In 1939, the French unveiled what they billed as the greatest and most modern defense line the world has ever seen: the Maginot Line. This French Maginot Line defense perimeter ran almost the entire north-south length of the French-German Border. It was named after the French Minister of War Andre Maginot who sold the French government on the idea. The French believed the Maginot Line would be their absolute protection against a German westward attack.
Unfortunately, Hitler’s highly mobilized Panzer tanks simply swept right around it through Belgium.
All of Israel’s “peace-in-our-time” plans (including Bibi’s Jordan Valley Plan) are entirely based on variants of the 1967 Allon Plan which, like the Maginot Line defense, are based on yesterday’s technology and yesterday’s wars. IThe plan was named after famous Israeli general Yigal Allon.
However, with the Israeli interception of the UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) over the Negev, there is a new highly lethal and precise terrorist military weapon which could strike from a “demilitarized” Palestinian “West Bank” State with pin-point accuracy into the heart of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem: Killer Terrorist UAVs.
Firstly, most people think that under the various “peace” Allon-based plans floated by Barak, Bibi, and Olmert, Israel will keep the part of Judea and Samaria closed to the Green Line and give up the part of the Israel that is furthest away and closest to Jordan. Wrong!!
The craziest thing is that the Allon Plan ame up with an anti-intuitive plan that would give up Western Samaria (or the Western part of the 'West Bank') to a Palestinian State – that area is closest to Tel Aviv. But zanier still, General Allon would have Israel keep the Jordan Valley (which is the eastern part of the 'West Bank)' and is furthest away from Tel Aviv.
The reason General Allon came up with this Rube-Goldberg disconnected patchwork-quilt border plan was that the Israeli “West Bank” side of the Jordan Valley had and still has almost no Palestinians. Also, because of the extreme topographic rise of the “West Bank” part of the Jordan Valley, it would serve, like the Maginot Line, as an excellent tank barrier to any Muslim westward-sweeping mechanized army.
There are a myriad of problems with the Allon Plan, such a water and air space. But apart from these insolvable issues, an additional problem now is that cheap, highly lethal, and relatively unsophisticated modern weapons have rendered the Allon Plan a suicide plan for Israel.
Even if one were to make the totally insane assumption that a Palestinian Arab state would actually try to keep terrorists from smuggling weapons into this “Demilitarized” Palestinian Authority State, dedicated terrorists will be able to import small portable weapons that can be used by one terrorist operating by himself or in a very small group.
The classic weapon that could be fired from the Palestinian Arab “Demilitarized” State into Tel Aviv is the katyusha. But, now that Sheik Nasrallah has taken credit for launching the Iranian UAV that just flew into the Negev, the Iranians will smuggle new, relatively sophisticated, killer UAVs armed with high-explosives and anti-personnel ball bearings into any sovereign PA State. Iranian Katyushas with people-shredding ball-bearings have been fired from the Gaza Strip into Israel.
With Palestinian Arab terrorists inside the Allon designated Western Samarian Palestinian Authority State borders, Iranian-armed Palestinian Arab terrorists will strike Tel Aviv with their terror UAVs easier than the German tanks out-flanked the Maginot Line.
What’s worse, the UAV armed terrorists could use the UAV GPS guidance systems to accurately crash and explode their terror UAVs into highly populated and strategic points in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv – like the Kirya (Israel’s Pentagon) and the Knesset (Israel’s Parliament). Imagine that Israel would have to 24/7 be on the look-out for miniature virtually invisible UAVs packed with explosives and ball-bearings, or maybe even chemical weapons, flying along the hundreds of kilometers of the Green Line. It is as if America gave al Qaeda the county of Queens from which al Qaeda Islamic crazies could launch UAV attacks into Manhattan over the East River. Not pretty.
And what would be Israel’s response to a terror UAV attack into pre-1967 Israel?? Would Israel reinvade the 'West Bank', or part of it, because of one terror UAV hit an Israeli school? The UN would certainly have something to say about that. And, what would the reaction from the Muslim world if Israel so much as mobilized to re-invade one square inch of this Palestinian Arab State? Israel’s mobilization would be broadcast live in real-time beamed to one billion Muslims on their Facebook chat rooms.
If Obama claimed that the “Innocence of Muslims” supposedly “sparked” the Muslim rage that murdered Ambassador Stevens”, just imagine what Muslim wildfires a mobilization for an Israeli re-invasion of any part of area given up for a PA state would bring. In short, the Allon Plan has become a Israel-Death Plan and, along with the other ill-conceived plans for a PA state, should be relegated to the dustbin of history before it turns Israel into a dustbin.
The writer, has created an original educational 3d Topographic Map System of Israel to facilitate clear understanding of the dangers facing Israel and its water supply. It has been studied by US lawmakers and can be seen atwww.marklangfan.com.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1)The Levy Report - Justice on Israel's Side

Belligerent acts by the Arab state justified Israel's resort to arms in self-defense in accordance with the Law of Nations

October 17, 2012
Eli E. Hertz


In June 1967, the combined armies of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan attacked Israel with the clear purpose expressed by Egypt's President: "Destruction of Israel." At the end of what is now known as the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel, against all odds, was victorious and in possession of the territories of the West Bank, Sinai and the Golan Heights.

International law makes a clear distinction between defensive wars and wars of aggression. Egypt's blockade of the waterway known as the Strait of Tiran, which prevented access to Israel's southern port of Eilat, was an act of aggression that led to the Six-Day War in 1967. More than six decades after the 1948 War and more than four decades since the 1967 Six-Day War, it is hard to imagine the dire circumstances Israel faced and the price it paid to fend off its neighbors' attacks.

