“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Finally, the truth is coming out on Benghazi


The subject line of this 4:05 PM email sent by State 9/11/12: "U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack (SBU)."
The email said nothing about a YouTube video. The email said nothing about a spontaneous demonstration.
The text of the email said: "(SBU) The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack. Embassy Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosives have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM [Chief of Mission] personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support. The Operations Center will provide updates as available."
Forty-nine minutes later--at 4:54 PM on 9/11/12--the State Department sent out a follow-up email to the same set of recipients, including the two in the Executive Office of the President.
The subject line on this second email said: "Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi (SBU)"
The text said: "(SBU) Embassy Tripoli reports the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi has stopped and the compound has been cleared. A response team is on the site attempting to locate COM [Chief of Mission] personnel."
This email also said nothing about a YouTube video or a spontaneous demonstration.




(CNSNews.com) - On Sept. 11, 2012, just two hours after the State Department first began notifying government agencies back in Washington--including the White House--that the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was under attack by armed men, State sent out an email that went to at least two people in the White House that said the group Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility for the attack.
The email, which was sent from a State Department address at 6:05 PM on Sept. 11, 2012, was obtained by CBS News and posted online by the news agency in a PDF file. This email and others posted by CBS News had certain elements redacted--particularly the exact identities of the person who sent it and the persons who received it.
The email sent at 6:05 P.M. on Sept. 11 was sent by a person using an @state.gov email address. The subject line said: "Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU)"
The body of the email said: "(SBU) Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twiter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli."
Among the addresses of those who received are two that include that tag "@nss.eop.gov," a White House email address. "EOP" stands for "Executive Office of the President. The names of the two recipients in the Executive Office of the President who received the email have been redacted.
Someone at the State Department sent an original email about the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate at 4:05 PM on Sept. 11, 2012. This email was sent from an address tagged "@state.gov." The name of the person who sent the email is redacted.
This email, too, was sent to two people in the Executive Office of the President. It was also sent to at least 32 individuals at the State Department itself, a person in the office of the Director of National Intelligence ("@dni.gov"), a person at the FBI ("@ic.fbi.gov"), and a person in the Defense Department ("@pentagon.mil").
All the names of the recipients in these federal agencies are redacted.
The subject line of this 4:05 PM email sent by State 9/11/12: "U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack (SBU)."
The email said nothing about a YouTube video. The email said nothing about a spontaneous demonstration.
The text of the email said: "(SBU) The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack. Embassy Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosives have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM [Chief of Mission] personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support. The Operations Center will provide updates as available."
Forty-nine minutes later--at 4:54 PM on 9/11/12--the State Department sent out a follow-up email to the same set of recipients, including the two in the Executive Office of the President.
The subject line on this second email said: "Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi (SBU)"
The text said: "(SBU) Embassy Tripoli reports the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi has stopped and the compound has been cleared. A response team is on the site attempting to locate COM [Chief of Mission] personnel."
This email also said nothing about a YouTube video or a spontaneous demonstration.
The third and last email obtained by CBS News was sent by the State Department at 6:07 PM on 9/11/12--or just two hours and two minutes after the first email giving initial notification of the attack. This email went to a somewhat different group of recipients--but still included two persons in the Executive Office of the President and someone at the FBI.
The subject line on this email said: "Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU)."
The text said: "(SBU) Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli."
Again, this email made no mention of a YouTube video or a spontaneous demonstration in Benghazi.

114 comments:

  1. Wrong thread, Ruf. The oil production thread is back a ways. This thread is about the incompetence of Obama and Benghazi.

    ReplyDelete
  2. But since you've changed the subject -



    “Wasting your vote is voting for somebody that you don’t believe in,” an impassioned Johnson said. “That’s wasting your vote. I’m asking everybody here, I’m asking everybody watching this nationwide to waste your vote on me.”


    Now, there is a politician with some inner dignity.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/23/gary-johnsons-closing-pitch-waste-your-vote-on-me/?wprss=rss_campaigns

    ReplyDelete
  3. Watch this video, and weep, Rufus, but please no more Orbison --

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/24/video-romney-draws-massive-crowd-to-remote-colorado-location/

    ReplyDelete
  4. Meanwhile, world oil production is increasing at 2/10ths of 1% per year since 2005. (0.002)

    EIA World Oil Statistics

    ReplyDelete
  5. Turn on your Twitter or Tweeter folks, The Donald is supposed to be up at noon, eastern!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe he's decided that conception begins at the very "thought" of rape. Unchristian to fight off the rapists, you know.

      Anything is possible from the "Party of the Religious, Extreme, Batshit Crazies."

      Delete
    2. The most beautiful sound on earth, Rufus, is the sound of the muslim call to prayer in the morning. Remember who said that?

      The batshit crazy disease isn't restricted to some wayward Republicans, but goes all the way to the top of your party.

      I don't understand what your comment has to do with The Donald, who doesn't seem like a religious fanatic to me. Though I don't follow him closely.

      Delete
    3. No, he just falls in the "batshit crazy" area of the territory.

      Delete
  6. Hubris

    A tragic flaw.

    sshh, don't tell anhyone -

    EDITOR OF REDSTATE
    Obama’s Hubris Will be His Undoing

    By: Erick Erickson (Diary) | October 24th, 2012 at 11:26 AM | 1



    Barack Obama has lost North Carolina and Florida.

    His ground game is at near parity in early voting with the GOP, the GOP is more energized, and he is going to lose both.

    But he will not stop spending money in those two states and redirect the resources to Ohio, which is now a must win state for him. He will not do it because he does not want news stories to come out in the last two weeks of the campaign that he’s closing up show in two battleground states.

    That would convey weakness and demoralize the base.

    But they are losing. And in fact, in North Carolina, they are winding down slowly and quietly knowing the GOP has matched their early voting operation and will get people to the polls.

    The Obama camp does not want any news stories to come out. They know if they are too open about their plans the GOP will get very loud about the Obama team’s retreat across the map, and the media will be forced to cover the retreat to save face. So they will continue spending some resources in states they cannot win to avoid news stories they find more damaging.

    In the meantime, Mitt Romney keeps creeping up with more momentum in Colorado, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Ohio.

    Time is running out. Barack Obama’s hubris prevents him from making critical, necessary decisions as the sand runs out of the hourglass.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Even Rasmussen can't come up with a Romney advantage in Ohio.

