Wizbang

Even New Yorker Sides With Fox on DOJ Attack on James Rosen

2013-05-23T04:28:25Z

Earlier today it was reported that several Fox News reporters were targeted by the Department of Justice over interaction with an employee(s) at the State Department. In the investigation, Fox News’ James Rosen was fingered by the DOJ not as just a reporter getting “classified” information, but an “aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator.” This is such a shocking charge that even The New Yorker has come to Rosen’s support.

The focus on Rosen was reported in the Washington Post on May 20 with the paper wondering if the Obama administration’s goal was to intimidate reporters. The Post also said the investigation went nearly to the point of criminalizing standard news-gathering .

For The New Yorker, this is all quite chilling.

Noting that Rosen hasn’t been charged with any crime yet, New Yorker goes on to say that the DOJ’s actions are shocking.

“It is unprecedented for the government, in an official court document, to accuse a reporter of breaking the law for conducting the routine business of reporting on government secrets,” Ryan Lizza writes.

John Nolte noted earlier, this is all having the intended “chilling effect” on journalists.

As Nolte notes, the outcome of targeting journalists will be that the media will only report what the government tells it to report. It will end up being state controlled media not just by sympathy, but by direct control.

Triage: Obama Summons Media Lapdogs to Secret White House Meeting

2013-05-22T08:07:25Z

Apparently a cadre of far left-wing “journalists” were seen filing into the White House for a secretive meeting with their lord and master Barack “I Didn’t Know” Obama.

Journalist Ari Shapiro noted the meeting on Twitter:

Spotted: @joshtpm @capehartj @ezraklein & other lefty columnists headed into the West Wing as a group. POTUS coffee? Carney meeting? Anyone?
— Ari Shapiro (@arishapiro) May 21, 2013

So, Obama summons his journ-o-list lapdogs to secret White House meeting for what… proper programing?

I am sure The One will be rapping the knuckles of his bought and paid for media operatives for chiding him on the slew of scandals his office has perpetrated lately.

Prepare now for the media to begin to downplay everything in obeisance.

Anthony Weiner Is Running For Mayor Of New York

2013-05-22T06:09:51Z

Last we saw Anthony Weiner he was retreating with his “manhood” tucked away in embarrassment as his Twitter sexting scandal led to his early exit from Congress and a long trip to wife Huma Abedin’s doghouse. Politicker reports he’s attempting to get back into politics:

He’s in. After weeks of speculation, disgraced Rep. Anthony Weiner has officially thrown his hat into the mayor’s race, announcing he’s running with a new video posted on his revamped campaign website.
“Look, I made some big mistakes. And I know I let a lot of people down. But I’ve also learned some tough lessons,” he says in the video, which opens with a family scene of the former Councilman and his wife, Huma Abedin, having breakfast in their kitchen with their son.
“I’m running for mayor ’cause I’ve been fighting for the middle class and those struggling to make it my entire life. And I hope I get a second chance to work for you,” he says.
…The announcement comes nearly two years to the day after Mr. Weiner destroyed his Congressional career by tweeting out a photo of his underwear-clad crotch that had been intended as a private message–and then repeatedly lying about it in interviews and at press conferences, claiming his account had been hacked. He eventually admitted to having inappropriate relationships with half a dozen women online, sending them lewd text messages and images.

Between Weiner and front-runner Christine Quinn’s bullying, bulimia, and alcoholism it should be an interesting race…

Politico’s Thrush Politicizes Oklahoma Tornado

2013-05-21T21:53:21Z

The destructive tornado that destroyed the quiet town of Moore, Oklahoma on the afternoon of May 20 was only a few hours gone, the devastation had yet to be measured, and the dead barely counted much less mourned and laid to rest before Politico’s Glenn Thrush felt it was already time to politicize the event and by scolding Oklahoma’s Senators because they are against global warming and big government spending, no less

Only hours after the monster storm ended, Thrush took to his Twitter account to slam Oklahoma’s Senators.

It is striking that Oklahoma’s senators are 1) a federal spending skeptic and 2) global warming denier
— Glenn Thrush (@GlennThrush) May 21, 2013

So, because a tornado hit in an area that has a long history of getting hit by tornados, if that area’s senators were global warming believers…. then, what, Glenn? If Oklahoma’s senators were to be global warming aficionados, would that somehow have warded off a tornado?

