Benghazi lies - Read the Congressional report on Benghazi here:

Read the Congressional report on Benghazi here: 

https://goodlatte.house.gov/system/uploads/229/original/Libya-Progress-Report.pdf

Benghazi lies

By Alan Caruba

At an April 17 session before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the new Secretary of State, John Kerry, lightly dismissed the assassination of a U.S. ambassador and three security personnel in Benghazi, Libya, saying "I don't think anybody lied to anybody. And let's find out exactly, together, what happened, because we need – we got a lot more important things to move on to and get done."

This has been the party line of the White House since the attack occurred on September 11, 2012. The initial response was to send out the hapless lackey, then-US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, to tell absurd lies about a video that incited the attack. Even the Libyan president dismissed that.

Operating on the belief that the longer the attack recedes into the past, the less likely it will be a political problem, the administration continues to stonewall. That's not going to happen. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), speaking on Fox News on April 27 promised "explosive" congressional hearings regarding the Benghazi attack, saying they are "coming soon."

Larry Bell, a Forbes columnist, noted that "The House interim report states that 'reductions of security levels prior to the attacks in Benghazi were approved at the highest levels of the State Department, up to and including Secretary Clinton.'"

A group, Special Operations Speaks, recently sent a letter to House Speaker John Boehner, raising the following questions:

Why was there no military response to the events in Benghazi?

Were military assets in the region available? If not, why not? If so, were they alerted?

Were assets deployed to any location in preparation for a rescue or recovery attempt?

Was military assistance requested by the Department of State? If so, what type?

Were any US Army/Navy/USMC assets available to support the US diplomats in Benghazi during the attack?

What, if any, recommendations for military action were made by DOD and the US Africa Command?

What, if any, non-military assistance was provided during the attack?

How many US personnel were injured in Benghazi?

Why have the survivors of the attack not been questioned?

Where are the survivors?

Who was in the White House Situation Room (WHSR) during the entire 8-hour period of the attacks, and was a senior US military officer present?

Where were Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey during the crisis, and what inputs and recommendations did they make?

Where were Tom Donilon, the National Security Advisor, Denis McDonough, his deputy, Valerie Jarrett, and John Brennan during the attacks, and what (if any) recommendations or decisions did any of them make?

Why were F-16 fighter aircraft based in Aviano, Italy (less than two hours away), never considered a viable option for disruption (if not dispersal) of the attackers until "boots on the ground" (troop support – General Dempsey's words) arrived?

Were any strike aircraft (such as an AC-130 gunship) in the area or possibly overhead that would cause former SEAL Tyrone Woods to laser-designate his attacker's position and call for gunship fire support, thereby revealing his own location that led to his death?

Who gave the order to "STAND DOWN" that was heard repeatedly during the attacks?

What threat warnings existed before the attack, and what were the DOD and DOS responses to those warnings?

What data (which will reveal exact timelines and command decisions) is contained within the various SITREPS, records, logs, videos and recordings maintained by the myriad DOD, Intelligence Community and State Department Command Centers that were monitoring the events in Benghazi as they unfolded?

Why did the Commander-in Chief and Secretary of State never once check in during the night to find out the status of the crisis in Benghazi?

What was the nature of Ambassador Stevens' business in Benghazi at the time of the attack?

What guidance has been provided to survivors and family members since the time of the attack, and who issued that guidance?

Why are so many agencies now requiring their personnel who were involved in or have access to information regarding the events that took place in Benghazi sign non-disclosure statements?

"As veterans of Special Operations, we find this deeply troubling." All Americans should find the Benghazi attack and the total lack of response and seeming indifference to it at the highest levels of our government deeply troubling.

If it turns out that the alleged witnesses to the attack begin to turn up dead that would be especially troubling.

How did he keep the list to 30? Reasons to not like Obama

30 Reasons To Dislike Barack Obama

John Hawkins | Apr 30, 2013

This must have been an easy article to write.  Keeping the list to 30 was probably the biggest problem.

As a conservative, picking out things you don't like about Barack Obama is kind of like pointing to the wettest part of the ocean. It also goes beyond politics. Not only is Barack Obama wrong politically, he's not a good guy, "cool," or even moderately likable. To the contrary, he's one of the nastiest, least admirable people in politics and he gets by based on a phony persona he created when he ran for President in 2008 -- along with the help of press corps liberals that work to protect him like they're on his payroll. Based on his performance and his personality, Barack Obama deserves to be the least popular man ever to sit in the White House.

1) Nobody but an ass would say, “It’s very rare that I come to an event where I’m like the fifth- or sixth-most interesting person.”

2) He's a former (maybe, who really knows?) coke-snorting pothead who governs with all the care and due diligence you'd expect from a coke-snorting pothead.

3) Barack Obama actually said, “The private sector is doing fine.” Given that the private sector has never at any point been doing fine since he became President, he'd have to be dumb, dishonest or delusional to say something like that.