    RCP - Ohio

    ReplyDelete
  8. No mention in MSM on emails. No surprise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Deuce, it's foggy bottom, and the cia; nobody gives a shit.

      Delete
    2. .

      Nobody on the left cares.

      Didn't you see that Chris Matthews video? Ol Chris, the enlightened commentator, still says it was all about the video.

      .

      Delete
  9. Rasmussen doesn't fudge the numbers, like your pollsters.

    Why no Gallup in there this time?

    I hear, don't you, a slight sound ahead, in the distance, a low hum, almost unnoticeable, getting louder, I feel the river slightly pulling faster, faster - it's cataract falls!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Take heart, Ruf, Obama is way ahead in France, and the EU as a whole.

      http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-has-massive-lead-global-poll_657285.html

      Let him go to the UN, he would fit right in there, among the frauds, whinners, and money suckers, where there really are "57 states"--57 muslim states.

      Delete
    2. If you'd get your head out of the rightwing crazy crap for a few minutes you'd know that Gallup doesn't do "State" polls.

      Delete
    3. It seems you have me there. One point for Ruf.

      Delete
  10. L’etat, c’est moi

    this nation, me

    hubris

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/24/obamateurism-of-the-day-854/

    ReplyDelete
  11. Trump dump heap big flop.

    Chief Plenty Coups

    ReplyDelete
  12. Trump's a damn bald nasty city boy don't work for a living. Big empire built on fast talkin'.

    Buck

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll guarantee you, the asshole has less money today, in real dollars, than his daddy left him.

      Delete
    2. Only man to ever lose money on a Casino, it is said.

      Delete
  13. Bunch of crap about college transcripts and passport records. Trump being Trump is all.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Gallup not doing states here -

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/125066/state-states.aspx

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An after-the-fact analysis of what happened in 2009, 2010, and 2011 isn't exactly real-time polling of individual states.

      Delete
  15. If Romney can't get Ohio he is going to need Wisconsin, because he is losing in Nevada.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wouldn't want to bet the ranch on Colorado, either.

      Romney can win, but he HAS to have Ohio.

      Delete
    2. Romney is taking Colorado. It is not Californicated to the point of no return yet, like Nevada.

      Delete
    3. Romney is up 0.2, there. Like I said, I'd hate to bet the ranch on it.

      Delete
    4. Romney continues to endorse the "God wanted the Pregancy by Rape" Senate Candidate in In.

      Nah, this bunch isn't batshit crazy; not in the least.

      Delete
    5. Castro, Chavez, Putin, Ruf continue to endorse Obama,

      WHO VOTED TO KILL BABIES THAT ARE BORN ALIVE

      Delete
  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  17. ah, good old Dowd:

    "While I was watching Mitt Romney make up fantasy positions in the foreign policy debate, I had a fantasy of my own.

    And given the electoral isthmus the two men are wrestling on, it doesn’t seem like such a wild one. There is growing buzz that the dead heat could slide into a deadlock.

    If Romney does suspend voter disbelief enough to tie President Obama, with each getting 269 Electoral College votes, the Republican-controlled House would determine the president — and give it to Mitt. And the (presumably) Democratic-controlled Senate would determine the vice president — and give it to Joe Biden.

    So the first election decided by Congress in more than a century would produce a Republican president handcuffed to a Democratic vice president.

    I think we can count on good ol’ Joe to devote himself to tormenting President Mittens. When Romney begins his “I, Willard ...” at the inauguration, Joe can howl like a banshee, “That’s a bunch of malarkey!”

    When Biden sits behind Romney at his first State of the Union address, in that familiar tiered TV shot, the vice president can guffaw and roll his eyes and slap his knee and put his head in his hands and wave a sign behind Mitt’s slick head that reads, “Bunch of stuff.” I think we can count on Joe to ignore an enraged Tagg shaking his fist from the gallery.

    A historic tie, which would spur demonstrations that would make the health care battle look like the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade, seems a logical conclusion of the bitter partisan paralysis here and the bottom-feeding campaign, where hope has been chased out by lies on one side and character exaggeration on the other.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And why is the race so perilously close, given the dizzying fall of W. and the dizzying rise of Obama, a mere four years ago?

      It is partly because of Obama’s endless odyssey of self-discovery, where he rattles around in his own head, trying to figure out who he is and why he’s stuck on a Denver debate stage, forced to justify himself in this clownish format against this shape-shifting chucklehead.

      At the first debate, the president gave off such a feeling of ennui, he could have used a fainting couch. It suddenly made many voters who thought it only fair that Obama get another term, given the mountain of trouble W. had left behind, wonder if that second chance would be embraced with energy, imagination and zest.

      And the race is vise-tight because Mitt’s a marvel. Never in modern memory has a presidential candidate so brazenly contorted himself, switching positions to suit the moment and pushing claims, like about Obama’s imaginary “apology tour,” that have been debunked.

      But as Bill Clinton warned the Obama team last year, attacking Romney as a flip-flopper, as the president did Monday night in Boca Raton, can help Mitt with centrist voters who like the idea that he’s actually a sheep in Wolfowitz clothing.

      Forgoing his Klingon rhetoric, Mitt played cling-on to Obama’s Spock, suddenly clutching onto the president’s positions on China (which he said had made “progress” on trade), Iran, the Afghanistan deadline, drones and ousting Hosni Mubarak. Romney was running so far to the left of Obama that he never even mentioned the tangled White House response to the Benghazi consulate slaughter, which Republicans on the Hill have been working tirelessly to tee up for him.

      In the surest sign that Mitt had donned a more soothing costume, he even made a flattering reference to the United Nations, the bĂȘte noire of his hawkish neocon foreign policy advisers.

      But it was no doubt the neocons who coached Romney to sheath the bayonet to neutralize Obama charges of warmongering. In The Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol urged Mitt to be “pre-presidential.” (Sort of like pre-emptive war.) He advised Romney to speak at the debate “in a bipartisan way” and appeal “to the broad American tradition of international leadership, and to the actions of Harry Truman as well as those of Ronald Reagan.” He advised praising “our diplomats” and “finding something to praise in the actions of President Obama.”

      Very sneaky.

