First of all, that CNN in general - Anderson Cooper in particular - is given any credibility is amazing in itself. CNN has a history of featuring dishonest flacks and news stories. Consider what Drew Griffin did to Walid Shoebat and Sarah Palin or what Sara Sidner reported from Gaza, or the Pallywood news footage that featured a large man faking an injury that Cooper was busted airing on his program and had to retract.
In the case of Sidner, she featured a news story that left viewers to believe that a Palestinian boy was killed by Israeli rocket fire. When it became apparent the boy had to have been killed by an errant Palestinian rocket, CNN's Don Lemon issued a pseudo-retraction right before he went to... wait for it... Sara Sidner for an update.
At about the same time, Cooper had to issue a retraction for airing the footage of the large man faking an injury. It's good he did so but c'mon, Palestinians staging scenes and passing it off as news is incredibly pervasive and none of it should be trusted, which would seem to indicate the retraction was issued only because the error was so egregiously obvious.
This brings us to the hit piece on Michele Bachmann this week by Cooper and Dana Bash, which focused on aspects of Bachmann's CPAC speech that included examples of Barack Obama's extravagant lifestyle as President. Cooper's report began with a short clip of Bachmann demanding answers to the attacks in Benghazi, after which Cooper said CNN has been critical of Benghazi and then began to move on to the small portion of Bachmann's speech about lavish White House spending.
The items of interest for Cooper were Bachmann's reference to a book that charged Obama as being the $1.4 Billion president. Examples provided were five chefs on Air Force One, two projectionists at the White House, and someone being paid to walk BO the dog. Cooper then proceeded to introduce reporter Dana Bash, who was almost apoplectic that she had to chase Bachmann down a hallway to ask her about the Congresswoman's statements during the speech.
Roger Aronoff does a good job of dismantling the report by Cooper and Bash and exposes it for what it is - a hit piece. It's quite apparent after reading it that Bachmann's words were twisted to intentionally smear. By airing a clip of Bachmann's comments on Benghazi and then saying CNN has been critical of the handling of Benghazi, Cooper asks viewers to accept the premise that he is balanced, objective, and without an agenda.
The premise is faulty. Whatever criticism CNN has had for Benghazi, it's been nowhere near interested enough in getting to the truth and unless I've missed something, I don't recall Bash chasing / badgering any administration official for answers, though I could be wrong. In any event, the attention given to a small part of a CPAC speech by a congresswoman could have been better spent doggedly pursuing answers to Benghazi, hey Dana?
The larger picture that CNN is obviously missing is the runaway spending, a $17 Trillion debt, and annual deficits the likes of which we've never seen. Focusing exclusively on Bachmann's examples without seeming to care about those larger issues is also quite revealing. In fact, instead of doing so, perhaps Cooper could do his job and investigate why there IS so much spending and where all the money is going?
At the 5:00 mark, Cooper also makes reference to the Huma Abedin controversy, saying:
"Congresswoman Bachmann has made other claims that simply do not stand up as well, namely that Huma Abedin, a top adviser to then Secretary of State Clinton, may be under the sway of the Muslim Brotherhood. That allegation was found factually groundless, drew sharp criticism at the time from both sides of the aisle..."
Hey Anderson, how would you know? You never addressed the facts about Abedin's familial background and actually aired news reports that defended her without exploring any of those facts. Ironically, while Cooper was dismissing Abedin's connection to the Brotherhood, he aired B-roll of her actually talking to the president of the Muslim Brotherhood's group in America - Mohamed Magid of the ISNA - at the 5:19 mark (though Magid not seen in the portion of the video that was aired during Cooper's report).
As for the Bash-chasing-Bachmann footage that was shown shortly thereafter, Cooper and Bash were both amazed that Bachmann turned the question about Obama having a "dog walker" back on Bash, when it was Bachmann who brought it up. Actually, as Aronoff points out, Bachmann never said Obama pays for a "dog walker", only that someone is paid to walk it, which is true.
A central theme of the Tea Party that was formed in early 2009 was that its members were willing to defend neither Obama nor his predecessor, George W. Bush when it came to spending. Hindsight is 20/20 but Bachmann could have responded to Bash by reinforcing this sentiment, saying that both administrations have been responsible for our monstrous debt, though it can't be denied that Obama shifted the debt-mobile into overdrive. Bash and Cooper wanted to contrast the money spent on the Obama presidency with that of the Bush presidency.
The fact is that both were (and are) out of control. If only Cooper was as interested in that self-evident truth as he is in smearing a congresswoman who desperately wants to do something about it.
If CNN is effective at anything, it's smearing those it wants to marginalize and running interference for those it wants to protect.
Juan Williams is a bit of a conundrum; he makes ridiculous left-wing arguments that make you want to scream but he somehow maintains a characteristic of likability and gets along quite well with those whom he disagrees with. At some point, one would think he would wake up and free himself from the grips of left-wing ideology. Perhaps the best case in point was when he was fired by NPR for expressing an opinion about how he felt with sharing a plane with passengers that consisted of men in Muslim garb.
That leads to this very interesting interview between Williams and Ginni Thomas (wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas). As I watched Williams in this interview, I found myself asking one simple question:
How is it that you can have this perspective and yet still be liberal?
For some reason, Juan has identified and acknowledged the groupthink dynamic in the liberal media while not seeing the corresponding flaws in all of liberalism's premises. He doesn't seem to understand that the reason groupthink exists is because liberalism can't exist without it.
One interesting takeaway from the interview happens at the beginning when Williams makes an Archie Bunker reference, admitting that he used to believe that character represented conservatives. As an example of Williams not connecting one more dot, the man who created Archie Bunker's character (Norman Lear) is a hardcore liberal, which makes Bunker a caricature (not just a character) of the right, created with left-wing bias and preconceptions.
It would seem that Williams isn't far from an awakening. Then again, I thought the same thing after he was fired by NPR.
"I've been sitting here, getting more and more fed up with all of this talk about these pieces of machinery having no legitimate sporting purpose, no legitimate hunting purpose. People, that is not the point of the second amendment. The second amendment is not about duck hunting and I know I'm not going to make very many friends saying this but it's about our right, all of our rights to be able to protect ourselves from all of you guys up there." - Suzanna Gracia-Hupp in 1993 Congressional testimony about banning assault weapons.