Israel, faced with the imminent threat of obliteration, was forced to invoke its right of self-defense, a basic tenet of international law, enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Israel's wars with her neighbors are zero-sum games. The Arab objective in the 1967 Six-Day War was to overrun and eradicate the Jewish state.

Arabs would like the world to believe that in 1967, Israel simply woke-up one morning and invaded them, and therefore Israel's control of the Golan Heights, West Bank and Sinai is the illicit fruit of an illegal act - like Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1991.
Professor, Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, past President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) states the following facts:
"The facts of the June 1967 'Six Day War' demonstrate that Israel reacted defensively against the threat and use of force against her by her Arab neighbors. This is indicated by the fact that Israel responded to Egypt's prior closure of the Straits of Tiran, its proclamation of a blockade of the Israeli port of Eilat, and the manifest threat of the UAR's use of force inherent in its massing of troops in Sinai, coupled with its ejection of UNEF. It is indicated by the fact that, upon Israeli responsive action against the UAR, Jordan initiated hostilities against Israel. It is suggested as well by the fact that, despite the most intense efforts by the Arab States and their supporters, led by the Premier of the Soviet Union, to gain condemnation of Israel as an aggressor by the hospitable organs of the United Nations, those efforts were decisively defeated. The conclusion to which these facts lead is that the Israeli conquest of Arab and A rab-held territory was defensive rather than aggressive conquest."
The answer can be found on the official website of the Jordanian Government under the heading "The Disaster of 1967." It describes the events of the days prior to June 5, 1967 and clearly indicates that Jordan, at least, expected Egypt to launch the offensive war against Israel. Israel did not enter the West Bank until it was first attacked by Jordan:

"On May 16, Nasser shocked the world by asking the United Nations to withdraw its forces from Sinai. To the surprise of many, his request was honored two days later. Moreover, the Egyptian president closed the Straits of Tiran on May 22. Sensing that war was now likely, [And] … in response to the Israeli attack [on the Egyptian Air Force], Jordanian forces launched an offensive into Israel, but were soon driven back as the Israeli forces counterattacked into the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem." [Italic by author]

In fact, Jordan was an illegal occupier of the West Bank from 1948 to 1967, and the undisputable aggressor in the Six-Day War of 1967. Thus, Israel acted lawfully by exercising its right of self-defense when it redeemed and legally occupied Judea and Samaria, known also as the West Bank.

Israel had clarified to Jordan through UN diplomatic channels that it should stay out of the war. It stated simply: "We shall not attack any country unless it opens war on us." King Hussein of Jordan sent a reply via the UN envoy that "since Israel had attacked Egypt, [Israel] would receive his reply by air" - a 'message' that came in the form of Jordanian air raids on civilian and military targets, shelling Jerusalem with mortars and long-range artillery on Ben-Gurion Airport, then extending the front to shelling Israel's 'narrow hips' under the mistaken belief that the Arabs were winning. Had Jordan heeded Israel's message of peace instead of Egypt's lies that the Arabs were winning the war, the Hashemite Kingdom could have remained neutral in the conflict, and Eastern Jerusalem and the West Bank would have remained in Jordan's possession. Jordan was far from a 'minor player' in the Arabs' war of aggression as their narrative implies. Israel lost 183 soldiers in battle with Jordanian forces.

Judge Sir Elihu Lauterpacht wrote in 1968, just one year after the 1967 Six-Day War:
"On 5th June, 1967, Jordan deliberately overthrew the Armistice Agreement by attacking the Israeli-held part of Jerusalem. There was no question of this Jordanian action being a reaction to any Israeli attack. It took place notwithstanding explicit Israeli assurances, conveyed to King Hussein through the U.N. Commander, that if Jordan did not attack Israel, Israel would not attack Jordan. Although the charge of aggression is freely made against Israel in relation to the Six-Days War the fact remains that the two attempts made in the General Assembly in June-July 1967 to secure the condemnation of Israel as an aggressor failed. A clear and striking majority of the members of the U.N. voted against the proposition that Israel was an aggressor."

Professor, Judge Schwebel, wrote in What Weight to Conquest:
"(a) a state [Israel] acting in lawful exercise of its right of self-defense may seize and occupy foreign territory as long as such seizure and occupation are necessary to its self-defense;
"(b) as a condition of its withdrawal from such territory, that State may require the institution of security measures reasonably designed to ensure that that territory shall not again be used to mount a threat or use of force against it of such a nature as to justify exercise of self-defense;
 "(c) where the prior holder of territory [Jordan] had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title.

"As between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967, on the one hand, and her Arab neighbors, acting aggressively, in 1948 and 1967, on the other, Israel has the better title in the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem ..."
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Larry Summers: Global Economy in Danger Zone
By Dan Weil


 Economies around the world are in trouble, says Harvard economist Lawrence Summers, who previously was a top adviser to President Barack Obama.

“The U.S. still peers over a fiscal cliff, Europe staggers forward trying to prevent crises King Canute-style with no compelling growth strategy and Japan remains stagnant,” Summers writes in the Financial Times.

“The BRIC countries [Brazil, Russia, India and China], meanwhile, are each unhappy stories in their own way.”

In developed economies, financial problems are turning into structural ones. If growth in the United States and Europe had been able to continue at its average rate of 1990 to 2007 after those years, gross domestic product would be 10 to 15 percent higher today, Summers says.

