News Media Have Become ‘Radicalized’ and ‘Marginalized’

Posted on May 28th, 2015

Media Explains by Eric Allie, CaglecartoonsBy Brent Bozell

Appearing on FBN’s Cavuto Friday night, MRC President Brent Bozell argued that the news media are losing the trust of the American public because they’ve become more “marginalized” and “radicalized” during the Obama years, deliberately ignoring news “if it harms the narrative of the left.”

Host Neil Cavuto began the segment, part of an hour-long look at the issue of trust in America, by pointing out that “the media itself is one of the least-trusted institutions, second only to Congress,” and yet many in the media continue to champion government action as a cure to social ills.

Both MRC’s Bozell and The Hill‘s Lauren Ashburn agreed that the media were too infatuated with government to act as an effective watchdog. But when Ashburn disagreed that journalists were ignoring liberal scandals, pointing to recent coverage of the Clinton Foundation scandal, Bozell called that “nonsense.”

They have not gotten to the bottom of a single one of the Obama scandals….Look at the IRS, look at Benghazi, look at the VA, look at so many scandals — they’ve been dropped. This one, this Clinton one, will be dropped as well. Read More..

Missing Hillary’s Libya Forest for the Benghazi Trees

Posted on May 27th, 2015

Benghazi Perpetrator Caught HillaryBy Thomas Lifson

Deplorable as were the deaths in Benghazi, a much larger disaster can be laid at Hillary’s feet, and the just-released emails prove the point. By far the most interesting take on the nearly 300 Hilary emails released in a classic pre-holiday weekend document dump comes from John Hinderaker of Powerline.  He points out that while critics of Clinton have understandably focused on the horrifying deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, the really big picture that comes out from the emails is that Hillary saw herself as the architect of our policy toward Libya, a policy that has been an unmitigated disaster.

Why were Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans murdered? Because by September 2012, Libya was a terrorist playground. Since then, things have only gotten worse. Libya has become a failed state, a 21st century source of boat people, as refugees from ubiquitous violence stream across the Mediterranean. Libya is now a haven for ISIS and other terrorist groups; it was on the Libyan coast that ISIS beheaded 30 Christians. Some of the “refugees” now making their way into Europe are, in fact, ISIS agents. In short, Libya is a disaster. Read More..


Posted on April 27th, 2015

Hillary NixonBy Wayne Allyn Root

Hillary is “the one.” She is our gift from God. Mana from Heaven. The gift that keeps on giving. Conservatives should get down on their knees and thank God for Hillary.

Okay, enough thanking and praying. Now let’s destroy her.

I speak at business conferences all over the world about my expertise- branding. The GOP has the greatest branding opportunity in modern history. Hillary is easier to brand than even Mitt Romney was for Democrats.

Destroy Hillary now and it leaves Democrats between a rock and a hard place. Here’s how to brand Hillary. This will be fun. It’s like shooting fish in a barrel. Hillary makes this job a joy! Read More..

Hillary’s Possible Criminal Liability in Email Scandal

Posted on March 13th, 2015

Hillary’s emails Blackberry grandmother

EDITOR’S COMMENT: DID SHE SIGN IT? Or not? Either way, she may be in trouble. Normally, when it comes to the Clinton’s, I would write this issue off, but there is a very close parallel here between Hillary’s actions and those of General David Petraeus, who just agreed to a plea deal, in order to stay out of jail. Her actions are very similar. And, by the way, does any of this deception remind you of good old Sandy Berger removing certain questionable classified documents in his socks and pants from the National Archives. These people will stop at nothing to protect their power and influence.

By Thomas Lifson

Shannen W. Coffin, a lawyer who was formerly counsel to VP Dick Cheney, has delved into the detailed legalities of State Department officials and their records and believes that Hillary Clinton may well have committed at least one felony when she departed her position as secretary of state while keeping possession of her entire e-mail correspondence.  In an article in National Review Online and an appearance on The Kelly File, he explains how Mrs. Clinton may need to add an orange jumpsuit to her collection of pantsuits and long, roomy jackets. 

Under provisions of the State Department’s records-management manual:

First, the “departing official or a staff member must prepare an inventory of personal papers and nonrecord materials proposed for removal.” The departing official must then “request a review of the materials proposed for removal.” Lest Mrs. Clinton claim she was not subject to this rule, the manual provides that this review process is specifically required for “Presidential appointees confirmed by the Senate.”

Mrs. Clinton has explicitly claimed to have followed all the rules and procedures that applied to her, so this last point is important.  What follows does apply to even the exalted position of departing SecState.  Note that the review must be requested.  In other words, the departing official herself cannot undertake this review, which is intended:

… “to certify that the documentary materials proposed for removal may be removed without diminishing the official records of the Department; violating national security, privacy or other restrictions on disclosure; or exceeding normal administrative economies.” The process “generally requires a hands-on examination of the materials to verify the accuracy of the inventory.” (5 FAH-4 H-217.2(b)).

