainly could use a little. So I’m going to be vulgar and plug away. The central question of Wednesday — I mean, After America — is whether the Brokest Nation in History is capable of meaningful course correction. On Tuesday, the American people answered that question. The rest of the world will make its dispositions accordingly...

In 2009, the Democrats became the first government in the history of the planet to establish annual trillion-dollar deficits as a permanent feature of life. Before the end of Obama’s second term, the federal debt alone will hit $20 trillion. That ought to have been the central fact of this election — that Americans are the brokest brokey-broke losers who ever lived, and it’s time to do something about it.

Read it all.

Petraeus Mistress is Paula Broadwell

Ms. Broadwell is the author of a biography of the general, and she's reportedly under investigation.

From Fred Kaplan, at Slate, "Petraeus Resigns Over Affair With Biographer" (via Memeorandum):

The woman with whom Gen. David Petraeus was having an affair is Paula Broadwell, the author of a recent hagiographic book about him, All In: The Education of General David Petraeus.

And then from NBC's Richard Engel, "Petraeus' biographer Paula Broadwell under FBI investigation over access to his email, law enforcement officials say." Engle does not mention Broadwell as the mistress, but has this:

Broadwell's Twitter account describes her as a national security analyst and Army veteran. A biography on her website, which went offline Friday evening, said she is married to a radiologist and has two children, both boys. The family lives in Charlotte, N.C. The biography said she is a West Point graduate and a research associate at Harvard University's Center for Public Leadership and a doctoral candidate in the Department of War Studies at King's College London.

More at the Wall Street Journal, "CIA Chief Resigns Over Affair" (via Memeorandum).

Soviet-Style Snitching Right Here in Obama's America

Snitching wasn't just something that occurred historically in the Soviet Union, Orwell's 1984 makes a number of references to being "denounced" to the secret police for "thought crimes."

Well, history has a way of repeating itself sometimes, chillingly.

At iOWNTHEWORLD, "The Site Jezebel is Calling Schools to Make Trouble For Tweeters That Use the N Word When Referring to Obama – No Word On Whether They Do That to the Thousands of Students That Refer to Each Other as N***ers."

Even If the Historical American Order Is Finished, the World Hasn't Ended

From Lawrence Auster (via Saberpoint):

I just got a phone call from a long-time acquaintance I haven’t heard from in a long time. He said right off the bat: “America is finished and therefore you should shut down VFR.”

I hung up the phone. He called again. After saying that he hadn’t meant any disrespect, he explained that since America is finished, there is no point in conservative political activism, and therefore there’s no point in VFR. He said, “I have put my money where my mouth is,” since he had just resigned his job at a political activist organization, because there was no point in it any more, and is now going to focus only on his private life.

I explained to him, first, that VFR is obviously not a conservative political activist site (and having read VFR from the start how could he not know this?), but is primarily about understanding, and, through understanding, helping to cultivate a remnant.

Second, even if the historical American order is finished, which I believe it is and have said so repeatedly (which he also seemed to have missed), the world hasn’t ended, we are still living in it and have to try to make sense of it and figure out how we are going to live in it. Indeed, I continued, I and readers are at this moment trying to come to terms with the overwhelming disaster that has come upon us, and that’s part of what VFR is about.

He replied that he already understood my criticisms of liberalism, and others do too, and therefore there’s no point in my continuing to write such criticisms. He said it was “very strange” that I didn’t see that.

In other words, at the very moment that liberalism has gained a whole new level of power over the country, he believes we should stop paying attention to it and why people believe in it and how it operates and will continue to operate to harm us.

I told him that because he believes only in power, not in truth, the moment he sees no possibility of gaining power, he gives up...

Continue reading.

'The timing is just too perfect for the Obama administration...'

At RealClearPolitics, "Lt. Col. Ralph Peters On Petraeus: 'Timing Is Just Too Perfect'."

Ralph Peters is one of the most independent analysts you'll ever have a chance to see. He spoke at the David Horowitz West Coast Retreat in 2011 and his comments diverged quite sharply from most of the other speakers (folks who're some of the hardest of the hardliners on Islamic jihad, Andy McCarthy, Robert Spencer, etc.). Peters is original and provocative. He's got an interesting theory on the Petraeus resignation at the link, and since this whole thing reeks to hell, I think it's important to note that Peters really doesn't give in to wild conspiracies. This time things just really are too convenient.

Obama's Mean and Vindictive Campaign

From Carolyn Glick, "A time for courage, and action":

Mitt Romney wasn't a bad candidate. He ran a fairly strong race. He made a few errors. And he made many good moves.