It may seem like I'm beating a dead horse but remember, doing so is warranted when the truth lies in that horse's bones. Like Gracia-Hupp in that 1993 hearing, I too am getting "fed up" with the gun control debate, not because I don't think it's legitimate but because practically everyone who is engaging in it is arguing the wrong points while playing defense instead of going on offense.
There are two arguments that second amendment proponents never seem willing to address. First, the reason for the second amendment is to protect against tyranny and second, it's the government that should be the subject of a gun control debate relative to Operation Fast and Furious.
To his credit, CNN's Piers Morgan is giving plenty of gun rights advocates their say on his show but few of them seem all that interested in deviating from the terms of Morgan's debate, which is that no one needs an AR-15 for home defense. When guests argue the point that they do, it sounds a bit loopy. Most of the arguments have to deal with fending off multiple intruders. When that's the argument, people like Morgan are more successful than they should be.
It's like pro-lifers allowing leftists to make the argument about whether abortions should be permitted in the cases of rape, incest or risk to the mother's health. Those cases are so rare as a percentage of the overall number of abortions that they're outside the bounds of the central issue, which is whether abortion is murder. Conservatives constantly allow the debate to shift away from the real issue.
The same thing continues to happen with the gun control debate. Here are two examples. First, staunch conservative radio talk show host Dana Loesch does battle with Piers Morgan. Notice what the debate is about - the nuances of the difference between automatic and semi-automatic weapons. While Loesch is correct and makes some good points, Morgan is far more successful with viewers because Loesch doesn't shift the debate to what the second amendment is really about (see Gracia-Hupp quote above).
Pay attention at the 3:00 mark. Morgan's question to Loesch is:
"What would you personally do and authorize Washington's politicians to do, to curb gun violence in America?"
Her answer:
"Stop disarming law-abiding citizens."
She's right but doesn't go on offense. She also has a problem coming up with another example when prompted by Morgan to do so but does ultimately add that there should be...
"...tougher penalties for criminals who kill people with illegally obtained firearms."
Once again, this would have been a perfect opportunity to inject the government's role in Fast and Furious into the debate. Consider Morgan's response if Loesch would have said something like:
"Well, Piers, perhaps we could start with more transparency in Operation Fast and Furious. How about you demanding that President Obama lift Executive Privilege on subpoenaed documents by the House Oversight Committee that Eric Holder doesn't want you to see? How about we dig a little deeper into how the ATF - with the approval of the Justice Department - was allowed to put assault weapons, to include .50 Caliber rifles, which are much more powerful than AR-15's, into the hands of drug cartels? It seems to me, Piers, that you're being a little biased in this debate."
Until conservatives engage in the real debate, the progressives will continue to make gains. It's really a shame because Loesch is very conservative and never afraid to debate the hard issues.
Here is another example. Two young conservative women in an interview with Piers Morgan do the same thing Loesch did; they allow Morgan to make the debate about whether an AR-15 is necessary for home defense (See Suzanna Gratia-Hupp quote again). This is not the reason the second amendment was put in the Constitution. While one of these women accurately cited a news story about how an AR-15 came in handy relative to home defense, the pro-second amendment crowd has got to start going on offense instead of simply playing adequate defense.
This video Pretty much nails it. One very basic truth in all of this is that any and all who subscribe to this Obama worship must either necessarily be atheists or are consciously choosing to violate the very first Commandment (innocent children excluded).
In 1978, Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) was a legal aid to Rep. Leo Ryan (D-CA), the only U.S. Congressman to be murdered in the line of duty. In 2011, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) almost became the second. Speier barely survived the trip to Jonestown, where an insane preacher had moved his insane Temple, but not before she herself had been shot five times.
Incredibly, not only is she still a Democrat but the Joe Biden gun control squad appears to be enlisting her help in developing a plan of action, as she is one of twelve Democratic congressmen who make up the House Democrat Task Force on Gun Violence. The group met with Biden yesterday.
Make no mistake. Speier's presence on that Task Force has to do with her very real and personal history when it comes to being on the wrong end of a gun. After the meeting, CNN interviewed Speier and asked her about her experience at Jonestown in 1978 (beginning at the 2:00 mark). Conspicuously absent from the exchange is any mention of Jones' ideology and who he was in bed with - the Democratic Party. Jones was a Marxist. More on his relationship with very prominent Democrats after the video.
Jim Jones was a professed Marxist and moved up through the ranks of political power in San Francisco with the aid and assistance of several Democrats. He helped Democratic Mayor George Moscone get elected. In fact, through the use of Community Organizing, Jones and his Temple were very much responsible for Moscone's victory. As a result, Moscone rewarded Jones with a seat on the San Francisco Housing Authority, which oversaw more than $14 million, and later enlisted the help of then California State Assemblyman Willie Brown (D) to introduce legislation that would ensure Jones would become chairman.
Ralph Nader has a little known legacy of disgrace when it comes to Jim Jones as well. An extremely terrified couple who had defected from Jones' cult reached out to Nader for help, in confidence. He betrayed them. Their plea for assistance found its way from Nader to Jones.
Jones also ingratiated himself with other Democrats like then Lieutenant Governor Mervyn Dymally and Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, who once said of Jones:
"I am really pleased and inspired by what I have seen. Here is truly a man - Pastor Jim Jones - who is touched by God."
How about then Democratic Governor Jerry Brown (yes, the one who is in office today)? Brown made several visits to Jones' Temple and clearly turned a blind eye to what was going on. Jones also rubbed elbows with Rosalyn Carter and Walter Mondale (see video below). Speaking of that video, note how Jones boasts about the fact that he was a Marxist (Obama has a history that very much involves studying Marxism and associating with Marxists). Also keep in mind how more than 900 people died in Jonestown; Jones was responsible but it wasn't done with guns:
In a book entitled, Six Years With God, written by Jeannie Mills (a pseudonym), the woman who was betrayed by Nader and ultimately lost her life, wrote:
"Just a few doors down the street from the San Francisco temple the Black Muslims had their temple. Jim made strong overtures of friendship to this strong group, even sending large contingencies of our membership to attend their services, to which they responded by sending their members to our services."