He ascribes to what he calls the “demand support view” in order to spark a buoyant economic expansion. 

This view “recognizes the need to contain debt accumulation and avoid high inflation, but it pushes for steps to increase demand in the short run as a means of jump starting economic growth and setting off a virtuous circle in which income growth, job creation and financial strengthening are mutually reinforcing.”

Some economists are particularly worried about the newfound weakness in emerging markets.

“There is a concern that in the near term, the engine of growth that provided such a great support seems to be slowing,” Jacob Frenkel, chairman of JPMorgan Chase International, tells Bloomberg. 

“They continue to grow, but we’re seeing a slower pace than anticipated all over the world.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Dear Family and Friends,

Please extend me the courtesy of reading the below regardless of your political beliefs These are my beliefs and what I advocate, you of course will have your own, however due to the important situation in this country and the world, our children and grandchildren's future and Israel's, I have wanted to express my views . 

Given the polarized climate in our country leading into what may be among the most important Presidential elections in our country's history, and honing in  on Obama’s accomplishments relative to the economy, Israel and his leadership skill. it occurs that most who voted for him previously although expected a great deal, for the most part they knew that they  would accept much less.

I have chosen to share with you what I advocate for which in my opinion are the issues which matter most and my position on each.

They may differ from yours however nevertheless thank you for taking the time to read mine.  

I advocate for the following;

A Government acting as a true safety net for those in need.

Supporting  the elderly through healthcare programs that can be administered responsibly.

Women’s rights ranging from equal pay to making decisions about abortions.

Gay rights including same sex unions as domestic partnerships.

Those who would rather give than take.

Downsizing our Government.

A strong Defense Department.

A State Department that updates its policies to meet our worldwide challenges around and eliminate antiquated systems and inadequate diplomats.

An  administration that supports Israel as a strategic partner in anchoring democratic values in the Middle East.

An administration that will not undermine Israel’s security through moral equivalence between Israel’s democratic system with that of its Muslim neighbors who are determined to eliminate Israel.

An administration that states and understands that the Middle East is in the midst of an Islamic Revolution hell-bent on destroying the West, Christians and Jews.

Never apologizing for our Constitutional right to express ourselves regardless of its content.

Stating that the Palestinian issues are in need of resolution but are not Central to solving the many problems floating around the Middle East including Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.

I do not support the following;

Incurring additional debt to finance entitlements and out of control Federal programs. The growth of entitlement payments over the last 50 years have grown 727%.The Federal Government has become an entitlement machine which transferred over $2,200,000,000,000,000,000(that’s Trillion) in 2010.

Recognizing the horrific consequences of unfunded liabilities being piled via the benefits given to Federal, State, County and Municipal employees which will encumber our children and their children.

Unions must be downsized because they are no longer a necessity as was the case in the 20th Century. Unions have become a base for corruption and a partner in the fundraising machine of the  Democratic Party.

A President who blames the “rich” for our fiscal problems and who wishes to redistribute the wealth of the nation in the name of a “fair” playing field. Class warfare is just around the corner.

Thomas Sewell said it best, ”The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty”.

Burdensome regulations- Funding for Federal regulatory agencies and their employment levels are at an all-time high. In 2010, the number of Federal Register pages devoted to proposed new rules broke its previous all-time record for the second consecutive year. It’s up by 25% compared to 2008. These regulations alone will impose large costs and create heightened uncertainty for business and especially small business.

Obamacare – a terrible excuse for much needed healthcare reform.

Selective Religious Freedom-While I’m a major advocate for religious freedom, I oppose treating Islam as worthy of our Democratic rights and benefits unless Moslems agree to subordinate their love for Islam to the laws of our Country. We cannot accommodate Islam with a different set of rules. If our Democracy impedes your religious believes, you have a choice to  impose your will someplace else.

As I assess the above, I recognize that neither Obama nor Romney fully reflect these beliefs nor will they fully deliver what they promise.

I endorse and voted for Mitt Romney because Barack Obama failed to deliver much of what he promised while succeeding in encumbering our country with over $5Trillion of additional debt and failed economic policies. 

The President continues to blame George W. Bush, Republicans, the Rich and Wall Street for our problems. But, offers no viable solutions!

I do not wish to entrust our Country and my children’s future to Barack Obama because he failed to lead and unite us!

I endorse Mitt Romney because I trust him to take the helm and change our economic direction as well as unite our divided Congress to enact responsible legislation.

Mitt Romney has a proven track record as a job creator, he deserves to be elected as the next President of the United States.
Best,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)

