Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Limbaugh: Will Petraeus drop Benghazi bombshell?

'Do you know the world of hurt that he's in?'


PALM BEACH, Fla. – With some speculating that former CIA Director David Petraeus may be under a blackmail threat from the Obama administration, radio giant Rush Limbaugh is not expecting the general to contradict his testimony about the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi when he testifies before Congress this week.

Petraeus resigned his position at the CIA three days after Obama was re-elected, citing an extramarital affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell.

“It’s a reasonable thing to think he might have been blackmailed over this,” Limbaugh said Wednesday afternoon. “And it’s reasonable to think he might have wanted to get out from under the blackmail by resigning, and so now everybody’s waiting with baited breath for his testimony.”

On Sept. 13, Petraeus testified to Congress about the 9/11 attack in Benghazi, going along with original claims by President Obama and his aides that the violence erupted in reaction to an anti-Muslim video. The onslaught killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.

Since then, administration officials have said it was a terrorist attack designed specifically for the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attack on New York and Washington, D.C.

“If Petraeus goes in there and says anything different than what he said on September 13th, do you know the world of hurt that he’s in?” said Limbaugh.

“He’s going to the get the question, ‘Were you lying then or were you lying now?’ … ‘Are we to believe you now, or are we to believe you then?’”

Petraeus is expected to testify behind closed doors for members of Congress, possibly Thursday and/or Friday, but Limbaugh expects nothing new to be said.

He explained: “If you have some hope or prayer that there’s gonna be some huge treasure trove of ‘Gotcha Obama’ from Petraeus’ testimony, it isn’t going to happen. A, he’s not gonna commit perjury, he’s not gonna say something different than he said last time; and B, whatever they’ve got on him, they’ve got on him.

“They were able to kick him out of office, they were able to blackmail him, do whatever with this affair business. They kept it. They knew what was going on. They held it in check until they needed it. But the idea that somehow Obama’s going to be made to take the hit on this Benghazi thing, it isn’t gonna happen. The Democrats get away with it. That’s the lesson. No dispute will be finished and resolved until the Democrats win it.”

Limbaugh concluded: “There is not gonna be one kernel of truth of what happened at Benghazi come out of any of this. It ain’t going to happen. I mean within two weeks of Obama being re-elected, you think they’re going to open the doors and the floodgates for people to go in and get to Obama? It isn’t gonna happen. 

You have to understand what’s going on here, folks. There is a circle-the wagon operation around Barack Obama that nobody’s gonna penetrate. That is abundantly clear.”

The Right Isn't Waving A White Flag 

By: Jonah Goldberg  / Townhall Columnist


The conservative Gotterdammerung is finally here. "Like dazed survivors in a ravaged city, America's conservatives are wailing and beating their collective breasts," opines the Economist's "Lexington" columnist. "A leading conservative thinker," asked by the Economist to "list today's conservative ideas, laughs bitterly and replies, 'Are there any?'"

Former Reaganite Rep. Vin Weber (R-Minn.) laments in the conservative journal Policy Review, "I have never been so concerned about the future of conservative ideas."

A Washington Post columnist announced that "the long descent of the Republican Party into irrelevance, defeat, and perhaps eventual disappearance" has finally begun. William Kristol of the Weekly Standard concludes that the "conservative movement, which accomplished great things over the past quarter-century, is finished." His magazine has dedicated an entire issue to the "conservative crack-up."

These epitaphs are all from yesteryear. The bits from the Economist and Weber were in 1992. And Kristol delivered his death sentence after various conservatives lost the New Hampshire primary in 2000 (the "crack-up" issue was in 1997). The funereal Washington Post columnist? That was the late Robert Novak in 1976, four years before Ronald Reagan's 1980 triumph.

And that's just from the right. Since the conservative movement was born, liberals insisted it was dead. In 1956, Murray Kempton wrote in the Progressive that the "New American Right is most conspicuous these days for its advanced state of wither." At least Kempton acknowledged it was conservative. That same year, John Fischer of Harper's insisted the founders of the new National Review were "the very opposite of conservative."

In short, it's always Gotterdammerung somewhere on the right.

