Why is no one pressing him on this?

Can Congress pass a law forbidding such a release? I think they could. If Obama fights it... well, that's on him, isn't it?

The Egyptian government “asked for his release,” an administration source told The Post — and Rep. Peter King (R-LI) confirmed the request is being considered.

The White House, State Department and Justice Department each issued statements denying any deal is in the works, but, “There’s no way to believe anything they say,” said Andrew McCarthy, the former assistant US attorney who prosecuted Abdel-Rahman. “I believe there may already be a nod-and-wink agreement in place.”

Their denials are also extremely cramped and introduce extraneous words into the question, like "We have no plan to release him."

I didn't ask about a plan. I asked if there were communications about it. I asked if you would specifically promise to the American people that no such release would ever, ever take place.

Abdel-Rahman, 74, was convicted in 1995 of plotting terror attacks throughout the city and is locked away in the medical wing of the Butner Federal Correctional Institution in North Carolina.

He remains revered in his native Egypt, and his supporters have demonstrated throughout Cairo for his freedom.

Posted by: Ace at 10:12 AM | Comments (186)
Post contains 265 words, total size 2 kb.

Yeah this is what I've been saying since forever and a half ago, but I'm still waiting for some kind of evidence of this.

Now that I've posted something that's not a poll, I will reveal this is actually a disguised poll post. Gallup now has it as 47-47 tie, and furthermore, has Obama slipping back negative on job approval, 46 approving, 48 disapproving.

Romney is meanwhile set to release a barrage of "positive" ads that quickly state "his plan"... in 30 seconds. I don't really like the ads... but that's not terribly important. No one's trying to persuade me at this point.

Luntz's Dunces do like them. 81% of Republicans like them, and even 60% of Democrats. (I assume Independents would be somewhere between these.)

You can see the ad -- which, I warn you, isn't going to rock your world -- here. I'll put Luntz below talking about the ad.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:34 AM | Comments (232)
Post contains 249 words, total size 2 kb.

Big story, which probably would have been better served being rolled out one chapter per day.

Chapter Two is good. As with the whole report, it rebuts Obama's media-crafted false biography with actual facts.

Time magazine gushed in 2008 about Barack Obama's 12-year tenure as a law lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, saying, "Within a few years, he had become a rock-star professor with hordes of devoted students."

That may have been true during his first two years, when he ranked first among the law school's 40 instructors, with students giving him a rating of 9.7 out of a possible 10.

But law student evaluations made available to The Washington Examiner by the university showed that his popularity then fell steadily.

In 1999, only 23 percent of the students said they would repeat Obama's racism class. He was the third-lowest-ranked lecturer at the law school that year. And in 2003, only a third of the student evaluators recommended his classes.

His classes were small. A spring 1994 class attracted 14 out of a student body of 600; a spring 1996 class drew 13. In 1997, he had the largest class of his tenure with 49 students. But by then, his student rating had fallen to 7.75. Twenty-two of 40 faculty members ranked higher than Obama.

It is often claimed that Obama was a "Constitutional law professor." Well...

Obama has often cited his days at the law school as an important part of his preparation for the presidency. At a March 30, 2007, fundraiser, for example, he said, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means, unlike the current president, I actually respect the Constitution."

From 1992 until 2004, Obama taught three courses: "Current Issues in Racism and the Law," "Voting Rights and the Democratic Process," and "Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process."

Three areas of the law that do involve the Constitution. It should also be noted all three are areas where leftwingers try to make the most impact on America.

Obama, of course, wrote no scholarly articles while attached to the University (unlike any serious legal thinker). And he was generally... let us say the most Reaganesque part of him was his apparent agreement with Reagan's line, "Hard work never killed anyone, but why take chances?"

...

Senior lecturers were, however, still expected to participate in university activities. University of Chicago Law School Senior Lecturer Richard Epstein told The Washington Examiner that Obama did not do so.

Obama, Epstein said, "did the minimal amount of work to get through. No one remembers him. He was not a participant in luncheons or workshops. He was here and gone."

Robert Alt, a former Obama student, echoes Epstein, telling the Examiner that "I think it's fair to say he wasn't engaged in the intellectual life of Chicago outside of the classroom."

...

The pattern of minimal performance at the Chicago campus was not an exception to the rule for Obama. In the state Senate during the same years he was lecturing, Obama voted "present" nearly 130 times, the most of any legislator in the chamber.

The below FoxNews segment digests the report: more...

Posted by: Ace at 08:49 AM | Comments (193)
Post contains 549 words, total size 4 kb.