A Bright and Shining Libyan Lie

  • Victor Davis Hanson
    •  


Almost everything we have been told about Libya over the last two years is untrue.
A free Libya was supposed to be proof of President Obama's enlightened reset Middle East policy. When insurgency broke out there, the United States joined France and Great Britain in bombing Muammar Gadhafi out of power -- and supposedly empowering a democratic Arab Spring. Not a single American life was lost.
Libyans, like most in the Arab World, were supposed to appreciate the new enlightened American foreign policy. Obama's June 2009 Cairo speech had praised Islam and apologized for the West. A new "lead from behind" multilateralism was said to have superseded George W. Bush's neo-imperialist interventions of the past.
Obama's mixed-racial identity and his father's Muslim heritage would also win over the hearts and minds of Libyans after the Gadhafi nightmare. During this summer's Democratic convention, Obama supporters trumpeted the successes of his Middle East policy: Osama bin Laden dead, al-Qaeda defanged and Arab Spring reformers in place of dictators.
To keep that shining message viable until the November election, the Obama administration and the media had been willing to overlook or mischaracterize all sorts of disturbing events. We had asked for a United Nations resolution for humanitarian aid and a no-fly zone to intervene in Libya, but then deliberately exceeded it by bombing Gadhafi's forces -- after bypassing the U.S. Congress in favor of a go-ahead from the Arab League.
Libya was not so much liberated as descending into the chaos of tribal payback. Former Gadhafi supporters and African mercenaries were executed by those we helped. Islamists began consolidating power, desecrating a British military cemetery and driving out Westerners.
On the 11th anniversary of 9/11, a radical Islamist hit team with heavy weapons stormed the American consulate in Benghazi, killing Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.
In response, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, National Intelligence Director James Clapper and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice desperately insisted that the murders were a one-time, ad hoc demonstration gone awry, without much larger significance. Supposedly, a few Muslim outliers -- inflamed over one American's anti-Islamic Internet video -- had overreacted and stormed the consulate. Such anger was "natural," assured the president.
But why would furor over an obscure, months-old Internet video just happen to coincide with the 9/11 anniversary attack? Do demonstrators customarily bring along rocket-propelled grenades, mortars and heavy machine guns? Why did the Libyan government attribute the killings to an al-Qaeda affiliate when the Obama administration would not?
Forget those questions: For most of September, desperate administration officials still clung to the myth that the Libyan catastrophe was a result of a single obnoxious video. At the United Nations, the president castigated the uncouth film. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lamented the senseless spontaneous violence that grew out of one American's excesses, as she spoke beside the returning coffins of the slain Americans.
Nonetheless, more disturbing facts kept emerging: Ambassador Stevens repeatedly had warned his State Department superiors in vain of impending Islamist violence. Security personnel -- to no avail -- had also urged beefing up the protection of the consulate, prompting former regional security officer Eric Nordstrom to say in exasperation that "the Taliban is on the inside of the building." Video of the attack revealed that there had been no demonstration at all, but rather a full-fledged terrorist assault.
Even as the fantasy of a spur-of-the-moment demonstration dissipated, administration officials tried to salvage it -- and with it their idealistic policy in the Middle East. Vice President Joe Biden told a flat-out whopper in last week's debate, saying the administration hadn't been informed that Americans in Libya had ever requested more security. He scapegoated the intelligence agencies for supposedly failing to warn the administration of the threat.
The new administration narrative faulted not one video, but the intelligence community for misleading them about the threat of an al-Qaeda hit on an American consulate -- and the Romney campaign for demanding answers about a slain ambassador and his associates. Meanwhile, the State Department, the Obama re-election team and the intelligence community were all pointing fingers at each other.
What the Obama administration could not concede was the truth: The lead-from-behind intervention in Libya had proved a blueprint for nothing. Libya has descended into chaos. Radical Islam had either subverted or hijacked the Arab Spring. Al-Qaeda was not dismantled by the death of bin Laden or by the stepped-up drone assassination missions in Pakistan. Egypt was becoming Islamist; Syria was a bloody mess. Iran was on the way to becoming nuclear. Obama had won America no more good will in the Middle East than had prior presidents.
In other words, the administration's entire experience in Libya -- and in most of the Middle East in general -- has been a bright and shining lie.

4a)SigObama-Biden: Playing the Liar Card
  • Larry Elder




  • Larry Elder 
    • n-Up

    Within the first few minutes of the second presidential debate, Obama said "not true" more times than Lance Armstrong, Mark McGwire and Baghdad Bob -- combined.
    Sure beats talking about the economy.
    President Obama scored a big victory over Mitt Romney with this week's cover story in Time magazine: "Who is Telling the Truth?" How is this a victory for Obama? The silliness of sending out surrogates to call Romney a "liar" has become a Big Media Issue in 2012.
    Breaking news: Almost all politicians obfuscate, sometimes shading or altering positions as political winds shift and even completely changing positions. Sometimes they admit changing positions (Obama on gay marriage). Sometimes they change while denying any change (Romney initially asserting that RomneyCare could and should be a "model" the federal government "can learn from").
    Time magazine asks, for example, did Romney tell the truth when he accused Obama of saying that "if Congress approved his plan to borrow nearly a trillion dollars, he would hold unemployment below 8 percent." No, that's "misleading," Time tells us. "Obama never said that, but before he took office, two of his economists predicted that a large stimulus might have that effect."
    Huh?
    OK, Obama himself never said that, but he has acknowledged his top economic advisors did. The statement therefore reflected the goals and expectations of the Obama administration. Is it "misleading" to say "Obama said" -- as opposed to "his top economic advisors predicted"?
    How many times did the "Bush Lied, People Died" crowd accuse "Bush" or "the Bush administration" of warning about a "mushroom cloud"? Bush never said that. The speaker was then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. Is it a "lie" to say that those words were "said" by Bush? Or was the Rice statement a reflection of the administration's view that Iraq represented -- to use Bush's actual words -- a "grave and gathering danger"?
    Where was truth-busting, fact-checking Time magazine during one of the most scurrilous attacks on a sitting president -- that President George W. Bush "lied" us into the Iraq War?
    Accusers included Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who voted for the war, then turned against it, saying the Bush administration "intentionally misled the country into war." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., shamefully called Bush "a loser" and "a liar." He apologized for the loser part, but allowed "liar" to stand. The late Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., said, "Week after week after week we were told lie after lie after lie." These are party leaders -- not a couple of beer-guzzlers holding up hand-painted signs at an Occupy rally in Zuccotti Park.
    Now, what about the word "liar" -- and Vice President Joe Biden?
    During his only debate, Biden denied voting for the "two wars on a credit card" (Obama's words) that supposedly contributed to the recession. Biden said: "And, by the way, they talk about this Great Recession if it fell out of the sky, like, 'Oh, my goodness, where did it come from?' It came from this man voting to put two wars on a credit card, to at the same time put a prescription drug benefit on the credit card, a trillion-dollar tax cut for the very wealthy. I was there. I voted against them (emphasis added). I said, no, we can't afford that."
    Biden voted for the authorization for both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. About Iraq, Biden said in 2002, "If we wait for the danger to become clear, it could be too late," and, "We must be clear with the American people that we are committing to Iraq for the long haul; not just the day after, but the decade after."
    Can we call liberal pundits "liars" when they claim the idea for an individual mandate came from the conservative Heritage Foundation?
    Stuart Butler, Heritage's director of the Center for Policy Innovation, recently wrote: "Is the individual mandate at the heart of 'ObamaCare' a conservative idea? Is it constitutional? And was it invented at The Heritage Foundation? In a word, no. ... And make no mistake: Heritage and I actively oppose the individual mandate (emphasis added). ... The confusion arises from the fact that 20 years ago, I held the view that as a technical matter, some form of requirement to purchase insurance was needed in a near-universal insurance market to avoid massive instability. ... My idea was hardly new. Heritage did not invent the individual mandate."
    The dictionary describes a "liar" as someone who intends to deceive. But to paraphrase economist Thomas Sowell, today the word "liar" means a conservative who is winning an argument with a liberal.