      Obama blew the first debate because he can’t stand the phoniness of jousts, and he seemed flummoxed by the mind-boggling phoniness of Romney. For the first time, we see President Cool unable to keep his feelings completely cloaked. In Boca, his dark eyes were glaring daggers at Romney, who was sporting his smarmy smile and mine-is-bigger-than-yours flag pin.

      If Romney gets to the Situation Room, will we see Cipher Mitt, the vessel of the neocons? Or will we see Moderate Mitt, chastising the hawks — who are eager to pick up where they left off bombing, in Iran and Syria — with a variation on the line he used about Al Qaeda at the debate: “We can’t kill our way out of this mess”?

      It’s impossible to know. Mitt may have made so many compromises to get the prize that he doesn’t have a true self anymore. And that’s the scariest thought of all. "

      http://2164th.blogspot.ca/2012/10/finally-truth-is-coming-out-on-benghazi.html?showComment=1351105404476

      Delete
    2. .

      From the troubled and pitiful mind of a bitter 60 year old liberal spinster still trapped in the feminist mindset of a past age.

      Er, that would refer to Dowd, not Ash, if anyone was wondering.

      Good old Dowd.

      .

      Delete
    3. Here's one thing we can be sure of about the Benghazi affair: almost everything we've been told since by the mainstream media is a lie, invariably one designed to shore up the creaky and desperate Obama administration.

      The Obama administration's duplicity and mendacity is nothing those of us who've been observing, aghast, his disastrous foreign policy approaches since at least his infamous Cairo surrender monkey speech couldn't have predicted.

      And while it's nice to see his chickens coming home to roost and encouraging to realize that his chances of becoming a second-term president are diminishing by the minute, it's hardly a situation you might call – hmm what's the word? Oh yeah – "optimal" for the grieving relatives of the four men who died needlessly in order to satisfy the President's wishful thinking that the Al Qaeda threat is diminishing and that there's nothing wrong with the Middle East's intractable problems that can't be solved with a few emollient words, beautiful lies and maybe the occasional NASA-endorsed outreach program

      Delete
    4. Hey Jenny, in your view does Patreaus bear any responsibility for the Benghazi affair?

      Delete
    5. .

      Do you know something we don't Ash?

      Who is responsible for Embassy security?

      Should Angela Lamb be taking and acting on information from the CIA when her own people on the ground are telling her there is a need for increased security.

      Should the White House ignore the wires from their RSO on the ground telling them they are under fire because of something the CIA put out in an intelligence briefing.

      If you have something on Petreus don't we cryptic. Let's hear it. If you want to shift blame at least be cognizant of the chain of command.

      .

      .

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. I don't know much about the chain of command at all. The Rat insinuated that Patreaus was in the loop and I was wondering if there was anything to it.

      Delete
    8. .

      Ah, the rat.

      For someone who purports to believe as I do that both major parties contain an inordinate amount of dicks, when push comes to shove as we near the election, he seems to, IMO, be involved in a lot of damage control efforts for Obama.

      .

      Delete
  18. In the first day after the first night of polling after the debate Obama advanced a point in the IBD/Tipp Poll to +3.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The IBD/TIPP Poll has been the Most Accurate of All Polls during the last two Presidential elections (hitting the last one dead on the head - within 1/10 of a percent.)

      IBD Poll

      Delete
    2. Also, Gallup's incredibly difficult "likely voter" screen also yield a +2 gain for Obama, today.

      Inasmuch as the IBD is a five-day moving average, and the Gallup is a six-day average, I suspect both of these movements will continue a bit in the next few days.

      Delete
    3. I knew you should have gone into the polling business, instead of insurance.

      Delete
  19. In case you missed it


    Castro, Chavez, Putin, Ruf continue to endorse Obama,

    WHO VOTED TO KILL BABIES THAT ARE BORN ALIVE

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Those babies were dying from failed abortions. The question was what to do with a dying baby.

      Delete
    2. The question was should action be taken to save a dying baby, that might well be saved, as some have been, (notice the lady who had the ad? she survived herself).

      Your boy voted to

      PUT THE BABY IN A COMFORT ROOM AND WITHHOLD MEDICAL CARE


      you idiot

      One thing about you, Rufus, you always have one hell of an easy time slipping onto your high horse.

      Delete
    3. Oh well, at least I know that you'll be next. :)

      Delete
  20. Say, Ruf, why do you never say a word about the Benghazi business?

    Always changing the subject to ethanol or some Republican candidate for Congress?

    You boy's lack of action got people killed, Ruf.

    Time to forthrightly step up and say, "My guy is a dick".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For the same reason I never blamed Bush for 911.

      Delete
    2. 911 was over before it nearly began. At Benghazi there is the possibility something could have been done. Further Bush didn't try to cover up any lack of action on his part. Didn't blame it on a video. The situations are not the same at all, and you would be the first one to point it out if the tables were turned.

      Delete
  21. New Hampshire: Romney 50, Obama 48
    posted at 4:41 pm on October 24, 2012 by Allahpundit

    New from Rasmussen, it’s the second poll in as many days showing Romney up two points in NH. Of the last eight polls taken in the state, he leads in four, is tied in two more, trails by a single point in another, and the last is an outlier. (Rasmussen’s last poll of NH, taken eight days ago, had Obama up by a point.) Why should you care about that? Simple: If Ohio doesn’t pan out for Mitt, his lone remaining path to the presidency may well be hitting an exacta with New Hampshire and Wisconsin.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Update: Just as I’m writing this, Time is out with a new poll of Ohio showing Obama up by five. However:

    NumbersMuncher @NumbersMuncher

    CNN/Time Ohio poll has Obama up 5, 49-44. Sample is D+9. It was D+5 in 08, D+1 in 2010... wow.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Just sample democrats.....it's easy!

    ReplyDelete
  24. ALLRED MET OBAMA TWO WEEKS BEFORE 'OCTOBER SURPRISE'

    heh

    ReplyDelete

  25. RS
    MEMBER DIARY
    (NOT) BREAKING: Obama leads in OH Poll Where Dems are MASSIVELY Over-Sampled

    By: APA Guy (Diary) | October 24th, 2012 at 04:42 PM

    I’m sorry…I refuse to allow phony polls to sweep the narrative away from an increasingly-likely humiliating (and necessary) Obama defeat in a little less than two weeks. There is just too much at stake to allow the media and biased pollsters to sway swing voters with their misleading polling results.