The only real industry in and around DC is government and the legions of power brokers who make their living greasing its wheels. People are getting rich and are therefore they are invested in accumulating more and more governmental power to extract money from the rest of the country. The more power and money centered in government, the more "valuable" a person's whose only skills are helping people avoid having money taken from them or getting money from others for their clients becomes.

Making things that actually add economic or societal value? DC doesn't do that. This is the real battle ground in the war between the Makers vs. Takers.

The Washington region has emerged from the recession looking even more affluent compared with the rest of the country, boasting seven of the 10 counties with the highest household incomes in the nation, new census numbers show.

With a median household income surpassing $119,000, Loudoun County heads the list. Fairfax County, at nearly $106,000, is second. Both have held the same positions for several years running.

...

The stability of an economy built on the pillars of the federal government, its legions of contractors and a flourishing high-tech sector is evident in the income rankings.

You think.

A country that values the non-productive machinery of redistribution over wealth creators, is not long for this world.

I'd love to see Romney go after this class of people, not people who don't make enough to pay income taxes. Steal Rick Perry's line about working "to make DC as inconsequential in your life as possible".

A little fusion of small government and conservative populism could be a winning message.

Microsoft would be a great example of a company that was once only concerned with making products and money but heavy handed government forced them to waste time and money to become a player in DC. It's a bi-partisan problem and it needs to be attacked.

Posted by: DrewM at 08:26 AM | Comments (157)
Post contains 356 words, total size 2 kb.

Like the ever shifting details about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, the administration can't get its story straight about the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

First it was just a protest that gotten out of hand. Even though one of those killed observed one of the local "guards" scouting the grounds.

Then it was a "terrorist attack" but it wasn't planned, just you know, some terrorists who saw an opportunity, grabbed their heavy weaponry and just got lucky the Ambassador was there.

Now it turns out that witnesses say there was never any protests and it was a straight up attack.

Witnesses of last week's deadly attack on a U.S. consulate in Libya have told CBS News that the alleged anti-American protest that U.S. officials say morphed into the assault never actually took place.

The new details add to the widening rift between U.S. and Libyan accounts of the attack as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is expected to brief members of Congress behind closed doors Thursday. On Wednesday, a top U.S. counterterrorism official told lawmakers on Capitol Hill that the assault was "opportunistic," but a "terrorist attack."

Meanwhile the Libyans say they gave the US three days advance warning that trouble was brewing.

So, who are you going to believe? Some ramshackle government or the Libyans?

Yeah, me too.

Added: You can see the video version of the report here.

CBS' conclusion?

"What's clear," the CBS reporter concludes, "is that the public won't get a detailed account of what happened until after the election."

And they're ok with that? Your Lap Dog Media in action.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:32 AM | Comments (385)
Post contains 289 words, total size 2 kb.

• Ambassador Stevens Said He Was On Al-Qaeda Hit List
  
  
• What Mitt Romney Also Said In That Video Which Isn't Getting Coverage
  
  
• Street Justice: Iranian Cleric Pummeled By Badly Covered Woman After Warning
  
  
• Syria Tested Chemical Weapons Last Month
  
  
• Tax Penalty To Hit Nearly 6 Million Uninsured People
  
  
• These Obama Hand Pledge Photos Are Creepy
  
  
• No This Isn't Creepy At All
  
  
• Scott Brown Had 6 Point Lead Over Warren
  
  
• Aussie Muslims Calling Off Protest For Fear Of Violence...Anti-Muslim Violence
  
  
• Key Colombian Drug Lord Captured
  
  
• Man Does Job City Government Should Have Done And Now They Might Sue Him
  
  
• Media To Romney, Stop Telling The Truth
  
  
• More Americans Than Forecast Filed Jobless Claims Last Week
  
  
• Say, Maybe The WH Is Looking At Releasing The Blind Sheik
  
  
• Romney Campaign Cautious With Ad Budget
  
  
• TX School District Bans Christian Banners At Football Games
  
  
• New Wisconsin Ad Slams Obama Over High Black Unemployment
  
  
• Thomas Sowell On Greece
  
  
• The Eurozone Is Disintegrating
  
  
• Couple Sells Neighbor's Lost Puppy
  
  
• Newly Released PAGOP Internal Poll: Obama 48, Romney 47
  

Follow me on Twitter

Posted by: Open Blogger at 05:49 AM | Comments (102)
Post contains 182 words, total size 4 kb.

Happy Thursday.

Nate Silver says the chance of a GOP takeover of the Senate is down to 21 percent. Scott Brown and Fauxcahontas debate tonight.