Now comes the part that raises the specter of a felony:

Finally, there is a formal certification by the State Department records official authorizing the employee to remove the documents from State’s custody:Once the reviewing official is satisfied that documentary materials proposed for removal comply with Federal law and regulations the reviewing official completes Form DS-1904, Authorization for the Removal of Personal Papers and Non-Record Materials, and forwards the form and the inventory to the Department of State records officer.”

Courtesy of the Washington Examiner, you can study the form and other separation papers hereThe penalty for falsely signing the document is criminal and a felony.  And Coffin explains why Mrs. Clinton, if she did sign the document as State Department regulations require all departing officials to do, faces felony charges:

Mrs. Clinton plainly did not just remove personal e-mails without clearing that removal with records officials; she also did not even return official records. Her defense now is that returning the documents two years later is good enough. But the same records manual emphatically rebuts that post-hoc justification. The department’s records manual requires that departing officials “must ensure that all record material that they possess is incorporated in the Department’s official files and that all file searches for which they have been tasked have been completed, such as those required to respond to FOIA, Congressional, or litigation-related document requests.” And lest the employee not get the message, the manual adds that “fines, imprisonment, or both may be imposed for the willful and unlawful removal or destruction of records as stated in the U.S. Criminal Code (e.g., 18 U.S.C., section 2071).”

By Thomas Lifson for American Thinker

By permission American Thinker

Call Her Hillary Milhous Nixon

Posted on March 13th, 2015

Hillary Nixon by Rick McKee, The Augusta Chronicle from # 161199

By Jeffrey Lord

Nixon’s tapes, Hillary’s emails: the scary, similar defense.

Yes, I know Richard Nixon is no longer with us, but former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is doing an amazing job of channeling the nation’s 37th president. He remains with us on video. This includes, of course, his struggles in the Watergate crisis that eventually ended his presidency. Of particular note are his struggles after it was discovered that he had a taping system in the White House. The fight over the Nixon White House tapes — the technology of the day — are eerily called to mind in Mrs. Clinton’s current controversy over her emails.

In both cases the instant it was understood in the media and on Capitol Hill — and in Mr. Nixon’s case in the precincts of the Watergate Special Prosecutor — that tapes or email were out there the demand rose for their release. Nixon, at first adamant about ever releasing them, was quickly buried under a mass of bad press and actual subpoenas. He resisted, fired the special prosecutor (setting off the so-called “Saturday Night Massacre” firestorm), then, on April 29, 1974 went on television to announce he had resolved the problem. He had listened to the tapes, with what he deemed the relevant portions now transcribed in leather bound volumes (that were stacked neatly to his left on-camera.) That night he said he would hand over the transcriptions to investigators. There was no mention of what was already known — there was an eighteen-and-a-half minute gap.

As with Mrs. Clinton — whose emails are being sought by the Benghazi Committee and the Associated Press thus far —  there was an immediate uproar. No one believed the transcriptions were complete, and the fact that Nixon himself decided what was relevant launched a media and political outcry. 

For those who recall the furor, the Clinton press conference over her emails this week was, there is no other word for it, Nixonesque. So forthwith a comparison of the Nixon April 1974 speech on his Watergate tapes with Mrs. Clinton’s UN press conference. The similarities — from the rationale, to the demand for privacy, to the insistence that both Nixon and Clinton alone would be the final judge of what the public should see — are startling if not surprising. So with a minimum of commentary limited to pointing out the goal sought in saying something, forthwith eight parallels — some of them eerily similar —  between Richard Nixon on his tapes and Hillary Clinton on her e-mails.

1.  The goal: appear to be forthcoming when you’re not. Illustrate by referring to the amount of material/pages released to the public.

NIXON: In these folders that you see over here on my left are more than 1,200 pages of transcripts of private conversations I participated in between September 15, 1972, and April 27 of 1973 with my principal aides and associates with regard to Watergate. They include all the relevant portions of all of the subpoenaed conversations that were recorded, that is, all portions that relate to the question of what I knew about Watergate or the coverup and what I did about it.

They also include transcripts of other conversations which were not subpoenaed, but which have a significant bearing on the question of Presidential actions with regard to Watergate. These will be delivered to the committee tomorrow.

CLINTON: Third, after I left office, the State Department asked former secretaries of state for our assistance in providing copies of work-related emails from our personal accounts. I responded right away and provided all my emails that could possibly be work-related, which totaled roughly 55,000 printed pages, even though I knew that the State Department already had the vast majority of them.

2.  The goal: Appear transparent, citing the relevance of the documents to be released — while politely, carefully, but firmly making clear that only you will decide what gets to be released.