Or, perhaps if said senators were believers in big government spending would that somehow have been a bulwark to stop natural disasters?

Or is it, Mr. Thrush, that you are always in a rush to find any reason to attack someone because they don’t believe in your love of big government and your zealous belief in global warming? Regardless of whether a town is destroyed and children are killed it all still serves as fodder for your desire to advance your political objectives?

Is that it, Mr. Thrush?

CNN’s Crowley Admits Obama Didn’t Call Benghazi a Terror Attack

2013-05-21T21:51:43Z

On the May 19 broadcast of CNN’s State of the Union, host Candy Crowley said that Obama was late in identifying the attacks in Benghazi as terrorism quite contrary to what she said during the Presidential debates late last year.

As Crowley questioned White House spokesman Dan Pfeiffer, she pressed him on whether or not the President was aware of the Benghazi talking points being written and re-written by the Department of State and the intel community, re-writes that eventually eliminated any mention that the attacks were perpetrated by terrorists.

In reply, Pfeiffer blithely told Crowley that “no president” would get involved in writing talking points like that.

Crowley went on to point out that Obama was late in calling it terror saying, “in an interview on CBS–which we later learned after the election–but a week and a half after Susan Rice was on [the Sunday shows calling the attack a reaction to a Youtube video] he did say he wasn’t sure if it was a terrorist attack.”

Pfeiffer the somewhat quixotically replied that, “no one was sure at that point.”

Crowley countered that saying “well, no the president, first of all in Libya they were sure of it and the CIA seemed pretty sure of it!”

This all runs contrary to what Crowley claimed during the late Presidential Debate she moderated between the President and GOP nominee Mitt Romney.

At the October 16 debate during which she acted the role of partisan moderator, Crowley backed up the President’s claim that he called the attacks at Benghazi an act of terrorism. This threw Romney for a loop and made him second guess his assertion that Obama took weeks to definitively call the attacks terrorism. The segment made Romney look suddenly unsure of himself and hampered his performance that night.

But in fact, Crowley’s own news agency, CNN, had reported that Obama called the attacks at Benghazi terrorism “for the first time” only on September 20, nine days after the attacks.

Crowley herself also reported that the President was recalcitrant in calling it terrorism. As it happens her inexplicable and unwarranted support of Obama on the debate stage contradicted her own reporting on Benghazi.

In September, only a few weeks before the debate, Crowley had said on CNN that Obama took 17 days to give a “sort of definitive statement” that terrorists orchestrated the attacks.

By February of 2013, and conveniently after the election, the co-chair of the Commission on Presidential Debates, Frank Fahrenkopf, admitted that Crowley was simply wrong about her assertion that Obama called the attacks an act of terror.

Now, it seems that Crowley is back to asserting that Obama took weeks to call the attack on our facilities in Benghazi, Libya an act of terror. This track record seriously calls into question her motivations for coming to Obama’s support during the October 16 debate.

Salafi Jihadism and US Grand Strategy Part III – The Avenging Angels

2013-05-21T17:35:51Z

War is a terrible thing. Even when it is just and properly executed, war means death and destruction. Worse, many brilliant and experienced warriors have observed that wars never follow the original plan. Worse still, the politicians who plan and begin wars, and who are responsible for explaining the reasons and need for support to the people, are generally lacking in both comprehension and fortitude in their duty. This is not to say that wars should be rubber-stamped for approval, but once the decision is made to enter war, it must be seen through or else the cost will be much worse and the results disastrous. This is the lesson from history.

Jihadism comes from Islam, but does not represent the whole of Islam. I don’t say this to excuse the apathy most Muslims display when asked about Jihadists (indeed, most Muslims should condemn Jihadism on moral and religious grounds, since the greatest number of Jihad victims always come from Muslims murdered and tormented by these monsters). Rather, it should be understood Jihadists have popped up like snakes from the ground several times in history. Muslim extremists created the Hashashin, the men trained and drugged to believe that Allah would reward them for murdering selected political targets. Jihadists warred against India as early as the 14^th Century, specifically for refusing to convert to Islam (the Jihadist leader Tamerlane was particularly infamous for public torture and murder of Hindus). In the 15^th Century, Jihadists led a mob in Fes (Morrocco) which murdered thousands of Jews in a wave of unprovoked killing. Jihadists took over Afghanistan in the 18^th Century by fighting a bloody war with the Hindu majority in 1761. The Barbary pirates were Jihadists intent on destabilizing regional governments and plundering trade vessels (the U.S. response led to the creation of the U.S. Marine Corps). Jihadists in the Sudan killed British citizens and reinstituted Slavery in the 19^th Century. Also in the 19^th Century, Jihadists invaded and claimed the cities of Kabala and Najaf, slaughtering thousands of Muslims in the process. These are by no means the only examples of a long, bloody history of fanatical mass killing,.

