http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/331892/benghazi-obama-emerges-fog-war-bing-west If Obama ordered the military to “secure our personnel,” where is the order? Our ambassador to Libya was killed in our own consulate in Benghazi on the night of September 11. For the next six weeks, President Obama repeated the same talking point: The morning after the attack, he ordered increased security in our […]
http://pjmedia.com/blog/bho-whats-in-a-name/
There is a troubling hint of something very un-American about the American president. I am not alluding to the birther controversy but rather to something in the president’s character, attitudes, personal aura, and worldview. He could just as well have been born in Podunk or Dogpatch and yet an un-American flavor would still cling about him. A little while back I tried a thought experiment with an American friend still partly dazzled by the president’s populist dexterity and acclaim. I asked him to recite the names of a dozen presidents at random, ending with POTUS 43. He proceeded: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George Bush. I then asked him to pause for a moment and repeat the full name of the current occupant of the White House. He waited a moment and said: Barack Hussein Obama. A longish silence ensued and then he said, as if struck by recognition, “I see what you mean.”
Of course, there is nothing wrong with a flamboyant name and much to recommend it. A striking moniker can add a chromatic and ebullient element to the habitual, a dash of playfulness, a spirit of diversity. Nomenclature can be fun. Our athletes, after all, have practically cornered the market on appellate extravagance: Shomari Williams, Tearrius George, Ken-Yon Rambo, Marc-Olivier Brouillette, Na’Shan Goddard, LeBron James, Chip Cox, Dontrelle Inman, Jabar Westerman, Swayze Waters, Prince Amukamara, Jade Etienne — to name just a dozen. But in the context of presidential history and political expectation, “Barack Hussein Obama” remains glaringly idiosyncratic in the calendar of historically resonant names, exemplifying something scalene about the man as an American politician and leader, his conspicuous outrider status in the almanac of legacy assumptions. This is precisely what startled my interlocutor when he performed our little thought experiment. He perceived a basic asymmetry between the name and the office — in other words, to make the obvious transposition, between the man and the office.
Needless to say, liberals will seize upon the suspicion of implicit bigotry or “racism” in such a nominal exercise, but I can assure them that Obama’s lack of fit with the American presidency has nothing to do with origins or skin color, as Leftists will predictably clamor. As far as ancestry is concerned, his name could be Solomon Greenberg or Chjeng Huanyu — or Bobby Jindal — without being negatively emblematic or disturbing in the slightest. When it comes to pigmentation, the same applies. “Obama is sui generis in American presidents,” writes Jean Kaufman, “and I’m not referring to the fact that he’s the first black president.” Martin Luther King Jr. is undoubtedly a fine name for a president of the United States. Thomas Sowell fits perfectly. Herman Cain is good, too. More to the point, all would have likely made decent chief executives.
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/ One-hundred and thirteen years ago, Rudyard Kipling wrote a poem about the American enterprise in the Philippines. The title of that poem has since become a byword for racist colonialism and yet its text is a sardonic recitation of the dim virtues of the “Savage wars of peace”. “Go bind your sons to exile, […]
http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/28/highly-confidential-internal-treasury-documents-show-obama-administrations-deep-involvement-in-delphi-pension-scandal/?print=1
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/highly-confidential-internal-treasury-documents-show-obama-administrations-deep-involvement-in-delphi-pension-scandal?f=puball
‘Highly confidential’ internal Treasury documents show Obama administration’s deep involvement in Delphi pension scandal Posted By Matthew Boyle
Internal Treasury Department documents described as “highly confidential” and obtained by The Daily Caller show a greater level of involvement in the Delphi pension scandal from senior officials in the Obama administration than has been previously acknowledged.
A July 2009 document prepared by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) titled “Treasury Talking Points re: Delphi” shows coordination between high-level players inside the PBGC and Treasury Department. The document was an attachment to a July 7, 2009 email from PBGC’s Joseph House to Treasury’s Matthew Feldman, Oren Haker and Paul Nathanson.
The talking points show that the PBGC thought the “[v]ast majority of individual’s [sic] covered by Delphi [pension] Plans” were “career GM ‘brethren’ distinguishable only by the 1999 spin-out” of Delphi from its former parent company, General Motors.