NIXON: In these transcripts, portions not relevant to my knowledge or actions with regard to Watergate are not included, but everything that is relevant is included—the rough as well as the smooth—the strategy sessions, the exploration of alternatives, the weighing of human and political costs.

As far as what the President personally knew and did with regard to Watergate and the coverup is concerned, these materials—together with those already made available—will tell it all.

CLINTON: We went through a thorough process to identify all of my work- related emails and deliver them to the State Department.

At the end, I chose not to keep my private personal emails — emails about planning Chelsea’s wedding or my mother’s funeral arrangements, condolence notes to friends as well as yoga routines, family vacations, the other things you typically find in inboxes.

3.  The goal: You are being unprecedented in your openness and trying to draw in other governmental institutions — members of the House Judiciary Committee (Nixon), the State Department (Clinton) — to back you up.

NIXON: I shall invite Chairman Rodino and the committee’s ranking minority member, Congressman Hutchinson of Michigan, to come to the White House and listen to the actual, full tapes of these conversations, so that they can determine for themselves beyond question that the transcripts are accurate and that everything on the tapes relevant to my knowledge and my actions on Watergate is included. If there should be any disagreement over whether omitted material is relevant, I shall meet with them personally in an effort to settle the matter. I believe this arrangement is fair, and I think it is appropriate.

CLINTON: Fourth, I took the unprecedented step of asking that the State Department make all my work-related emails public for everyone to see.

I am very proud of the work that I and my colleagues and our public servants at the department did during my four years as secretary of state, and I look forward to people being able to see that for themselves.

4.  The goal: Emphasize your right to privacy.

NIXON: Ever since the existence of the White House taping system was first made known last summer, I have tried vigorously to guard the privacy of the tapes. I have been well aware that my effort to protect the confidentiality of Presidential conversations has heightened the sense of mystery about Watergate and, in fact, has caused increased suspicions of the President. Many people assume that the tapes must incriminate the President, or that otherwise, he would not insist on their privacy.

But the problem I confronted was this: Unless a President can protect the privacy of the advice he gets, he cannot get the advice he needs.

CLINTON: No one wants their personal emails made public, and I think most people understand that and respect that privacy.

5.  The goal: You are historic. A sitting president (Nixon) and a former Secretary of State (Clinton) who has so much they are trying to achieve for the world. You are important, and cannot be distracted by all this pettiness while you are working so hard to change history.

NIXON: We live in a time of very great challenge and great opportunity for America.

We live at a time when peace may become possible in the Middle East for the first time in a generation.

We are at last in the process of fulfilling the hope of mankind for a limitation on nuclear arms—a process that will continue when I meet with the Soviet leaders in Moscow in a few weeks.

We are well on the way toward building a peace that can last, not just for this but for other generations as well.

And here at home, there is vital work to be done in moving to control inflation, to develop our energy resources, to strengthen our economy so that Americans can enjoy what they have not had since 1956: full prosperity without war and without inflation.

Every day absorbed by Watergate is a day lost from the work that must be done—by your President and by your Congress—work that must be done in dealing with the great problems that affect your prosperity, affect your security, that could affect your lives.

CLINTON: I want to thank the United Nations for hosting today’s events and putting the challenge of gender equality front and center on the international agenda. I’m especially pleased to have so many leaders here from the private sector standing shoulder to shoulder with advocates who have worked tirelessly for equality for decades.

Twenty years ago, this was a lonelier struggle. Today, we mark the progress that has been made in the two decades since the international community gathered in Beijing and declared with one voice that human rights are women’s rights, and women’s rights are human rights.

And because of advances in health, education, and legal protections, we can say that there has never been a better time in history to be born female. Yet as the comprehensive new report, published by the Clinton Foundation and the Gates Foundation this week makes clear, despite all this progress, when it comes to the full participation of women and girls, we’re just not there yet.

As I said today, this remains the great unfinished business of the 21st century. And my passion for this fight burns as brightly today as it did 20 years ago.

6.  The goal: I’m giving you everything you need to know. Period. If you don’t like it, too bad. There’s nothing more to see.

NIXON: The facts are there. The conversations are there. The record of actions is there.

To anyone who reads his way through this mass of materials I have provided, it will be totally, abundantly clear that as far as the President’s role with regard to Watergate is concerned, the entire story is there.

CLINTON: In going through the emails, there were over 60,000 in total, sent and received. About half were work-related and went to the State Department and about half were personal that were not in any way related to my work. I had no reason to save them, but that was my decision because the federal guidelines are clear and the State Department request was clear.

For any government employee, it is that government employee’s responsibility to determine what’s personal and what’s work-related. I am very confident of the process that we conducted and the emails that were produced.

7.  The goal: Make it clear that you trust the American people. Cast the whole issue as simple fairness, and you know the American people are fair.

NIXON: In giving you these records—blemishes and all—I am placing my trust in the basic fairness of the American people.