As stated in the last post, Jihadists are created and supported to destabilize target governments, but do not, as a rule, gain nominal authority themselves. When terrorists do gain political power, they end up eschewing terrorism officially, and often there are efforts to wipe out the remaining members of operational cells as well, to prevent embarrassments to the new regime. This is not surprising, if you consider that the nature of Jihadists is chaos, which is never useful to stability. By definition, then, all Jihadist groups exist for either foreign applications, or for limited duration. Jihadist leaders, as well, are often victims of purges because if they become popular or influential, they can destabilize the regimes of their own patrons. This is just one reason why old groups fade from view (Islamic Jihad, for example) and new groups show up with new faces. This is also why Jihadists are not overly dismayed when leaders are captured or killed; a martyr often serves their purposes better than someone building their own sect. In terms of grand strategy, Jihadism has lacked specific long-term goals, focusing on removal of targets and enemies. It is for this reason that terrorism has caused more death, suffering and damage to Islamic nations than to non-Islamic nations.

The Salafi brand of Jihadism seeks to evolve terrorism into a more constructive goal; creation of the Islamist super-state, to reinstate the Caliphate. This goal, however, is still very much in its infancy, because before 1995 terrorism depended on splinter sects for its recruiting and organization. One suggested reason for the name of Al Qaeda (‘The Base’ or ‘Foundation’ in Arabic), was to build a global Islamic organization with Sunni leadership and direction, to claim broad general support in Islam for restoration of the Caliphate. This is also consistent with Jihadist strategic thought, which incorporates three stages: Da’wah, Hijrah, and Medina. The Da’wah stage establishes Jihad leadership, the Hijrah stage recruits members and creates action cells, and the Medina stage focuses on creation of the Caliphate. Within that grand strategy, the same thinking applies to operational planning. At that level the Da’wah stage establishes cell leadership, the Hijrah stage deploys cells to the targets, and the Medina stage activates the mission.

Salafis are distinct for five ideological rules:

Tawhid (the unity of God) expresses the universal or global reach of their mission, which is why Salafis, unlike earlier terrorist groups, seek targets anywhere in the world.
Hakimiyyat Allah (God’s Sovereignty), which rejects all human law on the ground that God’s law is perfect and absolute. Therefore in service to Allah, a Salafi may violate any code or statute.
Bid’ah, which rejects all innovation to Islam, especially any argument that tolerates non-Muslims or is in variance to original teachings and customs
Takfir, or the rejection of a Muslim from the Umma with no trial or hearing, to declare him or her to be apostate on the accusation alone, for which the accused must either repent and show penance, or be executed as Kufr.
Jihad as the central commandment from God against regimes deemed infidels

These rules not only shift terrorist ideology from a regional perspective to a global perspective, the ruthless violence against all dissent allows Salafis to enjoy disproportionate influence in terrorist activities. It should be worth noting at this point, that Salafis do not cooperate with either the Muslim Brotherhood (whom they regard as too moderate and likely to give up the Jihad) or Shiites (meaning they do not trust the governments of Iran or Syria, which they consider apostate). Salafis represent less than one percent of all Muslims, but they are well-organized, tight-knit (forget about infiltration), and well funded.

Regarding the United States, the U.S. has four general pillars of Grand Strategy:

Defense against attack from enemies, foreign or domestic
Protection of American citizens and interests worldwide
Support for democratic republics which protect individual freedoms
Discourage/Defeat rogue regimes

While methods and tactics have differed, these values have been supported by both major political parties for more than eight decades now. With regard to the Jihadists, the pillars may be described as follows:

No more 9/11-style attacks (which is why the Obama Administration kept pretty much all of the Bush counter-intelligence structure)
Government support for private security firms and coordination with businesses to prevent violence and international incidents
Advocacy for the nascent Afghan and Iraqi republics, even if they are not ideal in structure or ideology
Strong diplomatic and economic efforts to address Iran, Syria, Libya, and Egypt

Unspoken on the surface, but a very real aspect of the implementation of U.S. policy in the Middle East, is the Avenging Angel tactic. During the Bush Administration, this was most often represented by the teams hunting down Al Qaeda leadership, while the Obama Administration has preferred Special Forces in the military, most notably the SEAL teams. Each method has seen advantages and costs, but both were chosen by professionals as the best option for the extant conditions. More on this in a little while.