4) He is a bigger liar than Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter put together. There's nothing the man says you can count on his meaning unless he's saying something nice about himself.

5) He's made racist comments about white people. Just to name one example,

"That’s just how white folks will do you. It wasn’t merely the cruelty involved; I was learning that black people could be mean and then some. It was a particular brand of arrogance, an obtuseness in otherwise sane people that brought forth our bitter laughter. It was as if whites didn’t know that they were being cruel in the first place. Or at least thought you deserving of their scorn."

6) His whole campaign in 2012 revolved around telling people Mitt Romney was an awful human being because he had money. Meanwhile, Barack Obama is worth 10 million dollars. What a hypocrite!

7) He once picked his nose on camera.

8) "The same guy who lectured the country on the importance of civility after Gabrielle Giffords was shot also refers to people he disagrees with politically as 'teabaggers.'"

9) He ate a dog once which is just gross.

10) He actually said, "Thank you, Planned Parenthood. God bless you. " We’re talking about people who murder babies for a living and he’s asking God to bless that? What a despicable man.

11) He went to Jeremiah Wright's church for twenty years and considered the man his spiritual mentor even though his utterly vile former pastor is anti-white, anti-Semitic and anti-American. Ultimately, the only reason Obama threw him under the bus at all was because Wright criticized him.

12) He looks like a pansy when he rides his little bike in mom jeans.

13) He throws like a six year old girl.

14) Americans dying in Boston or Benghazi? Obama was so indifferent he might as well have been talking about what he was having for lunch. But when gun control failed, that he got upset about.

15) He's the single least competent man ever to sit in the White House; yet he's arrogant to the point of narcissism. He's like a third string high school basketball player who thinks he should be playing in the NBA all-star game.

16) He's made an ass of himself by publicly inserting himself into both the Henry Louis Gates arrest and the Trayvon Martin case when he should have just shut his big yap and let justice take its course.

17) He habitually demonizes successful people and businesses.

18) He actually told Hispanic Americans that Republicans WERE THEIR ENEMIES, "If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s gonna be harder and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2."

19) America lost its AAA credit rating for the first time since 1917 on Obama’s watch and he blamed it on the Tea Party. Yes, seriously.

20) One out of every five Americans is on food stamps thanks to Barack Obama and in his mind, that's a good thing because it makes those people more dependent on the government and therefore likely to vote for the Democrats.

21) He decimated the American health care system with Obamacare, even though the American people didn't want it and the bill was universally opposed by every Republican in the House and Senate except Olympia Snowe, who later voted in favor of repealing it.

22) He once threw his own GRANDMOTHER under the bus. HIS GRANDMOTHER.

“I can no more disown (Jeremiah Wright) than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.”

23) Time and time again he has said and done things that indicate that he doesn't like America, is ashamed of the country and finds the whole nation to be slightly embarrassing.

24) Obama passed the DREAM ACT by fiat and illegally, unconstitutionally started the process of giving work permits to illegals.

25) There are Americans and Mexicans dead because of Fast and Furious and Obama is covering it up Nixon-style by asserting executive privilege.

26) He spends more time golfing and going on vacations than he does in meetings on economic policy.

27) He's spending so much money that it's almost singlehandedly destroying the economic future of America. One day, kids will be pointing to his picture when they're asked about the moment when the American dream began to die.

28) This is a man who demands credit for his "bipartisanship" while he says things like, "But I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don’t mind cleaning up after them, but don’t do a lot of talking.” What a jerk.

29) After it came out that the Korean rapper Psy had wished death not just on American soldiers, but their wives and children, Obama made a point of shaking his hand publicly even though the fact he was in the same room with him had been controversial.

30) Barack Obama may be the most crooked President ever to sit in the Oval Office. His campaign contributors at Solyndra got 535 million dollars they couldn't pay back and he broke the law to help his union cronies at GE and Chrysler while taxpayers lost 25 billion dollars on the deal. In a better, more honest world Obama would deserve to face possible JAIL TIME for what he did there.

GAY MARRIAGE FIGHT IS A ‘LIE’ TO DESTROY MARRIAGE

LESBIAN ACTIVIST’S SURPRISINGLY CANDID SPEECH: GAY MARRIAGE FIGHT IS A ‘LIE’ TO DESTROY MARRIAGE

Apr. 29, 2013 

A speech by Masha Gessen, an author and outspoken activist for the LGBT community, is just now going viral and it includes a theory that many supporters of traditional marriage have speculated about for years: The push for gay marriage has less to do with the right to marry – it is about diminishing and eventually destroying the institution of marriage and redefining the “traditional family.”

Image: YouTube

The subject of gay marriage stirs powerful reactions on both sides of the argument. There are those who argue that legalizing it would diminish traditional marriage. And those advocating for gay marriage have long stated that the issue will not harm traditional marriage. Ms. Gessen’s comments on the subject seem to contradict the pro-gay-marriage party lines.

