Monthly Archives: September 2012

GOP Senators To Obama Administration: What About Your Lies?

Via email press release…Senators McCain, Graham, Ayotte and Johnson want to know about US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice was talking about when she said the attack on the Benghazi consulate wasn’t a preplanned terrorist attack.


Senators Press U.N. Ambassador over Inaccurate Statements
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators John McCain (R-Arizona), Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), Kelly Ayotte (R-New Hampshire) and Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) sent a letter to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice seeking clarification on her statements that the September 11 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya was the result of a “spontaneous reaction.”  The evidence clearly shows the attack that resulted in the death of four Americans including Ambassador Chris Stevens was planned and coordinated.

“In the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attack in Benghazi that resulted in the death of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, you made several troubling statements that are inconsistent with the facts and require explanation,” the Senators wrote.  “We look forward to a timely response that explains how the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations could characterize an attack on a U.S. consulate so inaccurately five days after a terrorist attack that killed four Americans.”


Full text of the letter is below:


September 25, 2012


Ambassador Susan Rice

United States Mission to the United Nations

799 United Nations Plaza

New York, N.Y. 10017-3505


Dear Ambassador Rice:                                                            

In the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attack in Benghazi that resulted in the death of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, you made several troubling statements that are inconsistent with the facts and require explanation.  

Speaking on Meet the Press on September 16, you said, “What happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video.”  Speaking on Fox News Sunday, you said, “We are of the view that this is not an expression of hostility in the broader sense toward the United States or U.S. policy. It’s approximately a reaction to this video…”  On September 14, the Libyan President, Mohamed Yousef el Magariaf, said the attack on our consulate in Benghazi was “preplanned.”  Two days later and immediately before your interview on CBS’s Face the Nation, the Libyan President reiterated that the attack was planned “a few months ago.”  When you followed the Libyan President on this same program, the host confronted you with the discrepancy between your comments and the comments of the Libyan President.  You again described the attacks as “spontaneous” and said the attacks were not “preplanned”.   

By the date of your comments, it was already clear that the attack in Libya was a terrorist attack, and that heavily armed and well trained attackers appeared to have prepared for an opportunity to attack U.S. interests.  We also knew that there is a significant network of al Qaeda affiliated groups and other terrorists in eastern Libya, some of whom have attacked western interests in the last few months.  Yet, you repeatedly asserted the implausible explanation that the attack in Benghazi was a spontaneous reaction to the video despite growing evidence to the contrary.   

Before your appearance on a number of Sunday shows, we also knew that Ayman al Zawahiri, the head of al Qaeda, released a video just before the attacks acknowledging and eulogizing the death of Abu Yahya al Libi and calling for terrorist attacks.  As you know, al Libi was a Libyan who served as the second in command in al Qaeda under al Zawahiri and was a top leader in the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.  The U.S. killed al Libi in a drone strike in North Waziristan, Pakistan, in June 2012.  

You were surely aware of these facts on September 16 when you made your remarks.  Yet, these facts, including the unlikely coincidence that the attack was conducted on the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, did not prevent you from making confident and counterintuitive assertions to the contrary.  These facts did not prevent you from labeling the murder of four Americans as a “spontaneous reaction” to the video and “not an expression of hostility…toward the United States.”  If the murder of four American diplomats is not “an expression of hostility” it is difficult to know what would be.  

We look forward to a timely response that explains how the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations could characterize an attack on a U.S. consulate so inaccurately five days after a terrorist attack that killed four Americans.


John McCain

Lindsey Graham

Kelly Ayotte

Ron Johnson

Yes, we all look forward to Rice’s and Obama’s explanation.


Circles I’d Love To See Obama Try And Square

Today Barack Obama made the most incredible statement I’ve ever heard a President of The United States of America make.

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.

Really? The future must not belong to Christians, Jews, Buddhists, or any one of dozens of religions? Oh and don’t forget Atheists. None of these be can be allowed to own the future?

Now you can say belonging to another religion isn’t the same as slandering the “prophet of Islam” but it actually is. See the foundational creed of Islam, the one if you say with belief makes you a Muslim is…

  1. For a Muslim, every action begins with your intention. Quietly, to yourself, make the intention to embrace Islam as your faith.
  2. Say the following words with clarity of intention, firm faith and belief:
  3. Say: “Ash-hadu an la ilaha ill Allah.” (I bear witness that there is no diety but Allah.)
  4. Say: “Wa ash-hadu ana Muhammad ar-rasullallah.” (And I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.)