CLINTON: Now, with respect to any sort of future — future issues, look, I trust the American people to make their decisions about political and public matters.

8.  The goal: This far — and no further. There will be no more tapes released (Nixon). There will be no more emails released, much less the server (Clinton).

NIXON: I know in my own heart that through the long, painful, and difficult process revealed in these transcripts, I was trying in that period to discover what was right and to do what was right.

I hope and I trust that when you have seen the evidence in its entirety, you will see the truth of that statement.

CLINTON: The server contains personal communications from my husband and me, and I believe I have met all of my responsibilities and the server will remain private and I think that the State Department will be able, over time, to release all of the records that were provided.


When you sum it all up?

Richard Nixon and Hillary Clinton were and are on different mileposts of the same journey. Nixon was already in the White House and sought to save his presidency. Clinton is the presumptive nominee of the Democrats and seeks to save that nomination and the presidency that may lie beyond that.

But other than that specific difference? In the quest to complete their respective journeys both Richard Nixon and Hillary Clinton used not only the same tactic — which in Nixon’s day was called (by Nixon aide and Watergate conspirator John Ehrlichman) the “modified limited hangout.” Meaning: only put as much information out there as you need to do to survive. Release what you must, but don’t give them everything. And for heavens sake keep them from any incriminating information.

As the Watergate tape crisis spread, Nixon’s desperate gamble to keep his tapes ultimately failed. At one point Nixon aide Pat Buchanan suggested he take the tapes and toss them into a bonfire on the South Lawn. No one believed Nixon had delivered all available information — and eventually, the critics were proved right. The issue of the tapes was finally resolved by a unanimous Supreme Court. A requested tape was turned over — and there was the long-sought smoking gun proving Nixon’s personal participation in the scandal. Within days he had resigned and was flown to exile in California.

Mrs. Clinton has gone the Nixon route in several respects already — she has said she has had thousands of emails already deleted. Her version of the Nixon tape bonfire that never happened or the equivalent of that erased eighteen-and-a-half minutes of Nixon tape.

What next? Who knows. But one thing is for certain. Whatever else lies ahead, there is no doubt that the guiding spirit of her presidency would be not Hillary Rodham Clinton — but Hillary Milhous Nixon.   (my emphasis)

By Jeffrey Lord for The American Spectator

By permission The American Spectator


Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania.

Hillary Against the World

Posted on March 12th, 2015

Hillary emails by Steve Sack, The Minneapolis Star Tribune

By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.

Make way for the Episodic Apologists, who’ll bail her out once again.

Regarding last week’s string of stories about Hillary Clinton conducting her State Department business between 2009 and 2013 exclusively on a private email account, the heat—as we say here in Washington—is on in the kitchen. Her account was completely controlled by her. Even the server was controlled by her. She apparently had no State Department account when she was Secretary of State, and no one thought to ask about it until late in 2014 when a Congressional committee inquiring into the bloody assault on our complexes in Benghazi sought her emails. Yet now the heat is on in the kitchen and the Episodic Apologists are turning it up. Yesterday’s press conference was an attempt to calm them with the blessed emollient of Clintonian confusion. We shall see how it works.

We members of the Clinton Watch are familiar with that peculiar subspecies of journalists who compose the Episodic Apologists. They are members of mainstream media who have been covering the Clintons for over 25 years, always following the same course. They episodically fill with hope upon encountering this historic twosome. Then they collapse in indignation when that hope has been dashed by some inexplicable Clintonian scandal, say a young girl with an organically soiled dress, say missing billing records under subpoena, or say those same billing records miraculously reappearing years later in the First Lady’s living quarters. Yet as certain as night follows day these dutiful journalists are revived by hope renewed.

The Episodic Apologist is as much a fixture of the Clinton Era as was the Court Historian in the Age of Roosevelt—only slightly more absurd. In the Apologists’ periods of indignation they say things in print that cannot be erased. For instance, Apologist Al Hunt in the aftermath of Bill Clinton’s scandalous spree of pardons condemns Bill as the “albatross” of his party and adds a gratuitous invitation for him to “drop dead.” Or about the same time the New York Times’columnist Bob Herbert says “Bill Clinton has been a disaster for the Democratic Party…. the man is so thoroughly corrupt it is frightening.” Or the summary judgment of the New York Observer on Hillary as she tripped out of the White House in 2001: “Had she any shame, she would resign” from the Senate. Yes, they really said these things! Yet in a matter of months their hopes were renewed. Hillary even became their “inevitable” presidential candidate until they found another messianic figure.

It is as though the Episodic Apologist has lost a certain faculty of the brain that allows him to recall, in the case of the Clintons, past transgressions. The Apologist approaches the Clintons with the best of journalistic intentions. He—or she—records every sordid detail of a Clinton scandal, and yet as time goes by they utterly forget. They behold the hated Republicans. The Republicans become the alternative to the Clintons, and the poor Episodic Apologists cannot see things clearly. They collapse in the fear that by pursuing the Clintons in scandal they will be complicit in a Republican triumph. Perhaps even a Republican Reign of Terror.

