Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Analysis of social media in Libya on day of Benghazi jihad massacre finds no reference to Muhammad video that Obama blamed for attack

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

Not only did Obama Administration officials lie when they blamed the attack on the Muhammad video, but by fixing upon it as the cause of the attack, they were obliquely blaming the freedom of speech, and adding to the case for restricting it. "Analysis of social media in Libya finds no reference to anti-Islam film on day of attack," by Catherine Herridge for, December 18:
As the State Department began Tuesday to circulate a highly anticipated report into what happened in the Sept. 11 Libya consulate attack, a separate analysis found that the first reference to the anti-Islam film that was initially blamed for sparking the attack was not detected on social media until a day later. 
The independent review of more than 4,000 postings was conducted by a leading social media monitoring firm.
From the data we have, it’s hard for us to reach the conclusion that the consulate attack was motivated by the movie. Nothing in the immediate picture – surrounding the attack in Libya -- suggests that,” Jeff Chapman, chief executive with Agincourt Solutions told Fox News.
Chapman says his analysts reviewed postings in Libya, including those from Benghazi, over a three-day period beginning on Sept. 11.
After identifying a geographic area and isolating a time frame, Chapman says his analysts can then “vacuum” up all of the social media postings, which are then analyzed in the original language using mathematical models. The firm previously has done work for government agencies and Fortune 500 companies.
“We have seen no traffic in Benghazi – in the immediate lead up to the attack - related to the anti-Islam film," Chapman said. "There is a single source reporting on the evening of 9/11 that roads leading to the U.S. consulate in Benghazi were blocked. We also believe we have identified at least one individual who may have been involved - based on our analysis - that he posted a picture of himself attacking the consulate with an RPG.”...

"Forward" to the Past?

By: Thomas Sowell / Townhall Columnist

It was great political rhetoric and great political theater. Moreover, the Republicans did virtually nothing to challenge its shaky assumptions with a few hard facts that could have made those assumptions collapse like a house of cards.

More is involved than this year's political battles. The word "forward" has been a political battle cry on the left for more than a century. It has been almost as widely used as the left's other favorite word, "equality," which goes back more than two centuries.

The seductive notion of economic equality has appealed to many people. The pilgrims started out with the idea of equal sharing. The colony of Georgia began with very similar ideas. In the midwest, Britain's Robert Owen-- who coined the term "socialism"-- set up colonies based on communal living and economic equality.

What these idealistic experiments all had in common was that they failed.

They learned the hard way that people would not do as much for the common good as they would do for their own good. The pilgrims nearly starved learning that lesson. But they learned it. Land that had been common property was turned into private property, which produced a lot more food.

Similar experiments were tried on a larger scale in other countries around the world. In the biggest of these experiments-- the Soviet Union under Stalin and Communist China under Mao-- people literally starved to death by the millions.

In the Soviet Union, at least 6 million people starved to death in the 1930s, in a country with some of the most fertile land on the continent of Europe, a country that had once been a major exporter of food. In China, tens of millions of people starved to death under Mao.

Despite what the left seems to believe, private property rights do not exist simply for the sake of people who own property. Americans who do not own a single acre of land have abundant food available because land is still private property in the United States, even though the left is doing its best to restrict property rights in both the countrysides and in the cities.

The other big feature of the egalitarian left is promotion of a huge inequality of power, while deploring economic inequality.

It is no coincidence that those who are going ballistic over the economic inequality between the top one or two percent and the rest of us are promoting a far more dangerous concentration of political power in Washington-- where far less than one percent of the population increasingly tell 300 million Americans what they can and cannot do, on everything from their light bulbs and toilets to their medical care.

This movement in the direction of central planning, under the name of "forward," is in fact going back to a system that has failed in countries around the world-- under both democratic and dictatorial governments and among peoples of virtually every race, color, creed, and nationality.

It is one thing when conservative leaders like Ronald Reagan in America and Margaret Thatcher in Britain declared central planning a failure. But what really puts the nails in the coffin is that, before the end of the 20th century, both socialist and communist governments around the world began abandoning central planning.

India and China are the biggest examples. In both countries, cutbacks on government control of the economy were followed by dramatically increased economic growth rates, lifting millions of people out of poverty in both countries.

The ultimate irony is that the most recent international survey of free markets found the world's freest market to be in Hong Kong-- in a country still ruled by communists! But the Chinese communists have at least learned, the hard way, a lesson that Barack Obama seems oblivious to.

We are going "forward" to a repeatedly failed past, following a charismatic leader, after a 20th century in which charismatic leaders led countries into unprecedented catastrophes.