Gessen shared her views on the subject and very specifically stated;

• “Gay marriage is a lie.”
• “Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there.”
• “It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.” (This statement is met with very loud applause.)

As mentioned above, Gessen also talked about redefining the traditional family. This may have something to do with the fact that she has “three children with five parents”:

“I don’t see why they (her children) shouldn’t have five parents legally. I don’t see why we should choose two of those parents and make them a sanctioned couple.”

The entire presentation is here, but the most curious portion starts about six minutes into the the audio:

The excerpt above was recorded on May 19, 2012 when Ms. Gessen appeared at the Sydney Writer’s Festival on a panel titled, “Why Get Married When You Can Be Happy?”  She has been speaking on the subject of gay marriage, gay divorce, her curious custody situation and more for many years.

Election Fraud in a Presidential Election

Election Fraud in a Presidential Election

By  Hans von Spakovsky John Fund

April 28, 2013 

Last Thursday, according to Fox News, a jury in Indiana found that “fraud put President Obama and Hillary Clinton on the presidential primary ballot” in the 2008 election. We wrote about the discovery of this fraud in our book, Who’s Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk.
The mastermind behind the ballot-petition fraud was one Butch Morgan, then the Democratic-party chairman of St. Joseph County. With the help of three other employees of the county board of elections, Morgan faked names and signatures on ballot petitions that qualified Obama and Clinton for the May 6 Democratic primary.
Under Indiana state law, in order to enter the presidential-primary contest, a candidate must have the signatures of 500 registered voters from each of the state’s nine congressional districts. Obama’s petition for the Second Congressional District, which includes St. Joseph County, had 534 signatures. Each petition page had ten voter signatures, and, according to evidence produced by the prosecutors, all the signatures on nine of Obama’s petition pages were forged. Without those 90 fraudulent signatures, Obama would have fallen short of the 500-signature threshold. Had those signatures been challenged when they were submitted, he would not have been on the ballot for the primary.
Thirteen petition pages for Clinton were filled with fake signatures, but because she had submitted 704 signatures, she had enough legitimate signatures to meet the threshold anyway.
The court ruling certainly raises a fascinating “what if” scenario: Would history have been changed if this ballot-petition fraud had been discovered when it occurred? There were 72 delegates at stake in Indiana. Before the May 6 primary, the AP reported that Obama was barely ahead of Clinton, with 1,490 pledged delegates vs. 1,338. Clinton had a slight edge in superdelegate endorsements, 275.5 to Obama’s 258, according to Bloomberg News.
Clinton barely beat Obama in the Indiana primary, garnering 51 percent of the vote. The delegates were split almost evenly, with Clinton receiving 38 and Obama receiving 34. Had Obama been disqualified from the ballot and Clinton had received all 72 delegates, it would have put her within striking distance of the nomination. How would candidate Obama’s grassroots and financial support have been affected if he had been disqualified from the ballot and his campaign enveloped in a fraud scandal caused by local Democratic-party operatives?
Political momentum is a very delicate thing. It’s certainly possible that such a setback for Obama could have changed the outcome of the 2008 Democratic nomination contest. But of course, we will never know. All we do know for sure is that Indiana experienced election fraud committed by party activists that may have affected the 2008 election. But of course, according to some, there is no election fraud in the United States.

The Real Impact of Political Correctness

People are defined by their deeds, their actions. Not their words. But the way we communicate can be both reflective of our behavior and an influence on it going forward.

What we call political correctness, for example, reflects societal behavior, how our culture has changed. It also influences societal behavior. In that sense, it reinforces the trajectory of that cultural change.

That makes it a powerful way to understand where we are and where we’re going as a nation, as an economy, and as people. It also shows the effect our words have on how we lead, how we work, and how we live.   

How the trend toward political correctness came into being is anyone’s guess. At this point, it doesn’t really matter. It’s everywhere. It’s pervasive. The only way to deal with it is to understand what it is:

It’s collectivism, which destroys individualism. Competition is bad. Everyone’s a winner. Everyone has to be included and treated the same. Singling out individuals as special or unique excludes others, so that’s out. Lost is individual responsibility and accountability, the drive to compete and win, the motivation to be recognized for achievement and superior performance.

It levels the playing field, brings everyone down to the lowest common denominator. Star performers have to take it down a notch so everyone can be included. Like when you bring slower students into a gifted class, everything has to be dumbed down. It diminishes team performance and organizational effectiveness.

Everything has to be filtered to ensure no one is offended or gets into trouble. That slows down information processing, waters down communication, strips out critical data, and dilutes meaning. As a result, it undermines genuine understanding and effective decision-making.

