Displaying posts published in

September 2017

Barack Obama: The former president who won’t go away by W. James Antle III

The Obama rapid response team quickly swung into action against the latest Republican move on immigration last week. The new policy was “wrong.” It was “self-defeating.” It was “cruel.” It wasn’t “required legally,” but was “a political decision.”

Only two things were unusual about this strong Democratic pushback: Barack Obama was no longer in office at the time — and yet all the above responses came from the former president himself.

If the 2016 presidential election seems like a never-ending contest, with vanquished Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton constantly relitigating the campaign and criticizing the man who ultimately bested her, the tug-of-war between President Trump and his immediate predecessor has been just as intense.

“He is like our president-in-exile,” joked a Democratic operative who requested anonymity to speak candidly about the former president. “His profile makes sense, because while we Democrats and really the whole country owe President Obama a lot, he does have some things to answer for in terms of our current situation” with Republicans controlling both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

What merited Obama’s latest statement against his successor was Trump’s decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, an Obama executive order put in place to shield young illegal immigrants from deportation when Congress declined to pass immigration legislation the former president supported. The announcement that it would be phased out after six months, with Congress given an opportunity to pass legislation replacing it, was made by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a leading opponent of Obama’s immigration policies as a Republican senator from Alabama.

An Obama-era predecessor of Sessions’ was quick to rebuke the current attorney general for calling DACA “an ‘open-borders policy’ that admitted ‘everyone.’ ”
Former Attorney General Eric Holder has emerged as a front man of sorts for his former boss President Barack Obama’s unprecedentedly activist post-presidency. (AP Photos)

“To the contrary,” former Attorney General Eric Holder wrote in the Washington Post on Sept. 6, “it was a beacon of hope for a narrowly defined group who crossed our borders before they could have fully understood what a ‘border’ was.”

Holder wasn’t done. “States must resist Trump’s inevitable deportation efforts,” he continued. “The private sector must come together to defend its employees. Americans must raise their voices — and use their ballots.”

Obama and Holder remain partners in an effort to persuade Democratic voters to do just that. This involves playing defense when Obama policies are attacked by the new administration, and also offense as they try to elect Democrats, especially in races that will influence redistricting after the 2020 census.

One of those efforts is getting an assist from left-wing billionaire George Soros, who spent half a million dollars on ads into a district attorney race in Texas in which a Democrat challenger beat the Republican incumbent. That has prompted Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to tell other Republicans that they need to “wake up” to what Obama and others are up to.

Holder has emerged as a front man of sorts for his former bosses’ unprecedentedly activist post-presidency. Before Obama even left office, Holder launched the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, a tax-exempt 527 political action committee that bills itself as “an organization of Democratic leaders enacting a comprehensive, multi-cycle Democratic Party redistricting strategy over the next 5 years and beyond.” The group will also support legal challenges and ballot initiatives as they try to wipe out what they argue is an unfair Republican advantage.

MEMORIALS OF GRIEF

It was around the time of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, that memorials stopped being remembrances of virtue, and became therapy sessions. The old statues of determined men gave way to empty spaces to represent loss. Their lessons of courage and sacrifice, were replaced by architecture as therapy session, clean geometrical shapes, reflective pools and open areas in which to feel grief at what was lost and then let go of it.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-K8dc8AC6jLM/TmgnHhX8HkI/AAAAAAAAFGI/aHIahoWNzoY/s1600/Stan_Watt%27s_To_Lift_a_Nation__9-11_Monument_at_NFFM_Park_NETC_LR.JPG

September 11 memorials have inevitably followed this same pattern, empty spaces, still pools of water groves and names tastefully inscribed in row after row. How do you tell the Ground Zero memorial from the Oklahoma City memorial? The Oklahoma City memorial has one reflecting pool and the September 11 memorial has two pools.

There is no larger meaning to these memorials and there isn’t supposed to be one. A hundred years from now they will be nothing more than giant pools surrounded by trees with nothing to say. These new memorials are not about teaching us to remember… but about helping us to forget.

To find a memorial that actually in some way addresses what happened on September 11. you would have to leave New York to go across the river to New Jersey where the much maligned Teardrop hanging between a torn tower at least represents something concrete, even if it is more grief and pain. Unlike the useless winged shapes of the Staten Island Memorial and the Pentagon Memorial, it at least acknowledges that something terrible happened here and transforms into a symbolic image.