The careful reader may note a key flaw in the Salafi strategy – the lack of a comprehensive grand strategy. Sure, they want a Caliphate, but there is no clear means to attaining goal. Worse for the Salafis, each group leader considers himself an Amir, but in most situations there is no simple means to choose an overall leader. Bin Laden tried to sort that out by creating Al Qaeda, which posited a clear hierarchy, but Bush answered effectively by using his Avenging Angels to take out leadership at every opportunity. Obama is doing the same thing but is pursuing figureheads and logistics experts, where Bush focused on financial and training providers. The lesson learned by the Jihadists is to have leadership identified only at local levels, but by definition this works against their long-term goals.

The Salafis have also seen their assumptions collapse in the Middle East. This should not really be surprising, since the Middle East itself has rarely enjoyed stability since the fall of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I. Dissidents have been common since the boundary lines were first drawn, and over the years the matter has simply become more contentious. And, as noted above, violence from Muslims has been around for as long as Islam has been around. Jihadists end up working against their own interests, by attacking Muslims even more often than non-Muslims. The Salafis hope to correct this by striking global targets outside Dar Al-Islam, but their rejection of Shiites and other radical Muslims damages their ability to build a long-term consensus.

The chief mistake of the Bush strategy was not in attacking Afghanistan and Iraq, but in staying too long, giving Jihadists a focus for cooperation. His greatest success was in destroying network cohesion and the supply chain for Jihadists, especially the Salafis. President Obama, conversely, erred badly in not confirming permanent support for US interests in the region, and in displaying apparent confusion in response to Jihadist attacks. The Obama strategy should be to demonstrate resolve to protect Americans and US interests, to keep US forces mobile and emphasize command and control by Afghan and Iraqi defense forces, while focusing on regional stability. Regimes in Iran, Egypt and Lebanon, while not aligned with the United States, will find value in suppressing Jihadists. Insurgents may not be completely eliminated, but destruction of both finance and logistics chains will prevent major attacks and allow the regional governments the chance to control the threat.

Follow-up steps by the United States should be clear advocacy of regional governments which respect individual rights. While this clashes directly with radical Islamists demands for uniform application of Sharia, the majority of Muslims may be expected to support authority which does not represent either capitulation to American dominance or to radical dissidents, who in any case are a small minority.

The trump card for the United States, however, remains its ability to strike anyone, anywhere. This does not condone escalation of drone strikes, because the U.S. must avoid civilian casualties, but effective use of air and information supremacy assets has produced notable strategic advantages. The well-deserved reputation of US covert forces to take out high-value targets regardless of defenses gives the US an ‘Avenging Angel’ trump card which, simply by existing, forces enemies to change operational methods, communications, and logistics. These agents appear superhuman in their ability to know what the enemy is planning and to thwart operations in early stages. This ability comes through the combined effort of US interagency communication, an example of which follows:

The NSA tracks electronic communication and determines the subject is high-value. The FBI Financial Crimes unit (FIFU) works with banks and similar institutions to interdict financial support. The NRO creates a virtual profile showing home, work and travel locations for the subject. ISA begins formation of the supplies needed for direct action teams, while the CIA works up a threat profile for executive review. The State Department is briefed and policy impact is discussed. JSOC creates an action team while executive review decides on a course of action. From discovery to action decision, the timeline may be as little as six hours, in the case of a previously unknown subject. Once a profile is in place, action may be deferred until optimal conditions are reached, trigger events occur, or a threat warning changes the paradigm. A daedelus condition may be maintained.