Now, here’s the confusing part. Finger pointing and blaming others is tolerated, even encouraged. Leaders blame their predecessors; parents blame teachers; society blames victims. It’s everybody’s fault but whoever is really responsible. That’s because nobody is accountable. There are no enemies or bad guys. That wouldn’t be inclusive. Including them will fix them.

In short, it’s Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged come to life. It’s a nightmare. And its implications are far reaching. 

The Boston Marathon bombing wasn’t the fault of some sick, twisted, cowardly, barbarian terrorists, “It was tax day,” according to former Obama advisor David Axelrod. And former Congressman Barney Frank used it as an opportunity to make a political argument for a “well-funded” government.   

Nobody can blame President Obama for our out of control debt and sluggish economy. Of course not. It’s former President Bush’s fault.

Former secretary of State Hillary Clinton isn’t responsible for the Benghazi attacks and four murdered Americans including Ambassador Chris Stevens; it’s a congressional funding problem.

Business leaders and managers are less willing to give employees genuine feedback because they’re afraid of being sued or accused of harassment, discrimination, or being a bully. You can’t even compliment how someone looks or show any genuine emotions anymore. That might create a hostile work environment.

When you remove personal responsibility by telling people they’re doing great when they’re not and giving them stuff for doing nothing, in time, they feel like they deserve it. That’s where our growing entitlement culture is coming from.

And when we fail to provide people with incentives to work hard and live in a fiscally responsible way as a means to long-term happiness and security, guess what they do? They sit on their butts all day and Tweet, like, update, play games, watch reality TV, and get fatter and fatter.  

And how about our growing youth violence problem? If you don’t teach children personal responsibility – adult responsibility – they never grow up. And what do children do when you don’t give them attention? They throw tantrums. And any good shrink will tell you, if children can’t get positive recognition, they’ll take negative attention instead. Anything that’s self-affirming, that feeds their egos.  

While it’s clear that political correctness is reflective of our societal norms, it also influences where our culture is heading. If I’m not mistaken, it’s turning us into a nation of people who look like adults but act like entitled children, who act out when they don’t get what they want or feel they deserve.

How do we stop that from happening? Don’t be politically correct. Here’s how:

Behave like an adult.

Hold yourself and others accountable.

Don’t try to be something you’re not.

Say what you mean and mean what you say.

Have a sense of humor, humility, and perspective.

Work hard, play to win, and respect the competition.

Don’t be afraid to do the right thing, no matter what.

Be proud of yourself, your loved ones, and all your accomplishments.

Steve Tobak is a Silicon Valley-based strategy consultant and former senior executive of the technology industry.

Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/business-leaders/2013/04/19/real-impact-political-correctness/#ixzz2RsRLfp7N

AMERICANS FEAR GOVERNMENT MORE THAN TERROR

According to a pair of recent polls, for the first time since the 9/11 terrorist hijackings, Americans are more fearful their government will abuse constitutional liberties than fail to keep its citizens safe.

Even in the wake of the April 15 Boston Marathon bombing – in which a pair of Islamic radicals are accused of planting explosives that took the lives of 3 and wounded over 280 – the polls suggest Americans are hesitant to give up any further freedoms in exchange for increased “security.”

A Fox News survey polling a random national sample of 619 registered voters the day after the bombing found despite the tragic event, those interviewed responded very differently than following 9/11.

For the first time since a similar question was asked in May 2001, more Americans answered “no” to the question, “Would you be willing to give up some of your personal freedom in order to reduce the threat of terrorism?”

Of those surveyed on April 16, 2013, 45 percent answered no to the question, compared to 43 percent answering yes.

In May 2001, before 9/11, the balance was similar, with 40 percent answering no to 33 percent answering yes.

But following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the numbers flipped dramatically, to 71 percent agreeing to sacrifice personal freedom to reduce the threat of terrorism.

Subsequent polls asking the same question in 2002, 2005 and 2006 found Americans consistently willing to give up freedom in exchange for security. Yet the numbers were declining from 71 percent following 9/11 to only 54 percent by May 2006.

Now, it would seem, the famous quote widely attributed to Benjamin Franklin – “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety” – is holding more sway with Americans than it has in over a dozen years.

A similar poll sampling 588 adults, conducted on April 17 and 18 for the Washington Post, also discovered the change in attitude.

“Which worries you more,” the Post asked, “that the government will not go far enough to investigate terrorism because of concerns about constitutional rights, or that it will go too far in compromising constitutional rights in order to investigate terrorism?”

The poll found 48 percent of respondents worry the government will go too far, compared to 41 percent who worry it won’t go far enough.

And similar to the Fox News poll, the Post found the worry to be a fresh development, as only 44 percent worried the government would go too far in January 2006 and only 27 percent worried the government would go too far in January 2010.

The Fox News poll was unique in that it further broke the responses down by political affiliation:

• Bucking the trend, 51 percent of Democrats responded they would give up personal freedom to reduce the threat of terror, compared to 36 percent opposed.
• Forty-seven percent of Republicans, on the other hand, opposed giving up freedoms, compared to only 43 percent in favor.
• Yet independents were the most resistant, with only 29 percent willing to sacrifice freedom, while 58 percent stood opposed.