Only those “brethren” who were union members, however, saw their pensions preserved in the 2009 auto bailout. Nonunion Delphi retirees lost theirs. (RELATED: TheDC’s complete coverage of the Delphi pension scandal)
It’s unclear whether Treasury also held the view that only Delphi’s spinoff differentiated one group of employees from the other. But a congressional source familiar with investigations into the Delphi pension scandal told TheDC that “[b]ased on documents received in the course of this years-long investigation, it would not be surprising if Treasury worked in concert with PBGC to draft this particular document.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/10/benghazi_coverage_reveals_we_are_all_unprotected.html There are four scandals stemming from the murders in Benghazi, and the mainstream media’s reluctance to cover them reveals a threat to us all. Even as cables and emails continue to appear, most traditional media sources are downplaying or ignoring the Administration’s failure to provide repeatedly requested and critically necessary security in Benghazi. In […]
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/mission_accomplished_obama_gets_americans_killed_to_kill_the_constitution.html
Mission Accomplished: Obama Gets Americans Killed to Kill the Constitution
Are you surprised that Vogue’s Anna Wintour is squeezing fashionistas to go all out for Obama? It makes sense, since the icy-eyed editrix knows style, and Obama certainly has a presidential style that’s all his own. After all, Obama is the only commander-in-chief to ever manipulate Americans into getting killed so that he can kill the Constitution.
We first saw Obama’s murderous stylings in Operation Fast and Furious, a brazenly criminal scheme in which he cuddled up to Mexican drug gangs, giving them thousands of state-of-the-art firearms. Obama’s narco-killer partners then obligingly used their new presents to murder U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and ICE Agent Jaime Zapata, as well as hundreds of Mexican men, women and children.
The grieving parents of the four Americans just slaughtered in Libya might want to contact the parents of slain ICE Agent Jaime Zapata and get the name of their lawyer. Mary and Amador Zapata have filed a $25 million wrongful death suit against the U.S. government, claiming that Jaime Zapata informed his supervisors he had misgivings about the safety of his Mexican trip, but was ordered to go anyway. “All of these legitimate concerns were put aside… and agents Avila and Zapata were required to follow orders,” the lawyers wrote. Sources say Zapata was investigating Fast and Furious at the time of his murder.
Sound familiar? It should, because Obama has now refined his Fast and Furious killing techniques into the wildly successful butchery of Benghazi. Let’s review what we know. First, Obama denied repeated requests for more security from the increasingly desperate Libyan ambassador, Christopher Stevens. Second, he blithely skipped 60% of his intelligence briefings, including every single one in the critical week leading up to 9/11. (Just to be consistent, he also skipped his briefing on 9/12, the day after the murders of Ambassador Stevens and three other brave Americans.)
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/28/Hillary-Asked-For-More-Security-In-Benghazi-Obama-Said-No
Reports suggest that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama didn’t see things the same on Benghazi. She wanted more security for diplomatic personnel, but Obama said no.
Rush Limbaugh predicted as much when Clinton took the blame for not upping the security forces in Benghazi and Obama threw her under the bus by telling the world the responsibility rested with him.
Limbaugh has consistently maintained that Clinton had a way out, and that she had created some wiggle room for herself so that things could not be laid at her feet.
And here it is: reports that Clinton wanted more security but Obama said “no.”
It is possible that Clinton’s legal counsel may have revealed this story to various sources, in hopes of protecting her reputation. Reports also indicate that former President Bill Clinton has urged his wife to release State Department documents “that prove she called for additional security at the compound in Libya.”
Those same, unconfirmed reports indicate Obama will almost certainly lose the election if those documents are released.
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1908/member_of_european_parliament_in_holocaust_scandal
Tudor has been a this for many years….see this story from 2004: http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASInt_13/4606_13.htm
“ADL Praises Elie Wiesel for Returning Romanian Honor Now Conferred on Two Anti-Semites
New York, NY, December 16, 2004 …The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today praised the bold action of Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel for returning an award he received from Romania in protest of the same award being bestowed on two anti-Semites.Prof. Wiesel decided to return the Star of Romania Award, his native country’s highest honor which he received from President Ion Iliescu in 2002 after the same honor was conferred on Corneliu Vadim Tudor, head of the Greater Romania Party, an extreme nationalistic political group, and Gheorghe Buzatu, another party member on December 13. The party has a long and entrenched history of anti-Semitism, anti-Jewish conspiracy theories and Holocaust denial insofar as it relates to Romania.”