That's not to say that the conservative movement and the Republican Party are doing great. They're not. But whether fueled by left-wing glee or right-wing dread, rumors of the right's death are always exaggerated.

It's true that conservatives are more despondent than I've seen them in my lifetime. But that's in part because they've had things so good. There have been bumps, but the story of the conservative movement has been one of fairly steady growth and success.

In 1938, the American Enterprise Institute was founded (then the American Enterprise Association), to little immediate effect, to combat the seemingly ever-rising tide of statism here at home. In 1955, National Review was launched to "stand athwart history, yelling Stop." In 1973, the Heritage Foundation was established to push back against the liberal GOP policies of the Nixon White House. In 1982, the Federalist Society was created to provide professional and educational support for conservative lawyers and law students dissenting from the doctrine of the "living constitution." In 1996, Fox News was launched in part to appeal to that boutique market niche -- i.e., roughly half the country -- that felt the media had drifted too far left. In 2009, the tea parties were ridiculed as a racist hissy fit.

At each of these junctures, conservatives were ridiculed for their fool's errands and fretted over their lost causes. When former Soviet spy Whittaker Chambers famously migrated from left to right, he said, "I know that I am leaving the winning side for the losing side, but it is better to die on the losing side than to live under communism."

But Chambers was wrong. He joined the winning side, the side with the better arguments. The other naysayers were wrong too. Some of the New Deal survived, but many of FDR's statist ambitions were quashed. National Review didn't stop history, but it certainly changed it. The Federalist Society now claims Supreme Court justices as alumni. Nixonian liberalism is gone from the GOP. Fox News crushes its competitors. The tea parties fueled one of the biggest midterm landslides in a generation.

These successes were real and important. But they were not total because times change, and more to the point, total victories don't exist in politics so long as the losing side doesn't surrender. Just for the record, I see dismay, even despair, out there. But I don't see much surrender.

Is Demography Destiny? 

By: Thomas Sowell  / Townhall Columnist


Some media pundits see in the growing proportion of non-white groups in the population a growing opposition to the Republican Party that will sooner or later make it virtually impossible for Republicans to win presidential elections or even to control either house of Congress. But is demography destiny?

Conventional wisdom in the Republican establishment is that what the GOP needs to do, in order to win black votes or Hispanic votes, is to craft policies specifically targeting these groups. In other words, Republicans need to become more like Democrats.

Whether in a racial context or in other contexts, the supposed need for Republicans to become more like Democrats has long been a recurring theme of the moderate Republican establishment, going back more than half a century.

Yet the most successful Republican presidential candidate during that long period was a man who went completely counter to that conventional wisdom-- namely, Ronald Reagan, who won back to back landslide election victories.

Meanwhile, moderate Republican presidential candidate after moderate Republican presidential candidate has gone down to defeat, even against Democratic presidential candidates who were unpopular (Harry Truman), previously unknown (Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton) or who had a terrible economic track record (Barack Obama).

None of this seems to have caused any second thoughts in the Republican establishment. So long as that remains the case, demography may indeed be destiny-- and that destiny could be Democratic administrations as far out as the eye can see.

If non-white voters can only be gotten by pandering to them with goodies earmarked for them, then Republicans are doomed, even if they choose to go that route. Why should anyone who wants racially earmarked goodies vote for Republicans, when the Democrats already have a track record of delivering such goodies?

An alternative way to make inroads into the overwhelming majority of minority votes for Democrats would be for the Republicans to articulate a coherent case for their principles and the benefits that those principles offer to all Americans.

But the Republicans' greatest failure has been precisely their chronic failure to spell out their principles-- and the track record of those principles-- to either white or non-white voters.

Very few people know, for example, that the gap between black and white incomes narrowed during the Reagan administration and widened during the Obama administration. This was not because of Republican policies designed specifically for blacks, but because free market policies create an economy in which all people can improve their economic situation.

Conversely, few policies have had such a devastating effect on the job opportunities of minority youths as minimum wage laws, which are usually pushed by Democrats and opposed by Republicans. But these facts do not "speak for themselves." Somebody has to cite the facts and take the trouble to show why unemployment among minority youths skyrocketed when minimum wage increases priced them out of jobs.