Two more ironic realities about Jim Jones that should raise bold red flags with Speier...
Jones attempted to buy favorable California media coverage - to some degree, successfully - with payoffs labeled as "commendation" awards to show support for the first amendment. Laughable, isn't it? Not surprisingly, the Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Chronicle received the largest amounts. Eerily salient today, isn't it?
The other reality the mainstream media will not touch is the fact that just prior to the mass murder / suicide in Jonestown, the group bequeathed all of its assets to the Soviet Union.
Instead of playing defense, the Republican leadership should be exposing the truth behind the groups and individuals responsible for Speier's shooting. In fact, it was the Democratic Party that enabled Jim Jones to acquire the power he did.
That Speier is still a Democrat defies any and all logic, unless one believes that Stockholm Syndrome is a real condition.
Parting thought: In an interview Speier gave last year, she talked about how many people approached her delegation in 1978 to SECRETLY ask for escape from Jonestown. If Speier were honest, would she ask for escape from the Democratic Party?
First of all, I challenge anyone to find where I said Hillary Clinton's fall never took place. That claim was never made but critical thinking was applied to the situation. In fact, I concluded that her fall was indeed 'fortuitous' when factoring in the Benghazi situation; it's beyond apparent that she doesn't want to testify.
That said, Hillary hack James Carville appeared on CNN with Wolf Blitzer and decided to plant a flag on the moral high ground, identifying anyone who raised questions about Hillary's illness as 'inhumane'.
That's beyond hypocritical because I challenge James Carville to explain how Hillary Clinton nemesis Peter Paul is still in prison, long past the maximum sentences for his alleged crime.
Peter Paul began dealing with the Clintons back in 2000. He was arrested in 2001 for charges related to stock manipulation. The maximum sentence for his crime was ten years. He's not scheduled to be released from prison until 2014.
Do the math.
Mr. Carville, what's happening to Peter Paul is inhumane. Perhaps you should look into why he's been imprisoned for so long.
Here's the trailer for the Peter Paul documentary on Hillary Clinton:
The first chapter of Unsung Davids is entitled, "Hillary Clinton vs. Peter Paul".
On Friday, January 4th, I had the opportunity to appear on the Michael Savage show to talk about Al Jazeera's recent purchase of Al Gore's Current TV. Recording of interview is below.
**UPDATE** Well, it looks like Mr. Gore, though he did his level best, was unable to close the deal before the end of the year. According to the Washington Examiner, Gore is out nearly $9 Million by missing the deadline.
Current TV, Al Gore's brainchild, has been fledgling and flailing for quite some time. Luckily for him, not only was Gore able to sell his ownership stake for $100 Million but he was able to do so just before the Bush tax cuts expired on December 31st. Perhaps unluckily for all of us, the buyer has quite the checkered past and questionable allegiances.
Al Jazeera, the pan-Arab news giant, has long tried to convince Americans that it is a legitimate news organization, not a parrot of Middle Eastern propaganda or something more sinister.
It just bought itself 40 million more chances to make its case.
Al Jazeera on Wednesday announced a deal to take over Current TV, the low-rated cable channel that was founded by Al Gore, a former vice president, and his business partners seven years ago. Al Jazeera plans to shut Current and start an English-language channel, which will be available in more than 40 million homes, with newscasts emanating from both New York and Doha, Qatar.
For Al Jazeera, which is financed by the government of Qatar, the acquisition is a coming of age moment. A decade ago, Al Jazeera’s flagship Arabic-language channel was reviled by American politicians for showing videotapes from Al Qaeda members and sympathizers. Now the news operation is buying an American channel, having convinced Mr. Gore and the other owners of Current that it has the journalistic muscle and the money to compete head-to-head with CNN and other news channels in the United States.
Al Jazeera has worked quite diligently at softening its brand for western consumption but to what extent is this the result of a legitimate, journalistic awakening?
Make no mistake; Jihad in the United States is far more delicate than say, Jihad in Egypt today. But this is something that has evolved and been massaged.
For example, on the day of 9/11/01, while on a Los Angeles radio program, founder and director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) - Salam Al Marayati - said the following:
"If we're going to look at suspects, we should look at the groups that benefit the most from these kinds of incidents, and I think we should put the state of Israel on the suspect list because I think this diverts attention from what's happening in the Palestinian territories so that they can go on with their aggression and occupation and apartheid policies."
Not only does Al Marayati not speak like that today but he has learned that a completely different message is more effective. By seeking outreach to bleeding heart leftists, useful idiots, and Chrislamists, Islamists can better play the Islamophobia card. The MPAC founder recently visited the far left All Saints Episcopal Church in California, which hosted his group's annual convention.
Similarly, in 2002, Al Jazeera aired an interview with renowned KKK Clansman David Duke, without informing viewers of Duke's credentials as an American Nazi Party leader and KKK member. In that interview, Duke echoed comments that virtually mirrored those of Al Marayati on 9/11:
Late last fall, for instance, you had Ku Klux Klanner David Duke—Dr. David Duke, as he was described—appearing on the Al Jazeera talk show Without Borders, authoritatively explaining that the Mossad knew of plans to destroy the World Trade Center and had warned Israelis to get out before the planes hit.
In much the same way that Al Marayati has softened his tone, so too will Al Jazeera likely do when it takes Al Gore's network and airs its newscasts not far from Ground Zero.
Gore himself capitalized on the anti-American / anti-Israel / Pro-Muslim meme relative to 9/11 during a visit to Saudi Arabia in 2006. He said that after 9/11, Arabs had been...
"...indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable."
Al Jazeera and Al Gore don't just share a first name; they have both said and done things that should cause grave concern.
An unbelievably ridiculous narrative is being pushed that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice is being targeted by old white guys because she is black and female. Forget the fact that she gave the American people false information five times on September 16th. That's not relevant. The Morning Joe panel is the latest place where you can find this egregious argument.
At the November 14th press conference, Barack Obama reacted strongly to a question about Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain going after U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for her demonstrably false talking points on five September 16th talk shows. In response, Barack Obama urged the Senators to go after him instead of Rice while saying she had nothing to do with Benghazi (the logical follow-up question to that wasn't asked) and that the White House sent her onto those talk shows.
