Displaying posts published in

November 2012


http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/2303/Petraeus-of-Benghazi.aspx First, the WSJ, now the NYT: CIA Director David Petraeus is feeling a little heat from the spotlight regarding Benghazi. It’s an extremely soft-focus spot, however, one that obscures the most important question regarding Petraeus’ role in Obama administration mendacity in characterizing what was a planned terrorist attack as a violent melee growing from […]


http://www.foxnews.com/weather/2012/11/03/christie-orders-odd-even-gas-rationing-for-some-new-jersey-counties/ Christie orders odd-even gas rationing for some New Jersey counties SHADES OF JHIMMI CARTER….IN 1979 THE OIL EMBARGO RESULTED IN LONG WAITS AT THE GAS PUMPS…..Several states  implemented odd-even gas rationing, including Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, and Texas. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/weather/2012/11/03/christie-orders-odd-even-gas-rationing-for-some-new-jersey-counties/#ixzz2BAoXNzFc TRENTON, N.J. – If you’re planning to line up for gas in […]

We Are Those Who Stand for the Day Posted by Daniel Greenfield

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/ We face two conflicts in the present day and against the present day. Both conflicts are being fought against ideologies dislocated in time, longing urgently for the past and the future.  Islamism is a reactionary ideology preaching a perfect world to be gained by stepping back to the 7th Century origins of its founding […]


Last night on the O’Reilly show, Geraldo Rivera insisted that Americans owe Barack Obama an apology….that’s right…..an apology for their treatment of him regarding Benghazi. Maybe we do owe the Prez and apology.

Here is mine:

Dear President:

Americans owe you an apology for having catapulted you to the White House from a nondescript role as an accidental Senator (accidental because your Democratic opponent’s private and sealed divorce records were revealed, and then, what do you know, in the general election your opponent Jack Ryan’s private divorce custody papers were also released revealing some infidelity problems).

The American infatuation with you propelled you into a job for which you were totally unfit, unprepared and unschooled. That was so unfair to you and to the nation. Now you are stuck with an economy you could not mend, a foreign policy scandal you can’t talk your way out of, and a public that is reacting with the force of a scorned lover.

And when the media strikes…it uses expressions like “hit the road Barack” (Newsweek) …so mean.

But help is on the way. Americans will issue the final apology for over promoting you and giving you a job way above your pay grade. You will have a cushy retirement, big bucks from speaking engagements, and books to write. Like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton your star will rise.

Good luck and best regards to the family.


Reid says he will refuse to work with Romney
The Washington Times
Friday, November 2, 2012
Five days before the election, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has ruled out trying to work with Mitt Romney should he win next week. Read more…

Read more: http://times247.com/#ixzz2B9uCdiiT
Food stamp rolls grow 75 times faster than jobs
The Weekly Standard
Friday, November 2, 2012
Food stamp rolls grow 75 times faster than jobs
With the latest jobs report, it is now the case that “Under Obama, Food Stamp Growth [Is] 75 Times Greater Than Job Creation,” according to statistics compiled by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee. “For Every Person Added to Jobs Rolls Since January 2009, 75 People Added To Food Stamp Rolls.” Read more…

Read more: http://times247.com/#ixzz2B9terG7l
28 papers have quit Obama to endorse Romney
The Blaze
Friday, November 2, 2012
Do newspaper endorsements mean what they used to? Maybe not. But Mitt Romney has over 100 of them, which is an impressive feat for a Republican. However, Romney’s ability to convert editorial boards away from their decisions to endorse President Obama four years ago is truly impressive. Read more…

Read more: http://times247.com/#ixzz2B9to74Sb
Mitt’s foreign policy approval rating soars 15 points
Big Peace
Friday, November 2, 2012
Mitt’s foreign policy approval rating soars 15 points
From September to October, Pew found that Romney scored a 15-point gain on foreign policy issues. Read more…

Read more: http://times247.com/#ixzz2B9uaFBbY



“Mr. Obama has made the defeat of al Qaeda a core part of his case for re-election. Yet in Benghazi an al Qaeda affiliate killed four U.S. officials in U.S. buildings, contradicting that political narrative.”

The Ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were murdered September 11 in Benghazi. That we know. But too little else about what took place before, during and after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission is clear.

The White House says Republicans are “politicizing” a tragedy. Politicians politicize, yes, but part of their job is to hold other politicians accountable. The Administration has made that difficult by offering evasive, inconsistent and conflicting accounts about one of the most serious American overseas defeats in recent years. Unresolved questions about Benghazi loom over this election because the White House has failed to resolve them.

• Why did the U.S. not heed warnings about a growing Islamist presence in Benghazi and better protect the diplomatic mission and CIA annex?

From the start of the Libyan uprising in early 2011, the Central Intelligence Agency built up an unusually large presence in Benghazi. By this September, two dozen or so operatives and contractors monitored Ansar al-Shariah and other militant groups. Deteriorating security after the war was no secret. U.S. intelligence noted militant camps in the mountains near Benghazi, including “al Qaeda leaning” fighters, according to Tuesday’s New York Times.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203335504578089871882358196.html?mod=hp_opinion A Romney-Ryan administration will confront the problems that politicians have avoided for a decade. After more than a year of campaigning, endless political advertisements, two conventions and four debates, the presidential election is almost over. The big decision of 2012 will soon be in the hands of the voters. The choice Americans make will […]



The case for climate change, formerly the case for global warming, entails a series of propositions that begin with the unobjectionable and escalate to the absurd: that the climate is changing, that these changes are likely to be dangerous and destructive, that these changes are in the main the result of human action, that carbon-dioxide emissions are the major factor, that these changes can be forestalled or reversed by political means, that such political actions are likely to be on the right side of the cost-benefit analysis, etc. The least plausible claims are those holding that specific events, such as the horrific damage inflicted by Hurricane Sandy, are attributable to specific U.S. public-policy decisions. That this lattermost claim is absurd and stands in contravention of the best scientific analysis has not stopped the most hysterical climate alarmists from making it, but then it is the nature of hysterical alarmists to exceed the bounds of reason.

Among others, Chris Mooney of Mother Jones was sure enough of himself to declare categorically of Sandy: “Climate change, a topic embarrassingly ignored in the three recent presidential debates, made it worse.” Bill McKibben of Democracy Now and others on the left made similar statements, while Businessweek practically wet itself. There is little or no evidence that this claim is true in any meaningful sense, and many climate scientists believe that warming has resulted in fewer powerful hurricanes striking the United States. As usual, the science is complex while the politics are unfortunately simpleminded.

The conventional climate-change argument holds that warmer oceans will lead to more intense hurricanes and other extreme weather events. But Sandy was not an unprecedentedly powerful hurricane — it inflicted such remarkable damage because it arrived at the confluence of a nor’easter and a high-pressure system, and plowed into densely populated urban areas at high tide. In fact, the arrival of powerful hurricanes on our shores is somewhat diminished of late: The last Category 3 hurricane to make landfall was seven years ago, the longest such interval in a century. As Professor Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado points out, 1954–55 saw three back-to-back hurricanes — two in the same month — more destructive than Sandy crashing onto our shores.



In political terms, Hurricane Sandy and the Benghazi-consulate debacle exemplify at home and abroad the fundamental unseriousness of the United States in the Obama era. In the days after Sandy hit, Barack Obama was generally agreed to have performed well. He had himself photographed in the White House Situation Room nodding thoughtfully to bureaucrats (“John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism; Tony Blinken, National Security Advisor to the Vice President; David Agnew, Director for Intergovernmental Affairs”) and tweeted it to his 3.2 million followers. He appeared in New Jersey wearing a bomber jacket rather than a suit to demonstrate that when the going gets tough the tough get out a monogrammed Air Force One bomber jacket. He announced that he’d instructed his officials to answer all calls within 15 minutes because in America “we leave nobody behind.” By doing all this, the president “shows” he “cares” — which is true in the sense that in Benghazi he was willing to leave the entire consulate staff behind, and nobody had their calls answered within seven hours, because presumably he didn’t care. So John Brennan, the Counterterrorism guy, and Tony Blinken, the National Security honcho, briefed the president on the stiff breeze, but on September 11, 2012, when a little counterterrorism was called for, nobody bothered calling the Counterterrorism Security Group, the senior U.S. counterterrorism bureaucracy.