This example is not a static template; a range of options exists depending on the urgency of the condition and the value of the target. The example demonstrates, however, the ability of the US to bring multiple resources to bear on a target, to do so quickly, and to do so virtually anywhere. This ability is significant not only in individual cases, but also makes reduction of military force possible without loss of credibility. Further, integrated operations between such agencies is infeasible in Middle Eastern countries and is difficult for rival powers in China or Russia to duplicate for political reasons. I’m not talking just about the ability to assassinate or apprehend a target, but also the ability to disable financial and supply chains, disrupt operations, find and destroy data, or otherwise prevent undesired behavior by enemies. The strategic value of this ability is commonly undervalued by orders of magnitude, in part because non-American agencies are reluctant to admit their limits in this regard. That is, any professional intelligence group is able to kill people or steal information, but the ability to take strategic action without leaving evidence of the action, or to do so in a manner which denies enemies the ability to retaliate, is competence of a completely higher order. When this ability is employed by an agency operating for the common good, such as removing threats to the general population or debilitating the ability of a rogue regime to attack neighboring countries, the added moral value magnifies the credibility of that agency.

Death Toll In Killer Moore, Oklahoma Tornado Keeps Rising

2013-05-22T05:16:20Z

CNN is reporting that the death toll from today’s massive tornado in Moore, Oklahoma is now at least 91. That’s 40 more dead than they had been previously reported, with scores of people – many of them children – still missing. Here is the earlier report:

Moore, Oklahoma (CNN) — Rescue workers raced against time and darkness Monday night looking for survivors after a powerful tornado blasted an area outside of Oklahoma City, leveling homes and leaving at least 51 people dead.
At least 20 of the dead were children, including at least seven from Plaza Towers Elementary School in Moore, which lay directly in the path of the monster storm’s wall of wind.
Seventy-five students and staff members had been huddled at the school when the tornado hit, CNN affiliate KFOR reported.
As nightfall descended, determined searchers in hard hats dug in the debris for those possibly trapped, but authorities described the work as a recovery, not rescue, effort. Search lights illuminated their efforts.
A father of a third-grader still missing sat quietly on a stool. Tears fell from his face as he waited for news.

KFOR is live-streaming local coverage here.

Update (May 21, 2012): Authorities have lowered the death toll to 24. While there are still some people unaccounted for, there’s little chance the death toll will rise to the levels reported above. Sadly, nine of the confirmed dead were children.

Liberal Laughing that ‘Conservatives’ Were Targeted by Oklahoma Tornado Today

2013-05-21T17:50:30Z

Lizz Winstead is a producer and co-creator of the Daily Show, the left-wing comedy show hosted by Jon Stewart on Comedy Network. After this destructive and tragic tornado whipped through Moore, Oklahoma today, she thought it was hilarious that “conservatives” were killed there.

In typical scumbag, liberal manner Lizz Winstead took to Twitter to say: “This tornado is in Oklahoma so clearly it has been ordered to only target.”

This tornado is in Oklahoma so clearly it has been ordered to only target conservatives.
— Lizz Winstead (@lizzwinstead) May 20, 2013

Oh, gosh. Isn’t that hilarious? People killed including dozens of school kids and she laughs that “conservatives” are dying. Nice. This idiot works on the extremist, left-wing Daily Show on Comedy Central. THIS is what you are subsidizing by watching that show, people.

Below is a screen shot in case she deletes her Tweet.

**UPDATE**

Just like I thought, Winstead deleted her tweet on the night of May 20. Good thing I took a screen shot.

Piers Morgan: This IRS Thing is ‘Vaguely Tyrannical Behavior by the Government’

2013-05-20T21:40:29Z

CNN’s chief anti-gun zealot Piers Morgan may have been loathe to admit it, but this IRS scandal seems to validate some of his detractor’s distrust of government.

During his evening show on May 16, Morgan’s guest was magician Penn Jillette and the discussion turned to the admission by the Internal Revenue Service that it had misused its offices to intimidate President Obama’s opponents. Morgan seemed to ruefully come to understand that this abuse of power lends credence to those that say the government cannot be trusted.

“I’ve had some of the gun, pro-gun lobbyists on here, saying to me, ‘Well, the reason we need to be armed is because of tyranny from our own government,’ and I’ve always laughed at them. And I’ve always said ‘don’t be so ridiculous, your own government won’t turn itself on you.’ But, actually, when you look at this–this has nothing to do with guns–but actually this is vaguely tyrannical behavior by the American government. I think what the IRS did is bordering on tyrannical behavior, I think what the Department of Justice has done, actually, to the AP, is bordering on tyrannical behavior.”