But the abstract symbolism is still the problem. There’s an American eagle overlooking the Battery Park World War II memorial a few blocks from Ground Zero, but to find an American eagle on a memorial to the attacks you have to travel 30 miles across the river to Allendale, New Jersey.

The official September 11 memorial has sustainable architecture, but Dumont, NJ with a per capita income of 26,000 dollars managed to acquire and place one of the steel beams from the World Trade Center as their memorial.

The closest to a traditional memorial that tells you what actually happened and why it matters, as opposed to handing you a three acre handkerchief of empty spaces and waterfalls, is across the street from the monstrosity of emptiness. Just turn your back to it, cross Liberty Street and walk up to Firehouse Ten where the FDNY Memorial Wall depicts the events of the day in bronze. You may have to dodge some trucks and search for it underneath the scaffolding, but it’s there.

That’s more than can be said for the identity of the attackers which is invariably absent, except as a crescent that pops up ominously in memorial design after design, entirely by accident of course. But the memorials are not about history, they exist only to allow us to release our grief and move on by expressing life-affirming sentiments in response to this “tragedy” through community service that helps others.

From cries for revenge to serving soup to the homeless at a community kitchen– that is the intended trajectory. If it hasn’t worked as well as intended, as shown by the people who gathered to loudly celebrate Osama bin Laden’s death, instead of sighing at the cycle of violence, this is the long game.

The Pew polls show a steady growth in the number those who believe that American wrongdoing led to the attacks– from a third after the attacks, to 43 percent today. Give the enemy another decade to do its work and those numbers will be in the sixties. And their game is simple enough, remove the actual history and the images of the massacres– and replace it with an emphasis on foreign policy. Mix in news stories about Islamophobia, stir the pot a little and you’re done.

Numbers like that are why Obama was able to win and why Ron Paul is polling better than ever. When revisionist history becomes mainstream, then people will accept anything so long as it sounds good. So long as it lets them forget.

Alongside the usual Noam Chomsky 9-11 essay collections and conspiracy theory books on display on Amazon and at every bookstore; those who want purely fictional history can get pick up a copy of Amy Waldman’s The Submission about a ‘secular’ Muslim architect’s 9/11 memorial and the bigotry he experiences from the right-wing.

Or if they want to dig through the remainders bin, there’s John Updike’s next to last novel, Terrorist, an overwritten teen novel by one of America’s most famous literary authors, who shares his protagonist’s hatred for the country. “They can’t ask for a more sympathetic and, in a way, more loving portrait of a terrorist,” Updike said of his book. ‘They’ being the literary critics, not the Taliban who don’t need to rely on the author of ‘Rabbit Run’ for that sort of thing.

Finally there’s ‘Forgetfulness’ by Ward Just, whose title encompasses the literary goal of the left in the story of a man who loses his wife to terrorists but avoids the “climate of revenge” and the “anger of the sort that swept all before it… the anger of the American . . . after September 11”. Instead he learns to relate to the men who murdered his wife.

Forgetfulness is the underlying theme of everything. Stop being angry. Stop being vengeful. Forget!

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CF-K2n4MDx0/TmgnQ2Qz5JI/AAAAAAAAFGM/hTlB9d5fMhA/s1600/911memorial.jpg

It is the commandment that echoes from the empty spaces and the revisionist histories, the slabs of events gouged out and dumped as landfill in Staten Island or sold off in bulk to China. The endless degradation of memory turned into a national ritual. A way to test ourselves to see how much better we feel about it– how much more we accept what happened on that day as being in the past.

Drown history in enough reflecting pools and it stops mattering. Put up enough empty benches and people will remember to forget. Tell them that they’re courageous for moving on and they’ll admire themselves for putting it all behind them. And if they won’t forget, then fill them with grief until they can’t take it anymore and willingly forget.

But by all means avoid outrage, keep messy emotions like anger out of the way. Anger is not part of the healing process, which begins with an empty bench and ends with a visit to a mosque to reconcile with your killers. It retards the process, it says, “Hey wait, we’re not done here yet!” It says, “These bastards are still walking around here plotting to kill us.” It says, “They’re building a mosque right here to look down on your reflecting pools.” And all that is most unhelpful.

Let’s take a brief detour from all the forgetting and travel up Broadway some eighty or so blocks to Central Park. There at the entrance to the park stands the Maine Monument to the hundreds of dead in the destruction of the USS Maine. There are no reflecting pools or geometrical shapes here. Instead there is a warrior, the figure of justice and the representation of the dying avenged by Columbia Triumphant, standing atop, cast in bronze out of the guns of the lost ship.