    Time magazine released on OH poll today showing Obama winning Ohio 49-44. What the headline, as usual, does not elucidate is the massive over-sampling of Democrats that took place.

    As per the internals (the BOTTOM of the internals), the party ID of those included in this sample was:

    37% Democrat

    29% Independent

    28% Republican

    http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/timepoll.pdf

    So once again, the national media grabs a poll in a crucial swing state and runs with it…knowing full well that it MASSIVELY over-samples Democrats.

    In case you are wondering, Rasmussen has this race 48-48 in OH as of today…and his record of accuracy in the 2008 presidential election was solid gold. Rasmussen also has Romney leading by 4 points nationally (5 points in swing states), with Gallup showing Romney with a 3 point lead. Oh, and as for that 50+ Obama JAR, it is widely known that Obama wins the non-voting adult population by a large margin. Sadly for him, that matters not when those people don’t bother to vote. Gallup’s JAR samples ADULTS, not LVs (or even RVs).

    Don’t expect the media (even on our side) to point this out, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to allow it to pass without so much as a mention on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rasmussen came in number 4 in 2008. IBD came in No. 1.

      Also, number one in 2004.

      Rasmussen is, as far as I can tell, running about +3 Republican this year.

      Delete
    2. Oh, and the reason they find so few Republicans this year, is many republicans are embarrassed to admit to their affiliation, and are just identifying themselves as "Independent."

      Delete
    3. Romney screwed the pooch in Ohio when he said "let Detroit go bankrupt."

      Delete
  26. RCP has New Hampshire at Obama +0.8.

    Romney couldn't carry Wisconsin in a million years. Even Rasmussen can't get it any closer than Obama +2.

    The Pubs kid themselves about Wisconsin every election cycle. Just "Milwaukee Dreamin'," I suppose.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Romney vetoed a bill in Massachusetts that would have allowed hospitals to administer the morning after pill to rape victims.

      He's basically in the same camp as these Akin/Mourdock crazies that want to force a gal to carry a rape-induced pregnancy to term, and then raise the child (with no government help.)

      Delete
    2. Obama is up 60/30 with Early Voters in Ohio (they're tied with those that have not yet voted.)

      And, a LOT of people have already voted.

      Delete
    3. .

      That is an interesting factoid.

      How do they know the 60/30 split? Is that a poll number?

      .

      Delete
    4. Yeah, when they poll'em they ask if they've voted, and, if so, who they voted for?

      Early voting is turning into a disaster for Republicans. Poor/working people tend to vote Democratic, and they're the ones that have the hardest time getting to the polls on "a given day."

      (think, single mom, working as waitress (possibly 2 jobs,) paying for a babysitter (who doesn't "do" inflexible hours.)

      Delete
    5. something like 6.5 Million people have already voted.

      Delete
  27. Richard Mourdock: Let’s face it, Democrats are twisting my rape comments for electoral advantage
    posted at 6:41 pm on October 24, 2012 by Allahpundit

    MKH already touched on today’s outrage du jour but here’s video of the candidate addressing it this morning. The full quote from last night’s debate:

    “You know, this is that issue that every candidate for federal or even state office faces. And I have to certainly stand for life. I know that there are some who disagree, and I respect their point of view. But I believe that life begins at conception. The only exception I have to have on abortion is in that case — of the life of the mother. I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God. And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”

    Two ways to read that last line. One, the “Democrats really need this seat in Indiana” interpretation: Mourdock thinks rape is morally A-OK, at least when it results in pregnancy. Two, the “I can’t believe we’re talking about this” interpretation: He thinks rape is monstrous but that human life is sacred, therefore conception reflects divine will even if the circumstances that lead to it do not. Is there a theodicean conundrum in that? Arguably, sure, but the left’s not dogging him here because he’s caught in a philosophical jam. They’re dogging him because their “war on women” demagoguery simply won’t allow them to let pass an opportunity to paint a Republican as “pro-rape,” especially after the uproar over Akin and especially with a presidential election bearing down that might be decided by the width of the gender gap. I’d love to know what percentage of Dems secretly understand full well what he meant but are making hay over this anyway versus the percentage of liberal true believers who’ve convinced themselves that he really does see rape as some sort of religious sacrament or whatever. I’d bet the split is something on the order of 80/20, although maybe I’m telling myself that just because a lesser ratio would be too depressing.



    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/24/richard-mourdock-lets-face-it-democrats-are-twisting-my-rape-comments-for-electoral-advantage/

    ReplyDelete
  28. He's basically in the same camp as these Akin/Mourdock crazies.

    And you are basically in the kill the baby that was born alive camp.

    Why not drop it now Rufus, it is getting tiresome.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Would you like a little cheese with that whine?

      Delete
    2. .

      I object to bringing God into any political discussion; however, I don't object and even encourage bringing moral judgement into political discussions and decisions. It's interesting how the man can state "I know that there are some who disagree, and I respect their point of view"; yet those who disagree with him refuse to recognize and respect the fact that he has his own views based on his own morals.

      .

      Delete
    3. It goes to the Republican PLATFORM, Q. It is the republican platform to turn those crazies' religious views INTO LAW.

      In the same way Romney tried to in Massachusetts.

      Delete
    4. Nobody, outside of his own unfortunate family, perhaps, cares a whit what that nutcake "believes." However, it's obvious that if enough of these crazy assholes were in Congress, they would turn their "beliefs" into law.

      Delete
    5. 31 States give Rapists "Father's Rights."


      32,000 Women are impregnated by rape in the U.S. Every Year.

      Delete
    6. As a Mormon "Bishop" Romney counseled a young gal whose life was being threatened by blood clots, caused by her pregnancy, to continue the pregnancy. He asked her "why she should have it so good?"

      Her father threw him out of the house, and told him to never speak to his daughter, again.

      Do you want this man to name Ruth Ginsberg's replacement?

      Delete
    7. .

      It is the republican platform to turn those crazies' religious views INTO LAW.

      Democracy is a bitch.

      You fear that crazy 'religious views' will be turned into law. I believe you might be conflating a majority's moral views with any religious views they might hold. I am not especially religious yet I object to many forms of abortion on moral grounds. If you can believe the polls, the majority of Americans agree with me. It is the minority in this country that calls for abortion on demand.