We might recall that Piers Morgan was skeptical of Breitbart’s own Ben Shapiro for making just that point earlier this year.

During Shapiro’s CNN appearance, Morgan was bemused by his guest’s suggestion that the founders meant the Second Amendment to be “about resistance to government tyranny.”

But now Morgan seems to understand just what Ben Shapiro meant and this admission must have pained CNN’s British import to admit.

Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners

2013-05-20T05:54:53Z

This week’s Weekend Caption Contest™ was another smashing success. The assignment this week was to caption the following picture:

Here are the winning entries:

1) (Rodney Dill) – “Oh man…. The price of gas has really gone up.”

2) (fustian24) – “Sad to realize that with the Obama economy, this is your best chance at a retirement plan.”

3) (John H) – “Want to be irresistible to beautiful women? Win the one on the left.”

4) (Proof) – “Obama’s new czar of Alcohol, Tobacco and Money Laundering surveys his new cabinet level fiefdom.”

5) (retired.military) – “After the immigration bill the Electoral vote count went poorly for republicans and independents.”

6) (Joe_Miller) – “If I don’t win I can always eat cat food. I like cat food.”

The Readers Choice Award this week went to Rodney Dill’s winning entry. In its place we offer one more outstanding caption:

(Wyatt Earp) – “475-10? Wow, the Phillies really suck this year.”

That’s all for this weekend. A new edition of the Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™ will debut Friday morning.

Rush Limbaugh Does Live in Obama’s Head

2013-05-19T21:42:40Z

On May 14 after news broke that President Obama had once again attacked talk radio host Rush Limbaugh by name, El Rusbo joked that he was “living rent-free in Obama’s head.” It’s hard to fault Limbaugh’s logic on this. After all, the President of the United States of America has used his bully pulpit to bully Rush nearly a dozen times since he became President.

Remembering that Rush Limbaugh is but a voice on the radio and has no vote in any government, hasn’t the ability to wield the power of regulation, and cannot force anyone to do anything under the cover of law, here are some of the times that President Obama went out of his way to kick Limbaugh and did so by name, not just with a general allusion (starting with the most recent):

At a New York fundraiser on May 13, 2013

Meeting with denizens of Hollywood at a fundraiser, President Obama complained that he, the most powerful man in the western world, couldn’t get anything done in Washington because a single radio host stood in his way.

“I genuinely believe there are Republicans out there who would like to work with us, but they’re fearful of their base and they’re concerned about what Rush Limbaugh might say about them. And as a consequence, we get the kind of gridlock that makes people cynical about government,” Obama said.

January 27, 2013 in an interview with New Republic

Warming to his favorite theme that TV and radio guys represent his main roadblocks, Obama told New Republic that Limbaugh was the bad guy.

“One of the biggest factors is going to be how the media shapes debates. If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it.”

“I think John Boehner genuinely wanted to get a deal done, but it was hard to do in part because his caucus is more conservative probably than most Republican leaders are, and partly because he is vulnerable to attack for compromising Republican principles and working with Obama.”

April 27, 2013, the White House Correspondent’s Dinner

Using Rush for one of his jokes at the White House Correspondent’s dinner, while talking of his second term plans, Obama said the next four years might worry Rush. “Rush Limbaugh warned you about this … second term, baby,” he joked.

April 25, 2012, Interview with Rolling Stone

During this interview with Rolling Stone magazine, Obama coupled his dislike of El Rushbo with disdain for tax fighter Grover Norquist.

“Frankly, I know that there are good, decent Republicans on Capitol Hill who, in a different environment, would welcome the capacity to work with me. But right now, in an atmosphere in which folks like Rush Limbaugh and Grover Norquist are defining what it means to be a true conservative, they are lying low. My hope is that after this next election, they’ll feel a little more liberated to go out and say, “Let’s redirect the Republican Party back to those traditions in which a Dwight Eisenhower can build an interstate highway system,” the President said.

March 6, 2012, Press Conference

In the aftermath of the “slut” controversy, Obama spoke of Limbaugh during a press conference after the talk radio host had apologized for calling abortion mill supporter Sandra Fluke a “slut” for wanting the government to pay for her contraceptives. Obama essentially came up doubting that Rush was sincere in his apology saying, “I don’t know what’s in Rush Limbaugh’s heart.”

