<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FrontPage Magazine &#187; testimony</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/tag/testimony/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 16:20:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>New Declassified Docs Expose Obama&#8217;s Benghazi Lies</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/new-declassified-docs-expose-obamas-benghazi-lies/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=new-declassified-docs-expose-obamas-benghazi-lies</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/new-declassified-docs-expose-obamas-benghazi-lies/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jan 2014 05:10:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arnold Ahlert]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attack]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Benghazi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hamm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[testimony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Video]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=215295</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What the president likely knew -- and when he knew it. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/benghazi.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-215299" alt="benghazi" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/benghazi-450x323.jpg" width="360" height="258" /></a>Newly declassified documents <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/13/benghazi-transcripts-top-defense-officials-briefed-obama-on-attack-not-video-or/">reveal</a> that high-ranking members of the Obama administration were aware that the September 11, 2012 assault on the American consulate in Benghazi was a &#8220;terrorist attack&#8221; <i>only minutes</i> after the battle began. In classified testimony given on June 26, 2013 to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, Gen. Carter Hamm, former head of the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) revealed he was the one who broke the news to former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. According to declassified testimony obtained by Fox News, Hamm testified that he learned about the attack only 15 minutes after it began at 9:42 p.m. Libya time. Thus, the administration&#8217;s carefully crafted narrative that the attack was based on a video has once again been revealed for the lie it always was.</p>
<p>&#8220;My first call was to General Dempsey, General Dempsey&#8217;s office, to say, &#8216;Hey, I am headed down the hall. I need to see him right away,&#8217;&#8221; the General told lawmakers. &#8220;I told him what I knew. We immediately walked upstairs to meet with Secretary Panetta.&#8221; Hamm characterized the ability to meet with both men so soon after the attack occurred as a fortunate &#8220;happenstance&#8221; because &#8220;they had the basic information as they headed across for the meeting at the White House.&#8221;</p>
<p>That meeting had been pre-scheduled with the president for 5 p.m. EST. A Defense Department (DOD) timeline notes that the meeting <a href="http://cnsnews.com/news/article/panetta-and-joint-chiefs-chair-obama-talked-them-only-once-night-benghazi-attack">occurred</a> one hour and 18 minutes after the attack began, and even as the battle at the consulate was ongoing. The DOD also revealed that an unarmed drone arrived over the battlefield during that time. As both men revealed in subsequent testimony, the meeting with the president lasted approximately 30 minutes &#8212; after which they never heard from anyone in the White House again.</p>
<p>Hamm revealed that he met with Panetta and Dempsey when they returned from that session.</p>
<p>Armed Services Chairman Howard &#8220;Buck&#8221; McKeon (R-CA) was the lawmaker who put Hamm on the spot regarding the administration&#8217;s video narrative. &#8220;In your discussions with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta, was there any mention of a demonstration, or was all discussion about an attack?&#8221; McKeon asked. Hamm characterized the discussion of a demonstration as &#8220;peripheral,&#8221; but noted that &#8220;at that initial meeting, we knew that a U.S. facility had been attacked and was under attack, and we knew at that point that we had two individuals, Ambassador Stevens and Mr. Smith, unaccounted for.&#8221;</p>
<p>Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-OH), an Iraq war veteran and Army reserve officer, pressed the General more forcefully on the nature of his conversation with Panetta and Dempsey. He expressed his concern &#8220;that someone in the military would be advising that this was a demonstration&#8221; rather than a terrorist attack. Hamm noted their was some &#8220;preliminary discussion&#8221; of the point, but emphasized that they were aware of what was really going on. &#8220;But I think at the command, I personally and I think the command very quickly got to the point that this was not a demonstration, this was a terrorist attack,&#8221; he testified. Hamm also reiterated that &#8220;with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta, that is the nature of the conversation we had, yes, sir.&#8221;</p>
<p>Hamm, Dempsey and Carter were not the only ones aware that a terrorist attack was occurring. The declassified transcripts show that key officers, along with several channels of command throughout the Pentagon and its combatants commands, were equally quick to label the assault a terrorist attack.</p>
<p>Wenstrup took the approach with Marine Corps Col. George Bristol, commander of AFRICOM&#8217;s Joint Special Operations Task Force for the Trans Sahara region, that he did with Dempsey. Bristol testified he was in Dakar, Senegal when the Joint Operations Center called to tell him about &#8220;a considerable event unfolding in Libya.&#8221; Bristol called Lt. Col. S.E. Gibson, an Army commander stationed in Tripoli, who informed Bristol that Ambassador Stevens was missing and &#8220;there was a fight going on&#8221; at the compound. &#8220;So no one from the military was ever advising, that you are aware of, that this was a demonstration gone out of control, it was always considered an attack on the United States?&#8221; Wenstrup asked Bristol. &#8220;Yes, sir. &#8230; We referred to it as the attack,&#8221; he replied.</p>
<p>When their investigations continue, staffers on the Armed Services subcommittee have indicated their desire to recall Panetta to ask him additional questions. &#8220;He is in the president&#8217;s Cabinet,&#8221; Rep. Martha Roby (R-AL), chair of the panel that collected the testimony, told Fox News. &#8220;The American people deserve the truth. They deserve to know what&#8217;s going on, and I honestly think that that&#8217;s why you have seen &#8212; beyond the tragedy that there was a loss of four Americans&#8217; lives &#8211; is that the American people feel misled.&#8221;</p>
<p>Kim R. Holmes, a former assistant secretary of state under President George W. Bush, echoed that assertion. &#8220;Leon Panetta should have spoken up,&#8221; he insisted. &#8220;The people at the Pentagon and frankly, the people at the CIA stood back while all of this was unfolding and allowed this narrative to go on longer than they should have.&#8221;</p>
<p>As of now, the retired Panetta has resisted requests for further testimony.</p>
<p>Preliminary conclusions reached by those same staffers regarding Panetta&#8217;s earlier testimony that a rescue operation would have been impossible, agreed with the former Secretary&#8217;s assessment. But those same documents <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/13/benghazi-transcripts-us-military-woefully-unprepared-for-attack-documents-show/">reveal</a> it was because America&#8217;s assets in the region were badly arrayed. And not just with regard to Benghazi, but other Middle East hotspots as well. Transcripts from top military commanders paint a woeful picture of gaps in the position of assets worldwide. Examples of unpreparedness include the reality that no aircraft were put on high alert for September 11, and that the closet F-35 fighter jets to Benghazi, stationed in Aviano, Italy were unarmed. Moreover, the closest mid-air re-fuelers were 10 hours away in Great Briatin.</p>
<p>Other assets, including AC-130 gunships were 10 hours from Libya, and a unit of 23 special operators that comprise part of a discretionary, &#8220;in-extremis&#8221; force, were training in Croatia. According to testimony, they didn&#8217;t even make it to a staging base in Sigonella, Italy until 19 hours after the attack began.</p>
<p>Rep. Martha Roby (R-AL), the Republican chairwoman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, addressed this disturbing reality. &#8220;It does not appear that U.S. military forces, units, aircrafts, drones, or specific personnel that could have been readily deployed in the course of the attack in Benghazi were unduly held back, or told to stand down, or refused permission to enter the fight,&#8221; she concluded. &#8220;Rather, we were so badly postured, they could not have made a difference or we were desperately needed elsewhere.&#8221;</p>
<p>The newly released documents also reveal that Gen. Hamm had been left out of the loop in White House-led discussions regarding military preparedness and force posture on the eve of Sept. 11. This revelation undercuts White House assurances that then-counterterrorism adviser John Brennan had &#8220;convened numerous meetings,&#8221; and the president and his national security principals discussed &#8220;steps taken to protect U.S. persons and facilities abroad.&#8221;</p>
<p>Perhaps they they did. But it remains unknown why the head of AFRICOM would not be include in those discussions.</p>
<p>Hamm insisted that no one told him to stand down, there simply weren&#8217;t assets available to counter the attack. He repeatedly argued that having an F-16 do a fly-over in  Benghazi wouldn&#8217;t have made any difference, despite that tactic being routinely employed to disperse enemy forces in Afghanistan.</p>
<p>AFRICOM and Pentagon officials insisted they were more worried about threats emanating from Tunisia, Egypt and Sudan on Sept. 11, 2012. &#8220;As I look back at the intelligence, I don&#8217;t see the indications of imminent attack in Benghazi,&#8221; Ham said. Yet Maj. Gen. Darryl Roberson, vice chief of operations on the Joint Staff in the Pentagon that night, seemingly confirmed the lack of military preparedness. &#8220;We were postured as appropriately as we can be and we thought we should be around the world. It wasn&#8217;t just in Africa, in North Africa, that we had issues. We had issues around the world.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;Appropriately postured&#8221;&#8211;but with &#8220;issues&#8221;?</p>
<p>Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) remained skeptical of Hamm&#8217;s assessment. &#8220;The extraction took an exceptionally long amount of time,&#8221; he noted. &#8220;I still don&#8217;t understand, with two men down by 10:00 p.m. local time and then another attack at 5:00 a.m. the next morning, how at 6:05 in the morning the Department of Defense prepares a C-17 to go down, and that doesn&#8217;t actually depart Germany until 2:15 p.m. and doesn&#8217;t return back to Germany until 10:19 p.m. I have flown with you from Germany to Libya. It is not that far a flight.&#8221;</p>
<p>Another infuriating fact revealed by the documents regards a FAST team of Marines in Rota, Spain. They were apparently forced to deplane and change out of their uniforms before flying to Libya. “When we got people down do you really have &#8212; do you really actually let somebody push the military around and say, well, you are in the wrong uniform,&#8221; Chaffetz asked in disbelief. &#8220;Is that really a reason to delay the FAST team coming in to protect Americans, that they are not wearing a t-shirt?&#8221;</p>
<p>Nothing should surprise anyone with regard to Benghazi anymore. Not the administration&#8217;s wholesale lying about a video. Not the callousness of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who wondered <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka0_nz53CcM">aloud</a> in congressional testimony, &#8220;what difference at this point does it make?&#8221; regarding the how and why of the attack. Not the equal amount of callousness demonstrated by a president who handed off responsibility for the operations to Panetta and Dempsey, and promptly disappeared, even as he showed up at a Las Vegas fundraiser the next day with his oft-repeated campaign slogan that was also a lie: &#8220;A day after 9/11, we are reminded that a new tower rises above the New York skyline, but al Qaeda is on the path to defeat and bin Laden is dead,” Obama told the audience.</p>
<p>That would be the same al Qaeda that,<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/07/opinion/bergen-al-qaeda-terrority-gains/index.html#disqus_thread"> according</a> to CNN, &#8220;appears to control more territory in the Arab world than it has done at any time in its history.&#8221;</p>
<p>The can be no doubt any longer what the president knew and when he knew it. On September 11, 2012 four Americans were killed in a terrorist attack. The president was aware of that reality shortly after 5 p.m. EST, even as a drone flew over the battlefield relaying video in real time. And despite all the lying, and incompetence, not a single person has been fired or held accountable, nor has even one member of the media asked the president where he was between the time he left Panetta and Dempsey, and boarded a plan for the fundraiser in Las Vegas.</p>
<p>Last Sunday, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates may have inadvertently <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/12/gates-chides-obama-over-absence-passion-contrasts-with-bush-style/">given</a> America some insight in that regard. He was describing Obama with regard to Afghanistan. &#8220;As I write in the book, it was this absence of passion, this absence of a conviction of the importance of success that disturbed me,&#8221; Gates said.</p>
<p>Americans might ask themselves whether that lack of compassion and absence of conviction extended to Benghazi.</p>
<p>Or perhaps former Carter campaign worker Pat Caddell <a href="http://www.aim.org/video/pat-caddell-the-audacity-of-corruption/">had it right</a> at an Accuracy in Media conference in June of 2012, when he lambasted the media and their unrelenting efforts to cover for Obama. &#8220;If a President of either party—I don’t care whether it was Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton or George Bush or Ronald Reagan or George H. W. Bush—had a terrorist incident, and got on an airplane after saying something, and flown off to a fundraiser in Las Vegas, they would have been crucified!&#8221; he declared.</p>
<p>Perhaps that time is coming.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/new-declassified-docs-expose-obamas-benghazi-lies/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>60</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Kerry&#8217;s Iranian Appeasement Pitch to Congress</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/majid-rafizadeh/kerrys-iranian-appeasement-pitch-to-congress/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=kerrys-iranian-appeasement-pitch-to-congress</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/majid-rafizadeh/kerrys-iranian-appeasement-pitch-to-congress/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Dec 2013 05:25:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Majid Rafizadeh]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kerry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sanctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[testimony]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=213104</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Will lawmakers have the fortitude to go through with necessary sanctions? ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/8983EC15-C321-41E5-AC3F-F2FFAAF51433_mw1024_n_s.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-213105" alt="8983EC15-C321-41E5-AC3F-F2FFAAF51433_mw1024_n_s" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/8983EC15-C321-41E5-AC3F-F2FFAAF51433_mw1024_n_s-450x300.jpg" width="315" height="210" /></a>Bipartisan legislation written by two U.S. senators— the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Robert Menendez and Republican Senator Mark Kirk— is asking for alternatives if the Islamist Ayatollahs in Iran do not abide by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and international community rules and standards.</p>
<p>Congress is preparing a piece of legislation to impose new sanctions on Iran in six months, if the provisional and interim nuclear deal on the Islamic Republic&#8217;s nuclear program does not lead to a comprehensive and final accord (and if it goes nowhere like all the previous nuclear deals reached in the past decade).</p>
<p>The details of the legislation, crafted by Menendez and Kirk, suggest that the sanctions would target Iran&#8217;s remaining oil exports, strategic industries, as well as foreign exchange reserves. A senior Republican Senate aide told Reuters, speaking on the condition of anonymity, that this bipartisan legislation is &#8220;an insurance policy to protect against Iranian deception.&#8221;</p>
<p>On the other hand, the Obama administration is focused on fixing the domestic economy, creating jobs and addressing unemployment, and has been recently spending most of its political capital in Congress to warn the legislative body to not pressure the Islamic Republic of Iran and the ruling Ayatollah.  After the Obama administration scored a victory (from their perspective) in pushing the international community to ease pressure on Iran and to reach an agreement, President Obama has shifted his current efforts toward Congress, to prevent further sanctions on the Islamist ruling leaders in Iran.</p>
<p>Secretary of State John Kerry is on a promotional tour in Congress, attempting to drum up support for the provisional and interim nuclear agreement that was recently reached with Iran.</p>
<p>Testifying before the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives on Tuesday, Kerry has spent a lot of political capital to remove fear about Iran as a threat or that Iran would become a nuclear power.</p>
<p>&#8220;We are asking you to give our negotiators and our experts the time and the space to do their jobs and that includes asking you while we negotiate that you hold off imposing new sanctions,&#8221; Kerry said.</p>
<p>However, it is crucial to point out that the same reasoning and process led to North Korea becoming a nuclear-armed state. In addition, Iran has been given almost two decades of time.</p>
<p>Although Republicans and Democrats (on the House Foreign Affairs Committee) alike are not persuaded by the policies that the Obama administration is carrying towards the Ayatollahs— and because of the president’s secret talks with the Mullahs— the administration is pushing hard to stop any bipartisan sanction bill on Iran from passing Congress’s floor.</p>
<p>Republican Committee Chairman Ed Royce, had a very astute observation and informative question for Kerry: “I am hard pressed to understand why we would be letting up sanctions pressure at the very time its economy is on the ropes without getting an agreement which stops its centrifuges from spinning.”</p>
<p>This question is fundamental to the issue in that it is very puzzling that although the international pressures and sanctions have pushed the Mullahs to a level that they would accept any deal, the Obama administration is not asking the Iranian regime to halt its nuclear program or to even roll it back. Instead, President Obama, has issued an executive order to release billions of dollars back to the Islamist Ayatollah, based on the recent nuclear deal.</p>
<p>The Obama administration has been successful at pursuing the Senate Banking Committee to hold off on passing a new Iran sanctions bill. Democratic Senator Tim Johnson said in a statement on Tuesday, &#8220;The president and Secretary Kerry have made a strong case for a pause in Congressional action on new <a href="http://www.reuters.com/places/iran?lc=int_mb_1001">Iran</a> sanctions, so I am inclined to support their request and hold off on committee action for now.&#8221;</p>
<p>The first issue is that there is a distinct bipartisan agreement and suspicion on the Obama administration’s foreign policies toward the Islamists and Ayatollahs, their nuclear program, their heavy-water reactor, plutonium processing, and their nuclear sites in various underground locations in Iran. Both Democrats and Republicans are puzzled as to why the Obama administration is pushing for more leeway for the Iranian Islamist Mullahs at these critical moments, when Iran is just a short technical step away from militarizing its nuclear industry.</p>
<p>The second critical issue is the enigma over President Obama’s eagerness to halt any sanctions on Iran. Politically speaking, if Congress passes further sanctions, the Obama administration can use that as strong leverage against the Ayatollahs, particularly for the next round of talks and for making a permanent and final deal. But, why would President Obama not want this formidable leverage? Even Eliot Engel, the top Democrat on the House panel, told Kerry that he thought that the Obama administration would have more leverage if more sanctions were allowed to pass. He pointed out, &#8220;I think it could potentially strengthen your hand with a good cop, bad cop scenario.&#8221;</p>
<p>Finally, and more fundamentally, while the unemployment rate is high and economy is not showing any signs of improvement, President Obama is spending most of his political capital in Congress fighting to avoid new sanctions on the Iran and the Ayatollhahs. The question remains whether this is, in fact, the primary concern of President Obama rather than focusing on the domestic economy, the destiny of millions of American youth and unemployment.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/majid-rafizadeh/kerrys-iranian-appeasement-pitch-to-congress/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>ObamaCare&#8217;s Date with Destiny Approaches</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/obamacares-date-with-destiny-approaches/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=obamacares-date-with-destiny-approaches</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/obamacares-date-with-destiny-approaches/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Dec 2013 05:55:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arnold Ahlert]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obamacare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[premium]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sebelius]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[testimony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[website]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=213031</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Is America being set up for a bailout of the insurance companies? ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/health-overhaul-problemsjpeg-060d8_s640x384.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-213050" alt="health-overhaul-problemsjpeg-060d8_s640x384" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/health-overhaul-problemsjpeg-060d8_s640x384-441x350.jpg" width="309" height="245" /></a>Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who remains as determined as ever to substitute Obama administration talking points for the truth, gave it her best effort in yesterday’s session before a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee. It was an underwhelming performance at best. As key dates approach and more facts about the government overhaul of the health care system emerge, it is becoming apparent that the ObamaCare scheme is headed for structural disaster &#8212; and will take tens of millions of Americans with it.</p>
<p>In her testimony, Sebelius was quick to <a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/kathleen-sebelius-admits-obamacare-sign-ups-still-3-million-short-of-goal/article/2540551">tout</a> the new and improved website. “As more Americans give <a href="http://healthcare.gov/">healthcare.gov</a> a second look, they&#8217;re finding the experience is night and day compared to where we were back in October,” she said in her opening statement. “And they&#8217;re responding by shopping for plans and enrolling in greater numbers.” She boasted that the improvements resulted in 258,497 Americans &#8220;signing up&#8221; through the end of November, bringing the two month total to 365,000.</p>
<p>Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) was the <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/sebelius-yes-obamacare-enrollment-short-3-million_770743.html">first</a> to let some air out of Sebelius&#8217;s balloon. &#8220;The AP reported that a September 5 memo sent to you listed monthly enrollment targets for the exchanges, and this memo indicated that your target enrollment number for the end of December is 3.3 million. Based on HHS&#8217;s release this morning, your department is more than 3 million off their target number, isn&#8217;t that correct?&#8221; he asked. &#8220;Through the end of November, that is correct, sir,&#8221; Sebelius responded.</p>
<p>Pitt also pressed Sebelius on the president&#8217;s repeated claim that the average American family would save over $2,000 on their premiums, asking her if that statement was misleading. &#8220;I think the president talked about health care costs going down for Americans,&#8221; she responded evasively.</p>
<p>Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) took Sebelius’s boasting down another notch, noting that the regulations imposed by the new healthcare bill have already resulted in as many as 5 million Americans getting their plans cancelled. Thus, even if one assumes the administration&#8217;s best-case scenario in terms of achievement, “millions more Americans would have lost coverage than gained it in the first months of the rollout,” he said.</p>
<p>It is far worse than that. Of the approximately 1.2 million Americans who have gained healthcare coverage so far, 803,000 have been determined to be eligible for Medicaid. In other words, those enrolled in &#8220;free&#8221; government-run healthcare account for two out of every three signups.</p>
<p>Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) hammered Sebelius regarding that reality, noting that the expansion of Medicaid &#8220;is going to kill the states.&#8221; He also grew enormously <a href="http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/shimkus-sebelius-it-s-talking-republic-korea">frustrated</a> by Sebelius&#8217;s refusal to admit that ObamaCare is making premiums spike. &#8220;It’s like talking to the Republic of Korea or something,” he fumed.</p>
