Sunday, September 30, 2012

Thursday, September 27, 2012



S.Helvenston.1992.SEALs.Calendar.jpg Scott Helvenston on the cover of the Navy SEALs 1992 Calendar
photo courtesy of Kathryn Helvenston-Wettengel

This video made by the U.S. Navy Seals may cost Obama his second term in office. It's just incredible how effective this video is in convincing Americans that Obama is a very serious national traitor.  History will judge him negatively for 1,000 years. Incredibly powerful video! Senior CIA, FBI, Military and many other U.S. government intelligence officials describe for the viewer how Obama has compromised U.S. national secrets and the very serious consequence of those actions.  And what's worse, he did it all for political gain so he could win a second disastrous term in office.
Navy SEALS Respond After Media Matters
Calls Them "Gutless"

Tuesday, September 25, 2012



Mark Steyn: 'Barack & Hillary at the MOVIES



Syndicated columnist

I see the Obama campaign has redesigned the American flag, and very attractive it is, too. Replacing the 50 stars of a federal republic is the single "O" logo symbolizing the great gaping maw of spendaholic centralization. And where the stripes used to be are a handful of red daubs, eerily mimicking the bloody finger streaks left on the pillars of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi as its staff were dragged out by a mob of savages to be tortured and killed. What better symbol could one have of American foreign policy? Who says the slick, hollow, vapid marketing of the Obama campaign doesn't occasionally intersect with reality?

On the latter point, after a week and a half of peddling an utterly false narrative of what happened in Libya, the United States government is apparently beginning to discern that there are limits to what even Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice can say with a straight face. The official line – that the slaughter of American officials was some sort of improvised movie review that got a little out of hand – is now in the process of modification to something bearing a less patently absurd relationship to what actually happened. That should not make any more forgivable the grotesque damage that the administration has done to the bedrock principle of civilized society: freedom of speech.

Article Tab: President Barack Obama, accompanied by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, speaks in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, about the death of U.S. ambassador to Libya Christopher Steven, Sept. 12, 2012.
President Barack Obama, accompanied by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, speaks in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, about the death of U.S. ambassador to Libya Christopher Steven, Sept. 12, 2012.

The more that U.S. government officials talk about the so-called film "Innocence Of Muslims" (which is actually merely a YouTube trailer) the more they confirm the mob's belief that works of "art" are the proper responsibility of government. Obama and Clinton are currently starring as the Siskel & Ebert of Pakistani TV, giving two thumbs-down to "Innocence Of Muslims" in hopes that it will dissuade local movie-goers from giving two heads-off to consular officials. "The United States government had absolutely nothing to do with this video," says Hillary Clinton. "We absolutely reject its content, and message." "We reject the efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others," adds Barack Obama. There follows the official State Department seal of the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad.
Fellow government-funded film critics call "Innocence Of Muslims" "hateful and offensive" (Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations) and "reprehensible and disgusting" (Jay Carney, White House press secretary). Gen. Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Senior Pentagon Advisor to Variety, has taken to telephoning personally those few movie fans who claim to enjoy the film. He called up Terry Jones, the Florida pastor who apparently thinks "Innocence Of Muslims" is the perfect date movie, to tell him the official position of the United States military is they'd be grateful if he could ease up on the five-star reviews.

Obama and Clinton's two-on-the-aisle act cost $70,000 of taxpayers' money. That may not sound much in the 16 trillion-dollar sinkhole of Washington, but it's a pretty big ad buy in Islamabad, and an improper use of public monies. If government functionaries want to do movie reviews, they should have a PBS fundraiser, offering a "Barack & Hill At The Movies" logo-ed burqa for pledges of over $100, and a complimentary clitoridectomy for pledges over $500. I fought a long battle for freedom of expression north of the border when the Canadian Islamic Congress attempted to criminalize my writing, and I'm proud to say I played a modest role in getting Parliament to strike down a shameful law and restore a semblance of free speech to a country that should never have lost it. So I know a little about how the Western world is shuffling into a psychological bondage of its own making, and it's no small thing when the First Amendment gets swallowed up by the vacuum of American foreign