The New York Times, being what it always was, sniffed at it as a “cheap disfigurement” and the history of the war has since been revised to American jingoism and the sinking of the Maine is invariably described as an accident. If this goes on, we will no doubt live to see experts promoting the theory that it wasn’t the suicide attacks that killed thousands of Americans on September 11, but the flaws of the buildings.

Yet the Maine Memorial is still there towering above them all. In bold text so different from the carefully selected fonts of modern memorials it proclaims unashamedly; “The Freemen Who Died in the War with Spain that Others Might be Free.” And of the men who died on the Maine it declaims: “Valiant Seamen who Perished on the Maine by Fate Unwarned, in Death Unafraid.”

There are mourning figures on the memorial and there is grief and pain, but it takes place in the context of a larger struggle. The struggle against those who committed the crime and the triumph of a nation against those who would attack it.

It is inconceivable that anything so bold and proud would ever go up at Ground Zero. The culture that represented virtues through the figures of men and women has given way to one that represents abstract feelings in geometrical shapes and reflecting pools. It is why we have no new buildings like the Empire State Building, and why we won’t even be able to replace the stark geometry of the WTC with anything but smaller ‘green’ buildings which exist as a calculated show of ugliness and a rejection of human aspiration.

On the way back from Central Park, stop by the Bank of America Tower, the second tallest building in New York, the most ecologically friendly tall building in the world constructed by Obama’s BOA pals. And I defy you to spend more than a minute looking at it and then describe it. It isn’t just ugly, it’s forgettable. Your eyes move past it even as they look at it. Its peak is a deliberate mockery of symmetry and order.

Then pass by the New York Times Building, the fourth tallest building in the city, in hock to Mexican-Arab billionaire Carlos Slim, built through eminent domain land seizures with money from the Lower Manhattan Development Fund, even though it’s firmly in midtown. Then repeat the same exercise with this glorified apartment building. Again you come away with nothing, because nothing is there.

Finally after you pass by the Bloomberg Tower, even more devoid of personality, the jumbled twin towers of Time Warner Center opposite the Maine Memorial, and the rest of them all, return to the site of the former Twin Towers, and look up at the Woolworth Building, once the tallest building in the city. It hasn’t been for a long time, but yet it is. It stands as a monument to human endeavors. And that is what makes it human.

Let us consider what memorials are for and what skyscrapers are for. Are they meant to be empty spaces or are they ways of reminding us who we are?

We don’t need more holes in the ground, more places to feel empty and alone. What we need are things to aspire to. The World Trade Center’s towers were not targets of convenience, no more than the Saudi and Emirati skyscraper building spree is. Towers are symbols of achievement. They are guardians of the skyline who remind us of what we can accomplish.

The terrorists and the memorialmakers have a common purpose– to make us forget what we are capable of. To drown us in our own pain and grief, to make us drink of the Lethe waters of reflecting pools until we forget who we are. The terrorists and the memorials have done their best to break us. But it is not in grief that we must remember the day. Grief is for the foregone conclusion. But though thousands upon thousands are lost– we are not yet lost. And the war is not over.

The holes in the ground are not symbols of grief, or empty places in our hearts, they are open wounds inflicted on us by our enemies. Filling them with water will not change that, only anesthetize the pain of a fatal injury. To forget that is to sink into a mirage and die in delirium that we are recovering.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Rfq_WXSxpds/TmgoD0_7P5I/AAAAAAAAFGQ/lpzgCD1BSWo/s1600/sept_11_image_2.jpg
The attacks of September 11 are not a time for reflection, or personal remembrance, but a sharp reminder that we are bleeding. And we can only bleed for so long before we die. There are worse things out there than four hijacked planes used as missiles. There are actual missiles and suitcase nukes, nerve gas, toxins and whatever else can be dredged out of laboratories by Western trained researchers.

And even worse than these is the endless struggle, the constant waiting for another attack, the security measures meant to keep us safe while imprisoning us in our own security, the waiting for the day when an attack succeeds. The day we die.

September 11 is not the day we cry, it is the day we get angry. It is the day we remember who our killers were, how many have been lost, and how little has been done to bring down the ideology responsible as completely as they brought the towers down. It is the day we remember not to forget. It is the day we remember that the war has just begun and that until it ends, there can be no comfort or solace. The fight goes on.