Problem is, if you’re say a Christian you subscribe to the Nicene Creed which reads:

We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.”

You can’t all of that about Jesus and agree that Muhammad is God’s prophet. If you say Muhammad isn’t God’s prophet, you’ve slandered him and according to Obama must not own the future.

Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet of God but not his holy son as Christians do. Shouldn’t they be disqualified from “owning the future” based on what Christians no doubt see as a slander against their beliefs?

But aside the theological discussion for a second and get back to a fundamental question…why is Obama so concerned about the “honor” of Islam’s prophet?  Why of all the prophets worshiped and venerated in the world is Muhammad so damn special that he may not be slandered?

Mormons consider Joseph Smith and every subsequent leader of their church to be a prophet. Does Obama feel that anyone who slanders Mormons is unfit to “own the future”? Will he take action against his Secretary of State for her indulgence in an evening of anti-Mormon slander?

And this idea of “must not”. It implies a certain level of duty to ensure that it does not come to pass. What steps does Obama think we must take to prevent this from happening? And why exactly is he acting as the defense attorney for one religion (that’s alien for the most part to the American experience) over others (which are foundational to this nation)?

As I’ve said before, I don’t think Obama is a Muslim, secret or otherwise. I do however find his willingness to elevate it above all other religions disgusting and dangerous.







Elizabeth Warren Isn’t A Member Of The MA Bar

With less than two months until Election Day, things can change fast. Keep track of the latest swings in the Electoral College and post your predictions online with POTUS Predictor 2012. We have you covered with Apple, Droid and Kindle versions.

Not sure if this is a thing or not but here’s the audio of her answer when asked on WTKK this morning about the Legal Insurrection post.

It’s kind of odd because she said she’s been “inactive in the NJ Bar for a very, very long time”. Now does she mean her status was inactive or she didn’t go to meetings?

The follow up questions was, “don’t you practice” and she says no. that’s kind of odd since she spent the first few minutes of the interview talking about her legal work for Travelers Insurance. Not sure how to square that circle.

She might be technically ok (which is all that matters) but she makes it sound as if she hasn’t been doing legal work, which seems contradicted by the facts.

This may technically be much ado about nothing but it’s going to make a mess for Warren (if you’re explaining, your losing).

Gangster Government 1, Freedom 0

With less than two months until Election Day, things can change fast. Keep track of the latest swings in the Electoral College and post your predictions online with POTUS Predictor 2012. We have you covered with Apple, Droid and Kindle versions.

Via Michelle Malkin, Government sponsored extortion.

Chick-fil-A stopped funding traditional-marriage groups in an effort to open a new Chicago restaurant, but the company initially kept quiet about the decision, prompting gay rights groups to speculate that the company feared a backlash from conservative customers.

The Christian-rooted fast food restaurant agreed to stop funding groups such as Focus on the Family that oppose same-sex marriage in a meeting with the Chicago politician who had been blocking the company’s move there. Chick-fil-A wrote a letter to Alderman Joe Moreno affirming this, according to his spokesman, Matt Bailey, but the company initially wouldn’t allow his office to release the letter to the public. Three weeks later they relented.

“Prior to today, Chick-fil-A had a poor record when it came to acknowledging equal rights for all of our citizens, regardless of their sexual orientation,” he said. “But today, we have a new path: For the first time, Chick-fil-A has changed their practices and promised the workplace protections that all of our citizens deserve. Instead of being a company that openly promotes discrimination, Chick-fil-A has vowed to move forward.”

Neither party is a good guy here.
Chick-fil-A was happy to cash in on their values when it appealed to their customers but threw it all overboard to break into a new market and money. Craven but par for the corporate course.
The gangsters masquerading as tolerance loving public officials however are a real threat to America. If government can threaten the health and well being of a company because of its owners personal and religious beliefs, we’ve reached a very, very ugly point in America.
Of course this being Chicago, home of none other than Barack Obama, it’s to be expected and it will be applauded not condemned.
I’d almost like to see a town in a red state pull this kind of garbage in reverse but conservatives have too much respect for freedom to retaliate in kind against a company that supports a liberal cause. It’s a sad day when respect for the Constitution prohibits you from standing up for it.