What other entertainments have senior U.S. officials reviewed lately? Last year Hillary Clinton went to see the Broadway musical "Book of Mormon." "We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others"? The Book of Mormon's big showstopper is "Hasa Diga Eebowai," which apparently translates as "F*** You, God." The U.S. Secretary of State stood and cheered.
Why does Secretary Clinton regard "F*** You, God" as a fun toe-tapper for all the family but "F***, You Allah" as "disgusting and reprehensible"? The obvious answer is that, if you sing the latter, you'll find a far more motivated crowd waiting for you at the stage door. So the "Leader of the Free World" and "the most powerful man in the world" (to revive two cobwebbed phrases nobody seems to apply anymore to the president of the United States) is telling the planet that the way to ensure your beliefs command his "respect" is to be willing to burn and bomb and kill. You Mormons need to get with the program.

Meanwhile, this past week has seen the publication of two controversial magazines in France: One, called Closer, showed Prince William's lovely bride, the Duchess of Cambridge, without her bikini top on. The other, the satirical publication Charlie Hebdo, showed some bloke who died in the seventh century without his bikini top on. In response, a kosher grocery store was firebombed, injuring four people. Which group was responsible? Yes, frenzied Anglicans defending the honor of the wife of the future Supreme Governor of the Church of England rampaged through Jewish grocery stores, yelling, "Behead the enemies of the House of Windsor!" The embassy-burning mobs well understand the fraudulence of Obama and Clinton's professions of generalized "respect" for "all faiths." As a headline in the Karachi Express-Tribune puts it:
"Ultimatum To U.S.: Criminalize Blasphemy Or Lose Consulate."

The Assistant Attorney General of the United States has said he does not rule out a law against blasphemy, so that's good news, isn't it? Once we've got government commissars regulating movies, and cartoons, and teddy bears and children's piggy-banks and Burger King ice-cream tubs and inflatable sex-shop dolls and non-Sharia-compliant mustaches (just to round up a few of the innumerable grievances of Islam), all the bad stuff will go away, right?

If you'll forgive a book plug before Gen. Dempsey calls me up and asks me to withdraw it from publication, the paperback of my latest, "After America," has just come out. On page 297, I speculate on how future generations will look back on our time from a decade or two hence:
"In the Middle East, Islam had always been beyond criticism. It was only natural that, as their numbers grew in Europe, North America and Australia, observant Muslims would seek the same protections in their new lands. But they could not have foreseen how eager Western leaders would be to serve as their enablers. ... As the more cynical Islamic imperialists occasionally reflected, how quickly the supposed defenders of liberal, pluralist, Western values came to sound as if they were competing to be Islam's lead prison bitch."

Gee, that'd make a pretty funny number for "Quran: The Musical," next time Secretary Clinton wants a night out on Broadway, wouldn't it?

In the meantime, spare a thought for Abdullah Ismail, one of 10,000 Pakistanis who participated in a protest in Lahore the other day. He died after "feeling unwell from the smoke from U.S. flags burnt at the rally." But don't worry: I'm sure the new Obama flag is far less toxic, and there's no risk of keeling over in midchant of "Death to America!"




Newsletter Logo facebook Logo twitter Logo
September 25, 2012 SHARE

Why the media spin on Nov. 6 is wrong

By Wes Pruden
A few more “really bad weeks” like last week for Mitt Romney and somebody will have to stick a fork in President Obama. He’ll be done.

Despite the hammering Mr. Romney took from the president and his media claque, he moved from 5 or 6 points behind in the Gallup Poll to a dead-even tie at the end of the week. Rasmussen, whose different methodology has made it consistently the most reliable of the polls, called the race dead-even as well.

The president still leads in severalof the swing states, so called, but in some of those his lead is shrinking. You wouldn’t know this from the noise in the mainstream media, so called, and even from some of the conservative pundits who, though easily intimidated by the noise from the back of the press bus, usually constitute the only counterweight to the prevailing liberal media mob.