    4b)Benghazi: Emperor Obama's Waterloo?
    By Daren Jonescu
    It is now obvious that the U.S. government's original story about the Benghazi consulate attack, delivered by its two heaviest hitters, the president and secretary of state, was false, and, more importantly, that it was intended to deceive.  How can Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton outrun the scandal that now chases them, a scandal that makes Watergate look like cheating at tiddlywinks?  As if "Fast and Furious" weren't enough, the administration now gives America "Slow and Spurious." 
    On the morning of September 12, Obama and Clinton gave a joint statement that every sentient being could immediately recognize as a pack of lies, delivered (particularly on Obama's part) with the conviction and intonation of a child actor doing a first read-through of a new script.  The president could not have projected less seriousness about the murder of his Libyan ambassador if he had delivered his speech wearing a propeller beanie.  (Of course, as we learned during the vice-presidential debate, someone else has dibs on that cap on weekdays.)
    Though vague about details, Obama and Clinton were clear, unequivocal and emphatic about a few key points during that official statement: (1) this assault on the Libyan consulate was an expression of understandable anger in the Arab world about a YouTube video mocking Muhammad; (2) the American government will not tolerate any intolerance toward Islam; and (3) violence - even as an expression of understandable anger over "disgusting" and "offensive" YouTube videos - never solves anything.
    The administration, through its various mouthpieces, continued to emphasize these three points over the days and weeks following the Libyan consulate assassination/movie review.  As time passed, however, and various truth missiles from beyond Washington's reach found their way through Obama's media defenses and into the American mainstream, the fissures in the government's official story became increasingly inescapable, even to those who had desperately hoped to help Obama escape them.
    Obama himself, in his Univision town hall interview on September 21, fell back on his original script, connecting the attack to a "natural protest" ("natural"?) about a video, days after his own administration had begun to pull away from this script in the face of ridicule and exposure.  So indefensible has this grand lie become that Martha Raddatz, though thoroughly devoted to the task of holding Joe Biden's hand through his debate with Paul Ryan, was forced to begin the evening with a carefully worded question about the lie:
    The State Department has now made clear there were no protesters there.  It was a pre-planned assault by heavily armed men.  Wasn't this a massive intelligence failure, Vice President Biden?
    Biden's response, naturally, ignored the thrust of the question, repeating the usual talking points about "the ongoing investigation" before quickly moving on to praise the broader Obama foreign policy. 
    But the phrasing of Raddatz's question is itself part of the issue.  Much like George Stephanopoulos' famous question to Obama regarding his relationship with Bill Ayers, it was designed and framed, not to discover anything, but to give the Democrat a chance to answer an unavoidable charge, and then move on.
    Notice that the question was not, "Why did Obama and his surrogates run immediately to the media, to the American public, and to the UN, to blame a YouTube video and downplay any talk of a planned terrorist attack, when this was in fact an Al-Qaeda operation with no connection whatsoever to any video?"
    "Intelligence failure" is a cute way of deflecting blame from the administration itself.  "Failure" suggests error and ignorance, rather than dishonesty and duplicity.  Blaming the "intelligence" is a clever attempt to produce some "fog of history" around the initial moments of this story, in the hope that the public will accept the inaccuracy of the administration's official narrative as an honest mistake. 
    But the primary scandal here, masked by the establishment media's new "intelligence failure" trope, is not that an assault on the Libyan consulate occurred "without warning" -- there was warning -- but rather that the government knowingly and repeatedly lied about the attack's cause and meaning.
    Candy Crowley's unconscionable intervention into the second presidential debate, falsely affirming that President Obama attributed the Benghazi attack to pre-meditated terror in his September 12 Rose Garden address, has merely served to keep in the public eye the trail of deception and misdirection as the administrations scrambles to reconcile its multiple conflicting stories about the terror attack.
    Do a quick internet search about the Arab protests over the YouTube video.  You will find that every story is dated September 11 or later.  No one was talking about this video at all prior to that time frame.  How did it become the administration's convenient "root cause" cover story in the hours after the Benghazi attack?  And why were they so quick and unequivocal in embracing a storyline which, as we now know, was completely unsupported by any facts?
    The video -- a purported "trailer" for an alleged film -- was posted on YouTube in July.  No one saw it or cared, until, on September 8, Sheikh Khaled Abdullah, a host on the Egyptian Islamist TV station Al-Nas, played an excerpt from it on the air.  (Note: Al-Nas altered the video, blurring out a female character, because they do not allow women to be seen on the air.)
    Three days later, which just happened to be September 11 ("don't jump to conclusions," the White House warned), a larger than usual group of "protesters" swarmed the American embassy in Cairo.  As Ian Lee, the CNN reporter on the scene, noted during his live report from Cairo that day, this was "not the usual crowd that we see at most protests," but rather "definitely a very Islamic-looking crowd -- we see a lot of men in their traditional garb." 
    Members of this "very Islamic-looking crowd" tore down the embassy's American flag and replaced it with a black al-Qaeda flag. 
    Then, within hours, came the "intelligence failure" in Libya, in which hundreds of armed movie critics, knowing exactly where to look, attacked both the U.S. consulate and an alternate safe-house location, killing the ambassador and three of his protectors -- protectors who, as Lieutenant-Colonel Andrew Wood reveals, were woefully undermanned and ill-armed, due to the administration's explicit refusal to provide requested reinforcement, and the State Department's explicit demand to stop asking for reinforcement. 