      SCOTUS turned their views into law with their decision on Roe v Wade. With that decision, the federal government legitimized abortion in all its forms based on a right created by the court.

      As I said, democracy is a bitch.

      .

      Delete
  29. O well then, if you won't ever shut up --

    Here's another of 'Rufian mind'

    http://michellemalkin.com/2012/10/24/top-dem-donor-and-kooky-religious-bigot-j-z-knight-rants-on-video-fk-you-catholics/#comments


    "I hate all religions."

    "Fuckin' slacking Amish, riding around in their stupid buggies."

    "Religion always makes things worse."

    ad mauseum

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Those are Rufoid quotes, not Our Lady of the Foul Mouth. She has her own.

      Delete
    2. JZ is Not running for office.

      Much less President.

      Delete
    3. Obama, the guy that wants to kill born alive abortion kids, is running for President.

      Delete
    4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYRpIf2F9NA

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0s78yt9jbo

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwFIEprF_9Y

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVeZujInhR4


      RS
      EDITOR OF REDSTATE
      The Extremists Who Report the News

      By: Erick Erickson (Diary) | October 24th, 2012 at 08:59 PM

      I’m sending Richard Mourdock some money and you should too. I want to explain to you just how extremist the media is on abortion and just how much spinning in favor of killing kids the media does.

      According to Gallup polling, roughly a quarter of the population supports Richard Mourdock’s position on abortion — that the only exception in support of abortion should be the life of the mother.

      According to Gallup polling, roughly a quarter of the population supports Barack Obama’s position on abortion — any time during pregnancy until the moment of delivery. And of course, we all know that Barack Obama actually supports infanticide too in cases when a baby survives an abortion attempt, but OMG Politifact claims otherwise!!!!!!!

      When the media chooses to report stories about abortion, the media consistently chooses to report stories like Richard Mourdock’s statement and Todd Akin’s statement, both of whom believe that children conceived as a result of rape are still human beings entitled not to be ripped apart in utero and scrapped out of the womb or whatever procedure the child killers use these days. As an aside, during the Mourdock controversy few in the media reported that Mourdock’s Democratic opponent has sponsored pro-life legislation with Todd Akin.

      When you see the anchor on the news broadcast or read the reporter’s story in print, understand that they more likely than not are perfectly and fully fine with killing kids — it’s a choice, not murder to them. More than that, many of them are perfectly fine killing the children until the moment of delivery.

      The contrast in media coverage between the Republican National Convention and the Democratic National Convention was striking. The GOP maintained its long held position on abortion and the media went into overdrive discussing it and the so called “war on women.” The Democrats, on the other hand, abandoned their “safe, legal, and rare” position on abortion from the Clinton era and moved back to abortion on demand. The media barely made a sound about it, even though it is well outside the mainstream of American opinion on abortion. As Josh Trevino noted on twitter, “Barack Obama is the only President in American history known to have described a child as a punishment.” But the media, in 2008, spent little time on that.


      http://www.redstate.com/2012/10/24/the-extremists-who-report-the-news/

      Delete
    5. Here is a new definition of confusion: The State of Illinois issuing both a Birth Certificate, and a Death Certificate, at the same time to a born alive abortion baby.

      But I am off the subject.

      My books on Chief Plenty Coups have arrived. If I find something interesting, and I am sure I will, I will report. I have a high opinion of this guy, from the little I currently know about him.

      Delete
  30. Hey, look at this -

    Plenty Coups's renown and celebrity were well known among the Crows but extended into national and international fame as well, culminating with the unprecedented prestige of being selected the "Chief of All Chiefs" at the dedication of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington National Cemetery on 11 November 1921 through a caucus of over four hundred Indian chiefs and leaders that were in the nation's capital for the occasion.

    from the Introduction to Plenty Coups - Chief of the Crows by Frank B. Linderman

    ReplyDelete
  31. Misinformation Campaigns, Including Over $150 Million In Election Ads:
    Over $150 million has been spent on TV ads promoting fossil fuel interests, particularly oil and coal, reports the New York Times. In addition to traditional campaign donations, the oil industry has turned to outside groups running attack ads. Earlier this year, Americans For Prosperity — founded and funded by the Koch brothers — launched a bogus ad claiming that clean energy stimulus dollars went overseas. And the oil lobby American Petroleum Institute has its own campaign promoting myths about oil production and gas prices. For example, API chief Jack Gerard, rumored to be on Mitt Romney’s shortlist for a White House or agency appointment, claimed that oil production on federal land is down. This is simply not true, since oil production is up 240 million barrels on federal lands and waters under President Obama compared to the Bush administration. And oil companies hold 20 million acres of federal oil, gas leases in Gulf of Mexico that remain unexplored or undeveloped. This is just one of the many myths Big Oil has pushed this campaign cycle.

    Behind-The-Scenes Campaign To Defeat Clean Energy: Koch Industries and fossil fuel groups are mobilizing to defeat the extension of modest tax incentives for wind energy, even though oil tax breaks are permanent. The American Energy Alliance, which has Koch ties, aims to make the credit “so toxic” for Republicans it would be “impossible for John Boehner to sit at a table with Harry Reid.” The Koch-funded Americans For Prosperity is also campaigning against wind energy. Meanwhile, the industry has argued its own century-old tax breaks are necessary to maintain, despite . . . .

    Thank you, Sirs, may we have another?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      Only the blind can't see that it runs both ways.

      This year in Michigan, we are inundated with ballot proposals all which not only want new laws but want to change the state constitution in support of special interests. Proposal 3 on the ballot proposes that it be mandated that 25% of the states energy needs be met by renewable energy by 2025.

      The people initiating Proposal 3 and funding most of the effort are from outstate, primarily California. They include environmental groups, the UAW, and alternative energy companies (primarily wind) amd they are spending millions to push it. Some of their advertising as to be expected is misleading and dishonest. For instance, an oft stated claim in their ads is that it will create a significant amount of jobs in the state. They use a UofM study that says it will create 74,000 jobs. The problem is that the study talks about job/years not individual jobs. So if one job lasts 10 years it is counted as 10 not 1.

      The cost to Michigan utility users $11-12 billion.

      .


      Delete
  32. Plenty Coups (Aleck-chea-ahoosh, meaning Many Achievements) had been Chief of the Crows (Absarokees) ever since I knew anything about them.......

    many paragraphs later......