Immigration and the Unlearned Lessons of 9/11 Politicians and the courts block Trump administration’s efforts to safeguard America. Michael Cutler

It is hard to believe that it has been 16 years since four passenger airliners were used as de facto cruise missiles to carry out the most horrific terror attack in the history of the United States.

That attack was against the entire United States of America, however, for those who were in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania on that day, the attack was also personal — all too personal.

I will never forget the sight of the ashes from the conflagration at what came to be known as “Ground Zero” fluttering down on my neighborhood in Brooklyn on that day. I will never forget my neighbors screaming and wailing as they watched the televised coverage of that act of violence and destruction playing out just miles from our homes, knowing that their loved ones and friends went to work only an hour or two earlier at the World Trade Center, or in one of the buildings near the World Trade Center complex.

I will never forget what I came to think of as the “stench of death,” the horrible, sickening odors emanating from the smoldering debris at Ground Zero that lasted for months, permeating the air in New York City.

So many of us still suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. How could we not?

Today the death count from 9/11 continues to climb as more people, especially first responders, slowly and torturously succumb to the diseases that were caused by their exposures to and ingestion of the toxins released when the World Trade Center collapsed.

In fact, the expenses associated with the massive number of those who were sickened by those toxins will be borne through the passage of legislation known as H.R.1786 – James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Reauthorization Act. That bill was named for NYPD Detective James Zadroga, one of the first responders who perished because of his exposure to those toxins.

For nearly every year since the attacks of 9/11 I have written retrospectives to lay out how both the Bush administration and especially the Obama administration failed to take the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission into account, particularly where the issue of immigration was concerned.

I provided testimony to the 9/11 Commission about the nexus between the terror attacks of 9/11 and multiple failures of the immigration system.

Last year my article, “Reflections On 9/11’S Vulnerabilities” made my frustrations with the Obama administration crystal clear.

My 2014 article The 9/11 Commission Report and Immigration: An Assessment, Fourteen Years after the Attacks provided and in-depth analysis of the many ways that the Obama administration had not only not acted in accordance with the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, but actually acted in direct opposition to those findings and recommendations.

Today, thankfully, Donald Trump is the President of the United States and the Attorney General is not Loretta Lynch but Jeff Sessions.

Trump and Session are both clearly committed to enforcing our immigration laws, securing our nation’s borders and addressing the immigration failures and vulnerabilities that the 9/11 Commission identified.

How September 11 made me what I am. Daniel Greenfield

“In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate,” a terrorist declares on the Flight 93 cockpit recording. That’s followed by the sounds of the terrorists assaulting a passenger.

“Please don’t hurt me,” he pleads. “Oh God.”

As the passengers rush the cabin, a Muslim terrorist proclaims, “In the name of Allah.”

As New York firefighters struggle up the South Tower with 100 pounds of equipment on their backs trying to save lives until the very last moment, the Flight 93 passengers push toward the cockpit. The Islamic hijackers call out, “Allahu Akbar.” The Islamic supremacist term originated with Mohammed’s massacre of the Jews of Khaybar and means that Allah is greater than the gods of non-Muslims.

Mohammed Atta had advised his fellow terrorists that when the fighting begins, “Shout, ‘Allahu Akbar,’ because this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers.” He quoted the Koran’s command that Muslim holy warriors terrorize non-believers by beheading them and urged them to follow Mohammed’s approach, “Take prisoners and kill them.”

The 9/11 ringleader quoted the Koran again. “No prophet should have prisoners until he has soaked the land with blood.”

On Flight 93, the fighting goes on. “Oh Allah. Oh the most Gracious,” the Islamic terrorists cry out. “Trust in Allah,” they reassure. And then there are only the chants of, “Allahu Akbar” as the plane goes down in a Pennsylvania field leaving behind another blood-soaked territory in the Islamic invasion of America.

Today that field is marked by the “Crescent of Embrace” memorial.

Thousands of Muslims cheered the attack in those parts of Israel under the control of the Islamic terrorists of the Palestinian Authority. They shouted, “Allahu Akbar” and handed out candy.

But similar ugly outbreaks of Islamic Supremacism were also taking place much closer to home.

On John F. Kennedy Boulevard, in Jersey City, across the river from Manhattan, crowds of Muslim settlers celebrated the slaughter of Americans. “Some men were dancing, some held kids on their shoulders,” a retired Jersey City cop described the scene. “The women were shouting in Arabic.”