“Green” Wrapping Expensive Environmental Policies 

By: Laura E. Huggins  / Townhall Daily

From the World Resources Institutes initiative for Keeping Options Alive to the United Nations Decade on Biodiversity, calls for conserving biodiversity are persistent. This goal appears reasonable, at least on its face. Who would argue against a wider variety of plants and animals increasing our chances for a life-saving drug in the future? It has, after all, happened before.

As we think through this appeal, however, harder to reconcile truths emerge. Policies to maintain or expand biodiversity may act as an attractive green wrapper on politically motivated redistributions that do little to improve environmental quality or economic opportunity.

One way to see through this wrapper is to consider not only the future benefits that people might enjoy from conserving biodiversity, but also an accounting of associated costs. A good way to measure these costs is to piggyback on those who buy and sell options in markets that are more economically mindful than those for political decisions that is, financial exchanges.

Ignoring an options cost can be politically attractive, but creates big losses if you are an exchange trader. Traders look to the Nobel Prize winning formula of Fischer Black and Myron Scholes for analytical guidance. Applying this model to biodiversity options suggests that conservation comes at a considerable cost, and this cost likely increases with top-down directives like those in charge of the UN.

According to this model, options cost more the longer they are open. They also cost more when interest rates are higher, which tends to be the case for long-term obligations. Programs to maintain biodiversity options, where benefits might be realized years from now, are expensive on both counts.

The cost of biodiversity options also increases with the expected price-volatility of associated assets. In the biodiversity case, such an asset could be a forest that might facilitate new biofuels. But the future price of such a habitat is sensitive to environmental conditions, the forecasts of which are highly variable.

From every economic angle, biodiversity options are expensive. Political-legalese can try to hide this price tag, but someone has to pay it.

The point here is not that maintaining biodiversity lacks merit. Rather, it is that pursuing such goals through detached and high level bureaucracies can miss the mark. The risk of doing so increases as those who will pay the price, such as todays high-income earners, become easier political targets. In addition, top-down conservation efforts are less likely to succeed when measuring a policy-success is difficult. It is hard to distinguish whether a medicinal cure or new biofuel should be counted as a policy-success or as a discovery that would have happened anyway.

Top-down programs to maintain or expand biodiversity options lack accountability on both dimensions.

Bottom-up approaches, on the other hand, benefit from information reaching decision makers faster and from competitive markets encouraging an efficient use of that information. After reviewing several unsuccessful centralized attempts to preserve biodiversity, Professor R. David Simpson argued for arms-length payments to people in return for changing their land-use practices. Simpson appreciates that public support for businesses like ecotourism can work toward such ends, but points out they also keep wasteful enterprises alive and enrich those that would succeed on their own.

Real market strategies succeed by anonymously creating environmental and economic opportunities. Politics, instead, often supplants the invisible hand of economic efficiency with the visible hand of inefficient redistribution.

Editor's note: This column was co-authored by Dino Falaschetti.

NRA breaks silence about Connecticut shooting

'Heartbroken' gun group wants to 'make sure this never happens again'

by Joe Kovacs / WND
man-in flag-shirt-examines-guns-nra
After days of silence since last week’s massacre at a Connecticut elementary school, the National Rifle Association is finally beginning to speak out, saying it’s “heartbroken” by the tragedy, and it’s looking to help prevent similar events in the future.

“The National Rifle Association of America is made up of four million moms and dads, sons and daughters – and we were shocked, saddened and heartbroken by the news of the horrific and senseless murders in Newtown,” the gun-rights group said today in a written statement.

It mentioned why it has not made any comment to this point, saying, “Out of respect for the families, and as a matter of common decency, we have given time for mourning, prayer and a full investigation of the facts before commenting.”

The group is also looking to play a role in a national conversation to limit gun violence.

“The NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again,” it said.

It’s planning to be more specific when it holds “a major news conference” on Friday, Dec. 21, in the Washington, D.C., area.

The NRA, a frequent user of social media, had not tweeted since before the shooting and its Facebook page had been taken down, a day after the group boasted of reaching 1.7 million “likes,” noted ABC News.

Twenty children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., were killed last week when 20-year-old Adam Lanza opened fire on campus.

Meanwhile on Capitol Hill, momentum is building for a look not only at the role of guns, but other factors that could play a part in such horrific shooting sprees.

Some Republicans have suggested a commission to examine mental-health issues as well as violent influences on youths.

“I think we ought to pursue the ideas that call for a blue-ribbon task force or commission with all stakeholders that can look at the much bigger issues associated with tragic events such as this,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“It certainly can’t be a debate just about guns.”

Calls For Gun Control Not About The Childrenby / Personal Liberty Digest

"It's for the children.” That, in essence, is the crux of the new impetus to institute stricter gun laws in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting last week.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Senator Chuck Schumer, Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Senator Diane Feinstein —  even pro-gun Senators Harry Reid and Mark Warner — are now turning to more gun laws as the answer.