<p>Despite Sebelius&#8217;s obstinacy, premium spikes are almost inevitable, and not just because the law mandates unnecessary coverage for some Americans, in order to subsidize coverage for other Americans. For the law to operate effectively, 7 million Americans must enroll by the March 31 deadline for coverage in 2014. But not just any 7 million Americans. According to Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for America&#8217;s Health Insurance Plans, the association that represents U.S. health insurers, at least <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/10/25/240798427/for-obamacare-to-work-its-not-just-about-the-numbers">40 percent</a> of those enrollees must be young and healthy. &#8220;Because if only people who are older and have high health care costs decide to purchase coverage now, that&#8217;s going to mean that <i>next</i> year, when open enrollment comes around again, premiums may be significantly higher than we see today,&#8221; he explained.</p>
<p>&#8220;Purchase&#8221; is a key word, and once again at yesterday&#8217;s hearing the HHS Secretary was forced to <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/11/health-secretary-sebelius-healthcare-hearing-live">admit</a> the administration&#8217;s totals are for those who have <i>chosen</i> a plan, but have not yet paid their premium. Sebelius stated that actual payments are not due until mid-December. &#8220;Most Americans will not pay until the money is owed,&#8221; she explained.</p>
<p>That is somewhat inaccurate, and perhaps wildly optimistic. With regard to accuracy, payment deadlines vary both by state and by insurer. Yet those who wish coverage to begin on January 1, 2014 must pay the first month&#8217;s premium on time. As for optimism, according to consultants and some insurers, it&#8217;s been <a href="http://www.propublica.org/article/payment-due-the-obamacare-deadline-no-one-is-talking-about">slow going</a> with regard to actual payments. Industry consultant Robert Laszewski reveals that one client reports only 15 percent &#8220;have paid so far.&#8221; Consultant Kip Piper notes that he&#8217;s hearing from health plans where only 5 to 10 percent of consumers are &#8220;truly enrolled.” Piper expects less than 50 percent will pay on time for coverage in January, rising to three-in-four by February or March.</p>
<p>Which brings us to the next potential ObamaCare land mine few Americans know about. If consumers pay their first month&#8217;s premium, but <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/365642/obamacare-dumps-unpaid-bills-providers-michelle-malkin">fail</a> to continue paying, their insurer cannot drop them for 90 days. Yet the insurer is only responsible for making payments during the first 30 days of that grace period. After that, it is up to the enrollee to make payment to healthcare providers for services rendered. If they don&#8217;t (and why would they, if they&#8217;re not paying their premiums) it’s up to the providers to collect.</p>
<p>The system is ripe for fraud as well. People can pay nine months of premiums for 12 months of healthcare, and when they are dropped, simply sign up for another plan&#8211;since they cannot be denied, due to the guaranteed-issue mandate contained in ObamaCare.</p>
<p>As Bloomberg News reported in October, many providers are already demanding upfront payments based on an individual&#8217;s deductible. If enough of them take a beating via the aforementioned scenario, they could end up demanding upfront payments for non-emergency services <i>period.</i></p>
<p>Sebelius was also pressed on the delays unilaterally imposed by the president on the business mandate part of the bill and the online small-business exchange. “What new delays will be coming on Christmas Eve and New Year&#8217;s?” asked Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), seemingly sarcastically. Sebelius didn&#8217;t take it that way, failing to rule out further delays. “We&#8217;re working with insurers to make sure there is a smooth transition in the new year.”</p>
<p>Make that the beginning of the new year. By the end of the year, experts <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/26/evidence-shows-obama-administration-predicted-tens-millions-would-lose-plans/">predict</a> a tsunami of policy cancellations affecting 80-100 million Americans who get employer-sponsored insurance. And despite the Obama administration’s efforts to push the <i>implementation</i> of the business mandate beyond the 2014 elections, policy holders will be <i>notified</i> of those impending cancellations earlier than that. Considering the amount of public consternation engendered by five million policy cancellations, 16 to 20 times that number is likely to ignite an unprecedented firestorm&#8211;unless the date is delayed yet again.</p>
<p>Unsurprisingly, Democrats rose to Sebelius&#8217;s defense. Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-CA) insisted it &#8220;absolutely cannot be true, and is not true&#8221; that more people would lose insurance under ObamaCare than gain it. Rep. John Dingell (DMI) read letters from constituents and posed a series of yes/no questions to Sebelius, allowing the Secretary to tout the improvements of the website. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) continued in that vein, before heaping praise on Sebelius. &#8220;Madame Secretary, let me tell you, I am absolutely confident that the role you have played in bringing health care to millions, tens of millions Americans, will go down in history,” she gushed.</p>
<p>Yet while anecdotal evidence may have comforted Democrats, Republicans remained unsatisfied. Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) focused on last month&#8217;s testimony by CMS officer Henry Chao, who revealed that the back end of the website, which processes insurance payments, had yet to be built. Sebelius claimed she didn&#8217;t know what Chao was talking about, and that the payment process was working. What isn&#8217;t working yet is the reconciliation process between the government and insurance companies regarding subsidies, she contended.</p>
<p>That is hardly good news. It is those subsidies that are supposed to help insurance companies <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/12/03/ObamaCare-chaos-in-the-doctor-s-office-next-year">defray</a> the costs of implementing ObamaCare. Without them, many of those companies could go out of business.</p>
<p>Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) wasn&#8217;t buying Sebelius&#8217;s contention that all was well with regard to the payment process either. He told the Secretary he was unable to make a payment at <a href="http://healthcare.gov/">healthcare.gov</a>, further noting that &#8220;it&#8217;s almost impossible&#8221; to do so.  He remains concerned that people who sign up for ObamaCare won&#8217;t be able to complete the transaction, and won&#8217;t get insurance.</p>
<p>Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY) speculated that America was headed for exactly the same kind of two-tiered healthcare system separating the wealthy from everyone else. &#8220;That&#8217;s what&#8217;s happened in other countries where laws like this are passed,&#8221; he warned.</p>
<p>All of the above, including anemic enrollment numbers for private insurance while Medicaid signups explode; premium price increases necessitated by unnecessary coverage; the undue burden places on providers and insurance companies to collect payments and subsidies, respectively; fraud; and the reality that millions of additional American will see policy cancellations, threaten complete chaos. Chaos that could lead to a massive taxpayer-funded <a href="http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/120513-681900-two-thirds-oppose-obamacare-insurance-industry-bailout.htm">bailout</a> to keep insurance companies afloat, that is <i>already</i> <i>built into the law.</i> If it gets to the point where the federal government owns insurance companies, just like they owned GM, it will be ObamaCare for the masses and healthcare &#8220;memberships&#8221; for the privileged few.</p>
<p>In other words, Americans are going to have to experience <i>every one</i> of the unforeseen and &#8220;unintended&#8221; consequences of ObamaCare before they find out what&#8217;s <i>really</i> &#8220;in it.&#8221; The next date with destiny is January 1, when a substantial number of Americans will either be pleased they have coverage, or shocked to discover they don&#8217;t&#8211;even if they paid for it. That&#8217;s reality. And nothing said by Sebelius, any other member of the Obama administration, or any Democrat can change it.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/obamacares-date-with-destiny-approaches/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>64</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sebelius&#8217;s Big Day of Big Lies</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/sebeliuss-big-day-of-big-lies/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=sebeliuss-big-day-of-big-lies</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/sebeliuss-big-day-of-big-lies/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Oct 2013 04:50:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arnold Ahlert]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cancelation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lie]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obamacare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[testimony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[website]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=209139</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[President Obama was never dishonest with the American people? ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/kathleen-sebelius-to-congress-whatever.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-209154" alt="kathleen-sebelius-to-congress-whatever" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/kathleen-sebelius-to-congress-whatever-450x337.jpg" width="270" height="202" /></a>Those Americans who watched Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius&#8217;s testimony yesterday before the House Energy and Commerce Committee might be forgiven for thinking they were in an alternate universe. Despite her assertion that Americans <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/10/30/sebelius-health-care-house-hearing/3308771/">should</a> &#8220;hold me accountable&#8221; for the ongoing debacle, Sebelius later claimed she was never warned by anyone that the scheduled roll out of the <a href="http://Healthcare.gov/">Healthcare.gov</a> website would be the disaster it turned out to be. Furthermore, she stood by the assertion that the president has been &#8220;keeping his promise&#8221; with regard to the idea that Americans who liked their insurance policies could keep them. Fittingly, <a href="http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/10/30/sebelius-on-whether-obama-is-responsible-for-obamacare-whatever-n1733368">during</a> the entire three and a half hours the Secretary testified, the <a href="http://Healthcare.gov/">Healthcare.gov</a> website was down.</p>
<p>Sebelius&#8217;s contention that she was not warned of the problems with the website is a lie. CNN <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/29/politics/obamacare-warning/index.html">reveals</a> they obtained a confidential report showing that while website creator CGI executives were publicly testifying about achieving milestones, they warned the administration a month before the launch that there were &#8220;a number of open risks and issues&#8221; associated with the website.</p>
<p>Undoubtedly, Americans are far more interested in the far bigger lie perpetrated by this administration, highlighted by the <a href="http://www.examiner.com/article/sebelius-denies-obama-broke-promise-that-americans-can-keep-current-insurance">exchange</a> between Sebelius and Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN). “Before, during and after the law was passed the president kept saying if you like your health care plan, you can keep it, so is he keeping his promise?” asked Blackburn. “Yes, he is,” Sebelius replied. When Blackburn noted the reality that 300,000 people in Florida and 28,000 in Tennessee had their policies terminated, Sebelius contended that &#8220;they can get health insurance.&#8221;</p>
<p>The president didn’t promise people they could <i>get</i> health insurance. &#8220;No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you&#8217;ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what,&#8221; Obama <a href="http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/2013/10/30/gop_says_obama_broke_health_care.htm">said</a> in remarks made to the American Medical Association in 2009.</p>
<p>In 2010, after the law&#8217;s enactment, Obama <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/30/obamas-pledge-that-no-one-will-take-away-your-health-plan/?hpid=z1">made</a> the same promise. “And if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. No one will be able to take that away from you. It hasn’t happened yet. It won’t happen in the future.” he said.</p>
<p>Nothing <a href="http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-admin-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite">changed</a> in 2012. “If [you] already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance,” reiterated Obama.</p>
<p>On Tuesday, it was Press Secretary Jay Carney&#8217;s turn when he <a href="http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/29/21237370-white-house-president-didnt-mislead-on-insurance-promise">claimed</a> the president &#8220;was clear about a basic fact. If you had insurance that you liked on the individual market, and you wanted to keep that insurance…you could,” he contended. The <a href="http://Whitehouse.gov/">Whitehouse.gov</a> website made the <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/healthreform/healthcare-overview">same</a> assertion as recently as <i>yesterday.</i> &#8220;If you like your plan you can keep it and you don’t have to change a thing due to the health care law.&#8221;</p>
<p>As NBC News <a href="http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-admin-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite">reports,</a> the Obama administration knew as early as 2010 that assertion was a lie. Despite promising that some insurance policies in non-compliance with the current law would be &#8220;grandfathered&#8221; into the bill, the Department of Health and Human Services tightened the provisions for that grandfathering three months <i>after</i> the bill&#8217;s passage. If any part of a policy was significantly changed, such as a deductible or copay, it no longer qualified for grandfather status.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/30/obamas-pledge-that-no-one-will-take-away-your-health-plan/?hpid=z1">According</a> to the <i>Washington Post</i>, &#8220;significant&#8221; meant as little as a $5.00 change in one&#8217;s copay, &#8220;plus the medical cost of inflation&#8221; (which would have been $5.20 based on last year&#8217;s inflation rate of 4 percent), or <i>any</i> increase in the coinsurance rate above what it was when the law went into effect on March 23, 2010. Moreover, in the bill itself, there was a statement noting that the normal turnover in the insurance market would cause “40 to 67 percent” of customers to lose their policies.</p>
<p>Despite this reality, Sebelius essentially <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/30/politics/obamacare-sebelius/">testified</a> the American public was not only aware of these technical changes, but that they represented a &#8220;wide corridor&#8221; allowing Americans to keep their existing policies. Thus, contended Sebelius, the president was being truthful.</p>
<p>The <i>Post</i> inadvertently reveals the utter absurdity of that contention, noting that those technical changes Sebelius cites are contained in Vol. 75 of the <a href="https://webapps.dol.gov/federalregister/PdfDisplay.aspx?DocId=23967">Federal Register</a>, dated June 17, 2010, three months after the bill was passed, and the regulations themselves are listed on pages <i>34,560 through 34,562.</i></p>
<p>At a later point in her testimony, Sebelius contradicted herself, conceding that Americans remain largely uninformed about the healthcare bill, heartily <a href="http://cnsnews.com/news/article/melanie-hunter/congressman-obamacare-can-save-me-money-subsidizing-my-33-yr-old-son">agreeing</a> with Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA) that a &#8220;real marketing campaign&#8221; was necessary to make sure Americans, especially the young who must sign up to keep the system viable, get better informed about the healthcare website.</p>
<p>Doyle was at least affable. Most of his Democratic colleagues were far more interested in praising and protecting Sebelius, as well as castigating Republicans, than getting answers about the problems plaguing the roll out of the program. Republicans were alternately accused of &#8220;sabotaging the bill,&#8221; &#8220;rooting for failure,&#8221; and being on &#8220;the wrong side of history.&#8221; Democrats further extolled the virtues of ObamaCare, and the great benefits it was providing to millions of Americans, even as Sebelius steadfastly refused to release any figures regarding the number of people who have actually signed up for insurance. When asked if the administration would lift a gag order and allow insurance companies to provide those numbers to the public, Sebelius said no.</p>
<p>One of the more pointed <a href="http://freedomslighthouse.net/2013/10/30/gop-rep-mike-rogers-during-sebelius-testimony-obamacare-website-not-secure-will-you-shut-down-the-system-for-end-to-end-security-tests-video-103013/">exchanges</a> occurred between Sebelius and Rep. Mike Rodgers (R-MI). Addressing security issues with the website, Rodgers got Sebelius to admit that she did not know whether or not each code fix being added to the website was tested for security. Sebelius insisted that security is &#8220;an ongoing operation,&#8221; yet when Rodgers asked if the system had been tested &#8220;end to end,&#8221; Sebelius didn&#8217;t know the answer.</p>
<p>Rodgers did. He had documentation stating that the website would be rolled out despite the fact that security was only partially completed and that &#8220;this constitutes a risk that must be accepted before the marketplace day one operations.&#8221; Rodgers was incensed. &#8220;You accepted a risk on behalf of every user of this computer that put their personal financial information at risk, because you did not have even the most basic end-to-end test on the security of this system,&#8221; he said. When Rodgers asked if Sebelius would commit to shutting down the system until an end-to-end test of security was conducted she declined, and insisted that ongoing testing is underway. In other words, no end-to-end test has been conducted, and Americans’ confidential information remains at risk &#8212; all of which is apparently fine with Sebelius.</p>
<p>Perhaps it is fine because Sebelius has her own healthcare plan, a point <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/30/sebelius-rejects-enrolling-obamacare-exchanges/">emphasized</a> by Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO). He told Sebelius that he had rejected the Cadillac coverage offered Congress, and enrolled in a plan in the individual market, only to discover that plan was being discontinued due to ObamaCare. He asked the Secretary why she hadn&#8217;t subjected herself to a similar experience, drawing the only applause during the entire hearing. Sebelius claimed she wasn&#8217;t eligible, because she was covered by her employer.</p>
<p>The <i>Washington Post</i> <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/30/sebelius-said-it-would-be-illegal-for-her-to-buy-obamacare-thats-not-quite-right/">discovered</a> that Sebelius was wrong. She could get coverage, but it wouldn&#8217;t be as good as the deal as she gets now. After further challenges by other Republicans, Sebelius <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/kathleen-sebelius-hot-mic-dont-do-this-to-me-obamacare-testimony-2013-10">contended</a> she would “gladly join the exchange” if she didn’t already have her federal plan.</p>
<p>In other words, she can, but she won&#8217;t.</p>
<p>With help from Democrats, the Secretary repeatedly extolled the virtues of ObamaCare, noting that even those who are losing their current insurance will be getting a better, more comprehensive product instead. That has been the fallback answer for this administration, even as it has been revealed that <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57609737/obamacare-more-than-2-million-people-getting-booted-from-existing-health-insurance-plans/">more</a> than two million Americans are losing their current healthcare plans, a total more than <i>triple</i> the number signing up for ObamaCare. &#8220;What we&#8217;re seeing now is reality coming into play,&#8221; said industry expert Larry Levitt, of the Kaiser Family Foundation. Many Americans are unaware that this is occurring because ObamaCare mandates 10 minimum standards, whether Americans need a particular kind of coverage or not.</p>
<p>Representative Renee Ellmers (R-NC) <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/362627/gop-rep-asks-sebelius-why-single-men-need-maternity-coverage-andrew-johnson">drove</a> that point home at the hearing, noting that some single men have to have maternity coverage included in their policy. Sebelius stated that this was necessary because &#8220;an insurance policy has a series of benefits whether you use them or not.&#8221; Thus, those buying insurance must pay for coverage they will never use, so other people can have coverage. In other words, in addition to taxpayer subsidies included in ObamaCare, those buying insurance are also subsidizing other insurance purchasers.</p>
<p>During the course of the hearing, Sebelius promised the website would be completely operational by November 30, but admitted there are no fallback options for those who have lost their insurance, even if they are unable to sign up for a new policy before their current one runs out.</p>
<p>As far as Sebelius taking responsibility for the current failure of the website, one should remember a similar statement was made by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with regard to Benghazi. Clinton&#8217;s acceptance of responsibility amounted to exactly nothing. Since Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest <a href="http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/10/30/obama-complete-confidence-sebelius/">announced</a> late yesterday afternoon that the &#8220;President has complete confidence in Secretary Sebelius,&#8221; she is likely to &#8220;suffer&#8221; the same fate.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, as is always the case with this administration and their media sycophants, the real action on healthcare is occurring largely under the radar. While Americans are having difficulty keeping old policies or buying new ones, Medicaid enrollment&#8211;as in enrollment in a single payer government run healthcare program&#8211;is <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505267_162-57609254/medicaid-enrollment-spike-a-threat-to-obamacare-structure/">exploding</a>. The numbers are stark. In Washington, 87 percent of the more than 35,000 people newly enrolled in the healthcare system signed up for Medicaid. In Kentucky, it was 82 percent of 26,000 new enrollments, and New York, Medicaid accounts for 64 percent of that state’s 37,000 new enrollments. &#8220;Medicaid experts say they&#8217;re not sure why they&#8217;re seeing the lopsided enrollment numbers, but point out it&#8217;s easier to enroll in Medicaid than private insurance,&#8221; reports CBS, apparently oblivious to obvious correlation.</p>
<p>What some Americans are <i>not</i> oblivious to is the threat this represents. &#8220;Either the private insurance enrollments come up somewhere around the expected amount or there&#8217;s going to be a problem. &#8230; You need a volume and you need a mix of people that are healthy as well as high users in private insurance, in order to have it be sustainable,&#8221; said Gail Wilensky, a former Medicaid director.</p>
<p>What Americans need to ask themselves is this: is the chaos surrounding the implementation of the healthcare bill, coupled with the explosion of Medicaid enrollments enabled by the same bill, happening by accident or design? “My commitment is to make sure that we’ve got universal health care for all Americans by the end of my first term as President,&#8221; <a href="http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/time-choosing/2013/oct/25/obama-has-failed-designing-system-was-intended-fai/">said</a> Barack Obama in 2007, at an SEIU union Healthcare Forum. Obama envisioned a 10 to 15 year rollout, and some critics contend the current ineptitude is happening too fast for Americans to swallow a wholesale transition to single-payer government run healthcare.</p>
<p>Yet millions of people losing healthcare coverage, with dim prospects of finding affordable alternatives at this moment in time, could conceivably alter that equation. If there is one thing the massive expansion of the welfare state has proven, it is the reality that a record-breaking number of Americans are willing to be subsidized by their fellow Americans. Furthermore, demonizing private insurance companies that many Americans already hold in contempt, to the point where they would be driven into bankruptcy, is certainly not unimaginable. The president did his part yesterday <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/10/30/obama-blames-bad-apple-insurers-for-canceled-insurance-plans/">blaming</a> “bad apple” insurance companies for canceling plans.</p>
<p>Unfortunately for Americans, the demonization may amount to little more than piling on: there is a good possibility the quality of current enrollment is already producing a death spiral in the industry.</p>