    The Crows appear to me to be different from their neighbors in many respects (for one thing, they would not trade their furs for liquor), and I believe that at some time they came out of the South.



    Aha! I may be onto something -

    Absar -okees

    Cher - okees

    Always fighting the Sioux, too....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wouldn't trade furs for likker?

      Nope, no cherokee blood there. :)

      Delete
    2. Heh, yeah, but I was thinking just the opposite, that you got the taste from your white side. It is the Europeans, after all, that have the alcohol loving gene, especially the northern ones.

      So far, I haven't really found anything to link the Crow and the Cherokee other than that sound reference in the name, which may mean nothing at all. The Crow do seem to have some connection to the Hidatsa to the east.

      Delete
    3. There are more Crow now than there were back then, in the day of the buffalo hunt.

      Delete
    4. And I can say this from what I've read so far. Everybody but everybody was in there fighting each other over those buffalo herds. Five, six different tribes named, all fighting each other, shifting alliances, over the buffalo.

      The idea that there was "peace on the plains" evaporates.

      Delete
    5. Mention is made of the Nez Perce, who were to the mind of the Crow, a bunch of savages out this way at the far end of the earth.

      The basic story line seems to be: Plenty Coups's group was slowly losing out, to all the others, and he made an expedient move with the whites.

      Delete
  33. Former CIA chief: Romney’s right on Iran

    In fact, as Hayden points out — and as Romney also argued during the debate — the toughening of sanctions originated in Congress, not in the White House. “They have really held the president’s feet to the fire,” Hayden remarks. Hayden also criticized Obama’s efforts to provide some exemptions to the sanctions for some of Iran’s trading partners. Hayden told Newsmax that those exemptions undermine the pressure of the sanctions, as well as the symbolic unity that magnifies that pressure.

    Finally, Hayden had particularly sharp words for Obama over his “horses and bayonets” remark. “You had two men on stage,” Hayden said. “One was President. The other was presidential.”


    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/24/former-cia-chief-romneys-right-on-iran/

    ReplyDelete
  34. You are an socialist ass-likker Rufus.

    ---

    Video
    snags Dem boss in vote fraud...


    Son resigns...

    The field director for Virginia Democratic Rep. Jim Moran - his son Patrick Moran - has resigned after being secretly recorded seemingly advising an conservative journalist masquerading as a supporter that utility bills could be used to aid in voter fraud.

    "Patrick is well liked and was a well-respected member of the campaign team. This incident, however, was clearly an error in judgment," said a statement from Moran for Congress. "The campaign has accepted Patrick's resignation, effective immediately."

    The undercover video comes from Project Veritas, which is led by group James O'Keefe - the activist whose undercover videos have caused serious headaches for ACORN, NPR and other groups. It shows a Project Veritas "investigator" telling Patrick Moran that he has a friend who is seeking to "get in a van" and vote on behalf of about 100 people. Patrick Moran responds with skepticism, but is later shown saying the person voting on behalf of others could potentially use "utility bills or something like that."

    "He'll need bills," says Moran. "He'll need something with the name and their address on it." He adds, "they can fake a utility bill with ease, you know?"

    Moran later says the person would be better off participating in traditional get-out-the-vote efforts, but he goes on to have a conversation about how to forge documents.

    In a press release, O'Keefe called the video "the most damning evidence to date of the scope of voter fraud in this country." Many states have passed laws in recent years, largely pushed by Republicans, designed to reduce voter fraud. Democrats note that there have been very few documented cases of voter fraud and say the laws are designed to suppress the vote among groups that traditionally support Democrats


    NC voters say ballot cast for Romney came up Obama on machine...
    GREENSBORO, N.C. –The presidential election is just around the corner and voting issues have already become a problem in Guilford County.

    On Monday, several voters complained that their electronic ballot machine cast the wrong vote. All the complaints were made by people who voted at the Bur-Mil Park polling location.

    STORY UPDATE: Similar problems reported in Jamestown and Pleasant Garden.

    One of the voters, Sher Coromalis, says she cast her ballot for Governor Mitt Romney, but every time she entered her vote the machine defaulted to President Obama.

    “I was so upset that this could happen,” said Coromalis.

    Guilford County Board of Elections Director George Gilbert says the problem arises every election. It can be resolved after the machine is re-calibrated by poll workers.

    “It’s not a conspiracy it’s just a machine that needs to be corrected,” Gilbert said.

    After the third try, Coromalis says she was able to get her vote counted for Gov. Romney but was still annoyed.

    “I should have just mailed it in,” Coromalis said.

    Marie Haydock, who also voted at the Bur-Mil Park polling location, had the same problem.

    “The frustration is… every vote counts,” said Haydock.

    Yep, all the vote Fraud is committed by the GOP.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Two Seals Volunteering their lives and getting no backup for seven hours when we had Specters and other in assets in place is no big deal.

    Nor is our ambassador having his guts stirred around by a broomstick while he is alive and then murdered, is no BFD to two miserable scumbags on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  36. All just funny stuff to Rufass.

    ReplyDelete
  37. 5 posts in and Rufass plays MSM game of refusing to address the truth.

    That's more than enough for me, I find it disgusting - why read more of this shit from this miserable bastard?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Mark Levin is wondering when and how and in just whose dim brain did the idea first arise to start talking about this video stuff?

    ReplyDelete
  39. October 25, 2012
    Obama's Fog of War
    By Randall Hoven

    There's been a whole lot written and said about Benghazi, but in my view, few are hitting the nail on the head. What is really going on is that President Obama's worldview is collapsing in the face of reality, and even he can't prevaricate enough to sustain that view in the public's mind.

    Despite using both the words "terror" and "Benghazi" somewhere in a long speech on September 12, Obama later blamed the Benghazi attack on "the video" -- first on Letterman on September 16 and then at the U.N. on September 25. Anyone with eyes and ears knows that Obama and his people were blaming the attack on "the video" for days and weeks after the attack. If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe Chris Matthews or the newspaper he tells us to read.

    How many times do we have to hear that some attack by jihadis is a reaction to something we did? Did we allow someone to post a video on YouTube? Did we allow someone to draw a cartoon? Did one of our infidel Marines touch a Koran with an ungloved hand? Did we let girls go to school? How many ways are there to offend these people?