Nevertheless, a different version of the news is seeping through the media consciousness. Mr. Romney took hits for his mild observation that the president’s reaction to the killing of the ambassador and three other Americans in Libya was wrong-headed, but at the end of Mr. Romney’s “really bad week” the White House insistence that the deadly riots in Libya had nothing to do with terrorism fell apart.
The president was left with scrambled sheep’s eyes (if not egg) all over his face. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s press aide became so frustrated answering questions about the administration’s crumbling story Monday that he called a reporter an [rectal aperature] and suggested that he perform an impossible sexual act on himself. Understandable, perhaps, but it reflects what happens even to presidents and their liege men when tall tales fall apart.

But the media spin, abetted by a few of the Chicken Little conservatives, continues that the sky has fallen on Mr. Romney and the race is over. These pundits cite some polls, ignore others, and are too busy clucking agreement with the spin to look carefully at how the pollsters measure public opinion. Joining the Hullabaloo is more fun than lonely hard work.

A little of such work reveals how most of the polls are skewed. No reputable pollster deliberately cooks the numbers; he would quickly put himself out of business if he did. But he can work with out-of-date assumptions and stale numbers in getting to those numbers.

To take a poll, a pollster first builds a model, a pool of voters to reflect the voting population. He uses the results of the previous election, or elections, to identify and select the voters to put in his demographic pool. He has to be careful in adjusting the percentages. Telephone surveys, if he is not careful, for example, would have too few blacks, Hispanics and young voters in the sample because many voters in those categories have no landline phones – calling cell phones skews the result in other ways – or because those voters are often not at home or don’t speak English and are difficult (or impossible) to interview. The elderly are easily overstated because they’re usually at home and have time to talk. So the pollster “weights” the numbers by arbitrarily adding or subtracting voters from certain categories.

“Ordinarily,” says Dick Morris, who invented Bill Clinton with his uncannily accurate measurements of voter sentiment, first in Arkansas and then for the rest of the nation, “this task is not difficult. Over the years, black, Latino, young and the elderly proportion of the electorate has been fairly constant from election to election, except for a gradual increase in the Hispanic vote. You just need to look back at the [previous] election to weight your polling numbers for this one.”

Pitfalls abound. Black voters, based on previous elections, typically cast 11 percent of the vote in presidential elections. Four years ago they made up 14 percent of the vote. Young voters doubled their vote from 2004 to 2008. Yet nearly all pollsters are basing their models for this year on the 2008 vote. Nearly all of them, however, find a large “enthusiasm gap” between Obama voters, discouraged by high unemployment and disappointed by his performance, and the Romney voters. Many Romney voters are lukewarm about their candidate but red-hot about the prospect of defeating Mr. Obama.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

A new website,, attempts to redefine the data used by pollsters against actual voting results from both 2004 and 2008. Once crunched, their numbers show a Romney lead between 5 and 11 points. These numbers might not be “unskewed” so much as “differently skewed.” But they might be more accurate – or at least a warning that despite Chicken Little’s hysteria, the fat lady has not sung.

Wesley Pruden is editor emeritus of The Washington Times.

Monday, September 24, 2012



Leeds on Finance

Posted: 23 Sep 2012 03:46 PM PDT
This past week, Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher gave a speech on monetary policy.  His speeches never disappoint – he’s the best.  Here are some of my favorite pieces from this last one.  Some are direct quotes and others are my attempts to paraphrase his work.

1. “I believe that with each program we undertake to venture further in that direction [additional monetary accommodation], we are sailing deeper into uncharted waters.

2. “The truth, however, is that nobody on the committee, nor on our staffs at the Board of Governors and the 12 Banks, really knows what is holding back the economy.  Nobody really knows what will work to get the economy back on course.”

3. “And nobody  — in fact, no central bank anywhere on the planet – has the experience of successfully navigating a return home from the place in which we now find ourselves.”

4. There is $1.6 trillion in excess private bank reserves, trillions more in corporate coffers and a tremendous amount of underemployed cash in money market funds.   “This begs the question: Why would the Fed provision to shovel billions in additional liquidity into the economy’s boiler when so much is presently lying fallow?”

5. We think that cheap money will lead to higher employment.  But, surveys of small and medium size businesses are either not interested in borrowing or have no problem accessing cheap financing if they want it.  The primary concerns are regulatory and fiscal uncertainty.