Similar Islamic festivities broke out on Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn, a major Islamic settlement area, even as in downtown Manhattan, ash had turned nearby streets into the semblance of a nuclear war. Men and women trudged over Brooklyn Bridge or uptown to get away from this strange new world.

Many just walked. They didn’t know where they were going. I was one of them.

That Tuesday was a long and terrible education. In those hours, millions of Americans were being educated about many things: what happens when jet planes collide with skyscrapers, how brave men can reach the 78th floor with 100 pounds of equipment strapped to their backs and what are the odds are of finding anyone alive underneath the rubble of a falling tower. They were learning about a formerly obscure group named Al Qaeda and its boss. But they were also being educated about Islam.

Palestinians’ War on Art by Bassam Tawil

What is particularly disturbing is that the Palestinian Authority (PA), which is backed and funded by the US and EU, is also playing an active role in the campaign against the festival and the Palestinian participants. It would be easier to understand if Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad were opposed to the festival, but the PA’s opposition sends the unambiguous message to Palestinians from their leaders in Ramallah: it is Israel that is unacceptable, plain and simple.

Here is a festival that promotes nothing but culture and peace, and the PA, once again, is promoting precisely the opposite. Worldwide, music and culture are used to promote coexistence and peace between peoples. Yet, the Palestinians seem to approach art differently. Instead of embracing cultural events that strive to narrow the gap between people, the Palestinians consider art a mortal threat to their ideology and values.

If Palestinian and Israeli artists coming together in a festival is being labeled a crime and treacherous act by the Palestinian street and leadership, what is the hope that any Palestinian leader will ever be able to sign a peace agreement with Israel?

Palestinian strong-arm tactics are at it again.

The latest victims are Palestinian artists who are bearing the brunt of a campaign of intimidation to force them to boycott a summer arts festival in Jerusalem under the pretext that the event promotes “normalization” with Israel. The artists have been warned that anyone who participates in the Mekudeshet Festival as part of the Jerusalem Season of Culture will be expelled from the General Union of Palestinian Artists.

The festival, which is taking place in Jerusalem between August 23 and September 15, tries to “take an alternative and more open look at reality” in the city, according to the Mekudeshet Festival website.

“We try to replace fixed, pre-determined ideas with a less judgmental and multifaceted approach to the exact same reality. We try to elevate our gaze, to dissolve boundaries, to generate empathy, and to open our hearts and minds. We try to remember, always, that Jerusalem conquers us, liberates us, and enables us to unite around a common love for the city.”

The festival is purely a cultural and artistic event for those who wish to express their love for Jerusalem. The organizers, who do not belong to any political party, are not seeking to make any statement regarding the status of Jerusalem:

“For us, Jerusalem is a state of consciousness. We are constantly trying to touch its inner soul and holiness, to grapple with its challenges and needs, and to heal its deep, gaping wound. All our artistic creations derive from Jerusalem.”

South Sudan is Strategic to the U.S. Open Letter to the President of the United States by Simon Deng

South Sudan, the land of my birth, is not only the world’s newest nation, but also the only country in Africa that is currently blocking Islamic extremism from flooding southward to overtake the entire continent.

Without US engagement, there would be no South Sudan today, and without its leadership again, and yours, Mr. President, there may not be a South Sudan in the near future.

President United States of America
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington DC 20500

Dear President Donald J. Trump,

As a former Sudanese slave, human rights activist, and American citizen deeply grateful for your public stand against all forms of public violence, I humbly ask that you allow me to provide some counsel on the grave situation in South Sudan, the land of my birth. It is not only the world’s newest nation, but also the only country in Africa that is currently blocking Islamic extremism from flooding southward to overtake the entire continent. I hope that we will be able to meet in person to discuss the ongoing war and humanitarian disaster there.

The people of South Sudan achieved their independence thanks to George W. Bush’s personal leadership, which resulted in millions of people being saved from more slavery, Islamization and Arabization. In the eyes of so many, this is one of the greatest legacies of the United States as a whole in Africa. Without US engagement, there would be no South Sudan today, and without its leadership again, and yours, Mr. President, there may not be a South Sudan in the near future.

The US under President Barack Obama has allowed it to happen.

Mr. President, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) has failed completely to bring peace to the people of Southern Sudan. The only hope that Southern Sudanese have now is your leadership as a man of moral conscience when it comes to preventing the further spread of extremist Islam from overrunning all of Africa. The situation is still salvageable, with America’s help.