Find the hater

Photo: Find the hater (NSFW)

 BY ED MORRISSEY

Warning: Photo below may offend readers and is not safe for work 

I’ve had this photo from The Daily Caller up in my browser for days, ever since Vince Coglianese ran it, as it just keeps popping back into my mind.  The photo comes from a speaking appearance by Belgian Archbishop Andre-Joseph Leonard in Brussels, which Femen targeted for a protest against what it calls “hate” and homophobia in the Catholic Church.

I keep looking at this picture … and see hate, but not where Femen does:

A group of naked women bum-rushed Belgian Archbishop Andre-Joseph Leonard while he was speaking in Brussels and doused him with water from bottles shaped like the Virgin Mary on Tuesday.

The women were reportedly feminist protesters from the Ukranian-based FEMEN group, which is known for organizing topless protests against the Catholic Church and others.

According to AFP, the four protesters charged the archbishop during “a debate on blasphemy and freedom of expression held at the Brussels’ Free University (ULB) campus Tuesday evening, baring their breasts and squirting water at Archbishop Andre Leonard as they accused him of homophobia.”

Photos of the event show Leonard patiently sitting quietly with his eyes closed and hands folded in prayer as the women empty bottles of water on his head and clothes.

Normally, I wouldn’t post this picture, but there is no other way to tell this story.  One can disagree with the Catholic Church on same-sex marriage and the theology of sex on an intellectual and rhetorical level, and people can certainly protest those positions in a clear and unambiguous manner.  That’s not what is happening in this picture and others Vince has posted at The DC.  The angry, contorted faces of the protesters as they assault a man for speaking his mind — and who prays in response — provides a startling contrast, and a rather telling one about hatred.

Whether or not one agrees with Archbishop Leonard and the Church, his witness to the Christian response of love and prayer is powerful, and one I hope I can emulate when put to the test.

Update: Cardinal Timothy Dolan addressed the underlying issue earlier in the week:

So, for example, the Church loves, welcomes, and respects the alcoholic . . . but would not condone his binge;

The Church loves, welcomes, and respects a prominent business leader…but would not condone his or her failure to pay a just wage to a migrant worker;

The Church loves, welcomes, and respects a young couple in love . . . but would challenge their decision to “live together” before marriage;

The Church loves, welcomes, and respects a woman who has had an abortion, and the man who fathered the child and encouraged the abortion . . . but would be united with them in mourning and regretting that deadly choice;

The Church loves, welcomes, and respects a woman or man with a same-sex attraction . . .  while reminding him or her of our clear teaching that, while the condition of homosexuality is no sin at all, still, God’s teaching is clear that sexual acts are reserved for a man and woman united in the lifelong, life-giving, faithful, loving bond of marriage.

The Church loves, welcomes, and respects wealthy people, while prophetically teaching the at-times-uncomfortable virtue of justice and charity towards the poor.

We are part of a Church where, yes, all are welcome, but, no, not a Church of anything goes.

Dangerous Times: Will Shale beat Shari'ah?

By James Lewis

A week after the Boston Marathon bombing, Conservative London Mayor Boris Johnson wrote a shameless puff-piece celebrating the glories of "sensuous" camel racing in the Gulf emirates in the London Telegraph. Gulf Arabs, including the Saudi Arabians, are huge terrorist enablers, big European spenders, London party animals, media investors, sexual abusers, wife beaters, Euro-American arms purchasers, Shari'ah imperialists, massive London vote buyers and powerful political meddlers.
Boris Johnson, who is not a stupid man, is also aware of a slew of London Jihad bombings starting in 2007, both successful ones and a reported sixteen fizzled plots. He knows exactly who pays for Al Qaida and who pays for vote-buying by hundreds of thousands of radicalized Pakistanis imported into London via the corrupt and politicized immigration system.
But Mr. Johnson still sang for his supper about the glories of camel racing in the Gulf emirates and their "dynamic" economies. He has that in common with Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Hussein Obama.
Desert Arabs of the Gulf region would still be living in pathetic tents and whooping up rape and pillage raids on each other, were it not for John D. Rockefeller, whose company discovered Arabian oil in vast quantities before 1900. Even today radical Islamists on both sides of the Gulf have only two exports: oil and religious fanaticism.
London has seen its share of Jihad bombings, and yet -- it has allowed radical terror-preaching imams to radicalize thousands of followers at places like theFinsbury Park Mosque. In Europe and America the most fanatical Wahhabi imams run the worldwide Saudi missionary campaign to convert the infidel by lies, promises, and the revenge psychology of 7th century Arabia, which killed off more advanced civilizations like the Persian and Byzantine Empires. There are two major sources of terrorism in the Muslim world: Iran and Arabia, both fueled by oil and war theology.
Britain's huge investment in universal electronic spying has prevented 16 attacks the size of the 7/7 Underground bombing. But the corrupted and Europeanized political system of today's Britain has never managed to do the obvious: to shut out the sources of societal toxins.Today, the ruling classes of Britain and Europe are drunk on oil money from the Gulf.
Boris Johnson is just one little example of the corrupting power of OPEC monopoly in Europe and America. Britain now has a press censorship law as part of its surrender to political correctness. The left wing of Labour and Arabian desert fanatics will benefit, because they can only survive with censorship. Britain is the transatlantic Chicago Machine of Illinois, and Washington, D.C. today is the national version of Chicago. When child sexual abusers like Senator Menendez can be exposed by the FBI and still survive as the corrupt and sleazy chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee we know that Washington D.C. has entered a stage of Third World corruption. This is America in the age of Obama.
Well, the good news today is that with the rise of shale energy wells all over the world, OPEC will lose its near-monopoly very soon, maybe in half a dozen years.