<p>The Obama administration has promised to reveal the number of enrollees in the new system the middle of next month. It could be one of the more historic announcements in recent history, as Americans will likely discover just how much of Barack Obama&#8217;s promise to &#8220;fundamentally transform the United States of America&#8221; has been realized. In the meantime, Sebelius and company will ostensibly be trying to &#8220;fix&#8221; the current system. The fix as they say, may already be in.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/sebeliuss-big-day-of-big-lies/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>27</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>IRS Scandal: One Step Removed From the White House</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/irs-scandal-one-step-removed-from-the-white-house/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=irs-scandal-one-step-removed-from-the-white-house</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/irs-scandal-one-step-removed-from-the-white-house/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Jul 2013 04:20:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arnold Ahlert]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[harassment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hull]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IRS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scandal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[targeting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[testimony]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=197838</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The administration's story goes down in flames. Who will be next to fall? ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/14obama-videoLarge.jpg"><img class=" wp-image-197857 alignleft" alt="14obama-videoLarge" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/14obama-videoLarge-429x350.jpg" width="300" height="245" /></a>Last week, while much of the nation&#8217;s attention was turned toward the Zimmerman verdict and the antics of the racial grievance industry, the IRS scandal got far more intense. According to top IRS lawyer <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2013/07/17/irs-chief-counsel-involved-in-targeting-controversy/">Carter Hull</a>, the Chief Counsel&#8217;s office of the IRS, headed by Obama appointee William Wilkins, was instrumental in the agency&#8217;s campaign of harassment and discrimination against conservative and certain pro-Israel groups. In interviews, Hull informed congressional investigators that his superiors told him that Wilkins&#8217; office would need to be involved in additional reviews of previously screened applications because of &#8220;potential political activity.&#8221; Thus, the Democrat-led effort to keep this scandal confined to a few &#8220;rogue&#8221; agents in Cincinnati has gone down in flames.</p>
<p>Wilkins, appointed by Obama in 2009, is one of <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324448104578614220949743916.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop">only two</a> political appointees in the entire agency made by the president.  In the Inspector General&#8217;s (IG) <a href="http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.pdf">report</a> on the scandal, the timeline of events <a href="http://townhall.com/tipsheet/carolplattliebau/2013/05/16/meet-william-j-wilkins-of-the-irs-n1598418">established</a> that Wilkins knew about the abuse of conservative groups at least as early as August 4, 2011. Yet in a <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/15/press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-5152013">press conference</a> held on May 15, 2013, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was asked if Wilkins had shared that information with the White House. Carney said he didn&#8217;t know, and when pressed about whether the president should have been informed, he said that Obama first learned about the scandal &#8220;through media reports&#8221; on Friday, May 10. In other words, Americans are expected to believe that Wilkins never said a word to the president about this dubious targeting of right-wing groups for the 21 months (or more) that he was aware of it.</p>
<p>That may very well be true. But like so many scandals plaguing this administration, the ongoing evolution of this story makes such a scenario hard to swallow. That evolution began with top IRS official Lois Lerner&#8217;s staged &#8220;inadvertent&#8221; confession to the crime at a tax conference hosted by the American Bar Association. In subsequent congressional hearings, both Lerner and former IRS acting commissioner Steven Miller <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324448104578614220949743916.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop">attempted</a> to confine the scandal to &#8220;rogue agents&#8221; in Cincinnati.</p>
<p>That story disintegrated when House investigators talked to those agents, who said they were directed by Washington. Elizabeth Hofacre, who processed the Cincinnati unit&#8217;s Tea Party applications, <a href="http://www.local12.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/cincinnati-irs-worker-testifies-washington-338.shtml">testified</a> that she felt her work was &#8220;micromanaged&#8221; by Washington, D.C. &#8220;My frustration was primarily that I had to sit on them and wait for guidance from D.C.,&#8221; Hofacre told members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. She further noted she was &#8220;deeply offended&#8221; by the attempt made by senior officials to blame the scandal on her office. &#8220;Personally, I felt like it was a nuclear strike. I felt they were blaming us,&#8221; she said.</p>
<p>Hofacre then moved the story up the bureaucratic pecking order, saying her supervisors told her to contact Carter Hull.</p>
<p>In his appearance before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee last Thursday, Hull, a 48-year IRS veteran who is retiring, <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/19/retiring-irs-lawyer-fingers-obama-appointee-in-testimony/">said</a> he &#8220;was assigned by my supervisor to work on two applications of tea party groups. In that same month, I became aware that a group of tea party applications were being held by EO (Exempt Organizations) determinations in Cincinnati.” Hull continued:</p>
<blockquote><p>It was my understanding that the applications assigned to me would be ‘test cases’ to provide guidance for those other applications. I was also told by my supervisor that I was to coordinate the review of the tea party applications that were assigned to Elizabeth Hofacre in Cincinnati</p></blockquote>
<p>He further <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/18/irs-lawyer-testifies-that-political-appointee-office-involved-in-tea-party/">noted</a> that his micromanaging of Hofacre&#8217;s work was not of his own doing. He too was given orders from higher ups, who told him to forward documents to Lois Lerner&#8217;s advisor. Subsequently, he was told to send them to the Office of Chief Counsel for review.</p>
<p>Hull also cited an August 2011 meeting where he was told by a member of the Office that the Tea Party applicants he was dealing with would have to supply the IRS with additional information, and that a second letter should be sent to those organizations making that request. Hull noted that after he received the second responses, he felt he could make a determination about whether applications should be confirmed or denied. His recommendations were apparently ignored.</p>
<p>Michael Seto, head of Hull&#8217;s IRS unit, told investigators that Lerner made the “unusual” decision to subject Tea Party applications to a multi-layered review.</p>
<p>Hull testified that no one specifically told him to hold up tea party applications, but contended that a multi-layer review of such applications was &#8220;unusual.&#8221; He also confirmed that in another meeting with the Office, he was informed the applications were no longer under his control, and would again be forwarded for &#8220;further review.” Hull characterized that move as &#8220;rare.&#8221;</p>
<p>Yet the most damning part of Hull&#8217;s testimony was about a directive from Lois Lerner&#8217;s senior advisor, whose name was withheld in the partially released transcript of the hearings. Hull said the advisor told him the applications would require further review and that &#8220;it should go to the chief counsel.&#8221;</p>
<p>When Hull was asked if he meant the IRS chief counsel, he answered in the affirmative. “The IRS Chief Counsel,” he replied.</p>
<p>That bombshell testimony <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/19/retiring-irs-lawyer-fingers-obama-appointee-in-testimony/">fired up</a> Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice. They represent more than 40 Tea Party plaintiffs suing the IRS.</p>
<p>“This is one of the most extremely disturbing revelations yet,” he said. “It is now clear that the IRS Chief Counsel, appointed by President Obama in 2009, was involved in examining and reviewing applications from Tea Party groups – many that were basically shut out of the 2010 election process because of delays in handling of their applications. This development raises significant questions about what the White House knew and when.&#8221;</p>
<p>That particular aspect of the case took an intriguing turn yesterday, when it was <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/22/embattled-irs-chief-counsel-met-with-obama-2-days-before-writing-new-targeting-criteria/">revealed</a> that Wilkins met with Obama in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on April 23, 2012. On April 24, Wilkins&#8217; boss, former commissioner Douglas Shulman, <a href="http://www.dickmorris.com/william-wilkins-the-g-gordon-liddy-of-the-irs-scandal/">saw</a> the president at the White House.</p>
<p>On April 25, Wilkins sent the EO determinations unit “additional comments on the draft guidance” for approving or denying the tax-exempt applications submitted by Tea Party organizations, according to the IG&#8217;s report.</p>
<p>It should be further noted that William Wilkins, a staunch Obama supporter, once worked as a lobbyist for WilmerHale, where he spent his time “counseling nonprofit organizations, business entities, and investment funds on tax compliance, business transactions, and government investigations.” In 2008, he <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324448104578611690336614814.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop">led</a> the defense of Chicago Reverend Jeremiah Wright&#8217;s United Church of Christ, which was being investigated by the IRS for violating its own tax-exempt status, due to its political involvement with Obama. &#8220;We were so interested in the case we offered to do it pro bono,&#8221; Mr. Wilkins told The American Lawyer at the time.</p>
<p>Unsurprisingly, Democrats tried once again Thursday to make the argument that liberal groups were equally scrutinized by the IRS, claiming that Inspector General J. Russell George was suppressing details about non-Tea Party groups being targeted. George defused that notion, <a href="http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/07/18/round-two-expected-irs-hearing-fireworks-fizzle-n1644058">reminding</a> Democrats that the IRS itself both acknowledged and apologized for the targeting of conservative groups <i>before</i> his report was released. He noted that since his report was released, information regarding BOLO (Be On the Look Out) lists with liberal buzz words attached to them have surfaced, but he did not get them until last week. He blamed the delay on the IRS. As of now nothing has emerged, but George assured Committee members the IG investigation would continue.</p>
<p>What is the likelihood that liberal groups received equal scrutiny? Townhall&#8217;s Guy Benson makes a solid point in that regard. &#8220;If, as Democrats suggest, the targeting impacted both sides and this is all a big non-scandal, where is the &#8216;progressive-assigned&#8217; version of Elizabeth Hofacre?&#8221; he asks. &#8220;That is to say, where is the IRS employee tasked with screening dozens of targeted liberal organizations whose superiors wouldn&#8217;t permit any resolutions for months (and ultimately years) on end?  If such an employee exists, don&#8217;t you think we&#8217;d have heard about him or her by now?&#8221;</p>
<p>Perhaps more remarkable is the reality that most Americans haven&#8217;t heard anything about Hull&#8217;s stunning revelation, or much about any of the other testimony in this case. Not a single report about Hull&#8217;s revelation was <a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2013/07/19/abc-cbs-and-nbc-viewers-irs-scandal-please-thats-old-news">broadcast</a> by ABC, CBS, or NBC. Furthermore, the networks&#8217; initially strong interest in the scandal has <a href="http://www.mrc.org/media-reality-check/too-taxing-big-three-networks-abandon-irs-scandal">steadily</a> declined. That decline has continued, even in the face of four damning revelations <i>in the last month alone</i>, every one of which indicate an agency that is corrupt and out of control. These include the IRS&#8217;s <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/19/news/economy/irs-bonus/index.html">attempt</a> to dole out $70 million in bonuses to IRS employees during the sequester; their <a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/report-irs-fraudulently-awarded-500-million-in-contracts-to-friend-of-top-agency-official/article/2532365">fraudulent</a> awarding of a multi-million dollar contract to an IT company whose owner has a &#8220;longstanding relationship&#8221; with IRS deputy director Gregory Roseman; rampant <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/irs-workers-bought-porn-wine-agency-cards-article-1.1382447">abuse</a> of IRS-issued credit cards by agency employees; and the <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/15/feds-admit-improper-scrutiny-candidate-donor-tax-r/">improper scrutiny</a> by government officials of confidential tax records of several political candidates and campaign donors &#8212; improper scrutiny the Obama Justice Department refuses to prosecute.</p>
<p>Hull&#8217;s testimony has taken this scandal to another level. Despite every attempt by the usual suspects in the Democratic Party, along with their media enablers, to kill this story, Hull has pushed it to the highest levels within the IRS &#8212; and one step removed from the White House itself. At this rate, it is only a matter of time before the scandal goes even higher.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/irs-scandal-one-step-removed-from-the-white-house/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>154</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Black Education Tragedy</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/walter-williams/black-education-tragedy/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=black-education-tragedy</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/walter-williams/black-education-tragedy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Jul 2013 04:10:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Walter Williams]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Black]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cursive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George Zimmerman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rachel Jeantel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Read]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[school]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[testimony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trayvon Martin]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=196525</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why Rachel Jeantel's testimony at the Zimmerman trial should be a wake up call to America. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/ap_rachel_jeantel_ll_130627_16x9_992.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-196528" alt="ap_rachel_jeantel_ll_130627_16x9_992" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/ap_rachel_jeantel_ll_130627_16x9_992-450x336.jpg" width="270" height="202" /></a>As if more evidence were needed about the tragedy of black education, Rachel Jeantel, a witness for the prosecution in the George Zimmerman murder trial, put a face on it for the nation to see. Some of that evidence unfolded when Zimmerman&#8217;s defense attorney asked 19-year-old Jeantel to read a letter that she allegedly had written to Trayvon Martin&#8217;s mother. She responded that she doesn&#8217;t read cursive, and that&#8217;s in addition to her poor grammar, syntax and communication skills.</p>
<p>Jeantel is a senior at Miami Norland Senior High School. How in the world did she manage to become a 12th-grader without being able to read cursive writing? That&#8217;s a skill one would expect from a fourth-grader. Jeantel is by no means an exception at her school. Here are a few achievement scores from her school: Thirty-nine percent of the students score basic for reading, and 38 percent score below basic. In math, 37 percent score basic, and 50 percent score below basic. Below basic is the score when a student is unable to demonstrate even partial mastery of knowledge and skills fundamental for proficient work at his grade level. Basic indicates only partial mastery.</p>
<p>Few Americans, particularly black Americans, have any idea of the true magnitude of the black education tragedy. The education establishment might claim that it&#8217;s not their fault. They&#8217;re not responsible for the devastation caused by female-headed families, drugs, violence and the culture of dependency. But they are totally responsible for committing gross educational fraud. It&#8217;s educators who graduated Jeantel from elementary and middle school and continued to pass her along in high school. It&#8217;s educators who will, in June 2014, confer upon her a high-school diploma.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s not just Florida&#8217;s schools. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, nationally most black 12th-graders test either basic or below basic in reading, writing, math and science. Drs. Abigail and Stephan Thernstrom wrote in their 2004 book, &#8220;No Excuses: Closing the Racial Gap in Learning,&#8221; &#8220;Blacks nearing the end of their high school education perform a little worse than white eighth-graders in both reading and U.S. history, and a lot worse in math and geography.&#8221; Little has changed since the book&#8217;s publication.</p>
<p>Drexel University history and political science professor George Ciccariello-Maher disapprovingly says that the reaction to Jeantel&#8217;s court performance &#8220;has been in terms of aesthetics, of disregarding a witness on the basis of how she talks, how good she is at reading and writing.&#8221; Harking back to Jim Crow days, he adds: &#8220;These are subtle things that echo literacy testing at the polls, echo the question of whether black Americans can testify against white people, of being always suspect in their testimony. It&#8217;s the same old dynamics emerging in a very different guise.&#8221; Then there&#8217;s Morgan Polikoff, assistant professor of education at the University of Southern California, who says: &#8220;Cursive should be allowed to die. In fact, it&#8217;s already dying, despite having been taught for decades.&#8221; That&#8217;s the kind of educational philosophy that accounts for much of our nation&#8217;s educational decline.</p>
<p>The educational system and black family structure and culture have combined to make increasing numbers of young black people virtually useless in the increasingly high-tech world of the 21st century. Too many people believe that pouring more money into schools will help. That&#8217;s whistlin&#8217; &#8220;Dixie.&#8221; Whether a student is black or white, poor or rich, there are some minimum requirements that must be met in order to do well in school. Someone must make the student do his homework, see to it that he gets a good night&#8217;s sleep, fix a breakfast, make sure he gets to school on time and make sure he respects and obeys his teachers. Here are my questions: Which one of those requirements can be achieved through a higher school budget? Which can be achieved by politicians? If those minimal requirements aren&#8217;t met, whatever else is done is mostly for naught.</p>
<p>I hope Rachel Jeantel&#8217;s court performance is a wake-up call for black Americans about the devastation wrought by our educational system.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/walter-williams/black-education-tragedy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>76</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Perjury Rap Sheet of an Attorney General</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/the-perjury-rap-sheet-of-an-attorney-general/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-perjury-rap-sheet-of-an-attorney-general</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/the-perjury-rap-sheet-of-an-attorney-general/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 May 2013 04:30:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arnold Ahlert]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[email]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Eric Holder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[James Rosen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oath]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[perjury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[records]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[testimony]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=191243</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The breeze of accountability flows toward Eric Holder.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/holderAG1.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-191246" alt="holderAG1" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/holderAG1-450x339.jpg" width="270" height="203" /></a>U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder remains in the eye of a largely self-inflicted storm. The House Judiciary Committee is <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/28/did-holder-mislead-congress-on-pursuit-reporters-records/">initiating</a> an investigation into whether Holder lied under oath when he testified before the Committee on May 15th regarding the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) seizure of Fox News reporter James Rosen&#8217;s emails. Furthermore, in a revelation likely to add weight to that investigation, <i>The</i> <i>New Yorker&#8217;s </i>Ryan Lizza <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/05/how-justice-fought-to-keep-rosens-warrant-secret.html">reports</a> that the DOJ essentially went &#8220;judge shopping&#8221; to procure a search warrant to access Rosen&#8217;s files.</p>
<p>The Committee is examining an exchange Holder had with Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA). Johnson was concerned the DOJ could prosecute reporters under the auspices of the Espionage Act of 1917.</p>
<p>Johnson: &#8220;But we certainly need to protect the privacy of individuals, and we need to protect the ability &#8230; of the press to engage in its First Amendment responsibilities to be free and to give us information about our government so as to keep the people informed.&#8221;</p>
<p>Holder: &#8220;Well, I would say this. With regard to the potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material, that is not something that I&#8217;ve ever been involved in, heard of or would think would be a wise policy. In fact, my view is quite the opposite.&#8221;</p>
<p>Not quite. Last Friday, NBC News <a href="http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/23/18451142-doj-confirms-holder-okd-search-warrant-for-fox-news-reporters-emails">reported</a> that the DOJ promised to review its policies regarding the seizure of information from reporters, even as it acknowledged  that the search warrant issued for Rosen&#8217;s material was approved “at the highest levels” of the Department, including “discussions” with Holder.</p>
<p>This is not the first time Holder has &#8220;misled&#8221; Congress. Documents obtained in 2012 by Judicial Watch, pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, revealed that top political appointees at the DOJ were intimately involved in the decision to drop the voter intimidation lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party (NBPP). That information conflicts with Holder&#8217;s <a href="http://appropriations.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=235990">testimony</a> before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies on March 1, 2011. “The decisions made in the New Black Panther Party case were made by career attorneys in the department. And beyond that, you know, if we’re going to look at the record, let’s look at it in its totality,” Holder contended.</p>
<p>The DOJ had initially refused to turn over the documents, contending they didn&#8217;t show “any political interference whatsoever.” Judge Reggie B. Walton in Washington, D.C. District Court disagreed. Allowing the release of the documents on July 23, 2012, he declared that they &#8220;reveal that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case[.]&#8221;</p>
<p>Sworn testimony given by Holder during the Fast and Furious gun running scandal was even more suspect. On May 3, 2011, he told a Judiciary Committee he had only recently learned about the operation. &#8220;I&#8217;m not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks,&#8221; he told Committee Chairman Darryl Issa (R-CA). Yet internal DOJ documents <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20115038-10391695.html">obtained</a> by CBS News the following October revealed that Holder had been sent briefings on the operation as early as 2010. For that statement, as well as his stonewalling of the investigation &#8212; aided and abetted by an executive order issued by President Obama preventing critical documents from being released &#8212; Holder <a href="http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/06/obama-team-fast-and-furious-documents-are-privileged/1#.UaUZe-sjH1w">earned</a> a contempt of Congress citation in June 2012.</p>
<p>Thus, Holder&#8217;s track record for truth-telling is tattered at best. Yet even as the House Judiciary Committee proceeds, the left has begun circling the wagons around the embattled Attorney General. A Daily Beast column, &#8220;Holder Regrets and Repairs,&#8221; which contends the embattled Attorney General is, according to aides, &#8220;beginning to feel a creeping sense of personal remorse,&#8221; is a pathetically transparent effort aimed at rehabilitating Holder&#8217;s image. &#8220;As attorney general, a position at the intersection of law, politics, and investigations, Holder has been at the center of partisan controversy almost since taking office,&#8221; writes Daniel Klaidman. &#8220;But sources close to the attorney general says he has been particularly stung by the leak controversy, in large part because his department’s&#8211;and his own&#8211;actions are at odds with his image of himself as a pragmatic lawyer with liberal instincts and a well-honed sense of balance—not unlike the president he serves.&#8221;</p>