I witnessed this neurological phenomenon firsthand during the Lewinsky scandal when a journalist chum came up to me and said, If he did this to that girl you’re right, Tyrrell. He should be impeached”—or something to that effect. Well, Bill did do it to—or perhaps with—that girl, but by the time we all knew it my friend had turned his ire on the hellish Ken Starr and eventually, during impeachment, on the hellish impeachment managers. In time his hope for the Clintons was renewed.

To return to the present Clinton scandal, it is now too early to say that the Episodic Apologists will maintain their indignation. Over at the National Journal there are indications the journalists are really angry. They report in a headline that “Democrats Aren’t Rushing to Defend Hillary Clinton.” Another headline distills Ron Fournier’s indignation: “Maybe Hillary Clinton Should Retire Her White House Dreams.” The Washington Post, the New York Times, doubtless even Brian Williams, are angry, and Brian doubtless knew about Hillary’s personal account all along.

So we shall see how long the indignation of the Apologists lasts. Remember the hellish Speaker Boehner is out there and the hellish Leader McConnell. Then too there are all those hellish Republicans angling for the White House. Maybe if Hillary can remind the Episodic Apologists that après moi le déluge,she will survive one more scandal. Then it will be “Hillary, the White House Years,” and more of the same.   (my emphasis)

By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. for the American Spectator

By permission The American Spectator

Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is the founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator. He is the author of The Death of Liberalism, published by Thomas Nelson Inc. His previous books include the New York Times bestseller Boy Clinton: the Political Biography; The Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton; The Liberal Crack-Up; The Conservative Crack-Up; Public Nuisances; The Future that Doesn’t Work: Social Democracy’s Failure in Britain; Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House; The Clinton Crack-Up; and After the Hangover: The Conservatives’ Road to Recovery.

Too Many Lies, Too Much of the Time

Posted on February 24th, 2015

Lies Word Cloud

By Alan Caruba

He who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and third time, till at length it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world’s believing him. This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good dispositions.”   — THOMAS JEFFERSON, letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 19, 1785

I am beginning to wonder if Americans have grown so accustomed to the lies told by the President, his administration, and others said to be highly regarded, that we are losing a sense of outrage?

To the degree that Brian Williams’ serial lies have evoked a national discussion, it’s good to know that most people think he has lost credibility to the point of not being a news anchor, but one still has to wonder what NBC will do at the end of the six month suspension it has imposed on him. I am cynical enough to think he may be offered a job at MSNBC.

Hillary Clinton and Brian Williams

It is far more significant that, regarding the leading candidate to be the Democratic Party’s choice to run for President in 2016, we know she engaged in similar lies of having been “under fire.”

It’s one thing to expect politicians to lie, but the nation’s future is at stake when we still do not know the truth of Hillary Clinton’s full role in the Benghazi attack that left a U.S. ambassador and three others dead. She was the Secretary of State at the time and we watched her stand at his side as the President attributed the attack to a video no one had ever seen. The fact that the attack occurred on the anniversary of 9/11 was conveniently ignored.

The refusal to identify the Islamic State (ISIS) as an enemy representative of the global jihad is not just politics. It is a lie on the order of the President’s assertion that “The Islamic State is not Islamic.” As we are repeatedly reminded, if you cannot or will not identify an enemy, you are leaving yourself and, in this case, the nation open to attack.

Indeed, many elements of the Obama administration have engaged in lying on a level that goes beyond “politics.” It is a deliberate attack on science itself when the EPA, NOAA and NASA actively engage in distorting data to say that the Earth is warming when it has been in a well-established cooling cycle for 19 years at this point.

How are we expected to maintain any confidence in an administration that lies about employment statistics and other critical data we need to know regarding the economy?

The lie about “income inequality” is the core rational for Communism. There is no such thing as equality when it comes to income because some people enjoy higher pay for higher skills, higher productivity, and higher responsibility. We don’t pay “sanitation engineers” the same as we pay real engineers. And you don’t create new jobs by raising the minimum wage when it will reduce existing and potential new jobs.

Most dramatically, it was a series of lies told by the President that led to the passage of ObamaCare. Its two thousand-plus pages were not read by the exclusively Democratic members of Congress who passed it and, today, we learn that it is a major contributor to the nation’s deficit which is the result of the government spending more than it takes in. For the past six years Obama’s policies have added trillions to our national debt, now $18 trillion and growing. It is going to be a burden on generations to come.

There is no evidence of the tax reforms that Congress knows are needed, nor reforms to the entitlement programs that are just years from becoming insolvent.

