Monthly Archives: September 2012

So Now Our Government

Posted on by
Reply

…is apologizing for the uniquely American value of free speech?  And we tax payers are paying for this shameful behavior with our own dollars!?

This from Fox News:

The American Embassy in Islamabad, in a bid to tamp down public rage over the anti-Islam film produced in the US, is spending $70,000 to air an ad on Pakistani television that features President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton denouncing the video.

And beyond this appalling obsequiousness, there’s this blatant duck and cover [emphasis added]:

In the ad, Obama is seen talking about America’s tradition of religious tolerance and Clinton is seen saying that the US government had nothing to do with the video….

It’s not us—we in government didn’t do it.

It gets…better:

[State’s spokeswoman Victoria] Nuland said it was common practice to pay to air public service announcements in Pakistan and noted that the embassy there had done it at least one other time, in the aftermath of a deadly 2005 earthquake that hit the country.

So, here’s our government putting its apology for American values on a par with expressing sympathy for a tragedy.

Can we afford four more years of retreat and timidity concerning American rights and culture?

Splitting Up Major Banks?

Posted on by
Reply

Because they’re too big to fail?  Because government bureaucrats are jealous of success?

Spiegel Online International‘s Martin Hesse and Christoph Pauly are reporting that the EU actually is considering just such a thought:

EU Commissioner Michel Barnier has asked experts to examine the possibility of splitting up major European banks to avoid future bailouts at taxpayers’ expense.

Certainly, the EU (and others making the same “argument”) couch the move in suitably plaintive terms:

Many banks are so big that no country can afford to allow them to fail.  This is why the government bailed out a number of financial companies starting in 2008, a move that allowed major banks like Deutsche Bank to grow even larger.

Yeah, that worked out well, didn’t it?  Aside from the growth possibilities for the governments’ favored few, how’s the recovery such bailouts were supposed to facilitate working out?

Then, Germany’s Monopolies Commission head, Daniel Zimmer, had this:

Taking a more-of-the-same approach in the treatment of major banks is not an option.  First of all, in contrast to 2008, many countries no longer have the resources to bail out banks.  Second, taxpayers are no longer willing to foot the bill for the financial industry’s mistakes.

Zimmer, though, is arguing for government mandating the structure of a bank to facilitate its government-ordered breakup in an economic crisis.  But he’s not listening to his own words.  Countries (including the US) don’t have the resources for bailouts, and taxpayers don’t want to foot the bill for any more bailouts.

Nor should they have to.  The government interventions into the market place in the US in the ’30s and since 2008 and the EU’s intervention since 2008 only prolonged the crises they were intended to alleviate.  This has cost the taxpayers far more than the bailouts themselves in lost jobs, lost incomes, higher personal costs (when they had any jobs/income at all with which to pay them—most especially in the ’30s and with an inflation time bomb ticking down from the US’ monetary “easing”) and from that, lost revenues for the respective governments.

And never mind the morality of protecting failure by not allowing a free market to punish it suitably.

Here’s a thought (are you listening, Barack?).  Work with me on this, it’s kinda conservative.  How about avoiding future bailouts of major banks by…not bailing them out?

Foreign Policy Competence in General

Posted on by
1

Now the facts underlying the attacks on our embassy in Egypt and consulate in Libya, together with the murders of our personnel, are starting to emerge into the light.  Intelligence is now conceding that [emphasis mine]

the deadly attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was directly tied to Al Qaeda—with a former Guantanamo detainee involved.

In fact, it’s entirely possible that the erstwhile Gitmo prisoner, Sufyan Ben Qumu, may have led the attack on our consulate.  This was a terrorist that was transferred from Gitmo to Libyan custody—with the proviso that he be jailed there—during the Bush the Younger administration, and who then was promptly released by Libya’s then-MFWIC Muammar Qaddafi.

Moreover, Matt Olsen, National Counterterrorism Center Director, told the Senate’s hearing on the matter last Wednesday,

Yes, they [our Ambassador and three of his staff] were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy.

Note that Wednesday testimony by Olsen.  That comes on the heels of Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama’s claim, made through his press rep, Jay Carney, and his UN Ambassador, Susan Rice, of “do what?”  Just a short while prior to Olsen’s sworn testimony, ObamaCarney claimed that there was

no evidence of a preplanned or pre-meditated attack.  I made that clear last week, Ambassador Rice made that clear Sunday.

Indeed, Rice had busily made the rounds of the Sunday morning talk shows claiming that the attack in Benghazi was “spontaneous” and triggered by the Egyptian attack on our embassy there, which ostensibly was over a movie trailer that had been on YouTube for some months prior to this “spontaneity.”  See below concerning the Egyptian attack.

It was a reaction to a video that had nothing to do with the United States.  The best information and the best assessment we have today is that this was not a pre-planned, pre-meditated attack. What happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo.