Frankly, McCain and Graham should take Obama up on this offer for a few reasons. First, according to CBS, these CIA talking points were altered prior not just to Susan Rice uttering them on September 16th but before Jay Carney seemed to make the same case on September 14th, that the Benghazi attack was a result of the anti-Muhammad video. Second, as the official mouthpiece for Obama, going after Carney would equate to doing exactly what Obama suggested those two old, white, male Senators should do - go after Obama. Third, by going after Carney instead of Rice, Graham and McCain cannot be accused of attacking him over his race or his sex; he's as white and male as they are.
Then again, perhaps Rice was traipsed out to all of those shows for a moment such as this - the race and gender cards. Her making demonstrably false statements is irrelevant, apparently.
The term "Pallywood" was coined by Boston University professor Richard Landes, who by an encounter that resulted from sheer happenstance, was exposed to raw video footage (rushes) shot by a stringer for France 2 in the Gaza Strip in 2000. What Landes uncovered was jaw-dropping. He was exposed to a tactic of war used by Palestinians and captured a glimpse, via those rushes, of what goes on behind enemy lines.
In essence, Palestinians were caught staging scenes for the cameraman, who then proceeded to send the footage to France 2, who would use those scenes in a news report that ultimately favored the actors and made the Israelis look bad. What Landes subsequently discovered what that this phenomenon was actually part of the Palestinian culture. It is gross journalistic malfeasance and he blew the lid off of it with his 2006 Documentary, Pallywood: ...According to Palestinian Sources.
Now, fast forward to today. As Israelis seem to have reached their breaking point again, killing Hamas Military commander Ahmed al-Jabari. Pallywood is now back. Watch this short video, shot by the BBC. In 30 seconds, you will understand fully what Pallywood really is. This is not an isolated incident but a stratagem of war.
Unsung Davids consists of an entire chapter on Richard Landes, along with his discovery of and fight with... Pallywood.
***UPDATE*** Warner Todd Houston over at Breitbart has noticed that CNN is using the footage from Pallywood above, in its newscast (Anderson Cooper in particular).
In Lyndon Johnson's second term, it was his failures in Vietnam; Watergate broke in Richard Nixon's first term but took him down after reelection; Iran-Contra dogged Ronald Reagan; Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice late in his second term; and George W. Bush's second term was marred with failures in Iraq, a stalled agenda, and a mortgage crisis that hit just as he was leaving office. Taken together, these realities do not portend well for Barack Obama in the next four years. However, Obama has something none of the aforementioned presidents did - an unyieldingly complicit media.
Like Nixon, signs of scandal reared their heads toward the end of Obama's first term but unlike Watergate, disinterest throughout the mainstream media - save for a few exceptions - has been palpable. As Nixon was being sworn in for a second time, the likes of Woodward and Bernstein were doing all they could to get the truth out. Today, there is more than enough smoke - both literally and figuratively - when it comes to what happened in Benghazi, Libya on 9/11/12 for the media to replicate its success.
Yet, it seems collectively disinterested.
Economic realities may do to Barack Obama what legitimate journalism will not. The former could end up being the catalyst for the latter.
It's time for a self-evident truth. Liberal, socialist economic policies are doomed to failure and always have been. It is as predictable as the sun coming up, water boiling at 212 degrees, or an apple falling to the earth when you let go of it. This necessarily means that Barack Obama's economic policies will fail as well. They've failed already and although there is pain felt as a result of runaway debt, deficits, and unemployment, there is not enough for the media to do its job.
That could change (don't laugh).
Almost immediately after Obama was re-elected, companies began announcing layoffs. People have been getting out of the stock market and moving to cash and gold. Taxes are going up on everyone and talk of a fiscal cliff, which was largely ignored by the media before the election, is now being given more attention.
Let's face it. The United States is likely headed for economic collapse. We may have been headed there even if Mitt Romney had won. Much has been baked in to the Obama economy already. Talk of repealing Obamacare was just that - talk. Even among Republicans, there were discussions about keeping part of the law. Imagine a scenario whereby the economy Romney inherited was too much to overcome and it collapsed on his watch in a year or two; it would be his fault because it would have happened on his watch.
Fiscal signs are pointing to rising food prices, runaway inflation, and higher unemployment in the coming months and years. It will all happen on Obama's watch and it will all have been his doing (blaming Bush at that point could cause even his most sycophantic media allies to roll their eyes). Misery will befall many more Americans. At some point, reality smacks everyone in the face, including liberal media types who continue down the track, despite the whistle and headlight of an oncoming train getting closer.
As Benghazi-gate chugs along - now thanks to the added element of a sexual scandal involving the CIA Director - the economy will continue to get worse. Barack Obama will lose more and more Americans who will eventually realize that they have been foolishly duped, thereby making them even angrier. Like two elevators, as the economy descends, interest in what really happened in Benghazi could rise. People who have traditionally sat on the sidelines of the political playing field will start to take notice because their own lives will be affected, ironically because of their own indifference for so many years.
Moreover, once the truth about what happened in Benghazi is revealed, it could very well be worse than all of the other second term presidential scandals combined.
For years, one of Barack Obama's credos has been to never let a crisis go to waste. He used the mortgage crisis to push for the Stimulus package; he used the lie that is global warming to push for cap and trade and green energy, which has done nothing but line the pockets of his political cronies while bankrupting America; he pointed to the number of guns going to Mexico from America as evidence that tighter gun control was needed (never mind that his Justice Department was actually involved in facilitating that crisis).
Obama's ideological mentor - Saul Alinsky - taught that all events of a period should be used to one's own advantage. Another self-evident truth is that Obama very much groks that idea. Unfortunately for him, there will come a point when he will no longer be able to do that because a crisis will one day be created that - no matter how it is spun - will spin right back to him.
Though it would come at great expense to the nation, Barack Obama might just lose the media. It will have been a shame that it took them so long to do their jobs.
When the bells of two elevators sound, one could be the economy reaching the ground floor and the other could be Benghazi-gate reaching the top of the media's ivory tower.