    By September 12, mainstream media sources from everywhere but the United States were reporting on this attack as an al-Qaeda plot carried out behind the thin cover of "ordinary protesters."  These media sources were relying on statements from members of the Libyan government, reports from witnesses on the scene, and even statements from "U.S. officials." 
    For example, Reuters, while spouting Obama's official line, also neglected, in the confusion of those early hours, to delete the actual reporting that had slipped into its original story:
    U.S. government officials said the Benghazi attack may have been planned in advance and there were indications that members of a militant faction calling itself Ansar al Sharia -- which translates as Supporters of Islamic Law -- may have been involved.
    They also said some reporting from the region suggested that members of Al-Qaeda's north Africa-based affiliate, known as Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, may have been involved.
    Ansar al-Sharia has been identified as the name of a variety of al-Qaeda front groups.  Within hours of the attack, while many of the details remained understandably confused, and while the White House was preparing its official position -- to paraphrase, "we despise our deplorable infidels as much as you do, so please stop killing our ambassadors" -- the BBC was reporting eye-witness accounts of Ansar al-Sharia's involvement. 
    On September 11, the Daily Telegraph described al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri's message, issued on September 10, calling for jihadists to "puncture" America's arrogance in revenge for the death of Libyan al-Qaeda commander Abu Yahya al-Libi.  The next day, following the murder of Ambassador Stevens, the Telegraphobserved, pointedly, that (a) Zawahiri's message of September 10 was too late to have provoked such a carefully planned and successfully staged attack, and (b) the calls for protests against the video seemed to have fallen on deaf ears in Libya, as no protest took place in the capital, Tripoli, where the actual U.S. embassy is located. 
    The efforts, in the days immediately preceding September 11, of a hard line Egyptian Islamist broadcaster, along with the official head of al-Qaeda, to drum up protests and anger against the evil empire, in conjunction with the well-orchestrated attack in Benghazi on the very day those protests were to be staged, suggests more than an opportunistic connection between the two.  Rather, it seems plausible that Islamists were attempting to stoke general public protests as a smokescreen for their assault team(s), or perhaps that they hoped, having drawn a crowd, to commandeer the assembled mob in order to swell their jihadist numbers, in a well-known strategy of militant revolutionary groups worldwide.  (This technique was attempted by the Weather Underground, for example, during Chicago's Days of Rage in 1969.)
    The key to this Slow and Spurious scandal, however, is that all of this information -- Libyan officials' descriptions of a planned attack, eye-witness accounts of armed Ansar al-Sharia militants approaching the consulate, the direct involvement of al-Qaeda's leader in calling for revenge for the death of a Libyan commander, repeated requests from Ambassador Stevens and his security team for more resources, and, obviously, the fact that this was the eleventh anniversary of September 11, 2001 -- was readily accessible to the entire world on September 12.  And yet on that same day Obama and Clinton, who would have had access to all of this information and more, issued their joint statement explicitly blaming the whole thing on a cheap video exhibiting disrespect for Islam, a narrative the administration and its media enablers attempted to cling to for weeks, while the rest of the world -- along with Americans who seek their information beyond the bubble of the American legacy media -- was learning more and more about the horrors and indignities of the ambassador's murder, and the extent of the planning and security breaches that made it possible. (More on this latter issue from James Lewis at American Thinker.)
    Hundreds of armed men carried out a carefully planned attack in a public place.  Many witnesses described the events.  U.S. and Libyan personnel who were at the scene, and survived, were already being debriefed on the attack. 
    The real question is not, "Wasn't this a massive intelligence failure?"  The administration's new template of "intelligence failure" is just a convenient and untenable diversion from the central issue.
    Rather, the real questions are: Why did the president and the secretary of state try to hide the facts about this attack, facts that were being reported by mainstream media sources in Europe and Canada from day one?  Why did they try to deny that this was a planned al-Qaeda operation?  Why did they repeatedly recite and disseminate the script about a "deplorable" video, and their disavowal of "religious intolerance," when they knew that Ambassador Stevens' death had nothing to do with any video, or any slight against Islam?  Why did the world have to suffer through weeks of conflicting and contradictory tales from the administration, as they tripped all over each other trying to conceal their own obfuscations? 
    Current events reveal the complete and tragic disaster of Obama's Middle East policy of combining appeasement, apology, and empathy for Islamists with showy targeted attacks on individual terrorists.  This policy has turned most of the region into civilization jihad's playground, and signaled open season on representatives of the self-emasculated Great Satan.  The Bush policy may have been foolish.  The Obama policy is suicidal. 
    The coordinated and concerted effort to conceal the relevant facts about the Libyan attack is merely the final and most egregious lie in the continuing cover-up of the realities of Arab Spring, and the Obama administration's complicity in this reality.  And this cover-up is, in turn, just one facet of the sparkling jewel of subterfuge, concealment, and untruth that is the Obama presidency.
    Will the Benghazi cover-up become Obama's Waterloo?  If so, then it is fitting that in this Battle of Waterloo, the role of the Duke of Wellington, the emperor's nemesis, will be played by Truth itself, which, as Shakespeare wrote, will out.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5)Obama, Oy Vey! American Jews Finally Have Had Enough
    By Stella Paul