<p>An equally delirious effort was <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/349354/fns-hume-destroys-williams-defense-ag-holder">made</a> by administration apologist Juan Williams on <i>Fox News Sunday</i>. Williams argued that Holder was not responsible for the investigation of Rosen, despite signing the affidavit authorizing it. He further insisted that Holder “is the exact right person” to conduct an investigation to see how DOJ prosecutors came to decide Rosen was a “criminal co-conspirator.”</p>
<p>Even Rep. Johnson also tried to provide cover for Holder. “The attorney general’s statement that no journalists have been prosecuted under the Espionage Act during his tenure is accurate,” he told The Hill.</p>
<p>Not exactly. Holder said he hadn&#8217;t been involved in <i>potential</i> prosecution of the press, a statement we now know is at odds with the truth, to say the least.</p>
<p>Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (WI), the second-ranking Judiciary Committee Republican has a far more accurate assessment of Holder. &#8220;As we saw in Fast and Furious and are seeing now, Attorney General Holder refuses to hold himself accountable,” said Sensenbrenner. “He misled the Judiciary Committee under oath when he said he had not heard about Fast and Furious and he misled us again when he claimed to be unaware of the AP scandal. The head of DOJ should be someone the American people can trust. Attorney General Holder should resign.”</p>
<p>The impetus for that resignation is likely to grow stronger. Last Friday, when the DOJ conceded Holder had been in the loop regarding Rosen, the Department remained unapologetic. They contended the seizure of Rosen&#8217;s phone records &#8212; and by extension, <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/05/report-doj-seized-phone-records-of-james-rosens-parents-164541.html">those</a> of Rosen&#8217;s <i>parents </i>&#8211; was a legitimate exercise of DOJ authority. “After extensive deliberations, and after following all applicable laws, regulations and policies, the Department sought an appropriately tailored search warrant under the Privacy Protection Act,” said a department official. “And a federal magistrate judge made an independent finding that probable cause existed to approve the search warrant.”</p>
<p>This was on the third try<i>.</i> As Lizza reveals, two other judges separately declared that the DOJ was required to notify Rosen about the seizure of his records, even if that notification was delayed. Otherwise, as Judge John M. Facciola wrote in an opinion rejecting the Obama administration’s argument, “The subscriber therefore will never know, by being provided a copy of the warrant, for example, that the government secured a warrant and searched the contents of her (sic) e-mail account.”</p>
<p>Ronald C. Machen, Jr., the U.S. Attorney prosecuting Stephen Kim, the former State Department arms expert who allegedly leaked classified information about North Korea to Rosen, disagreed. He insisted Rosen should not be notified about the search and seizure of his e-mails, even after a lengthy delay. Machen appealed Facciola&#8217;s ruling and in 2010, he got Royce C. Lamberth, the chief judge in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, to overturn the ruling.</p>
<p>Lamberth himself added to the intrigue surrounding his ruling. Last Wednesday, he <a href="http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-22/world/39440575_1_federal-court-documents-search-and-arrest-warrants">issued</a> an order apologizing to the public and the media for not making three search warrants in this case widely available online. A federal judge had ordered their release in November 2011, but they were kept under wraps for another 18 months, and only posted on the court docket after the <i>Washington Post</i> inquired about them. Lamberth blamed the delay on administrative errors, adding that a review of the “performance of the personnel involved is underway.”</p>
<p>It is virtually impossible to believe Holder, who authorized the original affidavit allowing Rosen’s records to be seized, was subsequently out of the loop, especially when two judges rejected the idea that the seizure could be kept secret. Thus, we have reached another embarrassing point in Eric Holder&#8217;s embarrassing tenure as Attorney General, all the personal remorse in the world notwithstanding.</p>
<p>Yet those who believe Obama will finally pull the trigger and ask for Holder&#8217;s resignation are being naive. Obama gave a <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/23/remarks-president-national-defense-university">speech</a> last week in which he &#8220;called on Congress to pass a media shield law to guard against government overreach.&#8221; The law would protect journalists from having to testify about confidential sources&#8211;meaning it&#8217;s totally irrelevant with regard to both the seizure of AP phone records and the Rosen case because they involved government searches. But the announcement reflects the president’s effort to bury this scandal with the kind of rationalization that passes for logic in Washington, D.C.: no one at the DOJ has done anything wrong, and they won’t do it again.</p>
<p>Furthermore, Obama&#8217;s invocation of executive privilege to protect Holder in the Fast and Furious case indicates how far he is willing to go to keep Holder aboard. In short, Holder only resigns if and when Obama perceives that the Attorney General is a direct threat to his own political well-being. In one of the greater ironies of the moment, Obama&#8217;s effort to protect Holder will be aided and abetted by the media.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/the-perjury-rap-sheet-of-an-attorney-general/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>63</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Desperate Holder Throws Underlings Under the Bus</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/desperate-holder-throws-underlings-under-the-bus/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=desperate-holder-throws-underlings-under-the-bus</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/desperate-holder-throws-underlings-under-the-bus/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 04:52:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arnold Ahlert]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[associate press]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Capitol Hill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Eric Holder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[phone records]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[testimony]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=189652</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How long can the embattled Attorney General hang on? ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/0514-eric-holder-ap_full_600.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-189672" alt="0514-eric-holder-ap_full_600" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/0514-eric-holder-ap_full_600-450x322.jpg" width="270" height="193" /></a></p>
<p>[<strong>To order the Freedom Center&#8217;s pamphlet &#8220;Ten Reasons to Impeach Eric Holder,&#8221; written by Department of Justice whistleblower J. Christian Adams, click <a href="https://secure.donationreport.com/productlist.html?key=WY6LJDB7J48Y">here</a>.]</strong></p>
<p>In <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325076/Eric-Holder-faces-congressional-grilling-IRS-investigation-Boston-bombing-Benghazi-spying-journalists-phone-records-scandal-fever-sweeps-Washington.html">testimony</a> before the House Judiciary Committee yesterday, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder reinforced the notion that he is unfit to remain in office. Although he was grilled about many of the scandals afflicting the Obama administration, the seizure of phone records from the Associated Press (AP) remained the major concern for both Republicans and Democrats. Holder made it clear they were <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/05/15/holder_on_ap_scandal_i_was_not_the_person_involved.html">wasting</a> their time trying to get answers about the investigation from him. “I was not the person involved in that decision,” he insisted. “I was recused in that matter as I described in a press conference held yesterday. The decision to issue this subpoena was made by the people presently involved in the case.&#8221;</p>
<p>Holder said he <a href="http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/05/15/holder-testifies-house-panel-gathering-phone-records/20iY1XRHoif4S3zHdOP8kK/story.html">recused</a> himself from the probe because &#8220;I am a possessor of information eventually leaked.&#8221; He expressed faith in the ability of those looking into the leaking of top-secret information to the AP. the leak revealed details of a CIA operation in Yemen that undermined an al Qaeda plot to get an underwear bomber on a jetliner. &#8220;I have faith in the people who actually were responsible for this case, that they were aware of the rules and that they followed them,&#8221; Holder said. &#8220;But I don’t have a factual basis to answer the questions that you have asked, because I was recused.&#8221;</p>
<p>That was an understatement. Holder wasn&#8217;t even able to answer the most basic questions about the investigation. He couldn&#8217;t say why the DOJ didn&#8217;t follow the standard practice of negotiating with the AP before issuing the subpoenas. &#8220;That I don&#8217;t know,&#8221; he responded to the question posed by Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI). &#8220;There are exceptions if the integrity of the investigation would be impacted. I don&#8217;t know why that didn&#8217;t happen.&#8221; Sensenbrenner <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/holder-95-99-certain-deputy-ag-authorized-subpoena-acting-my-stead_724558.html">asked</a> him who authorized the subpoena, &#8220;because the code of federal regulations is pretty specific that this is supposed to go as close to the top as possible.&#8221; Holder was noncommittal, claiming he was &#8220;probably 95 percent, 99 percent certain the deputy attorney general acting in my stead was the one who authorizes the subpoena.&#8221; After being handed a note, he confirmed that &#8220;the (Deputy Attorney General James Cole) was the one who authorized the subpoena.&#8221; Sensenbrenner expressed frustration regarding Holder&#8217;s evasiveness, suggesting administration officials travel to the Harry Truman Presidential Library and take a photo of the famous sign, &#8220;the buck stops here.&#8221;</p>
<p>The Congressman then explained why. &#8220;There doesn&#8217;t appear to be any acceptance of responsibility for things that have gone wrong,&#8221; he said.</p>
<p>Holder couldn&#8217;t even say for certain when he recused himself. &#8220;I&#8217;m not sure, I think it was towards the beginning of the matter. I don&#8217;t know exactly when, but it was towards the beginning of the matter,&#8221; he told Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL).  Despite this complete lack of knowledge, Holder remains supportive of the seizure of two months of phone records via a secretly issued subpoena, because the aforementioned story involved &#8220;a very serious leak, a very grave leak.&#8221;</p>
<p>What Holder leaves out is the reality that this leak, as well as the ones regarding the president’s “kill list” of terror suspects, the Stuxnet virus used to foil Iranian nuclear ambitions, and the <a href="http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/05/25/why-isnt-undersecretary-of-defense-michael-vickers-being-prosecuted-for-outing-seal-team-6s-commander/">leaking</a> of classified information about SEAL Team 6 to Hollywood producers by Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Michael Vickers were remarkably consistent in one respect: they all accrued to Barack Obama&#8217;s efforts to appear &#8220;tough on terror&#8221; leading up to the 2012 election. Thus, it would stand to reason someone in the Obama administration was the source of the leaks for which AP phone records were secretly subpoenaed. It would be useful to know who has been subpoenaed on the other side of this equation&#8211;or who hasn&#8217;t, making the seizure of AP phone records necessary.</p>
<p>Democrats were willing to offer Holder cover on the issue. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) was delighted that Republicans were now interested in media protection, considering a shield law died in the Senate in 2009. Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) criticized the &#8220;hue and cry&#8221; raised by the same Republicans who, last year, &#8220;wanted reporters subpoenaed, put in front of grand juries&#8221; in an effort to stop leaks. Apparently Conyers forgot that Democrats have controlled the Senate since 2006, and Nadler is unable to fathom the difference between overt and covert subpoenas, as well as the difference between grand jury testimony and a secret DOJ investigation.</p>
<p>Holder was grilled on the additional scandals surrounding the administration, including the potential lapses in intelligence sharing prior to the Boston Marathon bombings, and the IRS&#8217;s targeting conservative groups for special scrutiny.</p>
<p>With regard to the Boston bombings, Holder asserted that the DOJ&#8217;s investigation had been &#8220;thorough.&#8221; Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, disagreed, contending there was &#8220;troubling information&#8221; leading to the conclusion that the federal agencies involved in the investigation &#8220;failed to connect the dots.&#8221; “It does not appear that all of the information was received by all the pertinent parties, particularly the FBI,” the congressman said. When Goodlatte asked what the DOJ is doing about procedure regarding hits in terror databases, Holder  sidestepped the question, saying only that there is an ongoing inspector general investigation.</p>
<p>Holder was further <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/15/holder-and-gohmert-go-full-contact-in-house-fight-over-boston-bombings/">challenged</a> by Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), who wondered what the FBI did, or didn&#8217;t, pursue after receiving Russian intelligence indicating Tamerlan Tsarnaev had become radicalized. “A lot of people are concerned about profiling, but there are a lot more people concerned about getting blown up by a terrorist,” Gomert contended.</p>
<p>Holder responded angrily to Gomert&#8217;s assertion. “Unless somebody has done something inappropriate, you don’t have access to the FBI files, you don’t know what the FBI did,” Holder said. “You simply do not know.&#8221;</p>
<p>Neither does anyone else at this point, and given the DOJ&#8217;s track record regarding other administration investigations, such as the one over Fast and Furious, it is more than likely any revelations about who knew what and when will be stonewalled.</p>
<p>Holder was equally vague regarding the IRS scandal. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50146898n">inquired</a> if the investigation would be far reaching, &#8220;including Washington, D.C.,&#8221; if necessary. Holder promised to go &#8220;wherever the facts take us.&#8221; On the other hand, he said it would take time to determine if there was &#8220;criminal&#8221; wrongdoing.</p>
<p>Late yesterday afternoon, it appeared that timeline would get even longer. Around 6 p.m. EDT, the president announced that Treasury Secretary Jack Lew had accepted the <a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-says-acting-irs-commissioner-resigned-2013-05-15">resignation</a> of acting IRS commissioner Steve Miller. Obama characterized the &#8220;misconduct&#8221; detailed in the just-released Inspector General report about the IRS&#8217;s handling of conservative tax exempt applications as &#8220;inexcusable.&#8221; It remains to be a seen if Miller will be part of Holder&#8217;s investigation into IRS malfeasance, or simply be allowed to fade into oblivion.</p>
<p>The progressive media have <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/15/media-matters-sides-with-justice-dept-says-ap-sounds-like-it-should-be-investigated/">already begun</a> circling the wagons around the Attorney General. Media Matters insisted the secret seizure of AP phone records was a necessity. “If the press compromised active counter-terror operations for a story that only tipped off the terrorists, that sounds like it should be investigated,” they contended.</p>
<p>So should Media Matters&#8217; relationship with the DOJ. Internal DOJ emails <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/18/emails-reveal-justice-dept-regularly-enlists-media-matters-to-spin-press/">obtained</a> in 2012 by the<i> Daily Caller </i>revealed the leftist advocacy group regularly collaborated with the DOJ to attack reporters who covered DOJ scandals. Tracy Schmaler, Office of Public Affairs Director for the Justice Department, worked with Media Matters staffers to attack a number of prominent journalists, including Townhall Magazine’s Katie Pavlich, <a href="http://Breitbart.com/">Breitbart.com</a> writers Joel Pollak and Ken Klukowski, Fox News&#8217;s  William LaJeunesse, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Megyn Kelly, Martha MacCallum, Bill Hemmer, Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity, and National Review’s Andrew C. McCarthy. Former DOJ Civil Rights Division attorneys J. Christian Adams and Hans von Spakovsky were also attacked.</p>
<p>The<i> Daily Caller</i> obtained the emails after filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that was fulfilled long after the 20-business-day limit required by law.</p>
<p>Moreover, the Office of Public Affairs has no business conducting a political operation. Its function is to keep the public informed about what the DOJ is doing to enforce the laws. That it was more than willing to violate its mandate is a good indication of how deep the rot at the DOJ goes.</p>
<p>Yesterday, Eric Holder did what he does best whenever he appears before a Congressional Committee: provide as little information as possible, become indignant when anyone suggests he has acted improperly, and fob responsibility for every possible impropriety conducted by his department onto someone else&#8211;when he&#8217;s not busy stonewalling scandals. Even a contempt of Congress citation for his refusal to provide critical information in the Fast and Furious gunrunning debacle that resulted in the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, along with <i>hundreds</i> of Mexican nationals, including children, has failed to chasten his contempt for the rule of law, or his determination to maintain the most ideologically-compromised Department of Justice in modern history.</p>
<p>Holder can only serve as long as he maintains the support of President Barack Obama. That he still does, speaks volumes&#8211;about <i>both</i> men.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/desperate-holder-throws-underlings-under-the-bus/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>27</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Blow-by-Blow: How Obama &amp; Hillary Left Americans to Die</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/blow-by-blow-how-obama-hillary-left-americans-to-die/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=blow-by-blow-how-obama-hillary-left-americans-to-die</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/blow-by-blow-how-obama-hillary-left-americans-to-die/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 04:55:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arnold Ahlert]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[issa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[testimony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[whistle-blower]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=188816</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[And lied to cover their tracks. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/xxx-benghazi-hearings-hdb-1-4_3_r541_c540.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-188821" alt="xxx-benghazi-hearings-hdb-1-4_3_r541_c540" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/xxx-benghazi-hearings-hdb-1-4_3_r541_c540-450x326.jpg" width="270" height="196" /></a>Wednesday on Capitol Hill, three impeccable witnesses offered the clearest evidence to date that the Obama administration&#8217;s response to Benghazi before, during and after the terrorist attack that claimed the lives of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, State Department employee Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Glen A. Doherty and Tyrone S. Woods, was a deadly combination of ineptitude, political calculations, and outright lying. Mark Thompson, acting deputy assistant Secretary of State for counterterrorism; Greg Hicks, former deputy chief of mission in Libya; and Eric Nordstrom, former regional security officer in Libya, offered unshakeable testimony, despite efforts by several Democratic lawmakers to protect both the current administration and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, their party’s most viable presidential candidate for 2016. What the witnesses averred reveals a grim web of deceit likely orchestrated by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to cover up the order to ground U.S. rescue teams that could have easily saved our besieged countrymen in Benghazi.</p>
<p>Some of the most compelling and emotional testimony was provided by Hicks, who <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/breaking-news/2013/may/8/benghazi-breaking-news-congress-set-probe-potentia/">offered</a> the House Oversight and Government Reform committee a damning blow-by-blow account of the September 11, 2012 attack: In Tripoli at the time, Hicks recounted how he had spoken with Stevens early in the evening, and there was no sign of unusual activity. After relaxing for a while, he got an alert that Benghazi was under attack. When he checked his cell phone he saw two numbers, one of which he didn&#8217;t recognize. He called that number first and got Stevens on the phone. “Greg! We’re under attack!” said Stevens, according to Mr. Hicks.</p>
<p>Later, when it became clear that Stevens was missing, the first concern was that he had been taken by terrorists. “We began to hear also that the ambassador’s been taken to a hospital,” said Hicks. “We learn that it is in a hospital which is controlled by Ansar al-Shariah, the group that Twitter feeds had identified as leading the attack on the consulate.” As this information was coming in, a &#8220;response team&#8221; from Tripoli arrived at the Benghazi airport, one that Hicks thought might become involved in a &#8220;hostage rescue&#8221; operation, even as officials worried they were being &#8220;baited into a trap.&#8221;</p>
<p>Hicks then spoke of the mortars that landed on the compound shortly after a group of Americans fleeing the consulate arrived at the annex. The first mortar landed among a group of Libyans who had helped bring the Americans to safety. “The next was short,” he said. “The next three landed on the roof.”</p>
<p>Those were the mortars that killed Doherty and Woods.</p>
<p>Hicks was visibly choked up when he <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/08/whistle-blowers-testify-on-benghazi-attacks/">recounted</a> learning about Stevens&#8217; death from the Libyan prime minister. &#8220;I think it&#8217;s the saddest phone call I&#8217;ve ever had in my life,&#8221; he said.</p>
<p>In one of the most stunning portions of the hearing, Hicks confirmed the chilling refusal of the Obama administration to send in readily available U.S. assets to stop the consulate slaughter. This order to &#8220;stand down&#8221; was given not once, but at least twice. Hicks also revealed that an explicit order from the chain of command prevented a four-man special forces rescue team in Tripoli from getting to the Americans trapped at the annex. He <a href="http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/05/benghazi-whistle-blower-hicks-stand-down-order-came-from-africom-or-socafrica-video/">noted</a> the order came from &#8220;either AFRICOM or SOCAFRICA&#8221; and that the team was <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/347754/hicks-special-forces-furious-upon-being-told-stand-down">&#8220;furious&#8221;</a> when they were told to stand down. “I will quote Lieutenant Colonel Gibson,” said Hicks, referring to the officer on the receiving end of that command. “He said, ‘This is the first time in my career that a diplomat has more balls than somebody in the military.’” Hicks&#8217; testimony on this point directly contradicts recent statements from the Obama-run Pentagon. &#8220;There was never any kind of stand-down order to anybody,&#8221; <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/05/08/benghazi_hearing_gregory_hicks_says_stand_down_order_is_true.html">said</a> Maj. Robert Furman, Pentagon spokesman, on Monday.</p>
<p>Yet Mark Thompson also testified that he tried to get a Foreign Emergency Support Team (FEST) comprised of special ops and intelligence personnel deployed, and he, too, was told to stand down. According to a source interviewed by <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/05/06/Source-Only-President-Could-Have-Made-Stand-Down-Call-During-Benghazi-Attack">Breitbart.com</a>, only President Obama, or someone acting on his authority, could have given the stand down order. As we know from <a href="http://cnsnews.com/news/article/panetta-and-joint-chiefs-chair-obama-talked-them-only-once-night-benghazi-attack">testimony</a> provided by former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, President Obama met with the two officials on September 11 at 5 p.m. EDT for 30 minutes &#8212; less than an hour-and-a-half into the attack &#8212; and was supposedly never heard from him again for the rest of the evening. The very next day, Obama headed to a campaign fundraiser in Las Vegas.</p>