March 2, 2012, Phone Call to Sandra Fluke

This was several days before the press conference noted above, but concerns the same issue. After Limbaugh called out Fluke on his radio show, Obama felt the need to call her up to offer his sympathy because a mere radio host called her a bad name.

President Obama blows in a phone call to a woman called a slut and a gay basketball player but one wonders when he’ll call the bereaved parents of soldiers killed in battle or the mother of a State Department employee killed in Benghazi?

April 2, 2010, CBS Early show

During another softball interview, this time on CBS, President Obama criticized both Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

“When you listen to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, it’s pretty apparent, but keep in mind that there have been periods in American history where this kind of vitriol comes out,” Obama said. “It happens often when you’ve got an economy that is making people more anxious, and people are feeling that there’s a lot of change that needs to take place. But that’s not the vast majority of Americans. But that’s not the vast majority of Americans.”

March 2009

As a campaign tactic in the run up to the 2010 elections, Obama’s White House aides start calling Limbaugh the “face of the GOP.”

January 2009, in a meeting with Republican leaders

Along with making his famous one-liner, “I won”–which in context was his way of telling Republicans that “I won” so he should be allowed to do whatever he wants with no opposition–Obama also attacked Limbaugh during a meeting with Republicans at the White House.

“You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,” he told GOP leaders whom he had invited to the White House for a talk about his stimulus proposals and other issues.

So, as you can see, here we have nine instances when President Obama attacked Rush Limbaugh by name. Many people feel that when a sitting president attacks another American by name repeatedly at official functions and in official speeches it is not very presidential. It shows a pettiness and spitefulness that is simply beneath that high office.

But with Obama attacking a radio host by name so many times over the years like this, one can see how folks might wonder if Rush Limbaugh does, indeed, live in Obama’s head rent-free.

Was the 2013 ‘Photo of the Year’ a Photoshopped Fake?

2013-05-19T19:40:47Z

At the beginning of the year the World Press Photo of the year was awarded to Swedish photog Paul Hansen whose photo “Gaza Burial” took top honors. But only weeks passed before some in the industry began to wonder if the photo had been manipulated in photoshop. Some even said that it was a composite image. If this were so, critics said, that would violate the spirit of the contest. (Seen above with my little “helping” notation)

The photo shows a gut-wrenching scene of a two dead Palestinian children wrapped in burial robes and being carried by distressed family members to be laid to rest.

One skeptic, computer scientist Dr. Neal Krawetz, did an extensive exploration of what he says is the manipulation of the prize winning photo. “Hansen’s picture is a composite,” he concludes.

Another critic at the website Extreme Tech agreed that the photo is a “fake.” In fact, the site called it a “fraudulent forgery.”

Extreme Tech said that Hanson “took a series of photos–and then later, realizing that his most dramatically situated photo was too dark and shadowy, decided to splice a bunch of images together and apply a liberal amount of dodging (brightening) to the shadowy regions.”

For his part, Hanson denies the claims of his detractors.

Hansen said the “photograph is certainly not a composite or a fake.”

“I have never had a photograph more thoroughly examined, by four experts and different photo-juries all over the world,” he said.

World Press Photo is standing by Hanson’s photo, but Hanson has been accused of photo manipulation before.

Finally, there is no mistaking why this was the so-called “photo of the year.” After all, it gave succor to the Palestinians and by extension attacked the Israelis. That is why this photo was the winner.

As Gangs Flourish, Displaying Historical Firearms Illegal in Chicago Museums

2013-05-17T20:54:56Z

Outside of Chicago’s museums gangs are killing each other at an alarming rate. But due to Chicago’s strict gun ban policies, inside those museums curators are not allowed to display historical firearms. In fact, in some cases the museums are not even allowed to store their collections inside the city limits.

The matter has become an issue after the family of the late Major General William Levine, one of America’s highest ranking Jewish generals, donated his belongings to Chicago’s Pritzker Military Library this year. The collection included a firearm that the general picked up in Germany during WWII.

But the library isn’t allowed to display the captured German pistol. In fact, the library isn’t even allowed to store it in the collection inside city limits.

“We realized when we received that gift that we couldn’t keep that gun in the city of Chicago,” said Ken Clarke, Pritzker Military Library CEO.

To correct this foolish oversight in the law, powerful city alderman Ed Burke has proposed a museum amendment to the city’s strict gun ban law.