On behalf of all of the South Sudanese community in the United States, we beseech you as our new leader. We humbly request a meeting with you or with your staff in which we can discuss the situation in South Sudan, and hopefully discover some ways forward toward an end to the country’s crisis and South Africa’s future. We would appreciate your insight and your help.

I look forward to this opportunity, and stand ready and willing to visit you or your staff, at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your consideration.

Most Sincerely,

Simon Deng
Human Rights Activist

The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi by Mark Steyn

This Monday marks the fifth anniversary of the Benghazi attack and, as Hillary Clinton would say, “What difference at this point does it make?” Which is why, presumably, she’s chosen the occasion for the release of her latest leaden tome. But it makes enough of a difference to us that we’ll be observing the date at SteynOnline. So I thought we’d start, for our Saturday movie date, with the major motion picture based on the events of that hellish night:

Michael (Transformers) Bay has now made two feature films about real-life military attacks on US sovereign territory – in 2001 Pearl Harbor, which was enough to have you rooting for the Japs, and fifteen years later 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi. Happily, the latter does not have much in common with the former, save for a reprise of what evidently Mr Bay regards as his signature – a rocket falling from the skies to its target, but shot from the rocket’s point of view. If you object that a rocket is an inanimate object and can’t have a point of view, well, it’s all comparative: in Pearl Harbor, the rocket was a lot less inanimate than Ben Affleck. Here the director has a grittier and hairier cast than Pearl Harbor’s matinée idols, and makes a good-faith if not wholly successful effort to dial back the prettifying devices of blockbuster film-making.

As for the point of view, the rocket has one. But Bay doesn’t. This is a visceral, sensory, pulverizing, you-are-there slab of action – all twitchy cameras, sudden edits, jerky cross-cuts – in which the context of the fireballs all around is left for another day. The director describes 13 Hours as “my most real movie”, but it doesn’t have to be that real to be more real than the official version. Film-making and storytelling have been part of the Benghazi fiasco since the evening of September 11th 2012, when the US Government decided to tell its own story about a film-maker whose all but unseen video had, they insisted, led to the death of a US ambassador. In the Hillary Clinton version, four Americans died at the hands of (as I put it at the time) “a spontaneous class-action movie review”. Three days later, when the President, the Secretary of State and the US Ambassador to the United Nations were all still lying to the American people about what happened and why, my characterization of that night holds up better than the Government’s:

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.

In the end, the court eunuchs chose to continue fanning Sultan Barack. Three years later, based on a book by five of the survivors, Bay’s film belatedly provided answers to some of the basic questions the media never asked. It’s not a political film at all: Hillary is never mentioned by name, and for the whole 13 hours the Government of the United States – indeed, in a more basic sense, the entire global hyperpower – is an unseen character confined to the end of a telephone that no one ever picks up. There are occasional glimpses of nearby assets – a US air base across the Med in Italy – but in this western the cavalry never come. Five years ago we were told that they couldn’t have got there “in time” – so, in Hillary’s words, what difference would it have made?

Berkeley to offer counseling to snowflakes triggered by Shapiro visit By Rick Moran

Former Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro is scheduled to speak at the University of California-Berkeley campus on September 14, But even before Shapiro utters a word, the university is offering “counseling” to students who might be offended by a speech given on campus by someone they disagree with.

Berkeley has kicked off a “Year of Free Speech” where officials want to “teach” students how to debate unpopular speakers. But even this appears to be too much for the snowflakes.

LA Times:

“We are deeply concerned about the impact some speakers may have on individuals’ sense of safety and belonging,” Alivisatos said in the memo posted on the university’s website. “No one should be made to feel threatened or harassed simply because of who they are or for what they believe.”

The memo drew scorn from conservative websites, including the Daily Wire, where Shapiro serves as editor-in-chief. The site called the measures extreme and criticized them as a sign of the university’s intolerance.

This is fine, as far as it goes. Unfortunately, the school believes that Shapiro isn’t the one being “threatened” and that it’s the snowflakes who they believe are being “harassed” by Shapiro’s visit.

Campus Reform:

Alivisatos’ email also mentions the all-too typical “[some] speech this is antithetical to our values” and points to a campus free speech forum which took place last evening. At that forum, Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky and the Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society’s john powell (yes, lower case) collided over the extent of the First Amendment.

Chemerinsky (rightly) noted “All ideas and views can be expressed on campus, no matter how offensive,” whereas the best powell could muster was to say the US Supreme Court has been made unjust decisions in the past.