<p>The Obama administration undoubtedly understood that its decision to leave defenseless Americans, including our ambassador, to needlessly die at the hands of al-Qaeda-linked jihadists would not go over well for a commander-in-chief in the throes of a presidential election and a secretary of state angling for the Oval Office in 2016. Hicks&#8217; testimony affirmed suspicions that administration officials conspired to conceal the nature of the attack by concocting an absolutely fictitious account of events involving a &#8220;spontaneous&#8221; attack prompted by an anti-Islam YouTube video. Hicks <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/deputy-mission-chief-says-he-was-stunned-by-rice-s-early-depiction-of-benghazi-attacks-20130508">testified</a> that he had <i>personally </i>told former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the Benghazi raid was a terrorist attack at 2 a.m. that same night.<i> </i>He <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583388/benghazi-whistleblowers-head-to-house-committee/">recounted</a> that &#8220;everybody in the mission&#8221; believed it was an act of terror &#8220;from the get-go,&#8221; a reality echoed by Libyan President Mohammed al-Magariaf, who said his government had &#8220;no doubt that this was pre-planned, predetermined.&#8221; Magariaf made this assertion the very day before UN ambassador Susan Rice went out to peddle the lie that a &#8220;spontaneous demonstration&#8221; had gotten out of hand due to an Internet video.</p>
<p>When Hicks heard Rice, he was appalled. “My jaw dropped, and I was embarrassed,” he said.</p>
<p>In reality, Rice was a willing mouthpiece for the two biggest promoters of the Internet video lie: President Obama and Hillary Clinton. In fact, the State Department <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2206730/Pakistan-protests-Obama-Clinton-featured-paid-advert-condemning-anti-Islam-film.html">spent</a> $70,000 to run advertisements in Pakistan featuring the two of them rejecting the contents of the video, and promoting tolerance for all religions. Even more remarkable, despite committee Democrats implying that a thorough investigation was conducted internally by the State Department&#8217;s Accountability Review Board (ARB), Hillary Clinton was never interviewed by the ARB.</p>
<p>Hillary&#8217;s entire take on the matter can be <a href="http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2013/may/07/context-hillary-clintons-what-difference-does-it-m/">whittled down</a> to the infamous statement she made during the U.S. House Oversight Committee hearing on May 8, 2013. After being questioned as to why the administration misled the American people, Clinton became indignant. &#8220;With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans,&#8221; she said. &#8220;Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?&#8221;</p>
<p>Eric Nordstrom, who became emotional when he described his friends and other personnel who lost their lives in the attack, <a href="http://www.mediaite.com/tv/benghazi-whistleblower-breaks-down-while-describing-his-lost-friends-during-testimony/">provided</a> an answer to that question. “It matters to me personally and it matters to my colleagues&#8211;to my colleagues at the Department of State,” he said, his voice breaking. “It matters to the American public for whom we serve. And, most importantly, it matters to the friends and family of Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods who were murdered on September 11, 2012.”</p>
<p>Nordstrom further testified in writing that Hillary Clinton <a href="http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/05/08/benghazi-whistleblower-people-at-the-top-are-being-protected-n1590915">waived</a> security requirements for the Benghazi consulate despite high and critical threat levels in the six categories of security standards established under the Overseas Security Policy Board and the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999. The waiver can only be authorized by the Secretary of State, who cannot delegate that responsibility to someone else. &#8220;If the Secretary of State did not waive these requirements, who did so by ordering occupancy of the facilities in Benghazi and Tripoli?&#8221; Nordstrom wrote.</p>
<p>Nordstrom also offered his take on the ARB. &#8220;I found the ARB process that I was involved in to be professional and the unclassified recommendations reasonable and positive. However, it is not what is contained within the report that I take exception to but what is left unexamined,&#8221; Nordstrom wrote. &#8220;Specifically, I’m concerned with the ARB’s decision to focus its attention at the Assistant Secretary level and below, where the ARB felt that &#8216;the decision-making in fact takes place,&#8217;” he wrote.</p>
<p>Hicks testified that the State Department actively sought to intimidate witnesses in order to prevent facts surrounding the Benghazi attack from being leaked. He <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/benghazi-hearing-witness-says-state-dept-told-him-not-to-mee">revealed</a> that a top State Department official called him to demand a report from his meeting with a congressional delegation and expressed unhappiness that a State Department lawyer was not present for the session. &#8220;I was instructed not to allow the RSO, the acting deputy chief of mission&#8211;me&#8211;to be personally interviewed,&#8221; he said. Later in the hearing, Hicks noted that State seemed especially concerned with Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), who has done yeoman&#8217;s work tracking down the survivors of the attack, kept under wraps by the administration. &#8220;We were not to be personally interviewed by Congressman Chaffetz,&#8221; said Hicks, who added that Cheryl Mills, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton&#8217;s chief of staff,  &#8220;demanded a report on the visit&#8221; that did take place.</p>
<p>The State Department was <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/benghazi-hearing-your-government-at-work/">caught</a> in another lie yesterday as well. While the hearings were getting underway, Republicans revealed that Ambassador Thomas Pickering, co-chairman of the ARB, refused to testify. State countered that Republicans refused to let him. Frederick Hill, spokesman for Committee chairman Darryl Issa (R-CA), produced a <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/2013-02-22%20JC%20to%20Pickering%20-%20Hearing%20Invite%20ARB%20Benghazi%203-14.pdf">letter</a> dated February 22 inviting Pickering to testify. “Ambassador Pickering initially told the Committee he was not available on that date,” Hill told ABC News. “When asked about a different date, he said he was not inclined to testify.”</p>
<p>The State Department isn&#8217;t the only entity interested in controlling the flow of information in this tragedy. House Democrats embarrassingly struggled to distract from the proceedings with absurd non sequiturs and personal attacks. Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), the ranking Democratic at the Benghazi hearing, <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/dem-congressman-we-have-protect-you-fellow-employees_721909.html">told</a> one of the whistleblowers to &#8220;protect your fellow employees.&#8221; Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/8/hurt-benghazi-shows-democrats-most-desperate/">suggested</a> it was unpatriotic to challenge the administration&#8217;s narrative. “I find it truly disturbing and very unfortunate that when Americans come under attack, the first thing some did in this country was attack Americans,” she said. “Attack the military; attack the president; attack the <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/department-of-state/">State Department</a>; attack the former senator from the great state of New York, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.” Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO) <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/dem-congressman-blames-budget-cuts_721914.html">blamed</a> Republicans and congressional budget cuts for the terror attack, even as he apparently remains oblivious to the reality that it was Democrats who insisted the lion&#8217;s share of the budget cuts induced by sequestration come from the military.</p>
<p>Media are also shamelessly entrenched in the campaign to suppress the facts surround the Benghazi attack. <i>Politico</i> <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/05/the-posts-sharyl-attkisson-piece-163496.html">reports</a> that CBS News execs are getting &#8220;increasingly frustrated&#8221; with premiere investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson&#8217;s stories on Benghazi, which they consider &#8220;dangerously close to advocacy.&#8221;</p>
<p>Dangerously close to honesty is more like it, which is exactly what CBS is worried about. As <i>Washington Post </i>explains, &#8220;While other media, particularly Fox News, have been similarly skeptical about the official narrative about Benghazi, Attkisson and CBS might put the story in a different light,&#8221; the paper reports. &#8220;As a much-decorated reporter from a news outlet often derided by conservatives as a liberal beacon, Attkisson and her network flip the usual script on this highly politicized story. That is, it’s hard to peg her and her network as Republican sympathizers out to score political points against a Democratic president.&#8221; With Attkisson, a self-described &#8220;political agnostic,&#8221; questioning the administration, Bengahzi can no longer be dismissed by the left as a vast right-wing conspiracy. “People can say what they want about me, I don’t care,&#8221; Attkisson says. &#8220;I just want to get the information out there.”</p>
<p>Attkisson notwithstanding, it remains to be seen whether the remainder of the mainstream media will now demand answers from the Obama administration on why it chose to needlessly throw American servicemen to the wolves in Benghazi and why, exactly, it was necessary to contrive a totally false account of events. The Obama administration is fighting hard to distract from the severity of the scandal. White House press secretary Jay Carney claimed that continued scrutiny of Benghazi is nothing more than an attempt by Republicans to &#8220;politicize&#8221; the issue. &#8220;This is a subject that has from its beginning been subject to attempts to politicize it by Republicans, while in fact what happened in Benghazi was a tragedy,&#8221; he said, adding that the incident has been &#8220;been looked at exhaustively.” Carney further noted that the ongoing pursuit is &#8220;part of an effort to chase after what isn&#8217;t the substance here.&#8221; The entire substance, according to Carney, is the reality that the consulate was attacked, four Americans were killed, and the president will make sure it doesn&#8217;t happen again.</p>
<p>Carney saved his most ridiculous assertion for last, claiming the administration&#8217;s editing of the talking points, in which wholesale changes and rampant deletions were made, (the details of which can be seen <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/benghazi-smoking-gun-exposed/">here</a>) were &#8220;stylistic and not substantive.&#8221; &#8220;We’ve been very clear about the specific edits that were made at the suggestion of the White House.&#8221;</p>
<p>That is an utter lie. Version one of the CIA report included references to an &#8220;attack,&#8221; &#8220;Islamic extremists with ties to al Qa’ida,&#8221; the involvement of Ansar al Sharia and the fact that &#8220;wide availability of weapons and experienced fighters in Libya contributed to the lethality of the attacks,” which were all completely removed. Furthermore, <i>at no time</i> did any of the versions mention an anti-Islamic Internet video as being the catalyst for the attack.</p>
<p>The Obama administration can try spin this debacle any way it likes, but it can&#8217;t spin away four dead Americans, two separate &#8220;stand down&#8221; orders and the State Department’s advanced knowledge of inadequate security. They can&#8217;t change the reality that no rescue was even attempted over the course of a seven-hour battle, that brave Americans were left to fend for themselves, or that the administration sat on the details of this story for eight months &#8212; two most crucial of which occurred prior to the 2012 election.  Even now the administration continues to stonewall every effort to get to the truth.</p>
<p>But with the truth finally coming to the surface, the remaining question observers are left with is why the Obama administration abandoned Americans who were easily within reach. While the lies used to cover up this disaster are easy to explain, the rationale behind the unconscionable stand down orders must still be determined. As the facts stand now, the likely explanations do not bode well for President Obama. The circumstances suggest the decision was made by a callous and desperate president struggling with a re-election campaign, a central plank of which was that al-Qaeda had been decimated and was &#8220;on the run&#8221; &#8212; not something affirmed by news of al-Qaeda operatives&#8217; murder of our ambassador and military personnel. Or perhaps our commander-in-chief was too busy being our campaigner-in-chief and simply didn&#8217;t care about the carnage unfolding on his watch, which he declined to prevent. In any case, it is incumbent on the Obama administration to provide a rationale for its disastrous decision. As persistent Americans have shown, the investigation will not cease until that occurs.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/blow-by-blow-how-obama-hillary-left-americans-to-die/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>158</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Did ICE Director John Morton Deceive Congress?</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/volpe/did-ice-director-john-morton-deceive-congress/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=did-ice-director-john-morton-deceive-congress</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/volpe/did-ice-director-john-morton-deceive-congress/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Mar 2013 04:20:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael Volpe]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[illegal alien]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[immigrant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Morton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[release]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[testimony]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=183455</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What new evidence reveals about the man who oversaw Obama's mass release of illegals. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/volpe/did-ice-director-john-morton-deceive-congress/t1larg-ice_-john_-morton-afp_-2/" rel="attachment wp-att-183487"><img class=" wp-image-183487 alignleft" title="t1larg.ice_.john_.morton.afp_" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/t1larg.ice_.john_.morton.afp_1-450x310.jpg" alt="" width="252" height="174" /></a>The claim made by the Obama administration that sequester was the reason for releasing thousands of suspected illegal aliens onto America&#8217;s streets starting mid-February 2013 has come under further scrutiny due to new revelations. Recently it has come to light that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the agency overseeing the release, didn’t follow proper protocols for managing their budgets after the prisoner population increased for a period during the months of October, November, and December of 2012.</p>
<p>Speaking in front of the House Judiciary Committee on March 19, 2013, ICE Director John Morton told the committee that in the months of October, November, and December of 2012, the detainee population in ICE facilities ballooned to between 35,000 and 37,000. ICE was only appropriated to hold an average of 34,000 detainees. Morton claimed that this increase in the population was the main reason, along with the sequester, that thousands of detainees were released starting on February 15, 2013.</p>
<p>According to staff on the House Judiciary Committee and the House Appropriations Committee, if this was the problem, none of the proper committees were notified at the proper time, nor were any other proper protocols followed.</p>
<p>Sara Threadgill is the press secretary for U.S. Rep John Carter (R-TX). Carter is chairman of the Homeland Security Sub-Committee of the House Appropriations Committee. As such, Carter is the point person for all funding issues for ICE, which is a part of DHS. She said that the Obama administration never claimed prisoner populations were a problem when they are now claiming this was the case. Threadgill said:</p>
<blockquote><p>The Homeland Security Subcommittee on Appropriations does receive reports regarding the number of detention beds ICE is using. They are aware that operations vary based on time of year and other factors but the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Appropriations was not made aware of what was happening until the illegal criminals were released.</p></blockquote>
<p>Front Page Magazine also contacted a number of staffers on the Democrat-controlled Senate Appropriations Committee, but heard nothing back as of publication.</p>
<p>Threadgill also pointed out that the administration had other alternatives besides releasing detainees.</p>
<p>“They had other options. For example, they never sought reprogramming/transfer authority, particularly for unobligated fee balances, that would have made a difference.”</p>
<p>During the hearing, Morton admitted that he could have used the transfer authority, but declined.</p>
<p>“We can seek reprogramming requirements, that is absolutely true, Mr. Chairman, and we did not in this instance,” Morton told House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) during the hearing. “I did not want to rob Peter to pay Paul. My view is that we need to maintain the operations of the agency, I did not want to furlough people, and my view is that I need to make rational decisions across the [agency accounts].”</p>
<p>By this Morton suggested that money to pay for holding extra detainees would come at the expense of other operations: undercover assignments, border patrol, customs, etc. Numerous Republicans challenged that argument during the House Judiciary hearing. They argued that about $100-120 million was sitting in unused funds from excess user fees, and it could have been used to make up the difference.</p>
<p>Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-TX) took an especially tough stance on that issue during the hearing:</p>
<blockquote><p>It appears to me that the release of the detainees was part of a sequester campaign that included the fictional firing of teachers, the closing of the White House for student tours, the displacement of meat inspectors and now we are going to release aggravated felons—some aggravated felons onto the street.</p></blockquote>
<p>This comes as the administration’s narrative continues to be challenged on numerous fronts. For instance, while the administration claims that it was the sequester that cut these detainees, it can’t explain why they had to release almost ten thousand of the 34,000 they normally hold, when the sequester is at worst a 5% cut, or the equivalent of 1,700 detainees.</p>
<p>Congressman Bob Goodlatte is Chairman of <a href="http://judiciary.house.gov/news/2013/03192013_2.html">the House Judiciary Committee and he hammered on this point in a press release following the hearing</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>The sequester mandated a 5% cut at ICE but the agency released more than 5% of detained criminal and illegal immigrants.  These facts make it appear that the decision to release more than 600 convicted criminals and others facing charges into our communities was more of a political calculation than a budgetary necessity.   This decision not only undermines ICE’s credibility but also undercuts the American people’s trust in this Administration’s ability to enforce our immigration laws.</p></blockquote>
<p>Furthermore, <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/volpe/obama-admin-met-radical-groups-before-mass-release-of-illegals/">Front Page Magazine reported exclusively</a> last week that the Obama administration’s ICE Public Advocate met with a number of left-wing groups at several locations spread sporadically throughout the country in the months just prior to the release. These sorts of groups have argued for years that the Obama administration has been too heavy-handed in arresting and detaining suspected illegal aliens, pointing to the Obama administration’s own boasting of record deportation figures.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, the administration, which once claimed it would be the most transparent in history, has yet to produce any of the career bureaucrats who were alleged to have been responsible for the decision.</p>
<p>Even though all this presents a number of conflicting stories, the administration has been short on answers. ICE officials didn’t respond to an email from Front Page Magazine to explain this latest revelation that they failed to follow proper protocols.</p>
<p>There is a bit of good news on this matter, however. <a href="http://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/03.21.13_cr_-_homeland_summary.pdf">In the continuing resolution passed by the House and Senate which funds the government until September,</a> the appropriations committee appropriated enough money so that ICE would maintain an average of 34,000 per day again.</p>
<p>“The bill also provides $138 million to complete the deployment of the Secure Communities program, and $2.8 billion for ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations, providing a total of 34,000 beds – maintaining the highest detention capacity in history. The bill also prohibits funds for the ICE Public Advocate, “</p>
<p>It should be noted that, while it is buried, the current budget cuts all funds to the ICE Public Advocate, the office that organized those controversial meetings in the months prior to the release of the detainees in February.</p>
<p>This story continues to unfold and it’s still not entirely clear why all these suspected illegal aliens were released, but it is clear that the administration has told a series of stories all in contradiction with each other and with other known facts.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/volpe/did-ice-director-john-morton-deceive-congress/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Stonewalling Benghazi into Irrelevancy</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/stonewalling-benghazi-into-irrelevancy/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=stonewalling-benghazi-into-irrelevancy</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/stonewalling-benghazi-into-irrelevancy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2013 04:51:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arnold Ahlert]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Benghazi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stonewall]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[terrorist attack]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[testimony]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=175308</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Obama administration's modus operandi for defusing scandals.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/stonewalling-benghazi-into-irrelevancy/640x392_18215_238201-2/" rel="attachment wp-att-175312"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-175312" title="640x392_18215_238201" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/640x392_18215_2382011.jpg" alt="" width="231" height="169" /></a>Last week, the dwindling number of Americans who believe this administration owes them an honest explanation regarding the murders of ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi were likely expecting that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton might be forced to shed some light on the issue. What they got instead was a well-rehearsed theatrical presentation, complete with tears, anger and self-righteous indignation. When Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) contended that the administration had deliberately misled the American public, Clinton <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/hillary_gives_away_the_game.html">answered</a> angrily. &#8220;With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans,&#8221; she said. &#8220;Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they&#8217;d go kill some Americans? What difference&#8211;at this point&#8211;does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened, and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.&#8221; That is an abject lie. As CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson has so masterfully revealed, the real &#8220;job&#8221; of this administration is to stonewall this scandal into irrelevancy.</p>
<p>Towards that end, Attkisson has compiled a <a href="http://twitchy.com/2013/01/22/boom-cbs-sharyl-attkisson-tears-into-obama-admin-over-benghazigate/?utm_source=autotweet&amp;utm_medium=twitter&amp;utm_campaign=twitter">list</a> of penetrating questions Obama administration officials have steadfastly refused to answer, since she began asking them as early as last October. To wit:</p>
<p>&#8211;What time was Ambassador’s Stevens’ body recovered, what are the known details surrounding his disappearance and death, including where he/his body was taken/found/transported and by whom?</p>
<p>&#8211;Who made the decision not to convene the Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG) the night of the Benghazi attacks?</p>
<p>&#8211;We understand that convening the CSG[is] a protocol under Presidential directive (“NSPD-46”). Is that true? If not, please explain&#8230; if so, why was the protocol not followed? Is the Administration revising the applicable Presidential directive? If so, please explain.</p>
<p>&#8211;Who is the highest-ranking official who was aware of pre-911 security requests from US personnel in Libya?</p>
<p>&#8211;Who is/are the official(s) responsible for removing reference to al-Qaeda from the original CIA notes?</p>
<p>&#8211;Was the President aware of Gen. Petraeus’ potential problems prior to Thurs., Nov. 8, 2012? What was the earliest that any White House official was aware?</p>
<p>&#8211;What is your response to the President stating that on Sept. 12, he called 911 a terrorist attack, in light of his CBS interview…on that date in which he answered that it was too early to know whether it was a terrorist attack?</p>
<p>&#8211;Is anyone being held accountable for having no resources close enough to reach this high-threat area within 8+ hours on Sept. 11, and has the Administration taken steps to have resources available sooner in case of emergency in the future?</p>
<p>&#8211;A Benghazi victim’s family member stated that Mrs. Clinton told him she would find and arrest whoever made the anti-Islam video. Is this accurate? If so, what was Mrs. Clinton’s understanding at the time of what would be the grounds for arrest?</p>