6. Big businesses dominate fixed investment and job-creating capital expenditures.  “Most all of these businesses have abundant cash reserves or access to money, many at negative real interest rates.”  We’re in stall mode, waiting for the uncertainty of Europe and the U.S. fiscal policy to pass.  Further monetary accommodation will simply go to stock repurchases.

7. Duke surveyed 887 CFOs and only 14.5% listed “credit markets / interest rates” among the top three concerns facing their corporations.  In contrast, 43% cited consumer demand and 41% cited federal government policies.  Next on the list was price pressure from competitors and fourth was global financial instability.  Approximately 91% of CFOs said they would not change their investment plans even if interest rates dropped by 1%; 84% said they wouldn’t change their investment plans if rates dropped by 2%.

8. While President Fisher is skeptical, he said that he understands the logic of the FOMC’s recent decision.  “The program could help offset some of the drag from higher government-sponsored entities’ fees that have been recently levied, will likely lower the spreads between MBS and Treasuries and put further juice behind the housing market.”

9. “I would point out to those who reacted with some invective to the committee’s decision, especially those from political corners, that it was the Congress that gave the Fed its dual mandate.  That very same Congress is doing nothing to motivate business to expand and put people back to work.”

10. “One of the most important lessons learned during the economic recovery is that there is a limit to what monetary policy alone can achieve.  The responsibility for stimulating economic growth must be shared with fiscal policy.  Ironically, and sadly, Congress is doing nothing to incent job creators to use the copious liquidity the Federal Reserve has provided.  Indeed, it is doing everything to discourage job creation.”

11. President Fisher discussed how the FOMC has civil discourse, reaches a decision and takes action.  “If only the fiscal authorities could do the same!  Instead, they fight, bicker and do nothing but sail about aimlessly, debauching the nation’s income statement and balance sheet with spending programs they never figure out how to finance.”

12. “I am tempted to draw upon the hackneyed comparison that likens our dissolute Congress to drunken sailors.  But patriots among you might take umbrage, noting that a comparison with Congress in this case might be deemed an insult to drunken sailors.”

13. “If you want to save our nation from financial disaster, may I suggest that rather than blame the Fed for being hyperactive, you devote your energy to getting our nation’s fiscal authorities to do their job.”

14. “Our people are drowning in unemployment; our government is drowning in debt.  You – the citizens and voters sitting in this room and elsewhere – are ultimately in command of the fleet that sails under the flag of the United States Congress.  Demand that it performs its duty.”

15. President Fisher referenced Senator Schumer saying to Chairman Bernanke, “You are the only game in town.”  (President Fisher was speaking in New York, the state that Senator Schumer represents.)  President Fisher said that he would have answered “No, senator, you and your colleagues are the only game in town.  For you and your colleagues, Democrat and Republican alike, have encumbered our nation with debt, sold our children down the river and sorely failed our nation.  Sober up.  Get your act together.  Illegitimum non carorundum; get on with it.  Sacrifice your political ambition for the good of our country – for the good of our children and grandchildren.  For unless you do so, all the monetary policy accommodation the Federal Reserve can muster will be for naught.”

Well said as always…and I’ll leave it to each of you to google “Illegitimum non carorundum.”

Have a great week.

If you enjoy this blog, please forward it to others who may be interested.



Initially the Democrats had a field day ridiculing
Eastwood's routine with the empty chair.
It appears Eastwood may have been somewhat,
more clever than they anticipated.

Look at what his routine spawned.

Sunday, September 23, 2012



“I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country”
Nathan Hale was teaching school in New London, Connecticut, when the American Revolution began. In July 1775 he closed his schoolhouse doors and joined the Patriot army. He was a captain by late 1776, when the British captured New York City. George Washington desperately needed to know the strength and position of the king’s forces, so he asked for a volunteer to go behind enemy lines to gather information. Nathan Hale stepped forward.

Changing his uniform for a plain suit of brown clothes and taking his Yale diploma in hand, Hale disguised himself as a schoolteacher. He slipped through the British lines and gathered the needed information, which he carefully recorded in Latin and hid under the soles of his shoes. His mission accomplished, he began to make his way back. He got past all the British guards except the last ones. They stopped him, searched, and found the secret papers. Nathan Hale was arrested and carried before the British commander, General William Howe.