The mainstream media has just been handed a teachable moment. Back on October 26th, a reporter named Kyle Clarke at NBC 9 in Denver had an interview with Barack Obama and asked him three rather pointed questions about Benghazi while Brian Williams was relaxing in the time share he has somewhere inside Obama's... uh, never mind.
Anyway, though Clarke didn't really get any of his questions answered by Obama, the president's responses have captured the attention of the House Armed Services Committee, chaired by Rep. Buck McKeon.
October 29, 2012
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
I noted with interest your interview with Kyle Clark on October 26th, in which you stated, in reference to whether or not any requests for help from U.S. personnel under attack in Benghazi were denied, “Well, we are finding out exactly what happened. I can tell you, as I've said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to.” (Emphasis added.) Although this response did not specifically answer the reporter’s question, your first directive would appear to involve potential actions by the U.S. military. Since you personally provided this directive, I have a series of additional questions that I am confident you can answer in advance of the conclusion of any formal investigation.
There appears to be a discrepancy between your directive and the actions taken by the Department of Defense. As we are painfully aware, despite the fact that the military had resources in the area, the military did not deploy any assets to secure U.S. personnel in Benghazi during the hours the consulate and the annex were under attack. I find it implausible that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Commander of U.S. Africa Command, and the Commander of U.S. European Command would have ignored a direct order from the Commander in Chief. Therefore, could you please clarify:
•To whom did you issue this first directive and how was this directive communicated to the military and other agencies – verbally or in writing?
• At any time on September 11, 2012, did you specifically direct the military to move available assets into Libya to ensure the safety of U.S. personnel in Benghazi? If so, which assets did you order to Libya?
• At any time on September 11, 2012, other than ISR assets, did you provide the authority for the military to take any and all necessary measures to secure U.S. personnel, including specifically the authority to enter Libyan airspace?
• Did you have any communication with the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or any Commanders of regional Combatant Commands regarding military support to U.S. personnel in Benghazi on September 11th? If so, could you please describe any recommendations provided to you regarding available military support and any orders you gave to them?
Thank you for your prompt attention to these matters. Members of the Committee on Armed Services are keenly concerned that any breakdown in communication that may have occurred not be repeated. Given your stated interest in transparency and sharing all relevant information with the American people and the families of our fallen, I am hopeful you can promptly address these questions.
Respectfully,
Howard P. “Buck” McKeon
Chairman
Here is a real journalist, Kyle Clarke, in the interview that prompted this letter from McKeon:
Here is a pathetic example of a man masquerading as a journalist, Brian Williams, bowing to Obama in 2009:
Time to start a campaign to have Brian Williams and Kyle Clarke switch jobs. No, wait. Clarke should get Williams' job and Williams should be a gopher at NBC 9 (no disrespect to gophers intended).
There are two scandals that Barack Obama desperately wants to avoid talking about. One is Fast and Furious. The other is Benghazi-gate. Both came up in last night's debate and both times, CNN's Candy Crowley came to the president's rescue.
First, on Fast and Furious. Mitt Romney took the opportunity to segue from a question about an assault weapons ban and discuss the failed gun-walking operation, which was quite relevant. ATF, with the knowledge of Department of Justice leadership, allowed assault weapons to walk into Mexico and be placed into the hands of drug cartels. Hundreds of Mexicans were killed as well as Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. The most credible argument for why the operation was implemented was to make the case that an assault weapons ban was necessary.
Evidence points to the administration creating a crisis it could exploit, to push its assault weapons ban treaty. That said, Romney was very much on point but Crowley didn't think so. In fact, watch as Obama makes eye contact with Crowley in this clip as soon as Romney starts talking about Fast and Furious. Finally, Crowley cut Romney off and essentially told him he was off-topic.
h/t Midnight Rider:
The next - and most blatant - effort to protect Obama by Crowley came on the matter of Benghazi-gate. Barack Obama asserted that on the day after the attack on the U.S. consulate there, he called it an 'act of terror'. Romney called him on it and when Obama told his opponent to look at the transcript, Crowley agreed with Obama, so much so, that Obama asked her to repeat herself in order to underscore the point.
The problem is that Obama never referred to the attack in Benghazi as an act of terror. In fact, for fourteen days, his administration - to include himself at the United Nations - repeated the lie that the attack was spontaneous and the result of a video.
"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for."
While this may seem an exercise in semantics, it's really not. The difference between a terror attack and a spontaneous eruption is very simple; it's called premeditation vs. spontaneity. Not only did that statement in the Rose Garden not refer to Libya specifically but fourteen days later, at the United Nations, Obama was still pushing the lie that the Benghazi attack was the spontaneous result of a video.
For some reason, the way Crowley came to Obama's defense reminded me of this:
"Conservative" S.E. Cupp's stinging criticism of Clint Eastwood's speech could be an early indicator that she may be coming down with Scarborough Syndrome.
Joe Scarborough was first elected to Congress in 1994, as part of the 'Contract with America' movement after two years of Bill Clinton. Less than ten years ago, he had his own show on MSNBC - Scarborough Country - in which he was far more conservative than he is today as co-host of Morning Joe. So what happened? Aside from the obvious answer, that the Obama administration all but uses MSNBC as a ventriloquist dummy and its hosts have to be very conscious of how far they can go, Scarborough befriended leftist Mika Brzezinski, who is his co-host. He also surrounds himself with liberals every day.
It is human nature to want to be accepted by one's peers. When those peers are collectivist-minded liberals who would rather gang up on the lone conservative than find differences among themselves, it translates into peer pressure. Conservatives who swim in a tank full of liberals every day can appear to almost subconsciously and slowly cry uncle, ceding what they believe to be minor points in the hopes of gaining acceptance.
That never works. On the contrary, the behavior is reinforced when liberals let up and laugh along or nod in agreement.
That leads to S.E. Cupp. She is a young conservative who recently took a gig at MSNBC as a panelist on a show called The Cycle. Often the lone conservative alongside three very liberal co-hosts, Cupp is susceptible to Joe Scarborough syndrome and her response to Thursday night's Clint Eastwood speech at the convention may be an early symptom. It wasn't just that she didn't like it. The manner in which she expressed that dislike was red meat to her co-hosts. That could be another symptom.