Shale may therefore defeat shari'ah before it is too late.  -- Caroline Glick.

Obama is a far more rigid leftist ideologue than Boris Johnson, who is capable of real flashes of common sense. As he has written himself, Obama is ideologically pro-Muslim. While that sounds bizarre to most of us, for rigid Third World Socialists the Muslims are an "oppressed" people. The fact that they keep killing and oppressing each other has no meaning in Obama's stuck belief system. The fact that Muslim regimes persecute secular Marxists at every opportunity means nothing.
Even after the Boston Marathon bombing, the Obama left is trying to transform Muslim killers into victims. But nobody believes them anymore. Normal people are seeing Islamist fanaticism for what it is. Only the political and media establishment is mentally stuck in some groove of their own.
We can now see a thousand signs that the radical left is allied to Islamic fascism. In Benghazi Obama was caught smuggling Libyan arms to the Al Qaida-allied rebels in Syria. That is the real meaning of Benghazi: this administration is now obviously supporting the enemy. Whether or not they have some scheme to set Sunnis against Shi'ites in Syria, it is a very dangerous gamble. Islamists can fight each other one day and unite against the infidels the next. Once Iran gets a nuclear bomb their decision time is reduced to minutes.
Conservatives think Obama's anti-American bias is insane, which is why it is so upsetting to see the Islamist narrative win in the media over and over again. Supporting barbarism is nuts. It contradicts everything civilized peoples have learned since World War II. And yet, jihad propaganda keeps winning the liberal media.
Why? The last time Democrats allowed an enemy to infiltrate the U.S. was during the Stalin era. When Americans realized the degree of leftist betrayal of the country it took them decades to recover. The country found its conservative roots again after FDR, the New Deal, and the first half of the Cold War.
Why are liberals risking political suicide to protect Islamist ideology?
The simple answer is money, oil, and power. Starting with OPEC in the 1970s, the oil powers have thoroughly corrupted America and Europe. Oil money has bought media power for the Saudis and Iranians, thanks to the radical left that rose to power starting in the 1960s. We saw the depth of corruption when Saddam Hussein bought Kofi Annan, Jacques Chirac, and Dominique de Villepin in the Oil for Food Scandal ten years ago. The Saddam scandal was only the tip of the Saudi and Iranian iceberg.
But now the oil tourniquet of the Middle East is beginning to lossen up. Huge shale energy discoveries in the U.S. and Canada have turned this country into a net exporter of natural gas, in spite of the rise of fanatical ecoworshippers in the Obama administration. Capitalist technological dynamism has already defeated the publicity campaign against shale development, and for a very simple reason: there is no central spigot to control. Political
alliances can control the flow of tankers going through the Gulf. But there are no political alliances that can stop China and other energy-hungry nations from developing their enormous domestic sources of shale. The "oil crisis" has just ended with a great, technological victory for capitalism.
The media won't figure this out for a few years, but intelligent investors know it. Just as left ideologues seem to have won in the United States and Europe, their crucial economic leverage is crumbling. Ideologues think they know the future. Technologists and capitalists know better.
What effect will this radical change have on the culture wars? Will left-Islamist control freaks like Obama try to control a low-cost energy world with few practical limits?
China now builds the equivalent of one coal-burning power plant every day. In ten years that plant will be converted to natural gas from China's own sources (including the ones it just grabbed in the South China Sea). The pollution impact of that coal plant will then drop drastically, because natural gas has no particulates like diesel fuel or coal. In Europe and America, irrational schemes for wind and tidal power will die aborning. They are doomed to crumble, and the only question is "how quickly"?
In a major civilizational struggle like this, communication and education are the main battlefields. In the West the radical left conquered the organs of propaganda in the Sixties and Seventies, when the media took a hard left turn. Even as the Soviet paradise crumbled around 1990, Western ideological media remained stuck in the Communist Manifesto of 1848. The mental world of the socialist media stayed fixed in the distant past, just as the Islamist media are stuck in the ancient world of the 7th century.
For conservatives the shale revolution represents a huge new chance for a political renaissance. Once again, rigid ideological empires are set to crumble. In Europe the radical-left ruling class is running into the giant iceberg of the single Euro currency. The Euro ruling class is scrambling to keep its money and power while the world is moving under their very feet. The Euro struggle is now a pure powerstruggle, like Bourbon France before the French Revolution. If European voters could throw out the bums they would do so today. That is also why crypto-fascist opportunists are now arising, like Beppe Grillo in Italy and Viktor Orban in Hungary.
This year it looks like Islamic imperialism is on the rise as a result of the "Arab Spring" -- bringing anarchy and war to Syria, Libya, Egypt, Somalia, and all the rest. Islamists have been making ferocious war on the West since 1993, the first bomb attack on the World Trade Center. Last week's Boston massacre shows they have not given up, and the Obama Administration has not made America more secure. On the contrary -- Obama has yielded to the enemy.
But in less than a decade the Middle East will lose its monopoly oil power, as fountains of shale energy emerge all over the world. There will be thousands of new opportunities for freedom and prosperity, as technology and knowledge spread around the world at near-zero cost.
Will conservatives be prepared to spread freedom through the new media?
Humanity could see a new renaissance.
Or -- the power-hungry control freaks could win.
Which will it be? Freedom or medieval tyranny?
And what will you do to speed a return to normalcy?