Whether it is domestic or foreign affairs, Americans have been at a loss to expect the national press to address the lies because they would have to abandon the protection they have afforded the President for the past six years. Only one news service, Fox News, is credited with providing the truth. Fortunately the Internet has provided access to many other outlets where the truth can be found. And, yes, many that maintain the lies.

It should come as no surprise that the Obama administration wants to regulate the Internet with a program that call “Net neutrality”, but there is nothing neutral about it. The freedom the Internet enjoys is the best example of the value Americans put on an uncensored source of information and communication. The Obama administration wants to control the Internet in the same way that despots around the world want to do. 

There is always a far higher price to pay for believing lies than knowing the truth.

We expect our enemies to lie. We should not expect our government to do so in such a routine and obscene fashion.     (my emphasis)

By Alan Caruba for Facts Not Fantasy

By permission Alan Caruba

Alan Caruba writes a daily post at

© Alan Caruba, 2015

Susan Rice Will Say Whatever Valerie Jarrett Tells Her To

Posted on November 5th, 2014

Obama Susan Rice by Gary McCoy, Cagle Cartoons

By Thomas Lifson

National Security Adviser Susan Rice has already earned Pinocchio status for her willingness to go on 5 Sunday talk shows and spout the phony tale of a video sparking the murderous terror attack on our Benghazi diplomatic facility. Credibility is not exactly her middle name. So who better to spout absolute nonsense that doesn’t pass the giggle test. Witness this tweet in the wake of an anonymous senior official (my guess: Obama) calling Bibi Netanyahu “chickensh*t” (hat tip: The Blaze)

Susan Rice Twitter

Having the National Security Adviser become a standing joke is not a good idea, for the nation and for the Obama administration. This reveals deep desperation. And a political operative who is so far out of her depth that she imperils the nation in a job with serious responsibilities.    (my emphasis)

By Thomas Lifson for American Thinker

By permission American Thinker


Posted on October 27th, 2014

Ship of fools Obama by Eric Allie,

By Wayne Allyn Root

From my commentaries the last few weeks, you know I’m concerned about a potential Ebola pandemic inside America. Nonetheless Ebola is a worry about a potential problem. A theoretical problem. No one knows yet how much damage Ebola can do to America.

On the other hand, we have already experienced the damage, destruction and pain of Obama. Let’s compare Ebola to Obama.

Ebola– so far, 1 dead and 2 nurses infected.

Obama- almost 50 million Americans on food stamps, 108 million on welfare or other entitlement programs, an all-time record number on disability. Over $3.7 trillion has been spent on welfare over the past five years under Obama.

Ebola– the healthcare, decantamination and security costs for Ebola are frightening. Each patient could cost in excess of $1 million to treat. But so far there are only a handful of patients. Ebola is with us for weeks, or months. Then it’s gone.

Obama the $7 trillion in debt added by Obama (so far) will cause decades of pain for American consumers and taxpayers,  damage middle class quality of life, and reduce U.S. economic growth for many generations to come.

Ebolathreatens to damage various sectors of the economy, but no one knows how bad it might be.

Obamaalready destroyed economy. Over 92 million working age Americans are not working. There are 10 million less Americans working than day Obama took office (even though the population is dramatically higher). We now have the lowest workforce participation rate in recorded history.

Ebola– this dreadful virus might overwhelm US healthcare system and result in higher health insurance premiums to pay for the massive cost.

Obamano guesswork needed. The facts are in. Obamacare has already wrecked the U.S. healthcare system and dramatically increased our premium costs. Premiums were up more in the past year than in the prior eight years COMBINED. But the worst is yet to come- rates are going even higher (over 60% in Seattle for example). And millions of cancellation notices are going out in the next few weeks.

Ebola– this virus has no known interaction with the IRS. It never came after me personally.

Obamaused IRS to try to destroy conservative donors and critics. I’m a witness. The White House clearly ordered the IRS to try to destroy me not once, but twice. Judicial Watch demanded the IRS hand over all documents related to my case. The IRS had 30 days- BY LAW- to comply. That was 15 months ago. The IRS has broken the law of the United States for well over a year to coverup for the crimes of Obama.

Eboladoesn’t sell guns to anyone.

Obama– in the “Fast and Furious scandal” the Obama administration sold guns to Mexican drug lords that killed over 200 Mexican citizens- plus a US border agent. So far that’s 200 more deaths than Ebola has caused in  North America.

Ebola– doesn’t trade deserters for 5 Jihadi terrorist murderers.

Obama- demoralizes U.S. military by making that unimaginable trade; cuts size of military dramatically; sends 4000 troops into Ebola Zone (with only 4 hours of Ebola training); and purges more generals than any president in history.

Ebolanever infected a single person at the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi.

