The debacle continues.

From WaPo

“More than three weeks after attacks in this city killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, sensitive documents remained only loosely secured in the wreckage of the U.S. mission on Wednesday, offering visitors easy access to delicate information about American operations in Libya.

Documents detailing weapons collection efforts, emergency evacuation protocols, the full internal itinerary of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens’s trip and the personnel records of Libyans who were contracted to secure the mission were among the items scattered across the floors of the looted compound when a Washington Post reporter and an interpreter visited Wednesday.

The discovery further complicates efforts by the Obama administration to respond to what has rapidly become a major foreign-policy issue just weeks before the election. Republicans have accused Obama of having left U.S. diplomatic compounds in Muslim-majority nations insufficiently protected on the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and have questioned the security preparations ahead of assaults on embassies in Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia and Sudan. Capitol Hill critics have also pressed for an explanation for the slow pace of the investigation that has followed the attack in Benghazi.”

Read more here

Eli Lake at the Daily Beast has this

“In the six months leading up to the assault on the United States consulate in Benghazi, the State Department reduced the number of trained Americans guarding U.S. facilities in Libya, according to a leading House Republican investigating the Sept. 11 anniversary attacks. The reduction in U.S. security personnel increased America’s reliance on local Libyan guards for the protection of its diplomats.

This is the latest charge from Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the Utah Republican leading a House investigation on the Benghazi attacks, regarding alleged security defects in Benghazi. Chaffetz said the information comes from whistleblowers who have approached the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.”

Read more here

—————————————————————————————————————-

This from the WashingtonExaminer could get interesting as well.

I mentioned the story months ago about the security protocols being deactivated by the Obama Campaign.

Now you know why. Again.

“President Obama reelection campaign, rattled by his Wednesday night debate performance, could be in for even worse news. According to knowlegable sources, a national magazine and a national web site are preparing a blockbuster donor scandal story.

Sources told Secrets that the Obama campaign has been trying to block the story. But a key source said it plans to publish the story Friday or, more likely, Monday.

According to the sources, a taxpayer watchdog group conducted a nine-month investigation into presidential and congressional fundraising and has uncovered thousands of cases of credit card solicitations and donations to Obama and Capitol Hill, allegedly from unsecure accounts, and many from overseas. That might be a violation of federal election laws.”

Read more here

The big news this morning is last nights debate.

If there’s other news you’d like to talk about, post it in the comments.

Here’s a selection of the reactions from various news orgs.

Most call Romney the winner.

Here’s a taste.

From Politico

“Left-leaning commentators hit President Barack Obama hard on TV and the Internet after the first  presidential debate in Denver on Wednesday night, saying GOP presidential  nominee Mitt Romney handily defeated his more experienced opponent.”

From the Washington Post

“Romney came into the 90-minute exchange after several difficult weeks but appeared rejuvenated by the opportunity to take his case directly to Obama and the American people. He was well prepared and aggressive as he hammered the president. The contrast with Obama was striking, as the president appeared less energetic even as he rebutted some of Romney’s toughest attacks.

The debate is likely to give Romney what he needed most, which is a fresh look from voters — at least those who are undecided or open to changing their minds — and will change the conversation about the campaign, which for the past two weeks has been tilted in the president’s favor. Romney now faces the challenge of trying to build on his performance and keep the president on the defensive in the days ahead.”

From National Journal

“Call it the curse of incumbency. Like many of his predecessors, President Obama fell victim Wednesday night to high expectations, a short fuse, and a hungry challenger.

If Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney didn’t win the first of three presidential debates outright, he more than covered the spread. He was personable, funny, and relentlessly on the attack against a heavily favored Obama.

The president looked peeved and flat as he carried a conversation, for the first time in four years, with somebody telling him he’s wrong.”

From CNN

“Two-thirds of people who watched the first presidential debate think that Republican nominee Mitt Romney won the showdown, according to a nationwide poll conducted Wednesday night.

According to a CNN/ORC International survey conducted right after the debate, 67% of debate watchers questioned said that the Republican nominee won the faceoff, with one in four saying  that President Barack Obama was victorious.”

Now these I’m including because, well, to be honest, they’re just fun.

From James Carville via the DC

““Let’s be real,” Carville said. “They have run a very good campaign thus far. I  don’t think that President Obama did what this campaign wanted him to do. I  think he was off his game tonight. But let’s don’t go overboard here. It will be  like a big sort of pushback. … My point is this — President Obama came in,  he wanted to have a conversation. It takes two people to have a conversation. Mitt Romney came in with a chainsaw. He’s trying to talk to a chainsaw.”

From Michael Moore via the Washington Times

“Moore re-tweeted: “If Romney keeps this up…Obama is going to vote for him!”

“This is what happens when u pick John Kerry as your debate coach.”

From Ed Schultz via Mediaite

“Schultz went on to say that Obama failed to explain his position on the economy either. “I thought he was off his game,” Schultz said. “I was absolutely stunned tonight.””

And the last will be Chris Mattews via RealClearPolitics

I watched this one live as it happened. Two words-Comedy Gold.

“”He was like, ‘Oh an hour and half? I think I can get through this thing. And I don’t even look at this guy.’ Whereas Romney — I love the split-screen — staring at Obama, addressing him like prey. He did it just right. ‘I’m coming at an incumbent. I got to beat him. You’ve got to beat the champ and I’m going to beat him tonight. And I don’t care what this guy, the moderator, whatever he thinks he is because I’m going to ignore him,” Matthews said.