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2013/04/dangerous_times_will_shale_beat_shariah.html at April 27, 2013 - 12:51:30 PM CDT

Affirmative Action In America Is A Total Failure

http://www.businessinsider.com/affirmative-action-fisher-supreme-court-2013-4

The Spinning Dancer Illusion

What Do You See?

In this image, you see the silhouette of a woman spinning. Which direction is she turning? You may be surprised to learn that it is possible to see her spinning both clockwise and counterclockwise. How? While it may be very difficult, you can probably get her to switch directions spontaneously. Try looking at the figure and then blink; she may appear to change directions immediately after you blink. Another strategy is to focus on a specific part of the figure.

How Does the Spinning Dancer Illusion Work?

After it was initially created by Nobuyuki Kayahara, the illusion was mistakenly referred to as a scientific personality test of right brain/left brain dominance by numerous websites and blogs. In reality, the spinning dancer illusion is related to bistable perception¹ in which an ambiguous 2-dimensional figure can be seen in from two different perspectives.² Because there is no third dimension, our brains try to construct space around the figure. Similar illusions include the Necker Cube and the Reversible Face/Vase Illusion.

In a New York Times column³, Thomas C. Toppino, chair of the department of psychology at Villanova University suggested, "What's happening here to cause the flip is something happening entirely within the visual system. If we can understand why it is these figures reverse then we're in a position to understand something pretty fundamental to how the visual system contributes to the conscious experience."

References:

¹ The spinning dancer and the brain. http://greengabbro.net/2007/10/20/the-spinning-dancer-and-the-brain/

² Bach, M. (n.d). Silhouette illusion. http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/sze_silhouette/index.html

³ Parker-Pope, T. (2008, April 28). The truth about the spinning dancer. The New York Times, http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/the-truth-about-the-spinning-dancer/index.html

Left will say anything to make the right look like the enemy

by BEN SHAPIRO
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/04/25/mother-jones-right-wing

On Wednesday, Mother Jones ran an article making a shocking claim: more Americans have been killed by conservative terrorists than by Islamic terrorists since September 11, 2001. “While America has been fixated on the threat of Islamic terrorism for more than a decade, all but a few domestic terror plots have failed,” the article explained. “Between September 11, 2001, and the end of 2012, there were no successful bomb plots by jihadist terrorists in the United States …. [R]ight-wing extremists killed 29 people during those 11 years.”

But is it true?

The Mother Jones piece is based on a study by the New America Foundation and Syracuse University’s Maxwell School. But that study routinely labels non-right-wing murderers right-wingers, and labels basic crimes involving murder “terrorist attacks.”