Romney Is Pro-Choice…On Illegal Immigration

With less than two months until Election Day, things can change fast. Keep track of the latest swings in the Electoral College and post your predictions online with POTUS Predictor 2012. We have you covered with Apple, Droid and Kindle versions.

Imagine my surprise…Romney goes before a Hispanic audience and says something infuriating about illegal immigration.

At the Spanish-language forum, Romney pledged a solution to what he called the nation’s broken immigration system. He said he had no intention of “rounding up” the roughly 12 million undocumented immigrants thought to be in the United States illegally while his plan takes shape.

“I said I’m not in favor of a deportation, a mass deportation effort rounding up 12 million people and kicking them out of the country,” Romney said. “I believe people make their own choices as to whether they want to go home and that’s what I mean by self-deportation. People decide if they want to go back to the country of their origin and get in line legally to be able to come to this country.”
Democrats have attacked Romney’s “self-deportation” concept since the primary campaign, when Romney used immigration as an issue with which to attack his rivals from the right, essentially promising to make economic opportunity so scarce for illegal immigrants that they would leave the United States voluntarily.

“People make their own choices” about whether they want to stay here illegally or not? That’s an interesting idea.

I’m not suggesting mass round-ups but enhanced enforcement and eliminating magnets (as someone once famously called them) would be a good idea. Romney won’t outline his views on dealing with immigration or undoing the administrative DREAM Act Obama instituted.

If Romney wins, comprehensive immigration reform will be back on the table. Bet on it.

Oh btw-Romney also said he takes it as a compliment when Obama says he’s the “grandfather of ObamaCare”.


Wait, Now I’m Not A Conservative Either?

I’m used to being called a RINO (Republican In Name Only) because, well, I am. See, I think of myself as a conservative and the GOP is simply the most useful vehicle to try and further my conservative beliefs.

Until recently (last night in fact) it was my understanding that conservatives didn’t write anyone off as hopeless, unpersuadable and certainly not out of our scope of concern. Yet based on a lot reaction I’m seeing from conservatives to Mitt Romney’s “47%” remarks apparently we (maybe it’s “they”) do . See, I can’t sign on for this approach to people and if it’s now conservative dogma, I’m out.

I want to shrink government, seem American’s renew their faith in themselves and pretty much check off all the economic, national security and even some social issues. But I’m am not down with the idea that we write people off as hopelessly beyond the conservative message because they are either now dependent on government support or don’t pay any income tax.

“There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.

“And I mean the President starts off with 49, 49…he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. 47% of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect.

“So he’ll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean, that’s what they sell every 4 years. And so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

“What I have to do is convince the 5% to 10% that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or another depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not.”

There’s so much wrong with what he said it’s hard to know where to start.

But let me let this guy take a shot at it.

In the richest country in the history of the world, this
Obama economy has crushed the middle class.  Family income has
fallen by $4,000 , but health insurance premiums are higher.
Food prices are higher.  Utility bills are higher, and gasoline
prices, they’ve doubled.  Today more Americans wake up in
poverty than ever before. Nearly one out of six Americans is
living in poverty.  Look around you — these aren’t strangers.
These are our brothers and sisters, our fellow Americans.  His
policies have not helped create jobs.  They’ve depressed them,
and this I can tell you about where President Obama would take
America.  His plan to put taxes on small businesses won’t not
add jobs.  It will eliminate them.