“What was Romney doing?” Matthews asked. “He was winning.””

And that about sums it up.

If you are interested, tonight’s debate can be viewed live here.

http://www.c-span.org/Debates/

Coverage starts at 7PM EST, the debate starts at 9PM EST.

What’s news today?

Me?

I’m going straight to conspiracy nut. You know, foreign interference, Manchurian Candidate, radical groups, how do they all tie together, where are the transcripts Barry? crazy nutjob stuff. I’ve mentioned some of these names before. I was told it was in the past, it didn’t matter, and yet it all pointed to Obama being exactly what he is. A radical. The press can’t hide this stuff anymore.

So put on your tin-foil hats and join me for a trip down memory lane.

😯

What?

It’s fun. And it all fits.

This first piece is a must read for any conspiracy nut worth his salt. It contains many pieces of new stuff gathered by digging up the old stuff.

From www.dailyinterlake.com

“Though by no means definitive, it provides an interesting insight, at least, into how Chicago politics intersected with the black power movement and Middle Eastern money at a certain point in time. Whether it has any greater relevance to the 2012 presidential campaign, I will allow the reader to decide. In order to accomplish that, I will also take the unusual step of providing footnotes and the end of this column so that each of you can do the investigative work for yourself.”

“Maybe the funding materialized, maybe it didn’t, but what’s particularly noteworthy is that this black Islamic lawyer who “for several years [had] urged the rich Arab kingdoms to cultivate stronger ties to America’s blacks by supporting black businesses and black colleges and giving financial help to disadvantaged students” was also the same lawyer who allegedly helped arrange for the entrance of Barack Obama into Harvard Law School in 1988.”

“It also might be considered more than coincidence that the author of that 1979 newspaper column was from Chicago, where Barack Obama settled in 1986 a few years after his stint at Columbia University. It is certainly surprising that the author of that column was none other than Vernon Jarrett, the future (and later former) father-in-law of Valerie Jarrett, who ultimately became the consigliere of the Obama White House.”

He provides lots of links. There’s a lot more here

Also, AmericanThinker dug further and has lots more links,

“Update  from Cindy Simpson:

I  also researched this a bit yesterday when the news first hit, and found some  more interesting connections/pieces:”

Read more here

Which brings us to this from PJ Media,

“What accounted for this desecration of our Bill of Rights by our own government? Mere cowardice or was there more? Does some ideological predisposition exist at the top of our executive branch that makes it easier to accede to the reactionary wishes of religio-fascist cultures where separation of church and state is anathema and the oppression of women endemic?

For some years, I and others have sought the answer to this riddle through the release of a tape held in the vault of the Los Angeles Times. This tape, known as the Khalidi Tape, records a going-away party held in Chicago in 2003. Here’s what I wrote back in April 2010:

Rashid Khalidi — a Palestinian-American historian known for his strong pro-Palestinian opinions — is currently the Edward Said Professor of Modern Arab Studies at Columbia and director of that university’s Middle East Institute. After Khalidi received this Columbia appointment in 2003, a farewell dinner party was held in his honor in Chicago. A videotape was made of that party where many good things were said about the Palestinian cause and many bad things about Israel. Then Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama was in attendance, as were, some say, William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.”

Read more here

And lastly, for now, this. From The Daily Caller

“As a freshman at Columbia University in 1970, future Attorney General Eric  Holder participated in a five-day occupation of an abandoned Naval Reserve  Officer Training Corps (ROTC) headquarters with a group of black students later  described by the university’s Black Students’ Organization as “armed,” The Daily  Caller has learned.”

“Emboldened by their successes, SAAS leaders continued to press their demands,  eventually working with local black radicals who were not college students. A  young Eric Holder joined the fray in 1969 as a college freshman.

The SAAS also actively supported the Black Panthers and the Black Power  movement, according to Stefan Bradley, professor of African-American studies at  Saint Louis University and author of the 2009 book “Harlem vs. Columbia University.” He has  described the Columbia organization as being separatist in nature.”

Read more here

Now you know why he’ll never fire Holder.

Yeah. Who’s nuts now?

🙂

UPDATE

It just gets better. Or worse.

Also from the Daily Caller

“In a video obtained exclusively by The Daily Caller, then-presidential  candidate Barack Obama tells an audience of black ministers, including the Rev.  Jeremiah Wright, that the U.S. government shortchanged Hurricane Katrina victims  because of racism.

“The people down in New Orleans they don’t care about as much!” Obama shouts  in the video, which was shot in June of 2007 at Hampton University in Virginia.  By contrast, survivors of Sept. 11 and Hurricane Andrew received generous  amounts of aid, Obama explains. The reason? Unlike residents of majority-black  New Orleans, the federal government considers those victims “part of the  American family.”

The racially charged and at times angry speech undermines Obama’s  carefully-crafted image as a leader eager to build bridges between ethnic  groups. For nearly 40 minutes, using an accent he almost never adopts in public,  Obama describes a racist, zero-sum society, in which the white majority profits  by exploiting black America. The mostly black audience shouts in agreement. The  effect is closer to an Al Sharpton rally than a conventional campaign event.”

Read more here