Howe took one look at the young American in civilian clothes, realized he was a spy, and ordered that he be hung the next morning.

The next several hours were cruel, lonely ones for Nathan Hale. He asked for a minister. His jailor refused. He asked for a Bible. That, too, was denied.

On the morning of September 22, 1776, Hale was led to a spot not far from what is now Central Park in New York City. The British officers who saw him marveled at his calmness and dignity. In the end he stood straight and unflinching. No American can ever forget the words he uttered before they slipped the noose around his neck: “I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.” 

- Bill Bennet



  How about the look on this cops face? And look at the looks on the faces of the three men behind him.

Friday, September 21, 2012



Newsletter Logo facebook Logo twitter Logo
September 21, 2012 SHARE

The Gaffe Patrol shoots blanks

By Wes Pruden
“Government intelligence” sounds like an oxymoron, and maybe that’s why Barack Obama usually skips his daily intelligence briefings. He prefers to get up to date on his iPad.

There’s plenty to get up to date on. Campaign trivia is all the rage, mostly because trivia is what campaign correspondents understand best, but there’s real news out there. We’re seeing the daily grim result of Mr. Obama’s apologetic outreach to the Muslims.
The American embassy in Pakistan battens down under siege. The prime minister of Iraq, thought to be an American ally, beats the dead horse on which the infamous video rides. Protests and demonstrations shut down a U.S. consulate in Indonesia. Crowds in Afghanistan chant death for America (when they aren’t killing American soldiers.)

But serenity is the rule in Washington. The president prefers life in his bubble, where he can survey the world as he imagines it is, eager to hear another speech, rather than the world as it really is, full of bad people on their way to the mosque and keen to kill, maim and dismember Americans to please Allah. If only Israel would behave and the First Amendment disappear. Peace and love would envelop us all.

Susan Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations, and Jay Carney, the presidential mouthpiece, gave him – and the rest of the world – a lot of misinformation (and maybe even disinformation) about the assault on the Benghazi consulate, and now they have to admit that everything they said was wrong.

They shamelessly peddled the pernicious nonsense that the assault was a spontaneous fit of anger, maybe even righteous anger, by Islamic zealots upset by a home-made video. The White House hooted at the idea that the assault was “pre-planned,” even when the president of Libya said everything he knew about the attack told him it was planned. Ignorance about weapons is highly prized at this White House, and neither Miss Rice nor Mr. Carney know the difference between a BB gun and a rocket-propelled grenade launcher. Otherwise they would understand that heavy weapons do not spontaneously appear on the streets, not even in places where the mobs are inspired by the religion of peace.

The White House lie was swallowed whole by the compliant media, but eventually the facts grew legs and a voice, however reluctant and timid. Mr. Obama’s government at last has to acknowledge what everybody else could readily see, that the attack on the Benghazi consulate was “a terrorist attack.” Four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, died at the hands of terrorists.

“I would say yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our [consulate],” Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, told the Senate Homeland Security Committee under sharp questioning by Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. But the reluctant spook wouldn’t quite surrender the whole White House lie that the attack was spontaneous, and not “pre-planned.”

The ambassador, it now turns out, was worried about security at the embassy in Tripoli and the consulate in Benghazi, and his personal safety as well. The Libyan government said it warned the American three days before the planned and co-ordinated assault in Benghazi, but nobody was listening. The word never got inside the bubble.

The president had his usual media help in spinning the news, and Mitt Romney’s criticism of the president for being asleep at the switch was widely described as a “gaffe.” But now it’s clear that Mr. Romney was right and the Gaffe Patrol was shooting blanks. Polls show that approval of the president’s handling of foreign policies – such as knowing what to do when an enemy strikes – is down 5 points. Worse, after all the huffing and puffing about Romney “gaffes” about Libya and his remarks about “the dependency society,” who pays taxes and who doesn’t, Gallup’s daily tracking poll put the race Thursday as dead even again, 47 points for the president, 47 points for the challenger.

It gets worse. A new poll taken for the American Jewish Committee says the president’s support among Jews in Florida is down 7 percentage points from 2008. This represents 50,000 Jewish voters, more than enough to tip the result to the Republicans in a race as tight as the 2012 race appears to be.