<p>&#8211;The Administration is reported to have asked that the anti-Islamist YouTube video initially blamed in Benghazi be removed from YouTube. If true, what is the Administration’s view regarding other videos or future material that it may wish were not published, but are legal? What is the Administration&#8217;s criteria in general for requesting removal of a YouTube or other Internet video?</p>
<p>Attkisson further highlights administration stonewalling, noting that a White House official indicated that none of the above questions will be answered, and that Freedom of Information Acts (FOIAs) filed by CBS asking for answers from the State Department, CIA, FBI and Defense Department have been ignored. The same stonewalling applies to &#8220;repeated requests&#8221; for the &#8220;promised surveillance video from Benghazi,&#8221; White House photos taken on the night of the attack and  &#8220;an accounting&#8221; of President Obama&#8217;s decisions and actions.</p>
<p>How does the administration get way with sweeping a monumental scandal like this one under the rug? Sunday night&#8217;s &#8220;60 Minutes&#8221; on CBS offered a perfect example of the overt media corruption that makes it possible. Despite the fact that Steve Croft scored an interview with both President Obama and Hillary Clinton, presenting him with a perfect opportunity to press the issue, here is the <em>totality</em> of questioning <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/336057/unaccountability-accountability-review-board-bing-west#">regarding</a> Benghazi:</p>
<blockquote><p>Kroft: &#8220;You said during the hearings, I mean, you&#8217;ve accepted responsibility. You&#8217;ve accepted the very critical findings of Admiral Mullen and Ambassador Pickering. As the <em>New York Times</em> put it, you accepted responsibility, but not blame. Do you feel guilty in any way, in&#8211;at a personal level? Do you blame yourself that you didn&#8217;t know or that you should have known?</p></blockquote>
<p>Here&#8217;s how both Clinton and Obama &#8220;answered&#8221; the question.</p>
<blockquote><p>Clinton: &#8220;Well, Steve, obviously, I deeply regret what happened, as I&#8217;ve said many times. I knew Chris Stevens. I sent him there originally. It was a great personal loss to lose him and three other brave Americans. But I also have looked back and tried to figure out what we could do so that nobody, insofar is possible, would be in this position again. And as the Accountability Review Board pointed out, we did fix responsibility appropriately. And we&#8217;re taking steps to implement that. But we also live in a dangerous world. And, you know, the people I&#8217;m proud to serve and work with in our diplomatic and development personnel ranks, they know it&#8217;s a dangerous and risky world. We just have to do everything we can to try to make it as secure as possible for them.&#8221;</p>
<p>Obama: &#8220;I think, you know, one of the things that humbles you as president, I&#8217;m sure Hillary feels the same way as secretary of state, is that you realize that all you can do every single day is to figure out a direction, make sure that you are working as hard as you can to put people in place where they can succeed, ask the right questions, shape the right strategy. But it&#8217;s going to be a team that both succeeds and fails. And it&#8217;s a process of constant improvement, because the world is big and it is chaotic. You know, I remember Bob Gates, you know, first thing he said to me, I think maybe first week or two that I was there and we were meeting in the Oval Office and he, obviously, been through seven presidents or something. And he says, &#8216;Mr. President, one thing I can guarantee you is that at this moment, somewhere, somehow, somebody in the federal government is screwing up.&#8217; And, you know you&#8217;re&#8211; and so part of what you&#8217;re trying to do is to constantly improve systems and accountability and transparency to minimize those mistakes and ensure success. It is a dangerous world. And that&#8217;s part of the reason why we have to continue to get better.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>The so-called investigation by the Accountability Review Board <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/336057/unaccountability-accountability-review-board-bing-west#">took</a> 13 weeks. It concluded that <em>no one</em> was responsible for the security breakdown that left four Americans dead, even as it completely ignored finding out why administration officials peddled the &#8220;Muslim video&#8221; excuse for the attacks. As for Obama callously characterizing this scandal as little more than one of an expected series of government &#8220;screw-ups,&#8221; perhaps the only thing worse was the president&#8217;s previous description of the murders as <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/09/24/Obama-Attacks-In-Middle-East-Bumps-In-The-Road">&#8220;bumps in the road.&#8221;</a></p>
<p>An American Thinker <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/hillary_gives_away_the_game.html">column</a> by Daren Jonescu explains how this stonewalling not only serves the administration&#8217;s purposes regarding Benghazi, but the entire progressive agenda as well. After noting that Clinton could never have gotten away with saying, &#8220;what difference&#8211;<em>at this point</em>&#8211;does it make&#8221; in the days or even the first few weeks immediately following the attacks, Jonescu lays the progressive strategy bare:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;The key to the progressive &#8216;ratchet,&#8217; as it is often, correctly, called, is that no step forward may ever be retraced. Each stage of degradation is to be rationalized after the fact, precisely by the means exemplified in Hillary Clinton&#8217;s stark question&#8230;Was modern public education conceived as a tool for preventing the development of individualism and exceptional men, in favor of a morally and intellectually stunted &#8216;workforce&#8217; of the compliant to support an entrenched oligarchy?&#8230;Would ObamaCare&#8217;s individual mandate stand up to the judgment of the framers of the U.S. Constitution?&#8230;The key to the success of Western socialism&#8217;s &#8216;progress&#8217; is not the periodic lurches toward the abyss. It is the art of effective stalling. All of today&#8217;s political and moral outrages will be rationalized with a shrug tomorrow: &#8216;What difference&#8211;at this point&#8211;does it make?&#8217;&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>Before the November election, the Obama administration was embroiled in four major scandals: Fast and Furious gunrunning to Mexico, the leaking of top-secret intelligence information most likely from the White House, a string of &#8220;green&#8221; company bankruptcies tied to political donors, and Benghazi. In each case, this administration, abetted by fellow Democrats and see-no-evil media apparatchiks, has moved further and further away from the point where each one occurred, to the place where, at &#8220;this point&#8221; in time, this cavalcade of overt corruption can be characterized as an unnecessary or unseemly effort to &#8220;rehash&#8221; old news. Furthermore, if anyone dares to bring up Benghazi when Mrs. Clinton makes her inevitable run for presidency in 2016, this unholy alliance of protectors will undoubtedly accuse her detractors of misogyny for daring to bring up something that&#8211;at this point&#8211;no longer makes any difference.</p>
<p>Four dead Americans and no remotely credible explanation as to who was responsible or why, <em>ought </em>to say otherwise. That it doesn&#8217;t&#8211;and won&#8217;t&#8211;is a testament to the level of corruption that the majority of the public and the media are willing to tolerate, as long as the progressive cause is served. For the American left, there will always be screw-ups and bumps along the road to utopia. When the ends justify the means&#8230;what difference do they make?</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/stonewalling-benghazi-into-irrelevancy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>17</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Unsinkable Hillary</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/the-unsinkable-hillary/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-unsinkable-hillary</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/the-unsinkable-hillary/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2013 04:28:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Benghazi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Presidency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[testimony]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=175207</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Democratic presidential nominee for 2016 just keeps on going.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/the-unsinkable-hillary/hillary-rodham-clinton-2/" rel="attachment wp-att-175209"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-175209" title="Hillary Rodham Clinton" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/o-HILLARY-CLINTON-BENGHAZI-HEARING-PHOTO-570.jpg" alt="" width="283" height="207" /></a>Margaret Brown earned her moniker as “The Unsinkable Molly Brown” by surviving the sinking of the Titanic. Hillary Clinton earned hers by surviving multiple scandals, the last of them claiming four lives. During the Clinton Administration, Hillary Clinton was followed around by the phantom corpses of conspiracy theories, but now four real corpses trail in her wake without ever slowing her down.</p>
<p>Hillary’s departure into the lifeboat is another escape from a ship that is too big to sink. Obama hasn’t been very popular in a while and if she’s going to make her run in 2016, she will need some distance from the shambling disaster that the S.S. Hussein is likely to be three years from now. After being cheated out of her captain’s hat in 2008, she’s determined to be the first in line to receive it in 2016.</p>
<p>That was the deal that brought Bill Clinton on board to campaign indefatigably in 2012 while courting future donors for 2016. The leftist uprising over Iraq that drove Joe Lieberman out of the Democratic Party and undid Hillary Clinton’s careful positioning as a centrist candidate will be out of date by then. And once Obama has spent eight years shredding the country over social issues and partisan quarrels, Hillary’s old alliances with the middle of the party will come in handy to make her seem like a centrist.</p>
<p>Hillary Clinton’s histrionic Senate testimony wasn’t the performance of a cabinet member, but of a candidate. Victimization is her flawed strategy that seems more Lifetime than Lincoln, but while it didn’t pay off particularly well during the 2008 primaries, there’s also no doubt that it resonates strongly in certain quarters.  The theatrics were however particularly repugnant as a tactic for avoiding questions about the abandonment and murder of four Americans.</p>
<p>As a former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton finally has some credentials to present for the 2016 race, above and beyond those of a carpetbagger sliming her way into a senate seat on her husband’s name and his connections. But those credentials are entirely worthless.</p>
<p>Hillary Clinton has a slew of photographs as mementos from her time in office, including some taken by cell phone cameras in the streets of Benghazi, but no actual accomplishments. Her reset button with Russia failed from the start and as she heads for the exit, relations with the big bear are far worse than they were when she brought the infamous misspelled button as a peace offering.</p>
<p>China has slid over to the hardliners and is actively courting a conflict with Japan. North Korea has taken its cue from Beijing and is openly talking about using nuclear weapons against the United States. Most of America’s Middle Eastern allies that don’t have oil have fallen into the hands of Islamist regimes and it is now in the situation of being entirely dependent on political and tribal Islamists.</p>
<p>The news doesn’t get better anywhere else. The left has a hard grip on South America and the PRI is even back in power in Mexico. Europe “likes” us better now that one of theirs is in power, but that liking doesn’t actually translate into influence. Under Bush, America led Europe. Under Obama, America is led around into backing the UK and France’s wars while being shut out of their economic sessions. About the only accomplishment that Clinton can claim anywhere is in Burma, a place that is mainly of interest to professional human rights activists.</p>
<p>Hillary can’t really be blamed for Obama’s lost war in Afghanistan or the unraveling of the Libyan War into a regional Al Qaeda conflict, but neither can she be exempted from it as an innocent. She may not have set military policy, but nor does it appear that she had much to offer in the way of diplomacy or useful counsel on the international arena.</p>
<p>Like Molly Brown, Hillary Clinton has picked the perfect time to exit the sinking wreck. The Arab Spring is starting to take on tones so ugly that even the most sheltered liberal warding off the real world with unfurled copies of the New York Times and the Washington Post cannot deny that something appears to have gone wrong. As Egypt burns, Hillary passes the baton to John Kerry, who has never met a dictator that he didn’t fall in love with, and leaves him with the responsibility of dealing with the disaster.</p>
<p>On the Asian front, Japan and China have both shifted toward militaristic governments, and half of Asia is caught between them. At some point the series of minor incidents will get so big that even the densest Democrat will be forced to notice and ask why the smartest man ever and his nuanced boy wonder aren’t doing something about it. By then Hillary Clinton will be dictating her memoirs to a ghostwriter and chuckling while John Kerry tries to explain that the violence is surprisingly complicated.</p>
<p>When Afghanistan implodes and the Taliban march into Kabul, dragging the corpses of little girls behind them, she won’t be associated with the failure of the coalition deal with the Taliban. It’ll be John Kerry haltingly explaining how it all went wrong even though it was all done right.</p>
<p>Voters will have trouble remembering what, if anything, Hillary Clinton actually did during her time as Secretary of State. And that is exactly how she wants it. If Hillary has her way, she would rather that voters, especially the low information kind, remember images of her shaking hands. She doesn’t want them to remember her on television explaining why some part of the world had gone to hell.</p>
<p>That is why Hillary Clinton did her best to avoid testifying about Benghazi, not because she was afraid that it would expose her complicity, but that it would associate her with a disaster. And once again she resorted to becoming the victim of a right wing conspiracy of senators who had some basic questions about the murder of four Americans and the lies told by the administration about those murders.</p>
<p>Rather than answer those questions, Hillary did what she had always done, she obstructed, she blamed others and she made it about her, rather than about the dead. That shallow self-centered approach is what she shares in common with Obama. The dead have never slowed Hillary Clinton down. Her gaze has always been on the horizon of her ambitions. That horizon once lay on 2008. Now it shines on 2016.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/the-unsinkable-hillary/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>69</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hillary Lets the Jihadist Cat Out of the Bag</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/hillary-lets-the-jihadist-cat-out-of-bag/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=hillary-lets-the-jihadist-cat-out-of-bag</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/hillary-lets-the-jihadist-cat-out-of-bag/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2013 04:55:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Spencer]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Benghazi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jihad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[testimony]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=174710</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Contradicts four years of jihad denial from the White House. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/hillary-lets-the-jihadist-cat-out-of-bag/hillary-clinton-benghazi-testimony-jpg/" rel="attachment wp-att-174737"><img class=" wp-image-174737 alignleft" title="Hillary-Clinton-Benghazi-testimony-jpg" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Hillary-Clinton-Benghazi-testimony-jpg.jpg" alt="" width="240" height="180" /></a>After four years of pretending there is no jihad against the free world, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton blurted out the truth during her testimony on the Benghazi jihad massacre Wednesday: “We now face a spreading jihadist threat,” <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-to-appear-before-congress-over-benghazi-attack/2013/01/22/3f03f8ee-64ce-11e2-85f5-a8a9228e55e7_print.html">she said, adding:</a> “We have to recognize this is a global movement.”</p>
<p>We do? Yet the Obama administration has for years steadfastly and repeatedly denied both that there was a jihadist threat at all and that it was a global movement. So far has the Obama administration been from acknowledging that there was a jihad threat that less than two months into Obama’s first term, on March 16, 2009, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-with-homeland-security-secretary-janet-napolitano-away-from-the-politics-of-fear-a-613330.html">noted proudly</a> that in her first testimony to Congress, “I did not use the word ‘terrorism,’ I referred to ‘man-caused’ disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.”</p>
<p>Even “terrorism,” absent a modifier, was a politically correct euphemism for jihad violence that demonstrated an unwillingness to examine the beliefs of the jihadists, for to have done so would have led straight into Islam. Those who described those dedicated to destroying the United States simply as “terrorists” generally did not want to admit that Islam had anything to do with that war. George W. Bush had started this ball rolling when he proclaimed Islam a “religion of peace” shortly after 9/11; however, Bush officials could and did explore the Islamic texts and teachings that illuminated jihadist motives and goals. Under Obama, it became official U.S. policy not to do so.</p>
<p>On May 13, 2010, Attorney General Eric Holder testified before the House Judiciary Committee, where he was questioned repeatedly by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) about whether the Fort Hood jihad mass murders, the attempted jihad car bombing in Times Square, and the Christmas underwear jihad bomber over Detroit could be attributed to “radical Islam.” Holder repeatedly refused to agree to this, going only so far as to <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/14/holder-balks-at-blaming-radical-islam/?page=all">say</a>: “There are a variety of reasons why people do these things. Some of them are potentially religious.”</p>
<p>Noted Smith: “I don’t know why the administration has such difficulty acknowledging the obvious, which is that radical Islam might have incited these individuals. If you can’t name the enemy, then you’re going to have a hard time trying to respond to them.”</p>
<p>Indeed. Nonetheless, Obama’s nominee for CIA director, John Brennan, who is the current Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, echoed Holder’s reluctance to say that Islam had anything to do with jihad terrorism on May 26, 2010, during a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. He <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/27/counterterror-adviser-defends-jihad-legitimate-tenet-islam/#ixzz2IqbTq3Fm">declared</a>: “Nor do we describe our enemies as jihadists or Islamists because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam meaning to purify oneself or one’s community.” Brennan has repeated this many times, and has defined the enemy not as a global movement, but as a “<a href="http://snooper.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/">small fringe of fanatics</a>” consisting of <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/27/counterterror-adviser-defends-jihad-legitimate-tenet-islam/#ixzz2Iqd4Fqxf">al-Qaeda and “its terrorist affiliates.”</a></p>
<p>It was no surprise, then, that Brennan readily agreed in October 2011 to demands from Islamic supremacist groups with links to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Islamic Society of North America, to purge all training materials for law enforcement and intelligence agents of all mention of Islam or jihad. Dwight C. Holton, former U.S. Attorney for the District of Oregon, <a href="http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/doj_official_holder_firmly_committed_to_eliminating_anti-muslim_training.php">emphasized</a> that training materials for the FBI would be purged of everything politically incorrect: “I want to be perfectly clear about this: training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they are offensive, and they are contrary to everything that this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for. They will not be tolerated.”</p>
<p>In December 2011, when Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) asked Paul Stockton, assistant defense secretary for homeland defense, whether “we are at war with violent Islamist extremism,” Stockton did his best to dodge the question and <a href="http://nation.time.com/2011/12/08/anti-islamic-hyperventilation/#ixzz1fz36J0aE">finally answered</a>: “I don’t believe it’s helpful to frame our adversary as Islamic with any set of qualifiers that we might add, because we are not at war with Islam.”</p>
<p>This created numerous absurd situations, since Islamic jihadists so often spoke of Islam and jihad in explaining and justifying their actions, but the Obama administration plowed ahead anyway. Most notoriously, it <a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2011/ft-hood_hsga_special-report.htm">characterized</a> the November 2009 Fort Hood jihad massacre, when Major Nidal Hasan, a self-described “soldier of Allah” who had given numerous indications of his jihadist proclivities and was shouting “Allahu akbar” as he murdered thirteen Americans, not as Islamic jihad or even terrorism, but as “workplace violence.”</p>
<p>And now, after years of politically correct obfuscation, Hillary Clinton describes our enemies as “jihadists.” Will Brennan rebuke her? Will Obama? Probably not, since they can be sure that an ever-compliant mainstream media won’t ever ask the uncomfortable questions that should be asked at this point: Does this signify a departure from administration policy? Is the Obama administration going to reevaluate its refusal to examine the role that Islam plays in motivating those who identify themselves as mujehedin, jihadists, warriors of jihad and Islam? Doesn’t Hillary’s statement undercut everything the administration has stood for all along – and, incidentally, demonstrate the cynicism and dishonesty of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations campaign to make Americans think that jihad is just getting in your exercise or taking the kids to school?</p>
<p>But of course, it was just a slip of the tongue. “No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar,” said Abraham Lincoln, and in doing so, he demonstrated why the Obama administration’s See-No-Jihad, Speak-No-Jihad policy is doomed to failure: the Muslim enemies of the United States are obviously Islamic jihadists, as shown by their own words, their largely unchallenged claim within the Islamic world to represent authentic Islam, and their references to Islamic texts and teachings to justify their actions and gain new recruits – again largely unchallenged. Hillary Clinton knows they’re jihadists, and that’s why she called them that, although she would almost certainly not have done so if she had been more collected and not caught off guard. But it is when one is under pressure that the lies give way. And so they did.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/hillary-lets-the-jihadist-cat-out-of-bag/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>91</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>For a Jailed Filmmaker, Clinton&#8217;s Benghazi Lies Make a Difference</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/for-a-jailed-filmmaker-clintons-benghazi-lies-make-a-difference/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=for-a-jailed-filmmaker-clintons-benghazi-lies-make-a-difference</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/for-a-jailed-filmmaker-clintons-benghazi-lies-make-a-difference/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2013 04:50:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Benghazi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[muslim brotherhood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[testimony]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=174720</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Answering the Secretary of State. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/for-a-jailed-filmmaker-clintons-benghazi-lies-make-a-difference/640x392_18215_238201/" rel="attachment wp-att-174747"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-174747" title="640x392_18215_238201" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/640x392_18215_238201.jpg" alt="" width="303" height="235" /></a>Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived back in the Senate, after dodging a few falling safes, multiple banana peels and an ornery dog named Henry, to give a carefully prepared histrionic rant which can be summed up, &#8220;I do care a lot&#8221; and &#8220;None of this was my fault&#8221; and &#8220;What difference at this point does it make?&#8221;</p>
<p>The last isn&#8217;t a sarcastic restatement. It&#8217;s what she actually said.</p>
<p>It might make a difference to a Coptic Christian whose trailer for a bad movie was blamed by the leader of the free world for a series of Al Qaeda attacks against American diplomatic facilities and who was sent to prison on the orders of members of the administration.</p>
<p>That filmmaker is the only one to actually get locked up. The ringleader of the attack walks the streets of Benghazi freely. A drone could make short work of him, but no drones are coming his way. Instead a car bomb, planted by Libyan enemies nearly took him out. Some of the other Benghazi attackers were killed by the Algerian military during the siege; doing the work that Obama won&#8217;t do. If the Benghazi terrorists finally die, it will most likely be at the hands of the French, the Syrian army or Libyan rival militias.</p>