If there was one thing about the Republican convention that got under the skin of the liberal media, it was Eastwood's speech, in which he talked to an empty chair as if Obama was sitting in it. When the subject of Eastwood's speech was brought up, liberals became the most rabid. There are also indications that the speech got under Obama's skin; a tweet was sent out from @BarackObama that included a photo of the president in a chair with a caption that read, "this seat is taken".
Here is S.E. Cupp going overboard in her criticism of Eastwood. Is she in the early stages of Scarborough Syndrome? Her derision did at least two things; it ingratiated her with the liberals she was sitting with and it helped the liberal cause.
Here is a Reuters news report on Eastwood's speech and the tweet that came out of the White House. Clearly, if MSNBC is an arm of the White House and the Eastwood speech got under the skin of Obama to such a degree, did S.E. Cupp decide to keep her job by deriding Eastwood instead of siding with conservatives? Ask yourselves when a liberal would ever ridicule someone on their side like Cupp did Eastwood. There are clearly far more instances in which they should have.
Paul Ryan's speech was full of fire, passion, and multiple instances in which he held Barack Obama for his record. He also made fun of the music on Mitt Romney's iPod (he likened it to elevator music). In short, much of what Sarah Palin brought to the convention in 2008, Ryan brought in 2012. That's the biggest reason the mainstream media socialists disapproved.
As we demonstrated with The Abedin “Affairs” with Al Saud, there is a movement afoot in the West that seeks to transform Muslim minority lands into Muslim majority lands. And while the Right points fingers at the left on an array of issues, we need to seriously examine this movement’s spigot—Saudi Arabia and the Royal family.
Prince Alwaleed bin Talal is a member of that family. He acquired 5.46% of Fox News Channel's parent Company - Newscorp. - in 2005. He is also its second largest shareholder. It was Fox News that provided a platform for perhaps the most stinging rebuke of Rep. Michele Bachmann's questions about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration in general, and Huma Abedin's background in particular. Edward Rollins - Bachmann's former campaign chief - denounced Bachmann with a piece entitled, "Shame on you, Michele" while Fox provided no counter-balance to speak of.
The Fox News website also reported the rebukes of Bachmann by John McCain and Republican House Speaker John Boehner, yet Bachmann's position was all but ignored.
So much for “Fair and Balanced”.
Alwaleed has purchased significant influence at major U.S. Universities and has contributed to CAIR. How does this all work? Well, it was explained by Al-Walid himself. In an article that appeared on Accuracy in Media's website, Diana West quoted from an interview the Saudi Prince granted to Arab News:
“Arab countries can influence U.S. decision-making ‘if they unite through economic interests, not political,’ (Alwaleed) stressed. ‘We have to be logical and understand that the U.S. administration is subject to U.S. public opinion. We (Arabs) are not so active in this sphere (public opinion). And to bring the decision-maker on your side, you not only have to be active inside the U.S. Congress or the administration but also inside U.S. society.’”
Even the very liberal, Soros-backed Think Progress, reported on bin Talal's influence over the Fox News Channel. In 2005, during riots in France (and two months after bin Talal acquired 5.46% of Newscorp.), the banner being run on Fox said, “Muslim riots.” Think Progress quoted bin Talal as saying the following:
“I picked up the phone and called Murdoch… (and told him) these are not Muslim riots, these are riots out of poverty. Within 30 minutes, the title was changed from Muslim riots to civil riots.”
In 2001, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly interviewed Sami al-Arian and aggressively pursued al-Arian when the latter seemed to implicate himself as being involved in terror fundraising. Al-Arian was eventually convicted and O'Reilly's efforts played a key role. It would be O'Reilly's high water mark on such matters.
In an exchange with bin Talal in 2011, Fox News host Neil Cavuto made the pecking order quite obvious when he referred to the Saudi Prince as “Your Highness”.
Then, in May of 2012, conservative host Sean Hannity welcomed none other than Ground Zero mosque imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf to his program to... promote his book. To his credit, Hannity was not as deferential as Cavuto was with bin Talal but he did provide Rauf with the platform to market his book.
Why?
The Democratic Party is lost and it has gladly welcomed Islamists so why are there Islamists with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood registering with the Republican Party? Part of the answer is that the Republican establishment is allowing them in. It is the Tea Party, which predominantly understands the Islamic threat that rejects Brotherhood elements.
Let us look at some examples.
NEZAR HAMZE
CAIR's Executive Director for South Florida is a man named Nezar Hamze. As such, Hamze is furthering the cause of CAIR's leadership. The group's national Executive Director and co-founder is Nihad Awad, a man who has expressed support for Hamas; he denounced the convictions of Islamic fundamentalists found guilty of the 1993 WTC bombing and did so while expressing a belief that the Mossad was behind that bombing. Prior to that Awad was the Public Relations Director for a Hamas front group. Incidentally, Hamas seeks the elimination of Israel.
Another CAIR co-founder - Omar Ahmad - was actually quoted by the San Ramon Valley Herald on July 4, 1998 as saying something that should be considered antithetical to both political Parties in the United States:
“Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran…should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”
If Hamze will not denounce the views of his group's leadership, he has no place in the Republican Party. Yet, Republican Party leadership will not denounce him.
MOIN "MOON" KHAN
When Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) made comments critical of CAIR and would not apologize, Moon Khan – a Muslim Republican who is a precinct committeeman and York Township board of trustees’ member – invited Walsh to his home for some 'dialogue' with some other members of the Muslim community. Walsh ultimately visited Khan's home and addressed more than 80 Muslims but did not apologize, though not for lack of trying on Khan's part.
SUHAIL KHAN
The son of Mahboob Khan, Suhail Khan, was born to a man who co-founded two Muslim Brotherhood groups in the United States – the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Muslim Students Association (MSA). Despite this undeniable truth, while at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in 2011, Suhail said on camera that, “there is no Muslim Brotherhood in the United States.” With that one sentence, Khan denied his father's work and obviously did so because he didn't want the truth about it revealed.