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/obamas_fog_of_war.html#ixzz2AHGtnvFp

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Get it? Jihadis need no excuse. It is beyond stupid to credit recent attacks and protests to a YouTube video. There will always be a YouTube video that "offends" Muslims. How about this one? Rest assured: every time jihadis kill more Americans, they'll have some "insult to Mohammed" they can blame it on. And also rest assured that American liberals will swallow that excuse.

      The reality is that jihadis kill Americans because that is what jihadis do. To them, it is a Muslim's duty. It is "in compliance with God's order" and has been since 1998 at least. No new excuses needed.





      These jihadis tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993. While not totally successful, that attempt killed six people and injured more than a thousand. Osama bin Laden wrote his first fatwa, declaring war against the U.S., in 1996 -- during President Clinton's first term. In his second fatwa, written in 1998, he said this:

      On that basis, and in compliance with God's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims: The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it[.]

      And don't forget Black Hawk Down in Mogadishu (1993), Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia (1996), our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya (1998), and the USS Cole in 2000.

      All that, all that, was during Bill Clinton's presidency. Before George W. Bush was president.


      Like WiO says, we may not be at war with them but they are with us.




      Delete
    2. NikitaAnne

      Muslims - pardon me, 'radical Muslims', will always have an excuse to wage (Allah commanded) war on us infidels. We create a realistic yet insulting video, dare to state the 'prophet' moe was a pedophile, dare to be a Christian or gasp, a Jew...dare to wear an insulting cross necklace or be gay, or like me, an atheist and Muslims immediately resort to violence. What doesn't offend Muslims? Islam means peace - that is once the world has been violently converted to Islam. They will use any and every excuse to burst into violent murderous rages and strip us of our freedoms in order to implement Sharia Law. Every time our cowardly politicians appease these inbred subhumans, the more power they gain. Their religion guides their entire life and our freedoms and rights interfere with this. We are mere cattle to them. They come to our countries and demand we cater to them and sadly they are winning. The burka clad women I saw in Edmonton today were an insult to all my Grandfathers fought for in WWII.

      Celebrities and newscasters can spin the hell out of the facts in order to mask Muslim's true intentions, but we know - Obama knows (he who placed terrorists in charge of the embassy). They do not deserve to live among us. Pardon me if I sound repetitive but so does the Koran in its demand to enslave or kill us infidels.


      Understandable sentiments from a woman in Canada.


      Delete
  40. I swear to God, Obama apologizing on Letterman, and at the UN, it's just too much.

    Our video did it.

    How anyone in their right mind could vote for this guy is simply beyond me.

    Despite using both the words "terror" and "Benghazi" somewhere in a long speech on September 12, Obama later blamed the Benghazi attack on "the video" -- first on Letterman on September 16 and then at the U.N. on September 25. Anyone with eyes and ears knows that Obama and his people were blaming the attack on "the video" for days and weeks after the attack. If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe Chris Matthews or the newspaper he tells us to read.

    On Letterman!.

    ReplyDelete
  41. October 25, 2012
    Benghazi: From 'See No Sharia' to Ansar al-Sharia
    By Andrew G. Bostom

    The Obama administration's wall of mendacity surrounding the murderous 9/11/12 jihadist attack on our Benghazi, Libya diplomatic compound has collapsed under an avalanche of released State Department internal e-mails.

    Even the reliable mainstream media Obama sycophants may be compelled to report the story broken by Reuters (Tuesday evening, 10/23/12). Within two hours of the attack, the State Department was aware that the jihadist group Ansar al-Sharia -- declared by the State Department itself to be an al-Qaeda affiliate -- had claimed responsibility for the raid (or more appropriately, "razzia"). These e-mails were disseminated by the State Department to sundry "redacted national security platforms," such as the White House Situation Room, the Pentagon, the FBI, the Director of National Intelligence, and the State Department. An estimated 300-400 national security figures obtained these e-mails -- including persons working directly below the administration's leading national security, military, and diplomatic officials -- "in real time almost as the raid was playing out and concluding."

    Who is Ansar al-Sharia? "AL-QAEDA IN LIBYA: A PROFILE" was an August 2012 report prepared by the Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office, a Pentagon program office under the aegis of the assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict. The report emphasized how Al-Qaeda Senior Leadership (AQSL), working via a large, powerful, and well-established jihadist infrastructure in Libya -- including, prominently, Ansar al-Sharia -- sought to capitalize on the U.S. and NATO-supported insurrection which toppled the Libyan despot Gaddafi, and fulfill its goal of making Libya part of an eventual transnational caliphate.










    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A sizable, ominous Ansar al-Sharia public rally during June 2012 was highlighted in the August 2012 Pentagon report, which also noted the unwillingness of Libya's sharia-supporting central government to contend with these ostensibly "more radical" avatars of sharia supremacism:

      In June 2012, Ansar al-Sharia staged a large-scale rally and military show of force involving dozens of military vehicles, with Islamists wearing the Afghan mujahidin's traditional outfit. Some leaders described themselves as Islamists and called for implementation of sharia similar to that which the Taliban had implemented in Afghanistan or al-Qaeda in Somalia and Yemen. The military show of force consisted of a parade in which some 30 battalions from Benghazi, Darnah, Misrata, Al-Nufilyah, Ajdabiyah, and other Libyan towns took part in the first meeting in support of sharia in Benghazi. Islamist leaders pointed out that the aim of the military parade was to terrorize (Arabic: irhab) those who do not want to be judged by God's law. Islamist leaders urged the Transitional National Council to clarify the identity of the state as Islamic or secular. Such a system of local affiliates might use neighborhood mosques as a support infrastructure for a religious and popular movement that could frighten politicians attempting to run on a moderate Islamic platform. ... A weak Islamist-dominated central government is unlikely to confront such a radical movement, at least in the short term. The minister of religious affairs expressed his government's weakness when he lamented the "hijacking" of mosques by extremist imams imposed by militiamen. Two of these local Islamist-oriented militias -- Ansar al-Sharia and al-A'hrar Libya -- are the tip of the iceberg. They broadcast typical al-Qaeda-type propaganda on the Internet, and they have adopted the black flag, which symbolizes commitment to violent jihad promoted by AQSL.