The news is enough to make a president put his iPad away and go to sleep, and be grateful for the security of his bubble, and dream dreamy dreams of Susan Rice and Jay Carney and their tales of the Arabian slights.

Wesley Pruden is editor emeritus of The Washington Times.

Thursday, September 20, 2012



                   Thank you!





Morning Jolt
. . . with Jim Geraghty

September 20, 2012

The Slow and Credulous Inspector General's Report on Fast and Furious

Nineteen months in the making, the Department of Justice's inspector general finally dropped the
nearly 500-page report on Fast and Furious.
Over at the Guardian, I wrote:

The initial headlines screamed the IG report exonerated Holder. That's one interpretation, although the portrait the report paints of Holder's management is deeply disturbing. Time and again, information and warnings about the operation's enormous risks flow from Arizona to Washington . . . and suddenly, mysteriously stop just short of Holder.

The Inspector General's report concludes that they can find no evidence Holder knew about Fast & Furious until well after Terry's death, but . . . well, the circumstances of Holder being so out of the loop, so in the dark about a major operation certainly appears unusual -- perhaps to the point of straining credulity.

The report states:

"We found it troubling that a case of this magnitude and that affected Mexico so significantly was not directly briefed to the Attorney General. We would usually expect such information to come to the Attorney General through the Office of the Deputy Attorney General . . . [Holder] was not told in December 2010 about the connection between the firearms found at the scene of the shooting and Operation Fast and Furious. Both Acting Deputy Attorney General Grindler and Counsel to the Attorney General and Deputy Chief of Staff Wilkinson were aware of this significant and troubling information by December 17, 2010, but did not believe the information was sufficiently important to alert the Attorney General about it or to make any further inquiry regarding this development."

Not "sufficiently important"? Baffling. Maddening. Some might even say, 'implausible.'

Time and again, everyone under Holder seems to do everything possible to make sure he isn't informed about an operation that, in the words of the IG report, failed "to adequately consider the risk to public safety in the United States and Mexico." In fact, information about the program went all the way to Holder's office . . . but somehow the memos, e-mails, and other communication never got to the man himself. It's as if he wasn't there.

If you want to interpret that as a subtle "empty chair" allusion, feel free.

"As we describe below, we identified information regarding Operation Fast and Furious that reached the Office of the Attorney General in 2010 but not Attorney General Holder himself."


If you're wondering if this is covered by some sort of obscure procedure or rules, it isn't:  "[Holder] should have been informed by no later than December 17, 2010, that two firearms recovered at the Terry murder scene were linked to an ATF firearms trafficking investigation....  We found that although [Holder's then deputy-chief-of-staff Monty] Wilkinson forwarded to Holder during the afternoon of December 15 three emails from the U.S. Attorney's Office providing further details about the shooting and law enforcement efforts to find and arrest the suspects, he did not notify the Attorney General of the revelation that two weapons found at the murder scene were linked to a suspect in an ATF firearms trafficking investigation.

A suspicious mind could look at this strange pattern of underling after deputy after staffer not mentioning critical information, and information getting all the way to Holder's office but not seen by the man himself, and conclude Holder's staffers were keeping him in the dark to preserve his "plausible deniability." Or perhaps someone just wasn't honest with the inspector general.

We now know that the best that can be said about Holder is that he was oblivious to a major, exceptionally dangerous operation going on within his organization. The most generous interpretation is that he staffed his office with professionals with epically egregious judgment in deciding what the nation's top law-enforcement officer needs to know.

For what it's worth, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman Darrell Issa wants to see a lot of heads roll, and argues that Holder doesn't have any excuses, either:

"The Inspector General's report confirms findings by Congress' investigation of a near total disregard for public safety in Operation Fast and Furious. Contrary to the denials of the Attorney General and his political defenders in Congress, the investigation found that information in wiretap applications approved by senior Justice Department officials in Washington did contain red flags showing reckless tactics and faults Attorney General Eric Holder's inner circle for their conduct.