Besides founding two Muslim Brotherhood groups, Mahboob Khan was an anti-Semite who agreed with the primary goal of the Muslim Brotherhood in America – overthrow the United States from within. The elder Khan never hid his true colors. In fact, as Paul Sperry wrote in Front Page Magazine, his son Suhail pledged to carry on his “dear father's shining legacy”. Conversely, at CPAC, Suhail denied his father's work. Yet, of all the people the Republican Party goes out of its way to distance itself from, Suhail Khan gets a pass.
GROVER NORQUIST
Then we have Grover Norquist who is perhaps the most prominent Republican to avoid accountability for his Islamist ties. Norquist is founder of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), a conservative group formed at the behest of Ronald Reagan in 1985. Then, something happened circa 1998. Norquist began to be influenced by two men who would later be convicted on charges related to terrorism – Abdurahman Alamoudi and Sami Al-Arian. According to Center for Security Policy's Frank Gaffney, Alamoudi's deputy – Khaled Saffuri – co-founded an organization called the Islamic Free Market Institute (IFMI), with Norquist. In 2005, Gaffney reported that he made it known to Norquist that the ATR founder was consorting with Muslim leaders who had unseemly ties. Gaffney wrote at the time:
The idea that Norquist was unaware that he was aiding and abetting Islamists became untenable after I, among others, made known to him that his outreach effort was reaching out not to peaceable, tolerant, pro-American Muslims... but to those who are none of the above – i.e., adherents to an Islamofascist ideology and/or their sympathizers, financiers and apologists.
Less than two months after the 9/11 attacks, in a an article published by the New Republic, writer Franklin Foer wrote about how Saffuri, Norquist's co-founder at the Islamic Free Market Institute, began ushering Islamic leaders into the White House shortly after George W. Bush's inauguration nearly one year earlier with the help of none other than Suhail Khan, an administration advisor at the time whose job was to help with Muslim outreach.
Moreover, as recently as 2009, Khan was listed as a Board member of both Norquist's IFMI as well as CPAC's American Conservative Union (ACU).
In 2011, when much of the backgrounds of Khan and Norquist were available for public consumption, it was reported that Gaffney was the one who had been banned from CPAC while Khan and Norquist proudly attended.
The Republican Party's silence over such an egregious, two-pronged affront was not just deafening; it was a damning indictment of itself.
GEERT WILDERS
Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders launched his anti-Islam Party known as the Freedom Party (PVV) and has seen tremendous success. Formerly a member of the right wing, yet liberal VVD Party, Wilders broke away because VVD supported welcoming Turkey into the European Union (EU). With the passage of time, Wilders is vindicated on a near daily basis in that regard.
American politicians can learn much from Wilders' path. VVD's support for Turkey's ascension to the EU is indicative of Islamic influence on the Party. When Wilders formed the PVV Party, he eliminated that possibility by identifying his Party as being “anti-Islam”. In 2010, The Week reported that Wilders would be launching his Party in both the USA and the UK.
IN CONCLUSION...
As long as agents of the Muslim Brotherhood are able to successfully portray anyone who opposes them as racist, Islamophobic, or intolerant, Brotherhood apparatchiks will continue to make strides in much the same way that Nezar Hamze, Moon Khan, Suhail Khan, Grover Norquist, and Alwaleed bin Talal have made strides.
Conservatives will one day be faced with a decision. When that day comes, they will have to decide if the Republican Party can be sufficiently held accountable for identifying groups and individuals sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood. If it cannot, the birth of an anti-Islam, Tea Party will be in order.
Many of those who call us racist are anti-Semites, which makes them racist projectionists.
Walid Shoebat is a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood and author of For God or For Tyranny
Ben Barrack is a talk show host and author of the book, Unsung Davids
An Obama supporter has apparently posted a strategy for winning some southern states in the Bible belt and he's posted it to an Obama campaign website designed to create a nexus between the campaign itself and the voices on the ground. That strategy involves driving Christian voters away from Romney because of... wait for it... his Mormonism.
When the Obama campaign released its much-anticipated Dashboard platform last May, it was touted as a potentially revolutionary organizing tool that would connect supporters, and merge online activism with real-life grassroots campaigning.
It can also be used as a platform to launch whispering campaigns, as one user proved this week.
On Monday, a "team member" named Laurence De Palma, who lists his location as East Nashville, presented volunteers with some talking points to convince Southern Christian voters they shouldn't vote for a Mormon. The message was available under "Resources" and tagged "persuasion."
"I'm thinking that even though we don't LIKE campaigns to get nasty, we in the south (TN) come to EXPECT it," De Palma began. "What we also know is that we have a very 'rigid' view of Christianity, and apparently, Mormonism isn't anywhere in our views. This could easily win TN/SC/AL/GA, etc."
Though the post has since been taken down, Romney's campaign spokesman - Andrea Saul - has responded:
Romney campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul condemned the posting in an emailed statement: "The news concerning the Obama Campaign's dashboard containing language based on sowing religious division is deeply disturbing. There is no place in politics for this, and it must be addressed and put to an end."
There are several reasons why the liberal media wanted Mitt Romney to be the Republican nominee. The establishment wanted him (that usually bodes well for the Democrats); Romney is a moderate; Romneycare would help to neutralize the Obamacare debate; and Romney doesn't inspire the right-wing base, which leads to another reason.
Romney's religion. I've long believed that Mitt's Mormonism would be an issue for the left to exploit; we may just be getting closer to that reality. That's not to say that it hasn't been brought up; it has been.
Last month, James Carville said he thought Romney's religion was his biggest weakness. Last April, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said David Axelrod would attack Mormonism; MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell got quite aggressive against the Mormon religion while NBC's David Gregory did so in a much more subtle / pseudo-objective kinda way.
Also, let's not forget about when Donna Brazile inadvertently let it slip that Romney was the candidate the Democrats wanted to face. Michael A. Walsh, in a New York Post article, wrote about the incident at the time:
Lost in the weekend’s back-to-back debates in New Hampshire was this illuminating remark by Democratic strategist Donna Brazile after Saturday night’s soporific contest in Manchester: “Mitt Romney won tonight because no one touched him. And for Democrats, you know what? It was good news for us . . . because we believe that the weakest candidate is the candidate that the Republicans are not attacking. And that’s Mitt Romney.”