    "Two Jews, three opinions" goes the famous joke. And every day, more of those opinions turn pro-Romney, as American Jews increasingly reject the collapsing presidency of Barack Hussein Obama.
    Romney's surging poll numbers in the crucial state of Florida reflect his growing success with Bubbie Molly and her unemployed grandson Adam, who both thought their right hand would wither if it ever pulled the lever for a Republican.
    The signs and portents are everywhere, beginning with the special election of a Republican in Anthony Weiner's heavily Jewish, New York congressional district one year ago. Now a startling new poll even has Romney performing the ultimate miracle: the parting of the blue states, winning the Jewish vote by a healthy 44% to 40%!
    Florida activist Alan Bergstein described his recent experience advocating for Romney in the Jewish stronghold of Delray Beach. "Of about 100 entering and leaving the Bagel Tree eatery in that plaza, we ran into only two Democrats and loads and loads of Romney supporters. They stopped to talk to us, to congratulate us and to support us with their views of the Ryan/Biden debate. They were militant and fearless."
    What's driving the Jewish exodus from the Democratic Party? Like everyone else, Jews are singing the bad economy blues. But they're also increasingly acknowledging the uncomfortable facts about Obama's hostility towards Israel and its Jewish supporters.
    "Absolutely Uncertain," a 20-minute YouTube video starring 23-year-old Irina, a disillusioned Obama voter who analyzes the president's harsh treatment of Israel, racked up an astonishing 650,000 views in just three days. The Republican Jewish Coalition's video, "Perilous Times," is closing in on a million views, as anxious Jewish voters seek information outside the mainstream media to understand the accelerating nuclear threat to Israel from Iran.
    And a new boldness is entering the Jewish conversation.  The Simon Wiesenthal Center just publicly requested that Obama cut off all contact with the Muslim Brotherhood and condemn its anti-Semitic calls for jihad against Israel. "[Supreme Guide Mohammed] Badie's rant confirms our long held view that Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood is the most dangerous anti-Semitic organization in the world today," said Rabbis Marvin Hier and Abraham Cooper, the Center's founder and dean and associate dean.
     "We are not dealing with a YouTube video or a lone extremist Imam, but a call to anti-Semitic violence by a man who has tens of millions of followers and leads the organization that controls Egypt's future. It cannot be business as usual in Washington when such an assault is launched against the Jewish people," they added.
    Since Obama's foreign policy centers on courting the Muslim Brotherhood, he's more likely to leave Michelle and run off with Sarah Palin than he is to honor Wiesenthal's request. Nevertheless, a leading Jewish organization, founded by a survivor of the Nazi death camps to combat global anti-Semitism, has now publicly challenged the president on his dangerous foreign policies.
    Because American Jews take huge pride in their role in the civil rights movement, rejecting Obama feels especially painful. Obama seemed to embody their dream of expanding opportunity to oppressed racial minorities, a goal for which two American Jews sacrificed their lives in the violent Freedom Summer of 1964.
    But Obama's failures grow too blatant to ignore, and so does his public antagonism to the only Jewish state. As Jews enter the sacred privacy of the voting booth, here are some images that will influence their choice:
    The Democratic Party booing God and Jerusalem: At their national convention, Democratic leaders attempted to do undo the political damage of stripping all mention of God and Jerusalem as Israel's capital from their party platform. But when they asked for a floor vote to add God and Jerusalem to the platform, the delegates loudly booed - three times. As the cameras revealed the hate-filled faces of the jeering delegates, some Jews felt frightened by the ugly scene.
    Obama's open contempt for Prime Minister Netanyahu: From the beginning of his presidency, Obama has seemed to enjoy humiliating Israel's elected leader. He walked out on Netanyahu in the White House, claiming he had to eat dinner, and refused to pose for an official photograph with him. Now, as Iran races to complete a nuclear weapon, Obama rejected Netanyahu's request for a meeting in New York, choosing to appear on The View instead. And when Netanyahu spoke at the United Nations, Obama instructed both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and UN Ambassador Susan Rice not to attend.
    Fawning over the Jewish people's enemies: Obama bowed to the Saudi king, gave a high-profile speech in Cairo, apologizing to the Muslim world, and ordered NASA to make "Muslim outreach" its foremost priority. Over the objections of Congress, he gave at least $1.5 billion to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, which advocates for "holy jihad" against Israel. And when Muslim terrorists murdered our Libyan ambassador, Obama responded with a speech at the UN, in which he stated, "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."
    Appointment of anti-Semites to high government positions: Obama just appointed a Muslim leader who blames Israel for the 9/11 attacks to serve as US delegate to a Warsaw human rights conference. Salam al-Marayati, president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), openly supports Hizbollah and Hamas. Al-Marayati is only the latest of Obama officials hostile to Israel, including foreign policy advisor Samantha Power and UN Ambassador Susan Rice.
    Obama's long association with anti-Semites: Obama spent 20 years in the Chicago church of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who maintains, "The state of Israel is an illegal, genocidal...place." Obama's biggest contributor is George Soros, who is a prime funder of anti-Israel NGOs. And Obama's close association with Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi is still being kept under wraps by the Los Angeles Times, which refuses to release a video of a reportedly inflammatory toast to Khalidi by Obama at a 2003 dinner. Breitbart News is offering a $100,000 reward to anyone with a copy of the tape.
    Iran's Growing Nuclear Capabilities: Obama has seemed more interested in deterring Israel from defending itself than in stopping Iran. His Chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff explicitly stated he doesn't want to be "complicit" in an Israeli attack on Iran, implying such an attack would be criminal. Now counter-terrorism expert Reza Kahlili is reporting that Obama's emissaries have struck a secret "October surprise" deal with Iran, in which Iran will announce a halt to their uranium enrichment, in order to enhance Obama's presidential prospects. The deal reportedly was negotiated in Qatar with former Iranian foreign minister Ali Akbar Velyati, who's wanted by Argentina for the Jewish community center bombing in Buenos Aires in 1994 that killed 85 people. If Obama has lost the trust of Jewish voters, they may not dismiss these reports as completely impossible.
    As every day brings another "Oy vey!," American Jews are finally fed up. It takes a lot or Democrats to lose their iron-grip on the Jewish vote, but this is one challenge Obama seems capable of meeting.
    Stella Paul's new ebook is What I Miss About America: Reflections from the Golden Age of Hope and Change, available at Amazon for just $1.99.  You can find out more information at www.WeMissAmerica.com.  Write Stella at Stellapundit@aol.com.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6) The Quote of the Decade: 