      With resigned sobriety, the Pentagon report emphasized how such jihadist/al-Qaeda discourse resonates among a significant swath of the Libyan population

      AQSL's discourse may attract a sizable audience, especially among disenchanted former rebels, insecure tribal leaders, and Salafist clerics that could be turned into a support network and recruiting tool for jihadists. As demonstrated by ongoing rallies of supporters of the implementation of sharia, the Salafist movement is gaining ground in Libya and is most likely to adopt an uncompromising stance with regard to sharia and secularism close to the one typically promoted by al-Qaeda.



      Delete
    2. The salient features of sharia, Islamic law, and its appeal as demonstrated by recent polling data from Libya's North African Muslim neighbors, Morocco and Egypt, are summarized below.

      Derived from Islam's most important canonical texts -- the Koran and hadith -- and their interpretation and codification by Islam's greatest classical legists, sharia is not merely holistic, in the general sense of all-encompassing, but totalitarian, regulating everything from the ritual aspects of religion to personal hygiene to the governance of an Islamic state, bloc of states, or global Islamic order. Clearly, this latter political aspect is the most troubling, being an ancient antecedent of more familiar modern totalitarian systems. Specifically, sharia's liberty-crushing and dehumanizing political aspects feature: open-ended jihadism to subjugate the world to a totalitarian Islamic order; rejection of bedrock Western liberties -- including freedom of conscience and speech -- enforced by imprisonment, beating, or death; discriminatory relegation of non-Muslims to outcast, vulnerable pariahs, and even Muslim women to subservient chattel; and barbaric punishments which violate human dignity, such as amputation for theft, stoning for adultery, and lashing for alcohol consumption.

      But is this ancient, brutally oppressive totalitarian system still popular amongst the Muslim masses, particularly within North Africa? In a word, "yes." Polling data were released April 24, 2007 from a rigorously conducted face-to-face University of Maryland/ WorldPublicOpinion.org interview survey of Muslims conducted between December 9, 2006 and February 15, 2007. Seventy-one percent (71%) of the 1,000 Moroccans, and 67% of the 1,000 Egyptians surveyed, desired this outcome: "To unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or Caliphate." The internal validity of these data about the present longing for a caliphate was strongly suggested by a concordant result: 76% of Moroccan Muslims and 74% of Egyptian Muslims approved the proposition "To require a strict [emphasis added] application of Sharia law in every Islamic country."

      Delete
    3. Returning to the August 2012 Pentagon report, its EXECUTIVE SUMMARY raises serious questions about the callous inattention to security for U.S. diplomatic and ancillary personnel in Benghazi, and more importantly, the abysmal See No Sharia failure of imagination regarding overall U.S. policy in Libya, which has abetted the most fanatical jihadist movement extant -- al-Qaeda itself.

      Al-Qaeda has established a core network in Libya, but it remains clandestine and refrains from using the al-Qaeda name...Ansar al-Sharia, led by Sufian Ben Qhumu, a former Guantanamo detainee, has increasingly embodied al-Qaeda's presence in Libya, as indicated by its active social-media propaganda, extremist discourse, and hatred of the West, especially the United States. Al-Qaeda adherents in Libya used the 2011 Revolution to establish well-armed, well-trained, and combat-experienced militias... The al-Qaeda clandestine network is currently in an expansion phase, running training camps and media campaigns on social-media platforms, such as Facebook and YouTube. However, it will likely continue to mask its presence under the umbrella of the Libyan Salafist movement, with which it shares a radical ideology and a general intent to implement sharia in Libya and elsewhere.

      And one of the apparent U.S. avatars of this grossly misbegotten policy is now its most prominent victim cum "martyr" -- namely, Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Two (here, here) profoundly disturbing classified cables written by Stevens during 2008 capture this warped mindset. They reveal a Stevens cavorting with the very Libyan Muslim denizens of Derna -- a longstanding, proud hotbed of jihad which was a hub of the aggressive late 18th- through early 19th-century North African Barbary jihad campaigns against the U.S. -- who were proudly sending their sons to be homicide bombers in Iraq attacking, and killing or grievously wounding U.S. troops there, at the highest per capita rate of any location in Islamdom. One memo is more than sympathetic to this hotbed of jihadism; it is almost reverent (Stevens repeats uncritically their self-characterization as being like Bruce Willis in the movie Die Hard -- even entitling his cable "Diehard in Derna") -- and one can see the germ of the idea for the strategy ultimately employed overthrow Gaddafi spearheaded by jihadists like Stevens' erstwhile colleagues in Derna.


      Delete
    4. The horrific, depressing spectacle of our great nation's willing exploitation by violent sharia supremacists brings to mind a remarkably candid assessment by the 18th-century Moroccan Sufi "master" Ibn Ajibah from his Koranic commentary, a work I was made aware of by my colleague, Dr. Mark Durie. Describing unabashedly the purpose of the humiliating Koranic poll tax (as per Koran 9:29) of submission for non-Muslims brought under Islamic hegemony by jihad, Ibn Ajibah makes clear the ultimate goal of its imposition was to achieve what he called the death of the "soul," through the dhimmis'execution of their own humanity:

      [The dhimmi] is commanded to put his soul, good fortune and desires to death. Above all he should kill the love of life, leadership and honor. [The dhimmi] is to invert the longings of his soul, he is to load it down more heavily than it can bear until it is completely submissive. Thereafter nothing will be unbearable for him. He will be indifferent to subjugation or might. Poverty and wealth will be the same to him; praise and insult will be the same; preventing and yielding will be the same; lost and found will be the same. Then, when all things are the same, it [the soul] will be submissive and yield willingly what it should give. [Tafsir ibn 'Ajibah. Commentary on Q9:29. Ahmad ibn Muhammad Ibn 'Ajibah]

      Cynically ignoring sharia doctrines and practices that permanently endanger the life, liberty, and property of non-Muslims, U.S. policymakers -- epitomized by the murdered Libyan Ambassador Stevens -- have sacrificed U.S. lives, and our nation's soul.


      Delete
  42. Anybody here know what an Up-Tino is?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The things you learn reading late at night.

      No, it is not a newly discover physical particle, like an up- neutrino, or an up or down quark.

      It is a newly discovered political particle of a sort.

      Hint: there are fewer around today than there were several years ago.

      There are some, a few at least, in Ohio, and more in Las Vegas, but still less than formerly.

      I am getting too old for this.

      Delete
    2. I assume there are Down-Tinos too, more numerous today than before.

      Delete