Or maybe this guy?
“Over the last four years, this president has pushed Republicans and Democrats about as far apart as they can go. And now he and his allies are pushing us all even further apart by dividing us into groups. He demonizes some. He panders to others. His campaign strategy is to smash America apart and then try to cobble together 51% of the pieces.”
Who this commie-pinko worrying about people in poverty  and dividing America into small pieces? Just some guy named Mitt Romney way back in August of 2012 when he accepted the GOP nomination.  His entire speech is peppered with such exhortations. and not a single mention of writing off almost half the country. The second quote is Romney from earlier in August, 2012.
Now many conservatives are cheering that the “real Romney” has been spotted in the purloined video. I guess his concern for “our brothers and sisters, our fellow Americans” only shows up when others write the words for him? Personally, I don’t believe Romney is indifferent to the struggles of the poor or wouldn’t want to do all he could to create a climate where prosperity would spread across all income groups. I don’t think he’s a bad guy, I think he’s a lousy politician. But let’s not forget this isn’t his first foray into jumbled thinking about how conservatives approach the poor.
In the end, we have only his words to judge him, so which is it Mitt?
The real sin of Romney’s statement isn’t the insulting, uncaring tone. No it’s worse than that. What he said about the number of people dependent on government and their voting patterns is simply wrong as a factual matter.
How many people in that 47% are retired people? How many are folks who work long hours, multiple jobs to break even while raising a family? In this economy how may are people whose business have gone under, who can’t find work that pays as much as the job they lost? How many are among the millions who have disapeared from the workforce because Obama is killing the economy? I thought we conservatives were championing those people’s cause. Yet in one fell swoop, Romney lumps them all together with people who among the permanent underclass. And conservatives cheer this language?

What bothers me most is the reaction of my fellow (I guess) conservatives. They are ready for a “Takers vs. Makers” throw down. And that’s where I need to part company. Yes, the government is too large, too ingrained in our lives and too many people look for even more in their lives.  Stopping and reversing that isn’t going to happen because we finally let loose on “the takers”, it’s an ideological argument we have to win by showing that we offer a better way.

People act in their self-interest most of the time. Liberals say, “You’re a little guy in a big and dangerous world, let us take care of this for you”. It’s a powerful appeal compared to “You need to work hard and if you do and things work out the rewards will be greater”. Most people will take the way they perceive to be easier and that’s liberal’s ‘no worries’ line of entitlement.

It would be nice if everyone had an ingrained sense of self and pride that made them crave the challenges of self-sufficiency. Obviously that’s not the case or we wouldn’t be in this mess. So how do we win this argument for the soul of America? Well, we don’t do it by writing off an insulting the very people we need to convince.

Conservatives are better when they put aside anger (even when it’s justified) and focus on optimism, an everlasting faith and belief in the power of the individual and a disgust not at people trapped in the inhumanity of the “safety net” but political movements that aim to put them there and keep them there.

One big problem that Republicans have in their critique of the non-tax paying class? Getting low income earners off the rolls was once considered a conservative achievement.

Yes, the Democratic convention was a freak show of losers who want nothing more than a cradle to grave government care. The fact of the matter is though, if you really think they represent 47% of the American people and are forever unreachable, you have a wildly pessimistic view of America. Maybe that’s the right view but if it is, then we’ve already lost. Under those circumstances maybe cursing the 47% is the way to go down. But if that’s now conservative dogma, I’m out.

Personally, I want to fight on but I want to fight on in the spirit of Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp.

My Twitter Rant Against Romney’s “47%” Remarks In One Convenient Location

<strong><a href=””><img title=”potus2012″ src=”; alt=”” width=”105″ height=”105″ /></a></strong>

<strong>With less than two months until Election Day, things can change fast. Keep track of the latest swings in the Electoral College and post your predictions online with POTUS Predictor 2012. We have you covered with <a href=”//;&gt;”>Apple</a>, <a href=”//;&gt;”>Droid </a>and <a href=”//;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1340984991&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=potus+predictor&quot;&gt;”>Kindle </a> versions.

I put it all in one spot mostly to archive it but also to give you another chance to tell me what a RINO sellout I am. I’m a giver.

<script src=””></script><noscript>%5B<a href=”; target=”_blank”>View the story “My Case Against Romney’s \”47%\” Remarks” on Storify</a>]</noscript>

Barack Obama Trashes The First Amendment To Keep His Promise To The Muslim World

Today Barack Obama crossed a very bright line no President should. For this he deserves to be impeached, convicted and removed from office. He won’t be but he should be.

But in “asking” a private company to squelch the speech of Americans because material offends Muslims, he is doing exactly what he said he would do.

From his “Speech to the Muslim World” given in Cairo on June 4th, 2010.

And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear,”

He was faced with a choice of keeping his oath of office or his promise to the Muslim world. Come election day, he should be judged accordingly.
FTR- I don’t think Obama is a Muslim, secret or otherwise (and I don’t care)

Obama Administration: About Egypt……

Amateur Hour.