Certainly he was adequate. And he was probably the strongest Republican candidate among the primary field of contenders. That is, he was the best man available to run against Barack Obama.

And he did a pretty good job.

Obama, on the other hand, was a horrible candidate. He was mean and vindictive. He was contemptuous and superficial. He ran on irrelevancies like abortion and a fictitious Republican war against women. He didn't give his supporters any reason to feel good about themselves.

Instead, he used class warfare to stir them to hatred of their countrymen.

Yet Obama won. And Romney lost.

In retrospect it is possible that the race was over before it began. A strong case can be made that Obama secured his reelection in 2009 when he bailed out the US auto industry and so temporarily stanched the hemorrhage of jobs in Ohio and Michigan. And maybe, with the youth of the 1960s now the Medicare recipients of the 2010s and '20s, there are simply too many Americans dependent on government handouts to care about what happens in the future.

An equally strong case can be made that Romney lost the election before he secured the Republican nomination. He may have squandered his chances when he took a strong position against illegal immigration in one of the early Republican primary debates and so arguably made winning Florida, and perhaps Colorado, a mathematical impossibility.

Many have argued that demography is destiny.

And the American electorate has changed tremendously in the past decade. Government dependency among the white working class has grown. Government dependency among an aging population and a rising tide of single-parent families has grown. And the Latino share of the vote has grown. Today some are arguing that Republicans today simply cannot win the presidency, regardless of their candidate.

All of this is important because for the past four years, most Republicans, and most non-leftists throughout the world, had been hoping that the Obama years would be an aberration. They had hoped and trusted that he would be a one-term president. All the policies he enacted during that term, on domestic and foreign policy alike, would be reversed by his Republican successor, elected by voters who understood they had been taken in by a huckster in 2008. The US economy - the anchor of US power and the engine of the international financial system - would come roaring back.

Continue reading.

Progressives Chant 'Karl Marx, Karl Marx' at Obama Victory Celebration

At Weasel Zippers, "College Students Chant “Karl Marx” and “Socialism” In Front Of White House at Obama Victory Rally…"

Expose This Politically Correct Jihadi Coddling Administration

Michelle was on fire the other night, on Hannity's. Watch the whole thing:

And see, "What about the Camp Bastion attack?"

Obama's Long March

From Ron Radosh, at PJ Media, "It’s the Culture, Stupid: Facing the Long Road Ahead":

If we can turn away from the elections for a moment, and the future of the Republican Party, a more fundamental problem exists. It is nothing less than the nature of the American culture. By the term “culture,” I am not referring to the social issues that usually come up when one talks about culture wars; i.e., abortion, gay rights, religion, etc. Rather, I am talking about the perception and outlook that stand beneath the way our American public define the very nature of civic life in our democratic capitalist society.

That is why I regularly borrow from the Left, as some astute observers of my previous column noted in some comments, the works of the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci, and particularly his theory of cultural hegemony. As I wrote in my concluding paragraph, we have to “wage a war of position on the cultural front and to do all possible to challenge the ascension of a failed intellectual liberal ideology, whether it is in the form of Progressivism, liberalism or socialism.” I’m referring to the kind of work Fred Siegel carries out in a new book he has just finished writing, and which I had the pleasure of reading in manuscript form, on the nature of American liberalism. When it is eventually published, I believe it can have the kind of impact that great works of history like Richard Hofstadter’s books had in the 1940s and ’50s.

Siegel shows that from its very inception, liberalism was a flawed ideology whose adherents substituted its would-be virtues as a way of distancing themselves from most Americans and their workaday lives; an ideology based on a view whose believers saw themselves as superior to most Americans, including those who were merchants, workers, or regular folk, who could not be counted on to comprehend the backwardness of their beliefs.

Continuing on through the post-war decades, Siegel deals with liberalism’s failure to accurately confront the issue of race; its love affair with the New Left and its moral collapse in the face of its anarchism and nihilism; the effects of McGovernism on the political collapse of the Democratic Party, and the resulting politics of “rights-based interest groups” and the new power of public sector unionism, a far different breed than that of the old labor movement of Walter Reuther and George Meany. If we want a different kind of social polity than the one we have now — based on catering to the power of competing interest groups that compose the core strength of the Democratic party — we have to address first the essential question of the kind of social order that liberalism has built.

I’m also referring to the work the intellectuals who edit National Affairs and those who edit The Claremont Review of Books — solid theoretical and analytical work on social policy, education, and law, all of which challenges the intellectual foundations of contemporary liberalism.