Obama– allegedly traded arms to Muslim rebels that led to deaths of 4 American heroes at Benghazi; ignored pleas from our Ambassador for more security; denied a rescue mission while our heroes were under vicious attack; then covered up the tragedy by blaming it on obscure movie no one in Middle East ever watched.

Eboladoesn’t steal my money or regulate me out of business.

Obamaput in place the single biggest tax increase (Obamacare) in history.

Worse, he has proposed the most tax increases in history that never passed- 442

Worst of all, Obama is the #1 regulator in U.S. history.

Ebola– so far has not affected the border.

Obamahas crippled border security. He has left our Southern border completely unsecured from massive waves of illegal immigrants desperate for cradle to grave entitlements; diseases like TB, Enterovirus and of course Ebola; and terrorist cells who could cross our wide open border and unleash a devastating 9-11-style attack on U.S. soil.

Ebola– so far poses no threat to Israel and has left the Middle East untouched.

Obamahis policies have endangered the security of Israel, and led to the “Arab Spring” that toppled dictators friendly to America, leaving the Middle East under attack from radical groups like ISIS.

Add it up.

Ebola is a terrible threat. But so far, it is only a threat.

Obama is toxic. Obama has had a devastating effect upon America’s economy, healthcare system, national interests and reputation across the globe.

Ebola might give us a punch in gut.    (my emphasis)

Obama could be fatal.

By Wayne Allyn Root for Root for America

By permission Wayne Allyn Root

Benghazi Bombshell: Clinton State Department Official Reveals Details of Alleged Document Review

Posted on September 16th, 2014

Secretary Raymond MaxwellEDITOR’S COMMENT: You may have already heard about some of this breaking news story late yesterday. Here is the original and complete article from investigative journalist, Sharyl Attkisson, which is definitely worth reading, as this latest information will certainly be reported upon in the news over the next few weeks, as the House Select Committee on Benghazi begins its hearings in the next day or so.

By Sharyl Attkisson

As the House Select Committee on Benghazi prepares for its first hearing this week, a former State Department diplomat is coming forward with a startling allegation: Hillary Clinton confidants were part of an operation to “separate” damaging documents before they were turned over to the Accountability Review Board investigating security lapses surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya.

New Benghazi allegation puts spotlight on Hillary Clinton confidants, alleged after-hours document review.

According to former Deputy Assistant Secretary Raymond Maxwell, the after-hours session took place over a weekend in a basement operations-type center at State Department headquarters in Washington, D.C. This is the first time Maxwell has publicly come forward with the story.

At the time, Maxwell was a leader in the State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (NEA), which was charged with collecting emails and documents relevant to the Benghazi probe.

Raymond Maxwell, former State Dept. Deputy Assistant Secretary (Photo: Sharyl Attkisson)

“I was not invited to that after-hours endeavor, but I heard about it and decided to check it out on a Sunday afternoon,” says Maxwell.

He didn’t know it then, but Maxwell would ultimately become one of four State Department officials singled out for discipline—he says scapegoated—then later cleared for devastating security lapses leading up to the attacks. Four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were murdered during the Benghazi attacks.

“Basement Operation”

Maxwell says the weekend document session was held in the basement of the State Department’s Foggy Bottom headquarters in a room underneath the “jogger’s entrance.” He describes it as a large space, outfitted with computers and big screen monitors, intended for emergency planning, and with small offices on the periphery.

When he arrived, Maxwell says he observed boxes and stacks of documents. He says a State Department office director, whom Maxwell described as close to Clinton’s top advisers, was there. Though the office director technically worked for him, Maxwell says he wasn’t consulted about her weekend assignment.

She told me, ‘Ray, we are to go through these stacks and pull out anything that Department of State building in Washington, DCmight put anybody in the [Near Eastern Affairs] front office or the seventh floor in a bad light,’” says Maxwell. He says “seventh floor” was State Department shorthand for then-Secretary of State Clinton and her principal advisors.

“I asked her, ‘But isn’t that unethical?’ She responded, ‘Ray, those are our orders.’ ”

Did Hillary Clinton aides withhold damaging Benghazi documents?

A few minutes after he arrived, Maxwell says in walked two high-ranking State Department officials.

In an interview Monday morning on Fox News, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, named the two Hillary Clinton confidants who were allegedly present: Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff and former White House counsel who defended President Bill Clinton during his impeachment trial; and Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan, who previously worked on Hillary Clinton’s and then Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns.

“When Cheryl saw me, she snapped, ‘Who are you?’” Maxwell says. “Jake explained, ‘That’s Ray Maxwell, an NEA Deputy Assistant Secretary. She conceded, ‘Well, OK.”

Maxwell says the two officials, close confidants of Clinton, appeared to check in on the operation and soon left.

Maxwell says after Mills and Sullivan arrived, he, the office director and an intern moved into a small office where they looked through some papers. Maxwell says his stack included pre-attack telegrams and cables between the U.S. embassy in Tripoli and State Department headquarters. After a short time, Maxwell says he decided to leave.