White House spokesman Tommy Vietor told The Cable Thursday that the administration is not signaling a change in that status.

“I think folks are reading way too much into this,” Vietor said. “‘Ally’ is a legal term of art. We don’t have a mutual defense treaty with Egypt like we do with our NATO allies. But as the president has said, Egypt is longstanding and close partner of the United States, and we have built on that foundation by supporting Egypt’s transition to democracy and working with the new government.”

Obama throws a longtime major ally over the cliff and then has to have his spokesman walk it back in the midst of a major diplomatic and national security crisis but it’s Mitt Romney who was being unpresidential by releasing a statement that the administration latter followed along with.


The Political General: The Chairman Of The Joint Chiefs Of Staff Oversteps His Boundaries. Again. UPDATED With Army Statement

With less than two months until Election Day, things can change fast. Keep track of the latest swings in the Electoral College and post your predictions online with POTUS Predictor 2012. We have you covered with Apple, Droid and Kindle versions.

In attempting to dissuade a private citizen from exercising his 1st Amendment rights General Martin Dempsey, on orders or of his own volition, has crossed a very bright and important line separating the military from the people it serves.

Gen. Martin Dempsey called Terry Jones, who is known for inflammatory anti-Islamic rhetoric, to express his concerns about the film, saying it could inflame tensions and trigger violence.

U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the attack.

Dempsey spokesman Marine Col. Dave Lapan said Jones did not say whether he would limit or continue his backing of the movie, “Innocence of Muslims.” A video excerpt of the low-budget film, which portrays Islamic Prophet Muhammad as a feckless philanderer who approved of child sexual abuse, is available on YouTube.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Jones said, “He asked us not to promote or show the film … I told him that we would definitely consider that. I would first have to watch the film.”

In post update:



This is simply not part of the General’s job description. More troubling is the fact that it is not his first foray into a realm in which he does not belong.

Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey said the anti-Obama comments are “not useful” when asked about the documentary during an interview with Fox News while flying back to the U.S. from the Middle East.

“One of the things that marks us as a profession in a democracy – in our form of democracy – that’s most important is that we remain apolitical,” Dempsey said. “That’s how we maintain our bond of trust with the American people. The American people don’t want us to be another special interest group.”

In “Dishonorable Disclosures,” the documentary released online last week, a group of former special operations and intelligence members slam Obama for taking credit for the death of Osama bin Laden.

That’s sound advice and one the General should take to heart himself. You see the people he was talking about are retired members of the US military. Veterans, unlike an active duty General, have served their country and returned to the ranks of citizens. They, like the people they served, are absolutely entitled to speak their mind and engage in our national political discussions.

For an active duty General officer to even imply that retired service men and women do not enjoy the same rights as all private citizens is misinformed at best, political gamesmanship at worst.

You see General Dempsey had that admonition for retired servicemen who are criticizing President Obama, the man who appointed General Dempsey to his current position. It does not appear however that General Dempsey had any public admonition for Lieutenant General Claudia Kennedy (USA, Retired) when she spoke at this year’s Democratic National Convention. General Dempsey also doesn’t seem to have a problem with President Obama appointing two retired Army Generals to top administration positions (David Petraeus as  CIA Director and Eric Shinseki as Secretary of Veterans Affairs).

As bad as it is for General Dempsey to involve himself in politics in these ways at all, it is most troubling that he appears to be doing so in a very partisan way.

There is simply no reason for an active duty officer like General Dempsey (or any government official) to attempt to convince  citizens that they should refrain from a legitimate, if distasteful,  exercise of their rights. The notion that terrorists will be enraged to attack over the actions of some “filmmaker” or pastor is ridiculous. Terrorists are attacking our troops everyday, they may offer excuse such as this video no one saw before but their motivation is ultimately because they see us as their enemy. No attempt to muzzle Americans will change that or quell their violence.

One reason society as a whole holds those who serve in our military in such high esteem is that they put our comfort ahead of theirs, they risk their safety for ours and they protect our rights while foregoing some of their own (for a time). For General Dempsey to act in such a shortsighted and seemingly partisan way does our service men and women no favors. In fact, it should make us as citizens, the people ultimately responsible for selecting their leadership, question if we are serving them well by having General Dempsey in his current position.