But was this apparent contradiction simply the result of a continuing development of information?  Not so much.  State knew this much in real time: the Libyan president and his intelligence facility had already said the attack was premeditated.  Additionally, there was no major protest in Benghazi in the hours (!) before the attack—which went in from three different directions simultaneously.

Apparently, when the facts contradict your pre-determined outcome, it’s necessary to disregard those facts for as long as possible.

Meanwhile, over in Egypt….

The Department of Homeland Security knew two days before the attack on our Cairo embassy why it was going to occur and that it had nothing to do with a movie trailer.  And so, because DHS and State of course coordinate on such matters, State knew this two days ahead of the attacks, also.

DHS’ intel report, of which Fox News says they’ve obtained a copy, cites a Web site carrying a call to “sons of Egypt.”  DHS has also called this source fairly reliable.  The call demands the following:

Starting now, let the faithful among you form follow-up committees in charge of taking the necessary measures to force America to release the sheikh [the Blind Sheik, convicted and, so far, jailed for a separate terrorist attack]—even if it requires burning the embassy down with everyone in it.

But no actionable intelligence existed, Obama has said.

Oh, and on the matter of the Blind Sheik’s release by our government, there’s this:

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland has denied the possibility.

Let me say as clearly as I can there is no plan to release the blind sheikh, there is no plan. To my knowledge we have not been approached about it recently by any senior Egyptians.

Leaving aside the careful parsing in this claim, as Chancellor Otto von Bismarck is reputed to have said,

In statecraft, never believe anything until it’s been officially denied.

The potential for this terrorist’s release is especially disturbing since he’s in the hands of a President who began his administration with a World Apology Tour, and whose State Department preceded the attacks on our Egyptian embassy with an apology for a man exercising his free speech rights.

This is a shocking failure to perform.

Redistribution

Posted on by
Reply

…by government of one individual’s wealth to another?  Hmm….

This is then-Illinois State Senator Barack Obama in a speech at Loyola University in October 1998.

 [T]he trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources, and hence facilitate some redistribution because I actually believe in redistribution.

State Department Competence

Posted on by
Reply

On Sunday, our Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, made the rounds of the NLMSM’s Talk TV shows reciting State’s official understanding of the violent protests and murders around the Middle East, northern Africa, and now spreading to Indonesia.

What sparked the violence was a very hateful video on the Internet.  It was a reaction to a video that had nothing to do with the United States.

Rice also said that “extremists” arrived with heavy weapons, yet

We don’t see any signs this was a pre-meditated, pre-planned attack.

Hmm….

Meanwhile, CNN has this on “premeditation:”

According to one of the Libyan security guards who was stationed at one of the gates armed with only a radio, the assault began simultaneously from three directions.

Heavy machine guns and rocket -propelled grenades were used, according to the guard. He said masked men threatened to kill him at gunpoint for ‘protecting the infidels. He declined to appear on camera for fear of repercussions.

Yeah, that’s not premeditated.

The Obama administration also has been insisting that it had no specific, actionable intelligence with which to do anything.  Never mind a series of attacks and attempted attacks in Libya and Tunisia earlier this summer: an IED thrown at the perimeter of our Benghazi consulate (site of last week’s murders) early June, an RPG attack on the British ambassador’s motorcade in mid-June (injuring two security personnel), an attack the our Tunisian consulate, including burning our flag in late June, and .  And on Aug. 5, five weeks before the assault on the U.S. Consulate, and RPG attack on the International Committee of the Red Cross’ Benghazi building in early August.  No.  No reason to act here.  No reason to instruct our embassies and consulates to increase their security.  No reason to increase their assets so they could increase their security state.

CNN had this, too, at the above link:

Three days before the deadly assault on the United States consulate in Libya, a local security official says he met with American diplomats in the city and warned them about deteriorating security.

Jamal Mabrouk, a member of the February 17th Brigade, told CNN that he and a battalion commander had a meeting about the economy and security.

He said they told the diplomats that the security situation wasn’t good for international business.

“The situation is frightening, it scares us,” Mabrouk said they told the US officials.

No actionable intel there.  Move along, now.

Then there’s the position of the Libyan government.  Also speaking Sunday, Libyan National Congress President Mohammed el-Megarif had this to say:

The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.  We firmly believe that this was a pre-calculated, pre-planned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the US Consulate.

He also noted that the attacks were carried out by foreigners and that the attacks had all the indicators of an al-Qaeda attack.

And Senator John McCain (R, AZ), the ranking Republican on the Senate Committee on Armed Services, and Congressman Mike Rogers (R, MI), House Intelligence Committee chairman (albeit Evil Republicans), said Sunday the administration’s foreign policy of “disengagement” in the Middle East had created a vacuum which made this type of attack inevitable.

The Middle East believes there is a disengagement policy with the US.

There’s more information here, at Power Line; follow the links.