    "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."    Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006

    6a) The 7-Eleven Presidency
    Jeffrey H. Anderson


    In the wake of the Treasury Department’s newly released summary of federal spending for 2012, it’s now possible to detail just how profligate the Obama years have been.  Here’s the upshot:  Under Obama, for every $7 we’ve had, we’ve spent nearly $11 (or, to be more exact, $10.95).  That’s like a family that makes $70,000 a year — and is already knee-deep in debt — blowing nearly $110,000 a year.

    To illustrate this a bit differently, for every Jackson ($20) we’ve had available to spend under Obama, we’ve also borrowed a Hamilton ($10) and a Washington ($1) and spent those too.  The only thing is that, under Obama, we’ve (literally) spent the equivalent of 342 billion Jacksons, 342 billion Hamiltons, and 342 billion Washingtons — borrowing all of the Hamiltons and Washingtons.

    Let’s take a look at the scorecard, based on official government figures.  In fiscal year 2012 (which ended on September 30), the federal government acquired $2.449 trillion in tax revenue and other receipts.  It spent $3.538 trillion — 44 percent more than it had available to spend.  The resulting deficit was $1.089 trillion.

    In fiscal year 2011 (see table S-1), the federal government acquired $2.303 trillion in tax revenues and other receipts.  It spent $3.603 trillion — 56 percent more than it had available to spend.  The resulting deficit was $1.3 trillion. 

    In fiscal year 2010 (see table S-1), the federal government acquired $2.163 trillion in tax revenues and other receipts.  It spent $3.456 trillion — 60 percent more than it had available to spend.  The resulting deficit was $1.293 trillion. 

    In fiscal year 2009 — which was, for the most part, President Bush’s fiscal year (his final one) — Obama’s economic “stimulus” added $183 billion (see table 1-2) to the deficit (it would add far more in future years), on top of the deficit that we were already running that year under Bush.

    So in all, under Obama, the federal government has acquired $6.846 trillion in tax revenues and other receipts, and it has spent $10.711 trillion — 56 percent more than it has had available to spend. 

    Moreover, Obama has amassed this historic record of fiscal profligacy even before his centerpiece legislation has really taken effect.  If it’s not repealed first, the colossally expensive Obamacare is poised to present grave new challenges to our fiscal solvency — and to our liberty — once it would become a reality on these shores in early 2014. 
    With one fiscal year of this 7-Eleven presidency still to come (regardless of the outcome on Election Day, fiscal year 2013 will belong to Obama) — and with the specter of Obamacare looming — our national debt is now over $16 trillion.  That’s more than $6 trillion higher (see table S-9) than it was during the first presidential debate of 2008, when Obama bemoaned whathe called the “orgy of spending and enormous deficits” under Bush. 
    Yet Obama — who recently showed that he apparently has no idea how big our national debt is — amazingly says of that debt, “[W]e don’t have to worry about it short-term.”  In other words, if you have $7, spend $11 — let future generations of Americans worry about it. 
     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------