The loss of income from an entry-level job is only part of the loss sustained by minority young people. Work experience at even an entry-level job is a valuable asset, as a stepping stone to progressively higher level jobs. Moreover, nobody gains from having a huge number of idle youths hanging out on the streets, least of all minority communities.

Labor unions push minimum wage laws to insulate their members from the competition of younger workers, and Democratic politicians are heavily dependent on union support. For the same reason, Democrats have to go along with teachers' unions that treat schools as places to guarantee their members jobs, rather than to provide the quality education so much needed to rise out of poverty.

What Democrats cannot say under these conditions is what Republicans are free to say-- even if Republicans have seldom taken advantage of that freedom to make inroads into minority voting blocs.

Inroads are all they need. If the black vote for Democrats falls to 70 percent, the Democrats are in deep trouble.

But if Republicans continue inarticulate, then it is they who are in big trouble. More important, so is the country.
Op-ed:
I will NOT sign any petition to secede from America...ever!
By: Diane Sori

 
Since last Tuesday’s election fiasco petitions have been circulating on both the internet and Facebook calling for states to secede from the Union because of the results. 
 
While I’m just as unhappy (extremely angry is more like it) with the election results as anyone, I believe both these petitions and the logic behind them to be completely wrong for a number of reasons.  And while I do agree with their root sentiment...that being that the Obama administration's continued deliberate abuse of power is treasonous as it protects its own instead of 'We the People's’ interests...you simply cannot petition a state into succession NO matter how many signatures you garner.

Remember, petitions about succession are quite common after presidential elections, and in the past have been initiated by both sides.  There were petitions such as these circulating by the Democrats after the 2000 election was called for George W. Bush.  The only plus to them is that any petition getting over 25,000 signatures that is posted on the White House website requires an official response from the president, but common sense should tell you what his response will be.

And then there is the fact that NO amount of signatures will allow a state to secede from the Union, period.   

These petitions are being generated, circulated, and signed by private citizens without the approval or authorization of the corresponding state’s government, and rest assured these petitions will NOT get the authorization or approval as the governors know secession cannot legally be done.  

So, if you just happened to have already signed such a petition or are thinking about signing one here's a few facts you should know:

* The president will NEVER allow a state to leave the Union. 

* Neither the president nor Congress has the legal authority to sever a state from the rest of the union.

 * The Supreme Court has already ruled that states CANNOT secede from the United States (Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) was a significant case about succession argued and lost before the United States Supreme Court in 1869).

* And according to Article One, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, states are prohibited from entering into any treaties, alliances or confederations, and succession in coordination with other states is both an alliance and a confederation.

And what people who sign fail to realize is that if a state was able to secede (which it is NOT) all US military bases and personnel would be forced to leave, the National Guard could NO longer be called on in an emergency, federal funding for schools would be cut, Medicare and Medicaid funding would be discontinued, federal assistance for the poor and truly needy would cease, and many important other things that are initiated by and implemented through the federal government would be stopped.

Not a very happy scenario if you really stop to think about it.

And my friends, this is critical for me...I believe true patriots do NOT run from America in her time of need.  Yes, our candidate of choice lost but that is NO reason for us to want to secede from the Union.  In fact, that should give us added incentive to FIGHT on as a cohesive whole.  True American patriots FIGHT for this country...they do NOT desert America when she needs them the most.  Cowards and the defeated run away...freedom fighters NEVER do nor do they ever give up.

And I am a freedom fighter above all else.

So, if you are signing these useless petitions out of frustration that I can understand, because I am just as frustrated as you are, but here is one additional fact that is hard to ignore...if you signed any petition through the White House website or in any way connected to it Obama and his people now have your names for their files (of course some of ours, like mine, they already have).

Bet you didn’t realize that when you signed them.

So instead of channeling all this frustration, anger, and disgust into petitions that are useless and will go nowhere, let’s band together and FIGHT back as true patriots do.  Let’s hold Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s ass to the fire, starting with him telling the American people the truth about Benghazi, and if he won’t let’s find someone in Congress who will have the guts and courage to initiate treason and murder charges against him.

Now that is one petition I will gladly sign.