Meanwhile, FEMA rumbles on, the “emergency-management agency” that manages emergencies, very expensively, rather than preventing them. Late on the night Sandy made landfall, I heard on the local news that my state’s governor had asked the president to declare a federal emergency in every New Hampshire county so that federal funds could be “unlocked.” A quarter-million people in the Granite State were out of power. It was reported that, beyond our borders, 8 million people in a dozen states were out of power.

But that’s not an “emergency.” No hurricane hit my county. Indeed, no hurricane hit New Hampshire. No hurricane hit “17 states,” the number of states supposedly “affected” by Sandy at its peak. A hurricane hit a few coastal counties of New Jersey, New York and a couple of other states, and that’s it. Everyone else had slightly windier-than-usual wind — and yet they were out of power for days. In a county entirely untouched by Sandy, my office manager had no electricity for a week. Not because of an “emergency” but because of a decrepit and vulnerable above-the-ground electrical-distribution system that ought to be a national embarrassment to any developed society. A few weeks ago, I chanced to be in Saint Pierre and Miquelon, a French colony of 6,000 people on a couple of treeless rocks in the North Atlantic. Every electric line is underground. Indeed, the droll demoiselle who leads tours of the islands makes a point of amusingly drawing American visitors’ attention to this local feature.



‘If we want to have our First Amendment rights tomorrow, we must defend them today, wherever they may be threatened.” Carl Anderson, the head of the Knights of Columbus, is the author of your pre-election weekend reading, the new e-book: Proclaim Liberty: Notes on the Next Great Awakening in America, which puts this moment for Catholics and freedom in America in perspective. He discusses the book with National Review Online’s Kathryn Jean Lopez.

KATHRYN JEAN LOPEZ: You write, “Whether we will continue to live in a country blessed with the freedom to practice our religion free of government interference, or whether constitutional liberties will be subordinated to the demands of the state, remains to be seen.” How much does this one election mean in determining the answer to this question?

CARL ANDERSON: I think that over the past year and a half, we have seen an increasing coalition of people of faith defending the First Amendment. We have a conflict in this country between a small, militant group of secularists, and the vast majority of Americans, who, our polling has shown, broadly support the First Amendment right to religious freedom. They also support exemptions based on conscience and religious belief from objectionable laws. Obviously the HHS mandate is a very high-profile battle in this larger context. Governor Romney has promised to repeal Obamacare — which includes the mandate. President Obama has promised to keep the mandate in place. The issue of the federal government pursuing an agenda at odds with the First Amendment could end with this election, but regardless of who wins the election, we aren’t likely see an end to secularist attacks on religious liberty — at the state and local level, in the courts, etc. If we want to have our First Amendment rights tomorrow, we must defend them today, wherever they may be threatened.

LOPEZ: You write about “the ways in which Catholics — and all people of faith — ought to approach politics in order to live out their faith in public as well as in private, and to transform the divisiveness and hostility in politics we see today into a society in which every person is respected and valued — a society that Pope John Paul II has called a “Civilization of Love.” Politics can build a civilization of love? Surely you jest?

ANDERSON: Actually, if Catholics and other Christians take the lead in bringing charity to politics, if we build a more civil discourse, that would be a first step. We can’t expect politics to help further a civilization of love unless we bring love and charity to our political discussions. A civilization of love must be created across the board. It can’t exclude politics, nor can it focus on politics alone. It must transform all of society. The commandment to love our neighbor doesn’t have an exemption clause for politics. It may sound idealistic, but realistically we can begin by insisting that candidates stop the obvious misstatements of facts and character assassination that have become the trademark of certain campaigns.