“Museums are caught in a dilemma that if they have in their collections artifacts that can be defined as firearms, even though there’s historical significance to the memento, they can’t be registered in the city and can’t be displayed,” Burke said.

“One would think this is an anomaly–that it was an unintended consequence of a well-intentioned law that ought to be corrected,” Burke told members of the media.

Clarke noted that Chicagoans are being shorted by this policy.

“It’s about preserving the stories of citizen soldiers from World War II, World War I … who have served our country,” he said.

Because of the city’s firearms bans museums have to reject offers of donations from families wishing to donate antique and historically significant artifacts.

Chicago’s largest museum, The Field Museum, also has a significant firearms collection but has refused to display the artifacts due to the laws.

If Alderman Burke’s proposal is passed by the city council, Chicago museums will be allowed to display firearms classified as “curios and relics.” Already most guns from before 1898 are classified as “non-guns” by the federal government but the “curios and relic” designation pertains to guns 50 years and older that have been classified as historically significant artifacts by a municipal, state, or federal museum.

Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™

2013-05-20T05:56:38Z

It’s Friday, which means it’s time for the Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™. Enter your best caption for the following picture:

Winners will be announced Monday morning.

Update: Winners announced. Click the link to read the winning entries. The contest is now closed.

New State Dept. Spokesperson Gets Slammed Over Benghazi

2013-05-16T21:19:39Z

It has been 8 months since the terrorist attacks on our facilities in Benghazi, Libya, attacks that ended up killing four Americans including our ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens. Still we haven’t had a concrete explanation about this incident and new State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki didn’t do anything to alleviate that state of affairs as reporters peppered her with uncomfortable questions in her May 13 press briefing.

One exchange during the briefing between Psaki and a reporter named Brad (perhaps the AP’s Brad Klapper) was particularly sharp.

At one point, Psaki avers that the State Department was not privy to the 12-times re-written Benghazi talking points until after all the re-writes were done. The reporter was a bit incredulous at that noting that there is no proof for her blithe claim because her office is refusing to release the records to prove it.

What was Psaki’s reply? “All right. Well, you’ll have to take my word for it…”

Department of State Daily Press Briefing, May 13, 2013

QUESTION: So who – no, no, no. Who is responsible for this? What does your talking points say today?
MS. PSAKI: On which piece?
QUESTION: On Benghazi. It’s been eight months. Specifically on al-Qaida and Ansar al-Sharia, do you believe that they were responsible for this incident?
MS. PSAKI: Well, again, Brad, as you know, there’s still an ongoing FBI investigation –
QUESTION: So that’s looking forward?
MS. PSAKI: There is still – yes, we’re focused on the ongoing – the investigation, finding out who is responsible. You heard the President say that earlier today.
QUESTION: How many people have been brought to justice for this?
MS. PSAKI: Brad, you know the answer to that question, but their focus is on –
QUESTION: Is it zero?
MS. PSAKI: — getting it right. The focus is on getting to the bottom of who needs to be held accountable. Of course, we know this was a terrorist attack, as was said the day after the event. We know there are a number of active extremist groups. That’s something our friends and colleagues over at the FBI are focused on.
QUESTION: The President said today that this assessment regarding the protest happened in the early days when we didn’t know who these people were or their motivations, and now you’re telling me today you don’t know who these people are or their motivations?
MS. PSAKI: Well, again, let me –
QUESTION: Have you changed your –
MS. PSAKI: Not at all. Let me point you back to – even if you look at the talking points and the train of that, the reference to al-Qaida was taken out even before the State Department saw the talking points. They were the best evaluation from the intel community of what was happening at the time. We know –
QUESTION: I can’t know that it was taken out before the State Department saw it because you haven’t released all that information. You’re just telling me that.
MS. PSAKI: All right. Well, you’ll have to take my word for it, or I believe that email may have been public. But the larger point here, Brad, is that this is an ongoing investigation. I know that you’d like to see some results of that, as many people would. The President and the Secretary, their counterparts and partners in the intel community are very focused on that.
QUESTION: Is there a statute of limitations on this investigation, or does it end in January 22nd, 2016 or something?
MS. PSAKI: Brad, I think they’re focused solely on getting to the bottom of this and finding out what happened and who to hold accountable. There’s no other factors.