If you doubt that this intellectual work is necessary, you might ponder the question of why college-educated Americans are overwhelmingly liberal Democrats or among those even much further to the political Left. An answer appears in this article by Richard Vedder, which appears today in Minding the Campus. Vedder shows that the majority of professors who teach our young people in the humanities are primarily on the Left, as he writes, “62.7 percent of faculty said that they were either ‘far left’ or ‘liberal,’ while only 11.9 percent said they were ‘far right’or ‘conservative.’ The notion that universities are hot beds for left-wing politics has a solid basis in fact. Moreover, the left-right imbalance is growing — a lot. The proportion of those on the left is rising, on the right declining.” The latest research reveals that there are 5.7 professors on the left for each one on the right!

The irony is that this occurs only in the academy, since studies also show that more and more Americans define themselves as basically conservative rather than liberal. So it should come as no surprise that the suburban middle-class and university-educated Americans, having learned their liberalism and leftism at college, vote the way that they do. One study shows that 41 percent of Americans call themselves conservative while only 21 percent call themselves liberal. Thus, as Vedder says, the university faculties are truly “out of sync” with the country at large....

Another realm of mis-education is that of the popular media. This week, I have written about this in an article published in The Weekly Standard, which fortunately the editors have not put behind their firewall. It is titled “A Story Told Before: Oliver Stone’s recycled leftist history of the United States.” Stone’s TV weekly series premiers Nov.12th on the CBS-owned network Showtime, and will eventually be used by leftist professors in their own history courses on our campuses. It is, I show, nothing less than a rehash of old Communist propaganda from the 1950s offered up as both something new and as the true hidden history of our country’s past.

Imagine how many television viewers, many of whom know virtually nothing about how we got to where we are, will learn from this expertly edited documentary how and why the United States is basically an evil nation, on the wrong course, and supported the wrong side in all foreign policy crises throughout its modern history. We cannot disregard the effect this kind of miseducation has on the knowledge of our fellow citizens. Do you wonder why the polls show that most Americans think Barack Obama’s foreign policy the past four years was successful? It is because they are a generation educated from “historians” like the late Howard Zinn, political theorists like the linguist Noam Chomsky, and now from filmmaker Stone and his historian co-author, Peter Kuznick.

Finally, I have a recommendation. For your left-leaning friends and associates, I highly recommend a new e-book written by my friend, the eminent historian Martin J. Sklar. It is called Letters on Obama (from the Left):The Global Revolution and the Obama Counter-Revolution. Sklar is sui generis. He calls himself a Marxist historian and a socialist. Yet the positions he takes — which he argues are those in defense of liberty — are positions regularly associated with conservatives and Republicans. You might consider this naiveté or an oxymoron. But any serious reader should take into consideration the insights he presents and the intellectual case that he musters...

IMAGE CREDIT: The People's Cube, "October Revolution: This Time We Can Make It Work!"

Speaker John Boehner Caves on Amnesty

Lame.

At the New York Times, "Speaker ‘Confident’ of Deal With White House on Immigration":

WASHINGTON — Fresh off an election in which Hispanic voters largely sided with Democrats, Speaker John A. Boehner said Thursday that he was “confident” Congress and the White House could come up with a comprehensive immigration solution.

Immigration reform is “an important issue that I think ought to be dealt with,” Mr. Boehner, an Ohio Republican, said in an interview with Diane Sawyer on “ABC World News.”

“This issue has been around far too long,” he said, “and while I believe it’s important for us to secure our borders and to enforce our laws, I think a comprehensive approach is long overdue, and I’m confident that the president, myself, others, can find the common ground to take care of this issue once and for all.”

The words conveyed a new sense of urgency from Mr. Boehner, who said earlier this year that he thought it would be politically impossible to tackle a Republican proposal on the Dream Act, which sought to open a path to citizenship for some students in the United States illegally.

According to exit polls by Edison Research, President Obama won 71 percent of the Hispanic vote compared with Mitt Romney’s 27 percent, a gap greater than Mr. Obama’s 36-point advantage with those voters over John McCain in 2008.

Though Mr. Boehner did not elaborate on his ideas, nor give a time frame, many lawmakers want to tackle immigration legislation in the next session of Congress. The lame-duck session starting next week will be devoted to dealing with pressing tax and deficit issues.

Well, let's face it: Obama's got political capital and he's collecting dues from the opposition. But frankly, the political benefits of immigration reform (open borders amnesty) will accrue to the Democrats. No matter what Republicans do they'll still be attacked as racist. That's the way it is. We may get reform. But the Democrats will only pad their electoral constituencies.

See Jeff Goldstein for more on that, "'Why Hispanics Don’t Vote for Republicans'."

PHOTO: "'Phoenix Rising' for SB 1070 at Arizona State Capitol."