Calls For Gun Control Not About The ChildrenIt’s all about the children. That’s what they say. And looking at the faces of the children taken from us, it’s emotionally easy to agree with them. After all, who can understand such a heinous act as taking a rifle into a school and gunning down a bunch of 6-year-olds?

But who are Bloomberg, Schumer, Emanuel, Feinstein, Reid and Warner? They are statist totalitarians. They’re playing on emotions — the emotions of a grieving populace — to advance their agenda. They don’t care about children. They’re disingenuous.

How do I know? If they cared about children, they’d be weeping over the thousands of children that President Barack Obama has killed with drone strikes and air raids in Pakistan, Libya, Syria and Africa. If they cared about children, they’d be outraged that 2,000 babies are aborted every day in America, many on the verge of being born. If they cared about children, they would oppose corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards that have made automobiles lighter — and, therefore, deadlier — and mandated air bags that have caused the deaths of thousands of children and adults in car crashes.

Politicians don’t care about children. All they care about is stealing liberty and acquiring more power. If a few kids die along the way, well… never let a crisis go to waste; eh, Rahm?
Hillary's got a boo-boo...lets kiss it and make it better (gag)
By: Diane Sori

So Hillary gets a boo-boo and 'We the People' get screwed out of the truth yet again.

After first refusing to talk about Benghazi on the Sunday morning news gab circuit in the days after the suddenly saying she takes full responsibility for what happened...the last thing our dear Hillary needed was yet another excuse NOT to tell the truth about that horrific day, but low and behold another excuse popped up or should I say popped her upside her head.

Hillary's oh so conveniently timed 'concussion' sounds like those long ago school days when some used to say, 'the dog ate my homework' when they didn't do their assignments. And this I think is the case with Hillary...she simply doesn't want to testify because the truth would incriminate her and her 'boss' (guess who) in a major cover-up (as in aiding and abetting the enemy).

Hillary cancelled her trip to Morocco (where she was to officially recognize the Syrian rebels) last week because of a stomach virus, and sustained a concussion after fainting from supposed dehydration. Sure Hillary might have fainted, but she probably wasn't seriously hurt, after all reports say she didn't even go to the hospital but is being monitored by doctors while she works from home so she can stay in contact with department heads and other officials (and work on her story of what she doesn't know).

Uh excuse me...while she works from home...if Hillary can work from home she can testify from home too, even if it's just by phone or a video link up, but she won't because with all her travelling she probably hasn't had time to be scripted in the proper Obama verbiage of the specifics of what details need to be lied about. Instead, tomorrow, Deputy Secretary of State William Burns and Deputy Secretary of State for Management Thomas Nides will appear before the House committee and likely its Senate counterpart, the Foreign Relations Committee.

As former US Ambassador to the U(seless) N(ations) John Bolton says, "when foreign service officers don't want to go to a meeting or conference or event," they have "a diplomatic illness. And this is a diplomatic illness to beat the band." Bolton said.

And lets never forget that Hillary has learned to manipulate the system and cover her butt by the best of them...ol' Billy-Boy himself...Bubba Clinton.

So once again someone in the Obama Administration refuses to speak the truth about why Ambassador Stevens and the others were MURDERED. And believe me Hillary knows the truth (about the gun and weapons running to the Muslim Brotherhood and possibly al-Qaeda)...knows who its being covered-up for (Barack HUSSEIN Obama)...and is willingly aiding in that very cover-up.

Remember, security at our embassies comes under the auspices of the State Department and Hillary knew Stevens did NOT have sufficient security...she refused Stevens' numerous requests for more security...she knew there was no protest over a two-bit YouTube video that she publicly helped blame the attack on...and most importantly she knew almost immediately that the heavily armed attackers were linked to jihadist groups who were also tied to the problems in Syria and Egypt.

And as committee chairwoman Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., said in a statement, “...we still don't have information from the Obama administration on what went so tragically wrong in Benghazi that resulted in the deaths of four patriotic Americans...We have been combing through classified and unclassified documents and have tough questions about State Department threat assessments and decision-making on Benghazi. This requires a public appearance by the Secretary of State herself. Other cabinet secretaries involved should also be held publicly accountable."

Well guess what, that doesn't seem likely to happen anytime soon as Hillary and her peeps keep making excuse after excuse for why they can't testify...or in Hillary's case backing out of testifying after agreeing to do so. And what better excuse could there be than a knock on the head...wonder why she didn't use a knock on the head to get out of testifying during the Whitewater hearings.

Oh well, even Hillary can't win them all...but 'We the People' keep losing them all for we now live in the nightmare known as Obamaland.