The remark drew guffaws from some of the other assembled party faithful and media commentators, but Brazile spoke the truth. Democrats do believe that Romney is eminently beatable, the perfect foil for President Obama, in fact.
Again, there are several reasons why the Democrats wanted to face Romney. The perceived ability to exploit his religion and drive evangelical voters away is one of them.
Do they really want to make this about religion considering Obama’s Jeremiah Wright past?
Considering that Romney has avoided hitting back at Obama with Fast and Furious after several obvious opportunities to do so. Obama campaign / Super PACs accused Romney of being too 'secretive', suggested he was a 'felon', and implied he murdered a woman. David Axelrod even compared him to Richard Nixon.
Fast and Furious was a gun-walking operation run in the shadows; the Justice Department stonewalled Congress for over a year (and continues to do so) - that's secretive. Fast and Furious was more than just a little felonious - putting guns in the hands of bad guys does qualify. As for murder, Fast and Furious is responsible for the murder of at least one U.S. Border Agent - Brian Terry - and hundreds of Mexican nationals. As for the Nixon comparison, Obama is the one who asserted executive privilege to prevent documents about Fast and Furious from being presented to Congress.
With all due respect to Zip, if Romney won't hit back at these blatantly projectionist attacks by the Obama administration with Fast and Furious, why would he respond to attacks on Mormonism by bringing up Jeremiah Wright?
Ah, there's another reason the Democrats wanted to face Romney.
Wish I would have caught this earlier but just noticed something about the 2007 Vogue feature article on Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton's closest advisor. Nearly two weeks ago, during a press conference at the National Press Club, Andrew McCarthy laid out his case for why the questions raised about Huma Abedin's background are legitimate. Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, wrote the following in his article about that case, which he distorted:
If Abedin is in fact a Muslim Brotherhood plant spreading sharia law in the United States, she’s using unorthodox methods: posing provocatively for a Vogue spread, then marrying and having the child of a Jewish congressman who sent out a photo of his genitals on Twitter. As Clinton’s personal aide, helping her boss with suits and handbags and logistics, she has not been in an ideal position to advance the alleged cause. Even McCarthy admits that she’s “not a policymaker.”
Then why go after her? It’s hard to escape the suspicion that it has something to do with the way she looks and how she worships.
McCarthy actually responded to Milbank's subtle screed by directing him to read the words of the Washington Post from one year earlier. Aside from violating a tenet of journalism by questioning McCarthy's motives (Chris Matthews' words), Milbank's reference to the Vogue article that featured Abedin, coupled with his subsequent assertion that Abedin is little more than a gopher for Hillary Clinton is inconsistent with the very Vogue piece he made reference to.
First of all, have a look at the cover page of the article:
hillary's secret weapon...
Huma Abedin: oversees every minute of Senator Clinton's day: Rebecca Johnson keeps pace with an indespensible insider.
Some relevant excerpts via Political Girl, which has posted the entire article:
“Both Hillary and Huma are extraordinary people who are also workaholics,” says Oscar de la Renta, who has often hosted the two at his house in the Dominican Republic. “The E-mailing! It never stops. I tell Hillary, ‘Just because you are working in the sun, that doesn’t make it a vacation.’ They are lucky to have found each other.”
“I don’t think you could say they are like mother and daughter. It’s more like an older sister-younger sister relationship, but it’s definitely familial,” according to a longtime Hillary friend, actress Mary Steenburgen.
“I’m not sure Hillary could walk out the door without Huma,” says Clinton adviser Mandy Grunwald. “She’s a little like Radar on M*A*S*H. If the air-conditioning is too cold, Huma is there with the shawl. She’s always thinking three steps ahead of Hillary.”
Abedin is remarkably cheerful about holding shawls-”There’s no detail too small for me,” she says-but there’s a lot more to her job than that. “Huma does make the trains run on time,” says Bob Barnett, the Clintons’ longtime personal lawyer, “and she does it well, which is important when you are as in demand as the senator is. But she also has an incredible ability to remember people and get things done. I’m always looking to her for her judgment and encyclopedic knowledge of what’s been said, where, and by whom.”
Among all of Abedin’s qualities, however, the most important may be the most ineffable-she says “no” better than anyone. “A lot of people who are in jobs with major public figures tend to get sour and exclusive over time,” says Barnett. “Huma is the opposite. She is always inclusive. She makes people feel good even when she’s saying no.” And there’s a lot of no when your boss is one of the most famous women on the planet, running for president.
Are we to believe that all of the e-mails have to do with the latest in handbags? When it comes to familial relationships, saying one exists between Huma and Hillary should be a little disconcerting when one considers the actual familial relationships of Mrs. Abedin. If Huma is like Radar, she knows quite a bit more about what's going on than Hillary does.
Those last two paragraphs would seem to indicate that Huma had tremendous sway over where the trains stopped, when Hillary got off, and whom she saw. Has any of that changed since 2007? Considering Huma's position, it would seem like another reason to know.
Along those lines, the following excerpt appears near the end of the article:
After hearing from so many people that Huma Abedin is the master of the velvet no, I finally got to experience it firsthand. Following Hillary’s breakfast in the Hilton ballroom, her traveling press person introduced me to the senator so I could get a quote about her employee. Just as I was about to ask, Abedin swooped in. “No, no, no,” she said, waving her hands. “She has to go.”
Clinton smiled and shrugged. “I go where I’m told,” she said.
Based on what is now known about the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA), we can now say with nearly complete certainty that the part of this stanza that refers to IMMA without naming it is false:
You can see why the First Lady wanted Abedin. Fluent in Arabic and a practicing Muslim born in Kalamazoo, Michigan, to a Pakistani mother and an Indian father, Abedin moved with her family to Saudi Arabia when she was two years old. There, her father, an Islamic scholar, founded an institute devoted to fostering religious understanding between the East and West. Her mother, a sociology professor, helped create one of the first private women’s colleges in the country. “I grew up in a very traditional family,” she says, “but there was never anything I didn’t think I could do.”
Of course, we now know that the institute is not devoted to fostering religious understanding between East and West; it is devoted to transforming lands and nations that currently consist of Muslim minorities into lands and nations that hold Muslim majorities.