BUT, THERE IS A BIG BUT HERE HOW COME NOBODY COMMENTS ON ABU MAZEN,ABBAS—-THE SO CALLED HEAD OF THE PALARABS WHO IS ON RECORD FOR DENYING THE HOLOCAUST?…..RSK
Member of the European Parliament has denied that the Holocaust took place in Romania.Leader of the nationalist Greater Romania Party, Cornelui Vadim Tudor appeared on Romania’s network channel, Realitatea TV show “reality of the report” last Thursday.
In a statement issued by the Bucharest-based Elie Wiesel National Institute for the study of Holocaust in Romania, the public institution said that on October 18, Tudor stated, “In Romania there was never a holocaust” and further added: “I will deny it till I die because I love my people”.
The MEP is a member of the Committee on Culture and Education, a member of the Delegation for relations with Switzerland and Norway and to the EU-Iceland Joint Parliamentary Committee and the European Economic Area (EEA) Joint Parliamentary Committee.
Tudor is also a substitute member for the Committee on Foreign Affairs and a member of the Delegation to the European Union-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee.
Tudor has regrettably followed in the footsteps of Romanian senator, lawyer and former Social Democrat Party (SDP) spokesman Dan Sova. In March, Sova gave a televised interview in which he made explicit anti-Semitic remarks. He proclaimed that “no Jew suffered on Romanian territory”.
In the same interview, Sova also claimed that “only 24 Romanian citizens of Jewish descent were killed” in an act “carried out by German soldiers. Romanian soldiers were not involved in the action. This is a historical fact”. Just five months later, Sova was appointed as Romania’s Minister for Parliamentary relations and retracted from his statements on holocaust denial.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203922804578080990821307624.html?KEYWORDS=MARK+HELPRIN
China’s maritime power and aggressive posture is rising while the size of the U.S. Navy continues to shrink.
During the recent foreign policy debate, the president presumed to instruct his opponent: “Governor Romney maybe hasn’t spent enough time looking at how our military works. You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines. And so the question is not a game of Battleship, where we’re counting ships. It’s what are our capabilities.”
Yes, the Army’s horses have been superseded by tanks and helicopters, and its bayonets rendered mainly ceremonial by armor and long-range, automatic fire, but what, precisely, has superseded ships in the Navy? The commander in chief patronizingly shared his epiphany that the ships of today could beat the hell out of those of 1916. To which one could say, like Neil Kinnock, “I know that, Prime Minister,” and go on to add that we must configure the Navy to face not the dreadnoughts of 1916 but “things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them,” and “ships that go underwater,” and also ballistic missiles, land-based aviation, and electronic warfare.
To hold that numbers and mass in war are unnecessary is as dangerous as believing that they are sufficient. Defense contractor Norman Augustine famously observed that at the rate fighter planes are becoming complex and expensive, soon we will be able to build just one. Neither a plane nor a ship, no matter how capable, can be in more than one place at once. And if one ship that is in some ways equivalent to 100 is damaged or lost, we have lost the equivalent of 100. But, in fact, except for advances in situational awareness, missile defense, and the effect of precision-guided munitions in greatly multiplying the target coverage of carrier-launched aircraft, the Navy is significantly less capable than it was a relatively short time ago in antisubmarine warfare, mine warfare, the ability to return ships to battle, and the numbers required to accomplish the tasks of deterrence or war.
For example, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s diplomacy in the South China Sea is doomed to impotence because it consists entirely of declarations without the backing of sufficient naval potential, even now when China’s navy is not half of what it will be in a decade. China’s claims, equivalent to American expropriation of Caribbean waters all the way to the coast of Venezuela, are much like Hitler’s annexations. But we no longer have bases in the area, our supply lines are attenuated across the vastness of the Pacific, we have much more than decimated our long-range aircraft, and even with a maximum carrier surge we would have to battle at least twice as many Chinese fighters.
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Stennis-admiral-reassigned-amid-allegations-of-inappropriate-judgment-176099991.html WASHINGTON (AP) – The Navy said Saturday it is replacing the admiral in command of an aircraft carrier strike group in the Middle East, pending the outcome of an internal investigation into undisclosed allegations of inappropriate judgment. Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette is being sent back to the USS John C. Stennis’ home port […]