"Former Deputy Attorney General Gary Grindler, Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer who heads the Criminal Division, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jason Weinstein, Arizona U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke, and Holder's own Deputy Chief of Staff Monty Wilkinson are all singled out for criticism in the report. It's time for President Obama to step in and provide accountability for officials at both the Department of Justice and ATF who failed to do their jobs. Attorney General Holder has clearly known about these unacceptable failures yet has failed to take appropriate action for over a year and a half."

Monday, September 17, 2012





First Page of the U.S. Constitution

The Signing of the Constitution

September 17, 1787, brought a world-changing event: the signing of the United States Constitution.

The day dawned clear and chilly in Philadelphia, where delegates from the thirteen states had spent a long, hot summer writing and debating the new Constitution for their young country. They assembled in Independence Hall and listened as their work was read aloud one last time. Then they heard an address from old Benjamin Franklin, who urged them all to sign the document. Franklin was too frail to make his speech, so another delegate read it for him.

Thirty-eight delegates filed forward to put their names at the bottom of the Constitution. George Washington signed first as president of the convention. The other delegates signed in geographical order from north to south, starting with New Hampshire and ending with Georgia. Franklin was helped forward from his seat, and it was reported that he wept as he signed. Their work done, the delegates closed the Constitutional Convention, and the document was sent to the states to be ratified.

In writing the Constitution, the Founding Fathers launched a daring experiment. The idea that a free people could begin a new country by designing their own government and writing down the laws and principles they would follow had never been tried before.

The Constitution has guaranteed freedom, equality, opportunity, and justice to hundreds of millions of people. It is the oldest written constitution still in effect and has become a model for nations around the world. It is, as Great Britain’s prime minister William Gladstone called it, “the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.” 

by Bill Bennet

Sunday, September 16, 2012



Disgrace in Benghazi
And a dying superpower’s blundering response.
By Mark Steyn

The president and secretary of state walk to the Rose Garden, September 12, 2012.

 Mark Steyn

So, on a highly symbolic date, mobs storm American diplomatic facilities and drag the corpse of a U.S. ambassador through the streets. Then the president flies to Vegas for a fundraiser. No, no, a novelist would say; that’s too pat, too neat in its symbolic contrast. Make it Cleveland, or Des Moines.

The president is surrounded by delirious fanbois and fangurls screaming “We love you,” too drunk on his celebrity to understand this is the first photo-op in the aftermath of a national humiliation. No, no, a filmmaker would say; too crass, too blunt. Make them sober, middle-aged midwesterners, shocked at first, but then quiet and respectful.

The president is too lazy and cocksure to have learned any prepared remarks or mastered the appropriate tone, notwithstanding that a government that spends more money than any government in the history of the planet has ever spent can surely provide him with both a speechwriting team and a quiet corner on his private wide-bodied jet to consider what might be fitting for the occasion. So instead he sloughs off the words, bloodless and unfelt: “And obviously our hearts are broken . . . ” Yeah, it’s totally obvious.

And he’s even more drunk on his celebrity than the fanbois, so in his slapdashery he winds up comparing the sacrifice of a diplomat lynched by a pack of savages with the enthusiasm of his own campaign bobbysoxers. No, no, says the Broadway director; that’s too crude, too ham-fisted. How about the crowd is cheering and distracted, but he’s the president, he understands the gravity of the hour, and he’s the greatest orator of his generation, so he’s thought about what he’s going to say, and it takes a few moments but his words are so moving that they still the cheers of the fanbois, and at the end there’s complete silence and a few muffled sobs, and even in party-town they understand the sacrifice and loss of their compatriots on the other side of the world.

But no, that would be an utterly fantastical America. In the real America, the president is too busy to attend the security briefing on the morning after a national debacle, but he does have time to do Letterman and appear on a hip-hop radio show hosted by “The Pimp with a Limp.” 
In the real State Department, the U.S. embassy in Cairo is guarded by Marines with no ammunition, but they do enjoy the soft-power muscle of a Foreign Service officer, one Lloyd Schwartz, tweeting frenziedly into cyberspace (including a whole chain directed at my own Twitter handle, for some reason) about how America deplores insensitive people who are so insensitively insensitive that they don’t respectfully respect all religions equally respectfully and sensitively, even as the raging mob is pouring through the gates.