Here is their complete list of “rightwing terrorist attacks,” with number of killed in parentheses:

• Christopher and Wade Lay (1): In May 2004, Christopher and Wade Lay shot and murdered a security guard during a bank robbery. The son-and-father criminal team said they wanted to steal the money to buy arms to fight the government thanks to federal action at Waco in 1993 and Ruby Ridge in 1992. This is conspiratorial nonsense, not right-wing extremism. It is also murder, not terrorism, in the technical definition – it was not violence aimed at civilians to achieve a political purpose.
• Jim David Adkisson (2): Adkisson shot up a church in Knoxville, Tennessee  in 2008 after he was unable to get a job, opening fire on children performing a musical. In a four-page letter outside the church, Adkisson “repeatedly included disgust for what he perceived to be the liberals in our country,” according to local authorities. He had also recently lost his public benefits, and his wife was a former member of the church. Local authorities stated, “That might have been a trigger.” The motivation is at best split politically.
• Keith Luke (2): A white supremacist broke into an apartment, raped a woman, and shot two more people in 2009. He planned to attack a Jewish synagogue. His motive: killing “nonwhite people.” That is not right-wing. That is white supremacist. But the left always lumps in neo-Nazi types with the right, despite the fact that the Nazi movement was left-wing in orientation.
• Scott Roeder (1): Roeder assassinated Dr. George Tiller, an abortionist, thanks to his own anti-abortion motives in 2009. Again, this is an assassination, not a terrorist attack.
• James Von Brunn (1): Von Brunn shot a security guard at the US Holocaust Memorial in Washington, D.C. in June 2009. He was a white supremacist and Holocaust denier. He was not a right-winger.
• Robert Andrew Poplawski (3): Poplawski got into a fight with his mother over a dog urinating in their home in 2009. He opened fire on Pittsburgh police officers, killing three. He was an anti-Semite and feared a gun ban by Barack Obama. Again, this was not a terrorist attack.
• Joshua Cartwright (2): Cartwright started a fight with his wife over the location of his Clearasil in 2009. His rampage didn’t stop until after he had killed two sheriff’s deputies. Because Cartwright was described by his wife as conspiratorial and anti-Obama, this was labeled a right-wing terrorist attack. It wasn’t a terrorist attack, and it evidences no motivation based on politics.
• ShawnaForde, Jason Eugene Bush, Albert Robert Gaxiola (2):
• Raymond Franklin Peake (1): Peake, a prison guard, shot a lawyer to death at a gun range so he could steal his gun for use to overthrow the US government in 2010. Again, this was a robbery, not a terrorist attack, and there is no evidence Peake was a right-winger.
• Andrew Joseph Stack (1): In 2009, Stack flew his small plane into the IRS building in Austin Texas, killing an IRS agent. Stack’s suicide note contained rage at the IRS. His suicide note was openly communist: “The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.” He railed in that note against George W. Bush.
• David “Joey” Pedersen and Holly Ann Grigsby (4): The white supremacist couple killed four people in the Pacific Northwest in 2011 because they were minority or had Jewish names. They wanted to target Jewish organizations. There is no evidence they were right-wing.
• Wade Michael Page (5): Page opened fire at a Sikh mosque in 2012. He was brewing in the culture of Nazi hate music. There is no evidence Page was right-wing.
• Brian Lyn Smith (2): Smith and his friend Kyle David Joekel were involved in the shooting of two sheriff’s deputies in Louisiana in 2012. Both were members of the sovereign citizens movement. This is the only attack on the list that could legitimately be considered a “right-wing extremist terrorist attack.”
• Isaac Aguigui, Anthony Peden, Christopher Salmon, Heather Salmon (2): These four killed a former Army compatriot, and formed an anarchist militia group. They allegedly wanted to poison Washington State’s apple crop and blow up a dam. Aguigui was a page at the Republican National Convention in 2008. The killing was a murder, not a terrorist attack.

Realistically speaking, then, there were a grand total of 2 killings over the last 12 years by “right-wing extremists.”

The study lists just four Islamic terrorist attacks in that period:

• Hesham Mohamed Hadayet (2): He shot two at the El-Al counter at Los Angeles International Airport in 2002.
• Naveed Afzal Haq (1): He shot up the Jewish Federation building in Seattle, Washington in 2006.
• Nidal Malik Hasan (13): The perpetrator of the Fort Hood terrorist attack.
• Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad (1): He shot up a Little Rock recruitment office in 2009.

The list does not include the Beltway snipers (11 killed, including a 2002 shooting of a Tucson man); Mohammed Ali Alayed, who slashed a Jewish friend’s throat after reportedly undergoing a religious revival; Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, who used his SUV to attack students (9 injured) at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in revenge for “the deaths of Muslims worldwide”; the list goes on. The list also does not include honor killings (the equivalent to the George Tiller assassination), or random murders involving Muslims (the equivalent of half the items on the “rightwing terrorist attacks” list.

Naturally, the study does not bother to list left-wing terrorists.

The attempt by the left, including Mother Jones, to minimize the threat of Islamic terror inside the United States and to maximize the threat of “right-wing extremism” is all too obvious. By using the label “right-wing extremism” to apply to everything from neo-Nazis to anarchists, the left seeks to smear the right, the same way it smeared the right with the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords.

The truth remains that the Islamist threat in the United States is very real – and that only the dedication of law enforcement has stopped substantially more Islamist attacks. After the Boston Marathon bombings that killed three and wounded well over 170, only a truly philosophically perverse publication would claim that right-wingers are actually more of a threat to public safety than Islamists.