Two-thirds of new homes have front or back porches. That's up from 42 percent in 1992.

The New York Post wins the headline contest: "Beyoncé & Jay-Z host NY Bam ba$h." Neither the campaign, nor the White House will release photos of Obama at the event, since that would ruin his "plain old folks" bullshit image.

And finally, there is a new trailer out for the first Hobbit movie.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:50 AM | Comments (480)
Post contains 102 words, total size 1 kb.

Welcome to National Talk Like A Pirate day which multiple morons reminded me about earlier in the week but of course I promptly forgot about. Which is about SOP for the USS AoSHQ of the Skull&Bones fleet. Arrggh.

Romney is Doomed-Doomed-DOOMED!

But apparently no one told the people being polled.

AP: Obama's up, 47 percent to 46 percent, among likely voters. Fascinatingly, when it's registered voters, Obama's up, 50 percent to 40 percent. Among adults, Obama's up, 52 percent to 37 percent.

USA Today: Obama's up nationwide, 47 percent to 46 percent. In the 12 swing states, Obama's up 48 percent to 46 percent.

Kind of amazing how often Obama's hitting . . . 47 percent in polls lately.

According to the conventional wisdom, Mitt Romney's Libya comment, and the furious denunciation from the Gang of 500, was supposed to be hurting him in the polls conducted in recent days.

Leader of Attack on US Consulate in Libya was Released From Gitmo in 2007

But, but I was totally assured by the Democrats that most of the detainees at Gitmo were just innocent goat herders at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Ben Franklin's Thoughts on Signing the Constitution 225 Years Ago

A wise and worldly man that we were very lucky to have as a founder.

    "I confess that there are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others."

"I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an Assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best."

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:00 PM | Comments (730)
Post contains 1284 words, total size 11 kb.

From "terrorist attack, maybe partly planned" to "well yeah, it was a terrorist attack but there wasn't any significant planning."

And of course this is after the facts debunked the "spontaneous reaction to a mean movie", which Obama was puttin out last night on Letterman.

Keep chokin that chicken.

Ambassador Chris Stevens and three aides "were killed in the course of a terrorist attack," [head of the U.S. National Counter-Terrorism Center Matt] Olsen told the committee.

But "what we don't have, at this point, is specific intelligence that there was significant advanced planning or coordination for this attack," he said. "The best information we have now, the facts that we have now, indicate that this was an opportunistic attack."

Still, he said, investigators are looking for any sign that the attack was planned.

More dissembling, "specific intelligence, significant advanced planning" (how about any advanced planning? Anything that would indicate it was, uhm, not a spontaneous response to a stupid film?)

Here are some signs Matt. Hundreds of attackers, pre-positioned mortars and RPG teams. Zoned in on the "safe house". Warnings that came days in advance. Oh, and also, 9/11, hello.

It almost seems as if, as events overrun each narrative hauled up the flagpole, you get this begrudging acknowledgement in phases, just to lessen the negative impact of the whole damned thing.

Hey, I never planned to kill that guy.

What? Hey now, it was, ok, no it wasn't murderin, dude slipped. Completely accidental.

A completely accidental slipping occurred in front of the .45 I was pointing at him. And he slipped into the bullet. Coulda happened to anyone. Almost anyone. Why was I aiming a .45 at him? I was pointing at the sunset with the nearest thing handy,

All right all right ALL RIGHT, I killed him, ok?

Completely spontaneous reaction to a sunset.

A commenter adds:

4 There was no advanced planning for what happened in your mouth. It was merely an opportunistic event.

Posted by: wooga at September 19, 2012 08:05 PM (vjyZP)

Yep. I slipped too.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 04:01 PM | Comments (243)
Post contains 355 words, total size 3 kb.

I just saw this on FoxNews.

This is a denial?

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland denied the report.

"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," she said Wednesday.

"There is no plan" does not preclude a plan arising in the future, or steps short of a plan -- such as "talks" -- occurring in the present.

This is not a denial. This is virtually a confirmation.

A denial would be a categorical statement: "No State Department personnel would entertain such a request, and no president, including this one, would ever release a major terrorist."

But everything is caveated as "according to my knowledge."

Get more senior people and put them under oath. Ask detailed questions. Refuse conclusory answers such as this -- ask about specific things and events, not for a broad characterization of things. If you allow them to broadly characterize things, they can always later claim, "Well, there was no plan at the time. But sure, there were some discussions."

Posted by: Ace at 02:54 PM | Comments (320)
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.