<p>Benghazi, Obama said, during his appearance with Jon Stewart, the man of many grimaces, was a bump in the road. And that&#8217;s all it was. The Obama campaign bus drove over four bodies and reached its destination in an armored parking garage somewhere in D.C. An irritated Hillary Clinton, who is prepping for her own bus tour in 2016, demands to know what difference it makes now to discuss who lied about what and who failed to secure the Benghazi mission.</p>
<p>The election is over, and her testimony was delayed until after the fat lady held up her talking points at the debate and sang. Al Qaeda is dead, except for the parts of it rampaging across Syria, Iraq, Mali, Libya, Algeria and Pakistan, and a decade of war is coming to an end or just beginning. It makes no difference now which one of those it really is, just as it makes no difference, whether, as Clinton said, it happened &#8220;because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans?&#8221;</p>
<p>Over in Cairo, leading senators visited Egypt&#8217;s Muslim Brotherhood President, Mohammed Morsi and tried to explain to him that ranting about Jews being the bloodthirsty spawn of apes and pigs who must be driven out of the Middle East is “inappropriate” if he expects to be considered a force for stability in the region. In response, Morsi told the senators that he respects all religions and that the only reason the New York Times belatedly mentioned the story a month later is because the apes and pigs control the media.</p>
<p>Afterward Obama sent him a bunch of tanks and jets, because really what difference does it make?</p>
<p>Morsi knows that he can say whatever he pleases and still get the F-16s and Abrams tanks and the billions of dollars in aid, and so it makes no difference at all what he says.</p>
<p>Sure at some point in the near or distant future, Morsi might use those weapons to, &#8220;free the land from the filth of the Jews”. And then the Christians. And when that happens, someone will sit down in front of a Senate panel and explain that they really do care a lot, that it wasn&#8217;t their fault and that assigning blame makes no difference at this point.</p>
<p>And then there&#8217;s nothing left, but to ask what difference would it make if she had secured the Benghazi mission, if Obama had dispatched timely rescue forces or if we had stayed the hell out of Libya. If would have made a large difference to the dead, but not a whole lot to Hillary 2016.</p>
<p>France is fighting in Mali now and it&#8217;s getting about as much support from Washington, as the dead of Benghazi did. The drones aren&#8217;t flying here either and neither is much of anything else. Obama&#8217;s people have said that they support the French operation but that they&#8217;re still waiting to get a &#8220;clear picture&#8221; of the mission, the enemy and how much this will offend the Morsis of the Muslim world.</p>
<p>The quest for a clear picture was also the pitch made by Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Barack Obama whenever they were asked about the Great YouTube Trailer Terrorist Attacks of 2012. The picture never got any clearer, but as they would say, “What difference does it make?”</p>
<p>This really isn&#8217;t about Benghazi, which could have been secured for a fraction of the $16 million that her State Department spent on overpriced Kindle book readers and the $4.5 million it spent on art in embassies. You could have dropped the cost for fully protecting the Benghazi mission into the billion that State spent on global warming. Or the dough that Howard Gutman, campaign contributor and Ambassador to Belgium who shares some of Morsi&#8217;s views, spent renovating his embassy into a shining example of Green Sustainableness could have instead been spent on fortifying the Benghazi mission.</p>
<p>This isn&#8217;t even about Hillary 2016. It&#8217;s about the Middle East where bad policies make a world of difference. And it&#8217;s about a political establishment that rewards the Hillary Clintons for the disasters they make while punishing the Michele Bachmanns for the truth that they tell, because it is unable to come to terms with its own mistakes.</p>
<p>Carter gave us the Mullah-ridden Iran and began pouring money into the Pakistani terror machine of the ISI. Obama gave us a North Africa that is beginning to look like Iran and has shoved handfuls of cash, weapons and support at any Islamist whose views and affiliations stop just short of Al Qaeda, even if he happens to be Al Qaeda&#8217;s best friend.</p>
<p>But what difference does it make when few Republican senators can discuss what the Brotherhood really stands for and its impact on the Middle East and the West? Crimes don&#8217;t make a difference unless there are people who can expose them for what they are. Democrats have criminalized many ordinary things, such as buying cough syrup without a photo ID or making a movie that offends Muslims, but they have decriminalized other things, such as funding and arming terrorists and endangering the survival of the free world.</p>
<p>Reversing this process and reversing Hillary 2016 requires men and women who can show why what happened in Benghazi, in Cairo and across the region makes a difference. It will make a difference when there are enough people who realize that in the last four years, these policies have paved the way for replacing the war of drones and hijackers with a global war on the scale of the first two.</p>
<p>Then the difference that Hillary dismissed and that her colleagues in Obama Inc. have held at bay for another four years will finally be made.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/for-a-jailed-filmmaker-clintons-benghazi-lies-make-a-difference/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>43</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Kerry Remains Unfit for Command</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/arnold-ahlert/why-kerry-remains-unfit-for-command/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=why-kerry-remains-unfit-for-command</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/arnold-ahlert/why-kerry-remains-unfit-for-command/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Dec 2012 05:40:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arnold Ahlert]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Communism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Kerry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Swift Boat Veterans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[testimony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vietnam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Winter Solider]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=170679</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A look back at the ugly truths the Swift Boat Vets brought to light about the senator. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/arnold-ahlert/why-kerry-remains-unfit-for-command/kerry-4/" rel="attachment wp-att-170689"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-170689" title="kerry" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/kerry1.jpg" alt="" width="224" height="170" /></a>It is now official. Last week, President Obama <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/john-kerry-nominated-president-obama-succeed-hillary-clinton/story?id=18036194">nominated</a> John Kerry to succeed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, saying Kerry&#8217;s &#8220;entire life has prepared him for this role.&#8221; He further contended that Kerry&#8217;s service as a Vietnam veteran taught him the &#8220;responsibility to use American power wisely, especially our military power.&#8221; That assessment may come as a shock to the thousands of Vietnam veterans whose reputations Kerry trashed in order to advance his own radical political agenda.</p>
<p>Remarkably, outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, unable to attend the nominating ceremony due to her continuing effort to dodge testimony regarding the Benghazi debacle, viewed that trashing as an asset. &#8220;John Kerry has been tested&#8211;in war, in government, and in diplomacy. Time and again, he has proven his mettle,&#8221; said a written statement released by Clinton. &#8220;I remember watching young Lieutenant Kerry&#8217;s testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee many years ago and thinking that I had just seen a man of uncommon courage and conscience.&#8221;</p>
<p>This is a particularly callous and stinging statement from Clinton. Many Americans are aware of John Kerry&#8217;s infamous abuse of his fellow soldiers during the &#8220;Winter Soldier Investigations,&#8221; when he <a href="https://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/JohnKerryTestimony.html">appeared</a> before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971 as a representative of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) and made the following statement:</p>
<blockquote><p>They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.</p></blockquote>
<p>Kerry contended that these atrocities were committed &#8220;on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.&#8221;</p>
<p>Yet there were even more damnable parts of Kerry&#8217;s testimony that have remained largely under the radar. Like every good progressive, Kerry promoted the leftist worldview of a racist America, no better than the enemy we were fighting. &#8220;We saw that many people in this country had a one-sided idea of who was kept free by our flag, as blacks provided the highest percentage of casualties. We saw Vietnam ravaged equally by American bombs as well as by search and destroy missions, as well as by Vietcong terrorism, and yet we listened while this country tried to blame all of the havoc on the Viet Cong,&#8221; he stated. Furthermore, Kerry embraced a defeatism proven colossally wrong years later by President Ronald Reagan, claiming, &#8220;We cannot fight communism all over the world, and I think we should have learned that lesson by now.&#8221;</p>
<p>Kerry&#8217;s toxic legacy makes him a perfect choice for the radical Obama administration, as <a href="http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/why-i-oppose-john-kerry/">explained</a> by Jerome Corsi, Harvard Ph.D. and co-author with John O&#8217;Neill of the book &#8220;Unfit For Command, Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry”:</p>
<blockquote><p>The young John Kerry who condemned the U.S. military in his infamous 1971 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has much in common with the young Barack Obama who expressed admiration for Franz Fanon and Malcolm X when expressing in the pages of his autobiography his particular form of anti-colonial black rage against the United States of America.</p></blockquote>
<p>Co-author John O&#8217;Neill, the former leader of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that played an instrumental role in thwarting Kerry&#8217;s presidential bid in 2004, and driving progressives crazy in the process, was equally blunt. In an email published as part of a <em>Wall Street Journal</em> <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324001104578161062571306322.html?mod=ITP_opinion_0">column</a> by former editorial board member Seth Lipsky (written before it was clear whether Kerry would be nominated for State or Defense), O&#8217;Neill contended that Kerry &#8220;is well qualified to be the Secretary of Defense&#8230;of Cuba or Venezuela. He [is] certainly an expert on surrender and can run up a white flag with the best of them.&#8221;</p>
<p>Lipsky himself wonders about the hypocrisy of President Obama, who paid lip service to the need to &#8220;correct the narrative of Vietnam,&#8221; noting that thousands of American GIs were held responsible for the &#8220;misdeeds of a few,&#8221; while at the same time nominating the Senator from Massachusetts. &#8220;It is hard to think of anyone who did more to besmirch the name of the GIs who fought in Vietnam than Sen. Kerry,&#8221; says Lipsky, who also reminds us that Kerry testified &#8220;after meeting in Paris with envoys of our communist foe and then echoing in the debate here their calls for an immediate withdrawal of American forces from Vietnam.&#8221;</p>
<p>Most Americans are unaware that Kerry not only besmirched veterans, but our nation&#8217;s methods of conducting war as well. Another <a href="http://old.nationalreview.com/document/kerry200404231047.asp">statement</a> he made during the hearings ought to be brought up during the nomination process, especially when one considers that President Obama has made extensive use of unmanned drones to kill terrorists. &#8220;We veterans can only look with amazement on the fact that this country has been unable to see there is absolutely no difference between ground troops and a helicopter crew, and yet people have accepted a differentiation fed them by the administration,&#8221; Kerry states at the Senate hearing. &#8220;No ground troops are in Laos, so it is all right to kill Laotians by remote control.&#8221; It would be interesting to know if Kerry is against killing terrorists by &#8220;remote control&#8221; per se, or if he is merely indignant that they are not given an equal opportunity to kill our troops in return, due to America&#8217;s technological advantage.</p>
<p>One may further wonder if Kerry knows who the real terrorists are. Despite voting to authorize the use of force in Iraq, based on several <a href="http://www.whosaiditiraq.blogspot.com/">statements</a> that Saddam Hussein was a &#8220;brutal and murderous dictator&#8221; who has &#8220;used weapons of mass destruction,&#8221; Kerry once again <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXaoavV1d4s">took</a> an opportunity to bash American&#8217;s fighting forces on CBS&#8217;s &#8220;Face the Nation&#8221; in 2006. &#8220;And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the&#8211;of&#8211;the historical customs, religious customs,&#8221; he told host Bob Schieffer.</p>
<p>That wasn&#8217;t Kerry&#8217;s only disparagement of soldiers fighting in Iraq. During his <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15499174/ns/politics/t/uproar-over-kerry-iraq-remarks/">speech</a> at Pasadena City College, Kerry thought he was being humorous. &#8220;You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq,” he said. His fallback excuse was that he was bashing President Bush, not the troops.</p>
<p>Much of Kerry&#8217;s record would have been suppressed were it not for the efforts of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who brought much of this information to the fore. Their efforts in exposing the Senator have been excoriated by the mainstream media, furious that the Swift Boaters were able to derail Kerry&#8217;s run for the presidency in 2004. It was the Swift Boat Vets who exposed his slandering of American GIs, and largely debunked much of his self-acclaimed heroism. They were so effective, that a 2010 <a href="http://www.propublica.org/article/soldiers-with-brain-trauma-denied-purple-hearts-adding-insult-to-injury">investigation</a> by Pro Publica and National Public Radio revealed that soldiers who had sustained concussions in Iraq were denied Purple Hearts because some military doctors didn’t want &#8220;anymore John Kerrys.&#8221; It was the Swift Boaters who charged Kerry with accepting Purple Hearts that were not honestly earned. Part of those charges center around the reality that despite receiving three of them, he never <a href="http://www.redstate.com/2012/09/16/john-kerry-is-an-ignoramus-but-you-knew-that/">spent</a> any time in a hospital.</p>
<p>Yet it is Kerry himself who has sown the seeds for what ought to be his ultimate disqualification for Secretary of State. In an April 18, 1971 appearance on &#8220;Meet the Press,&#8221; Kerry <a href="http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/john-kerrys-war-crimes/">admitted</a> that he committed war crimes in Vietnam. “There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed&#8230;All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down.” Kerry added that those who condoned or engaged in such activities were &#8220;war criminals.&#8221;</p>
<p>When confronted with that statement by the late Tim Russert in 2004, Kerry claimed the word &#8220;atrocities&#8221; was &#8220;inappropriate.&#8221; When Russert pressed him on his Winter Soldier testimony, asking if many of Kerry&#8217;s stories had been &#8220;discredited,&#8221; the Senator hedged. “Actually, a lot of them have been documented,” he said. Russert asked, “So you stand by that?” Kerry replied, “A lot of those stories have been documented.” Nonetheless, Kerry has also tried to excuse his past behavior as the work of an &#8220;angry young man.&#8221;</p>
<p>Angry young man or not, how many documented stories constitutes &#8220;a lot,&#8221; versus the percentage of outright lies &#8212; along with Kerry&#8217;s assertion that he was a pawn of a government of &#8220;war criminals&#8221; &#8212; ought to be an integral part of any confirmation hearing. So should the ludicrous claim he made in an <a href="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/04/r_is_for_reckless?page=full">article</a> he wrote for Foreign Policy magazine last September. &#8220;I grew up in a Senate and foreign-policy world where we treated as gospel the notion that&#8211;as Sen. Arthur Vandenberg famously said&#8211;&#8217;politics stops at the water’s edge,&#8217;” Kerry wrote.</p>
<p>That Kerry’s career of politicizing war over the course of <em>decades</em> reveals this to be an utter lie is indisputable. Yet even more troubling, it reveals a level of self-denial so deep, one might be forgiven for wondering how it is possible he is even being <em>considered</em> for Secretary of State, much less a <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/12/21/john-kerry-hillary-clinton-secretary-of-state-barack-obama/1775589/">reported</a> shoo-in to get the job. That reality is as much a testament to the nature of something known as &#8220;Senate collegiality&#8221; which, in this case, amounts to confirming a hack willing to undercut American troops whenever it served his purposes, to a position fourth in the line of presidential succession lest the Senate chamber become a hotbed of rancor if Kerry is denied the nomination.</p>
<p>The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, who officially <a href="http://www.humanevents.com/2012/12/13/will-swift-boat-veterans-reunite-to-protest-a-kerry-nomination/">disbanded</a> as a political organization in 2008, might be up to the task of making the process a bit harder for Kerry and his Senate friends. John O’Neill played it close to the vest when he appeared on Fox News&#8217;s &#8220;Hannity.&#8221; “We will do the best we can, Sean. I was contacted today, I spoke with three people that won the Congressional Medal of Honor, who will do the very best we can,&#8221; he promised. &#8220;We’ve got kids&#8211;heck, I mean, we have hundreds of thousands of kids who have been engaged in combat or in the armed forces. Can you imagine them counting on John Kerry to protect their back?”</p>
<p>Thousands of troops already know the answer to that question. It is up to the Senate to decide whether their sacrifices and their reputations from Vietnam to the present can be kicked to the curb. When the fog of political expediency is penetrated, Kerry&#8217;s fellow senators face a simple choice: they can either demonstrate respect and loyalty for America&#8217;s fighting forces, or one of their own.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/arnold-ahlert/why-kerry-remains-unfit-for-command/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>30</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Petraeus Recants Obama&#8217;s Benghazi Fiction</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/matthew-vadum/petraeus-recants-obamas-benghazi-fiction/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=petraeus-recants-obamas-benghazi-fiction</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/matthew-vadum/petraeus-recants-obamas-benghazi-fiction/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2012 04:52:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matthew Vadum]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Benghazi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[peter king]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Petraeus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[terrorist attack]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[testimony]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=165791</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[With nothing to lose, the general comes clean. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/matthew-vadum/petraeus-recants-obamas-benghazi-fiction/121109_petraeus2_ap_605-600x328/" rel="attachment wp-att-165796"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-165796" title="121109_petraeus2_ap_605-600x328" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/121109_petraeus2_ap_605-600x328-450x321.jpg" alt="" width="315" height="225" /></a>Former CIA Director David Petraeus told Congress he never believed the Obama administration’s claim that the attack on a U.S. mission in Libya was a spontaneous mob action prompted by a crude anti-Islam video.</p>
<p>In closed-door testimony Friday, Petraeus said that he believed all along that Islamic terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on the 11th anniversary of 9/11. In so doing, Petraeus recanted his previous account two months ago of that terrible day that left four Americans dead in which he promoted the Obama administration’s official storyline.</p>
<p>“General Petraeus’ testimony today was that from the start he told us that this was a terrorist attack, that terrorists were involved from the start,” King <a href="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/rep-peter-king-reveals-what-petraeus-testified-about-he-knew-libya-was-terrorism-from-the-start/">said</a> after the House Intelligence Committee sitting. “I told him in my question I had a very different recollection of that.”</p>
<p>“The clear impression we were given was that the overwhelming amount of evidence was that it arose out of a spontaneous demonstration and it was not a terrorist attack … he has, I think, a different impression of the impressions he left on Sept. 14.”</p>
<p>A CIA analyst also testified that the intelligence agency’s talking points for the White House immediately drafted after the attack specifically stated that al-Qaeda played a role in the attack that claimed the life of Ambassador Chris Stevens.</p>
<p>Somehow the passage about al-Qaeda disappeared from documents. “After it went through the process … that was taken out,” King said.</p>
<p>U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice monopolized the Sunday TV talk shows on Sept. 16, regurgitating the official version of events which blamed the attack on an obscure YouTube video that few around the world had actually seen at the time of the attack.</p>
<p>Critics say Rice was part of a pre-election cover-up and that she knowingly deceived the public. For a fortnight after the attack the Obama administration strenuously maintained the fiction that the incident in Benghazi, a known terrorist stronghold, was an organic popular uprising somehow inspired by an Ed Wood-quality anti-Islam video. Eventually the administration was forced to admit that what happened in that Libyan city was carried out by Islamic terrorists.</p>
<p>The lie about the true nature of the attack helped to prevent a spectacular implosion of President Obama’s claim that al-Qaeda was on the run and virtually irrelevant thanks to his policies. Weeks before this past election Obama bragged, “al-Qaeda is on the path to defeat and Osama bin Laden is dead.”</p>
<p>Benghazi could easily become Obama’s Watergate, potentially a presidency-ending scandal far worse than President Nixon’s cover-up of a bungled burglary.</p>
<p>Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could be called to testify on the events in Libya. In 1974, she was part of a legal team advising the House Judiciary Committee. She may have participated in drafting the three articles of impeachment approved by the committee that accused President Nixon of acting in a manner “subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.”</p>
<p>Obama almost certainly knew what was happening on the ground in Libya as it was happening and yet he did nothing, preferring instead to fly off to a fundraiser in Las Vegas. And if Obama didn’t know, that in itself is a devastating indictment of his presidency.</p>
<p>Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is determined to nip any talk of impeachment in the bud. On Friday, he dismissed three Republican senators’ demand for the creation of a Watergate-style congressional committee to investigate the attack in Benghazi.</p>
<p>Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) had written Reid a letter on Nov. 3 that was <a href="http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&amp;ContentRecord_id=c6509ad9-b457-2ef2-e22f-c5bdfd52f74e&amp;Region_id=&amp;Issue_id=">co-signed</a> by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.)</p>
<p>“[I]t is essential for the Congress to conduct its own independent assessment of the attack in Benghazi … the complexity and gravity of this matter warrants the establishment of a temporary Select Committee that can conduct an integrated review of the many national security issues involved, which cut across multiple executive agencies and legislative committees – including Foreign Relations, Intelligence, Armed Services, and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.”</p>
<p>Justifiably confident that the mainstream media wouldn’t cause any trouble, Reid told the senators to take a long walk off a short pier.</p>
<p>In a Nov. 16 <a href="http://images.politico.com/global/2012/11/121116_benghazi_2.html">reply</a> Reid said he won’t allow the Senate to become a “venue for baseless partisan attacks.” Several committees in the House and the Senate are already investigating the attack and a Watergate-style panel “may serve to further politicize an issue that has already been manipulated by Members of both the House and Senate in service of partisan agendas.”</p>
<p>Reid then accused <em>Republicans</em> of playing politics with the Benghazi scandal and putting American lives at risk.</p>