When it comes to a flailing, blundering superpower, I am generally wary of ascribing to malevolence what is more often sheer stupidity and incompetence. For example, we’re told that, because the consulate in Benghazi was designated as an “interim facility,” it did not warrant the level of security and protection that, say, an embassy in Scandinavia would have. 

This seems all too plausible — that security decisions are made not by individual human judgment but according to whichever rule-book sub-clause at the Federal Agency of Bureaucratic Facilities Regulation it happens to fall under. However, the very next day the embassy in Yemen, which is a permanent facility, was also overrun, as was the embassy in Tunisia the day after. 

Look, these are tough crowds, as the president might say at Caesar’s Palace. But we spend more money on these joints than anybody else, and they’re as easy to overrun as the Belgian consulate.

As I say, I’m inclined to be generous, and put some of this down to the natural torpor and ineptitude of government. But Hillary Clinton and General Martin Dempsey are guilty of something worse, in the secretary of state’s weirdly obsessive remarks about an obscure film supposedly disrespectful of Mohammed and the chairman of the joint chiefs’ telephone call to a private citizen asking him if he could please ease up on the old Islamophobia.

Forget the free-speech arguments. In this case, as Secretary Clinton and General Dempsey well know, the film has even less to do with anything than did the Danish cartoons or the schoolteacher’s teddy bear or any of the other innumerable grievances of Islam. The 400-strong assault force in Benghazi showed up with RPGs and mortars: That’s not a spontaneous movie protest; that’s an act of war, and better planned and executed than the dying superpower’s response to it. Secretary Clinton and General Dempsey are, to put it mildly, misleading the American people when they suggest otherwise.

One can understand why they might do this, given the fiasco in Libya. The men who organized this attack knew the ambassador would be at the consulate in Benghazi rather than at the embassy in Tripoli. How did that happen? They knew when he had been moved from the consulate to a “safe house,” and switched their attentions accordingly. How did that happen? The United States government lost track of its ambassador for ten hours. How did that happen? Perhaps, when they’ve investigated Mitt Romney’s press release for another three or four weeks, the court eunuchs of the American media might like to look into some of these fascinating questions, instead of leaving the only interesting reporting on an American story to the foreign press. 

For whatever reason, Secretary Clinton chose to double down on misleading the American people. “Libyans carried Chris’s body to the hospital,” said Mrs. Clinton. That’s one way of putting it. The photographs at the Arab TV network al-Mayadeen show Chris Stevens’s body being dragged through the streets, while the locals take souvenir photographs on their cell phones. A man in a red striped shirt photographs the dead-eyed ambassador from above; another immediately behind his head moves the splayed arm and holds his cell-phone camera an inch from the ambassador’s nose. 

Some years ago, I had occasion to assist in moving the body of a dead man: We did not stop to take photographs en route. Even allowing for cultural differences, this looks less like “carrying Chris’s body to the hospital” and more like barbarians gleefully feasting on the spoils of savagery.

In a rare appearance on a non-showbiz outlet, President Obama, winging it on Telemundo, told his host that Egypt was neither an ally nor an enemy. I can understand why it can be difficult to figure out, but here’s an easy way to tell: Bernard Lewis, the great scholar of Islam, said some years ago that America risked being seen as harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend. 
At the Benghazi consulate, the looters stole “sensitive” papers revealing the names of Libyans who’ve cooperated with the United States. Oh, well. As the president would say, obviously our hearts are with you.

Meanwhile, in Pakistan, the local doctor who fingered bin Laden to the Americans sits in jail. In other words, while America’s clod vice president staggers around pimping limply that only Obama had the guts to take the toughest decision anyone’s ever had to take, the poor schlub who actually did have the guts, who actually took the tough decision in a part of the world where taking tough decisions can get you killed, languishes in a cell because Washington would not lift a finger to help him.

Like I said, no novelist would contrast Chris Stevens on the streets of Benghazi and Barack Obama on stage in Vegas. Too crude, too telling, too devastating.

Mark Steyn, a National Review columnist, is the author of After America: Get Ready for Armageddon. © 2012 Mark Steyn