<p>“In the weeks following this terrorist attack, members of the Republican Party in both the House and Senate have misrepresented the facts as presented in numerous briefings by the United States Intelligence Community through a constant stream of falsehoods, exaggerations, and leaks of sensitive national security information.”</p>
<p>McCain “has gone so far as to make the outrageous claim that this event was ‘worse than Watergate’ – despite the fact that there is no evidence that any crime was committed, no evidence of any cover-up, and no evidence that the administration has characterized the incident in any way that has not been consistent with the Intelligence Community’s contemporaneous assessments.”</p>
<p>Reid also blasted House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) for “undertak[ing] a deeply flawed and partisan investigation with a clear intent to politicize this tragedy.”</p>
<p>Meanwhile, left-wingers are stepping up their attacks on Sen. McCain (R-Ariz.) for daring to criticize a senior member of the administration who happens to be black and female, two important victim groups in the Marxist catechism.</p>
<p>Setting the cause of civil rights and feminism back decades, a group of far-left lawmakers smeared McCain who said Ambassador Rice was “not qualified” to be secretary of state based on her statements about Benghazi. McCain said he would “do everything in my power to block her” from becoming America’s top diplomat. “She has proven that she either doesn’t understand or she is not willing to accept evidence on its face.”</p>
<p>With her racism and sexism decoder rings turned to maximum sensitivity, Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio), said, “There is a clear, a clear in my opinion, sexism and racism that goes with these comments that are being made by, unfortunately, Senator McCain and others.” Fudge is the incoming chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus.</p>
<p>Where were these people when then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was being savagely attacked as an Uncle Tom and as a “skeezer” during the Bush administration? Oh wait, they were the ones doing the name-calling.</p>
<p>Rice, along with Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), are reportedly under consideration to replace Hillary Clinton as secretary of state.</p>
<p>Given President Obama’s micromanaging tendencies, it may not matter much who succeeds Clinton in Foggy Bottom.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/matthew-vadum/petraeus-recants-obamas-benghazi-fiction/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>66</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Petraeus Scandal Means Media Can No Longer Ignore Benghazi</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/rick-esenberg/petraeus-scandal-means-media-can-no-longer-ignore-benghazi/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=petraeus-scandal-means-media-can-no-longer-ignore-benghazi</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/rick-esenberg/petraeus-scandal-means-media-can-no-longer-ignore-benghazi/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2012 04:43:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rick Esenberg]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[affair]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attack]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Benghazi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[general]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paula Broadwell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Petraeus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[testimony]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=165130</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The general will eventually testify -- and the fallout will be magnified because of his resignation.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/rick-esenberg/petraeus-scandal-means-media-can-no-longer-ignore-benghazi/1111_petraeus_630x420/" rel="attachment wp-att-165135"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-165135" title="1111_petraeus_630x420" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/1111_petraeus_630x420-450x339.jpg" alt="" width="315" height="237" /></a>The bar for scandals has been getting pretty high. When I was a kid, a president was forced from office because he tried to cover up illegal behavior by his subordinates. As Nixon put it, “mistakes were made” and they proved to be the end of him. He richly deserved it.</p>
<p>Twenty-five years later, we countenanced a president who committed felony perjury because it was &#8220;just about sex&#8221; and the Dow Jones was up. Until now, most of the legacy media showed little interest in the Obama administration’s apparently deliberate attempt to obscure the nature of the attack on our consulate in Benghazi. We must be a kinder and gentler nation today. “Mistakes,” at least by Democrats, seem much easier to forgive.</p>
<p>The Benghazi scandal, until very recently, seemed to be a prime example of the mainstream’s media determination to see no evil when it might harm a favored president. In a rare moment that was both memorable and lucid, Joe Biden struck upon one of the few positive themes of the Obama campaign. “General Motors is alive and Osama bin Laden is dead.” Those nasty old terrorists are on the run. The president’s amazing name and Jedi-like powers of persuasion (“this is not the jihad you are looking for”) had brought about the Arab Spring. We’re safe now. We are now post-9/11.</p>
<p>But the theme threatened to unravel on, of all days, September 11, 2012 with the organized attack on our consulate in Benghazi. Within 24 hours, the CIA station in Libya and other sources close to the attack seem to have known what really happened. Nevertheless, the administration – whether deliberately or from confirmation bias &#8211; set out to create the impression that this was not an organized attack by Islamic terrorists who were supposed to no longer exist. They suggested it was simply a protest against a “despicable” on-line video denigrating the Prophet that got out of hand. In a creepy display of moral equivalence, the President’s surrogates suggested that there was no excuse for the (nonexistent) protesters or the blasphemous filmmaker.  Even CIA Director David Petraeus appears to have supported the cover story in a briefing on Capitol Hill several days after the attack.</p>
<p>As that story unraveled and questions began to arise regarding the failure of the administration to come to the aid of the besieged consulate, it finally conceded that there was no protest. It turns out to have been those terrorists again. In Watergate terms, this was a “modified limited hangout.” Admit some of the truth within a haze of misdirection and hope no one notices. The mainstream media was too eager to comply.</p>
<p>But everything may have changed last Friday. It was then that we learned that a couple of our most decorated military commanders and at least one of their female acquaintances have been acting like the cast of the HBO series “Girls.” Petraeus turns out to have been having an affair with his biographer.  The biographer, herself married with two small children, allegedly had come to see a female friend of the Petraeus family as a romantic rival and began to send her threatening e-mails. Our current commander in Afghanistan, a man known as the “warrior monk,” is being investigated for sending an inordinately large number of “inappropriate” e-mails to the aforementioned friend and suspected rival. Insert your own bad pun.</p>
<p>It turns out that even the best of us are fallen beings.</p>
<p>Sex and lies and videotape and terrorists. This is something that simply cannot be ignored and it deepens the Benghazi plot. Officials in the Justice Department apparently knew that the Director of the CIA was compromised in this way since last summer but did not tell the President until after the election.  Even if that is true, it does not make the matter much better. Shouldn’t the President of the United States – even one engaged in the critical business of keeping his job – know that the government’s top intelligence official is ripe for blackmail?</p>
<p>It may get worse. Petraeus knew that his philandering had been exposed at the time that he briefed Congress. But he apparently still thought that he might be able to keep his job. Could that have affected a briefing that was apparently at odds with the facts on the ground? You want to think not, but the question is unavoidable.</p>
<p>Many are struck by the fact that the revelation of the affair and ensuing resignation seems to have come in a sweet spot for the administration – after the election and before Petraeus was scheduled to testify before a congressional oversight committee.  That testimony was cancelled and Petraeus himself apparently thinks he need not testify.</p>
<p>He’s fooling himself.  Members on both sides of the aisle are making it quite clear that he will testify whether he wants to or not. Resignation does not absolve one of responsibility.</p>
<p>Mistakes were made. It remains to be seen just what they were and what the consequences will be.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/rick-esenberg/petraeus-scandal-means-media-can-no-longer-ignore-benghazi/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>59</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Gloria Allred Is Denied Her &#8216;October Surprise&#8217;</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/arnold-ahlert/gloria-allred-is-denied-her-october-surprise/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=gloria-allred-is-denied-her-october-surprise</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/arnold-ahlert/gloria-allred-is-denied-her-october-surprise/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Oct 2012 04:35:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arnold Ahlert]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[boston globe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gloria Allred]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maureen Sullivan Stemberg]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mitt romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[October Surprise]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sealed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[staples]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[testimony]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=162819</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Left-wing attorney's smear attempt against Mitt Romney is stopped in its tracks. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/arnold-ahlert/gloria-allred-is-denied-her-october-surprise/article-2223026-15af2444000005dc-641_634x445/" rel="attachment wp-att-162825"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-162825" title="article-2223026-15AF2444000005DC-641_634x445" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/article-2223026-15AF2444000005DC-641_634x445-439x350.gif" alt="" width="307" height="245" /></a>Attorney Gloria Allred, with ample help from the in-the-tank-for-Obama <em>Boston Globe</em>, is working furiously to insert herself into the closing days of the presidential election with an &#8220;October Surprise.&#8221; Her client, Maureen Sullivan Stemberg, claims that Mitt Romney <a href="http://www.tmz.com/2012/10/25/mitt-romney-divorce-testimony/#ixzz2AJwjYQAi">lied</a> under oath in 1991 during a post-divorce lawsuit she <a href="http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/10/25/court-allows-testimony-mitt-romney-stemberg-divorce-case-unsealed/PYQi6CxYTGOKRhtahY83DI/story.html">filed</a> against ex-husband and Staples founder Tom Stemberg. Ms. Sullivan had sought an amendment of the couple&#8217;s financial settlement from their 1987 divorce, because Staples went public two years later, and its stock price soared. Despite a confidentiality agreement signed by both parties, the <em>Globe</em> has sought to have the gag order overturned. Yesterday, a Massachusetts judge <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/no-objections-from-mitt-romney-on-gloria-allreds-support-for-requested-testimony/">issued</a> a rather interesting ruling: the gag order on Ms. Sullivan remains in effect, but the testimony of Mitt Romney can be released to the media.</p>
<p>In a blow to Allred&#8217;s ambitions, that ruling was precipitated by the fact that Tom Stemberg, who had initially opposed the <em>Globe’s</em> request to unseal the testimony, dropped his objection. “We have no concerns about the testimony,” Brian Leary, a lawyer for Stemberg, <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/Staples-Ex-CEO-Backs-Unsealing-Romney-Testimony-3981151.php">told</a> the judge in the Norfolk Probate Court in Canton, Massachusetts. Since the <em>Globe</em> was satisfied with getting Romney&#8217;s testimony released, they dropped the petition they had filed October 15th, leading the court to rule that Ms. Sullivan would have to file a separate motion to further amend the gag order.</p>
<p>“The Globe’s only interest all along, as should have been clear to all parties, was to obtain the transcript of a presidential candidate’s testimony,” said editor Martin Baron in a statement. “We wanted to read it to see what was there, following standard practice in covering a major election, and we are pleased that the court recognized the great public interest in Governor Romney’s testimony. If it became possible to obtain the transcript without lifting a gag order, we had no reason to object. The gag order is a matter for others to litigate, if they wish to do so.”</p>
<p>Allred was furious, contending that Ms. Sullivan was being denied her rights under the First Amendment, and accusing the Globe of a “double cross.” “Out of context, [Romney's testimony] has no meaning for the public,” Allred said. “She can put it in context.” Maybe she can, but as of Wednesday, Ms. Sullivan <em>herself</em> stated through her attorney that she had no objection to the newspaper&#8217;s decision to vacate their petition. Thus it would seem that Allred&#8217;s <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/no-objections-from-mitt-romney-on-gloria-allreds-support-for-requested-testimony/">third</a> attempt in three years to bring forth a woman with &#8220;bombshell&#8221; info aimed at changing the course of a political race is about to fall flat.</p>
<p>So apparently is the effort by a left-wing newspaper to gin up a last-minute media campaign regarding third-party testimony in a post-divorce case more than two decades old. Despite the high-minded claims by <em>Globe</em> editor Martin Baron, the divorce, and the fireworks surrounding it, is <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2222988/Maureen-Sullivan-The-furious-firecracker-ex-wife-Staples-founder-gunning-bring-Romney-down.html">old news</a>. The story has been repeatedly covered by Boston newspapers, as well as an article on the front page of the <em>Wall St. Journal </em>&#8211; marking the epic saga’s 10th anniversary<em>.</em> In other words, the <em>Globe</em> could have released this story weeks, or even months, ago. That they chose this particular moment in time reeks of Chicago-style dirty politics.</p>
<p>Moreover, in the world of Chicago-style dirty politics, getting sealed divorce records unsealed is <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/01/obamas-signature-move-unsealing-private-records/">nothing new</a>. In Barack Obama&#8217;s 2004 run for the U.S. Senate, the sealed divorce records of <em>both </em>Democrat<em> </em>Blair Hull, Obama&#8217;s opponent in the Democratic primary, and Jack Ryan, his Republican opponent in the general election, were unsealed. Hull&#8217;s records became public after an effort led by <em>Chicago Tribune</em> (Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod&#8217;s former employer) brought pressure to bear. According to the <em>New York Times,</em> “The Tribune reporter who wrote the original piece later acknowledged in print that the Obama camp had ‘worked aggressively behind the scenes’ to push the story.” Ryan&#8217;s records were also unsealed following a lawsuit  brought by the <em>Tribune</em> and a Chicago TV station. As a result, Obama, who was behind in both races before the records were unsealed, wound up in the U.S. Senate.</p>
<p>Mitt Romney is apparently unfazed by the effort to smear him. “This is a decades-old divorce case in which Mitt Romney provided testimony as to the value of a company,” his lawyer, Robert Jones, said in a statement. “He has no objection to letting the public see that testimony.” According to the <em>Washington Examiner,</em> there&#8217;s a good reason for that confidence: a source provided them with testimony from the appeals case, revealing that Romney didn&#8217;t &#8220;max out&#8221; on Staples stock even though he could&#8211;because he didn&#8217;t see the company&#8217;s success as a sure thing. &#8220;This disproves the Allred allegation completely. He put his money where his mouth was,&#8221; said the unnamed source.</p>
<p>Yet reality gets even more damnable for Allred. Romney&#8217;s testimony concerns the value of that stock at the time of the divorce settlement. Ms. Sullivan received nearly 500,000 shares in the company, valued at $2.25 each, giving them a total worth of approximately  $1.1 million. She then sold half her stock. <em>Two years later,</em> the stock rose to $19 a share, when the company went public. As a result, Ms. Sullivan pocketed around $5 million, instead of the $9.5 million she would have received if she had held on to all of the stock.</p>
<p>Thus, despite her <em>own decision</em> to sell half of her holdings, Ms. Sullivan has been determined to blame Mitt Romney for her smaller windfall, and has orchestrated an online smear campaign against him, spanning several years. Breitbart <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/24/Allreds-Client-Anti-Mormon-Bigot-Seeking-Money">reveals</a> that some of those smears may violate her gag order, while Buzzfeed <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/staples-founders-ex-wife-blasted-crazy-mormoni">reveals</a> that Ms. Sullivan, who is a Huffington Post &#8220;super user,&#8221; has used that Internet platform to spew bigotry with respect to the Mormon religion. Add a mini-biography of her life published in yesterday&#8217;s <em>Daily Mail</em> that details her &#8220;extraordinarily bitter divorce,&#8221; a bankruptcy, several relationships with younger men (some of which &#8220;ended explosively&#8221;), and a &#8220;raging 25 year war with her ex-husband,&#8221; by a woman &#8220;gunning to bring Romney down with an &#8216;October Surprise,&#8217;&#8221; and the picture of a woman desperate for her 15 minutes of fame seemingly emerges.</p>
<p>And who better to exploit that desperation than fame junkie Gloria Allred? That would be the same Gloria Allred who attended the “30 Days to Victory” Obama fundraiser at the Nokia Theatre in Los Angeles on October 7th, and <a href="http://nation.foxnews.com/gloria-allred/2012/10/24/exclusive-gloria-allred-met-obama-two-weeks-october-surprise">told</a> Fox News&#8217; correspondent Jesse Watters that she “just had a few words with the President” backstage. She further revealed that Obama &#8220;had some very kind words for me,” and “knows of my work…” even as she refused to reveal any further details about their conversation.</p>
<p>In the closing days of this presidential election, &#8220;conversation&#8221; is the operative word. The president and his shameless surrogates are doing everything they can to shift the conversation away from far more important topics, such as the ongoing Libya debacle, millions of un- or under-employed Americans, the top-secret national security leaks, the Fast and Furious gun-running scandal, a possible campaign donation scandal involving illegal foreign contributions, or the debasement of the American dollar &#8212; just to name a few<em>. </em>In short, this is a president whose entire campaign has been centered around little more than attempts to smear his opponent, sow the seeds of polarization among Americans, and bury a record of failure and incompetence under a blizzard of disinformation and outright lies.</p>
<p>Allred is a perfect foot soldier for such a campaign. So is the <em>Boston Globe,</em> whose sudden, over-riding interest in court testimony given by Mitt Romney twenty-one years ago is inversely proportional to anything remotely resembling interest in the president&#8217;s past. The common thread uniting the two? Immense desperation engendered by the realization that their leftist standard-bearer &#8212; and perhaps the entire progressive movement &#8212; is standing at the edge of the abyss.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/arnold-ahlert/gloria-allred-is-denied-her-october-surprise/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>51</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How Islam Ruined My Life &#8212; on The Glazov Gang</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/frontpagemag-com/how-islam-ruined-my-life-on-the-glazov-gang-1/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=how-islam-ruined-my-life-on-the-glazov-gang-1</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/frontpagemag-com/how-islam-ruined-my-life-on-the-glazov-gang-1/#respond</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jul 2012 04:01:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Frontpagemag.com]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Amani Mustafa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Anni Cyrus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[horror]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nonie Darwish]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[testimony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Torture]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=138883</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Amani Mustafa, Anni Cyrus and Nonie Darwish share the horrors they endured under Islam.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/slavery2.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-136423" title="slavery2" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/slavery2.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="300" /></a>This week we are replaying a <em>Glazov Gang </em>from our summer season that received massive interest and feedback. In this episode, Amani Mustafa, Anni Cyrus and Nonie Darwish gathered to share the horror and torture they endured under Islam. Below is <strong>Part I</strong> of a three part series. We will run <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/jamie-glazov/escape-from-sharia-on-the-glazov-gang/">Part <strong>II</strong></a> in tomorrow&#8217;s edition.</p>
<p><object style="height: 390px; width: 440px;" width="440" height="360" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="src" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xHyROz-_KIg?version=3&amp;feature=player_detailpage" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><embed style="height: 390px; width: 440px;" width="440" height="360" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xHyROz-_KIg?version=3&amp;feature=player_detailpage" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" /></object></p>
<p><strong>You can make sure that </strong><a href="https://secure.donationreport.com/donate.html?key=ASY2NUM6OSJ9" target="_blank"><strong><em>Jamie Glazov Productions</em></strong></a><strong> continues to take you where no other media programs dare to go. Help us by </strong><a href="https://secure.donationreport.com/donate.html?key=ASY2NUM6OSJ9" target="_blank"><strong>clicking here</strong></a><strong> and making a tax deductible contribution today. </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/frontpagemag-com/how-islam-ruined-my-life-on-the-glazov-gang-1/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How Islam Ruined My Life &#8212; on The Glazov Gang</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/frontpagemag-com/how-islam-ruined-my-life-on-the-glazov-gang/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=how-islam-ruined-my-life-on-the-glazov-gang</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/frontpagemag-com/how-islam-ruined-my-life-on-the-glazov-gang/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Jul 2012 04:35:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Frontpagemag.com]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Amani Mustafa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Anni Cyrus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[horror]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nonie Darwish]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[testimony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Torture]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=136405</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Amani Mustafa, Anni Cyrus and Nonie Darwish share the horrors they endured under Islam.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/slavery2.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-136423" title="slavery2" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/slavery2.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="300" /></a>On this week’s <em>Glazov Gang</em>, Amani Mustafa, Anni Cyrus and Nonie Darwish gathered to share the horror and torture they endured under Islam. Below is <strong>Part I</strong> of a three part series. We will run <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/jamie-glazov/escape-from-sharia-on-the-glazov-gang/">Part <strong>II</strong></a> in tomorrow&#8217;s edition.</p>
<p><object style="height: 390px; width: 440px;" width="440" height="360" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="src" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xHyROz-_KIg?version=3&amp;feature=player_detailpage" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><embed style="height: 390px; width: 440px;" width="440" height="360" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xHyROz-_KIg?version=3&amp;feature=player_detailpage" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" /></object></p>
<p><strong>You can make sure that </strong><a href="https://secure.donationreport.com/donate.html?key=ASY2NUM6OSJ9" target="_blank"><strong><em>Jamie Glazov Productions</em></strong></a><strong> continues to take you where no other media programs dare to go. Help us by </strong><a href="https://secure.donationreport.com/donate.html?key=ASY2NUM6OSJ9" target="_blank"><strong>clicking here</strong></a><strong> and making a tax deductible contribution today. </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/frontpagemag-com/how-islam-ruined-my-life-on-the-glazov-gang/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 1591/1741 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 13:12:05 by W3 Total Cache -->