“I didn’t feel good about it,” he said.

We contacted Mills and Sullivan to ask about the allegations and the purpose of allegedly separating documents, but they did not return calls or emails. We reached out to Clinton, who declined an interview request and offered no comment. A State Department spokesman told us it would have been impossible for anybody outside the Accountability Review Board (ARB) to control the flow of information because the board cultivated so many sources.

“Unfettered access”?

When the ARB issued its call for documents in early October 2012, the executive directorate of the State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs was put in charge of collecting all emails and relevant material. It was gathered, boxed and—Maxwell says—ended up in the basement room prior to being turned over.

In May 2013, when critics questioned the ARB’s investigation as not thorough enough, co-chairmen Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Adm. Mike Mullen stated, “we had unfettered access to everyone and everything including all the documentation we needed.”

Maxwell says when he heard that statement, he couldn’t help but wonder if the ARB—perhaps unknowingly—had received from his bureau a scrubbed set of documents with the most damaging material missing.

Maxwell also criticizes the ARB as “anything but independent,” pointing to Mullen’s admission in congressional testimony that he called Mills to give her inside advice after the ARB interviewed a potential congressional witness.

In an interview in September 2013, Pickering told me that he would not have done what Mullen did. But both co-chairmen strongly defend their probe as “fiercely independent.”

Maxwell also criticizes the ARB for failing to interview key people at the White House, State Department and the CIA, including Secretary Clinton; Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Nides, who managed department resources in Libya; Assistant Secretary of State for Political Military Affairs Andrew Shapiro; and White House National Security Council Director for Libya Ben Fishman.

“The ARB inquiry was, at best, a shoddily executed attempt at damage control, both in Foggy Bottom and on Capitol Hill,” says Maxwell. He views the after-hours operation he witnessed in the State Department basement as “an exercise in misdirection.”

Sullivan did not respond to emails or to messages sent to him through his current teaching job at Yale Law School. Mills did not respond to a message passed to her through Black Rock, a major global investment firm where she is a member of the board of directors. Clinton’s press officer ultimately referred us to the State Department, though none of the three currently works there.

State Department Response

A State Department spokesman calls the implication that documents were withheld “totally without merit.” Spokesman Alec Gerlach says “The range of sources that the ARB’s investigation drew on would have made it impossible for anyone outside of the ARB to control its access to information.”

The allegations are as serious as it gets,” says one lawmaker of the alleged Benghazi document review.

Gerlach says the State Department instructed all employees to cooperate “fully and promptly” with the ARB, which invited anyone with relevant information to contact them directly.

“So individuals with information were reaching out proactively to the board. And, the ARB was also directly engaged with individuals and the [State] Department’s bureaus and offices to request information and pull on whichever threads it chose to,” says Gerlach.

Benghazi Select Committee

Maxwell says he has been privately interviewed by several members of Congress in recent months, including Chaffetz, a member of the House Oversight Committee, and Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

When reached for comment, Chaffetz told me that Maxwell’s allegations “go to the heart of the integrity of the State Department.”

“The allegations are as serious as it gets, and it’s something we have obviously followed up and pursued,” Chaffetz says. “I’m 100 percent confident the Benghazi Select Committee is going to dive deep on that issue.”

Former Obama Supporter

Maxwell, 58, strongly supported Barack Obama and personally contributed to his presidential campaign. But post-Benghazi, he has soured on both Obama and Clinton, saying he had nothing to do with security and was sacrificed as a scapegoat while higher-up officials directly responsible escaped discipline. He spent a year on paid administrative leave with no official charge ever levied. Ultimately, the State Department cleared Maxwell of wrongdoing and reinstated him. He retired a short time later in November 2013.

Former Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Maghreb Region Raymond Maxwell during a visit to Algiers in 2011. (Photo: YouTube via U.S. Embassy in Algiers)Maxwell worked in foreign service for 21 years as the well-respected deputy assistant secretary for Maghreb Affairs in the Near East Bureau and former chief of staff to the ambassador in Baghdad. Fluent in Portuguese, Maxwell is also an ex-Navy “mustanger,” which means he successfully made the leap from enlisted ranks to commissioned officer.

He’s also a prolific poet. While on administrative leave, he published poems online: allegories hinting at his post-Benghazi observations and experiences.

A poem entitled “Invitation,” refers to Maxwell’s placement on administrative leave in December 2012: “The Queen’s Henchmen / request the pleasure of your company / at a Lynching – / to be held / at 23rd and C Streets NW [State Dept. building] / on Tuesday, December 18, 2012 / just past sunset. / Dress: Formal, Masks and Hoods- / the four being lynched / must never know the identities/ of their executioners, or what/ whose sin required their sacrifice./ A blood sacrifice- / to divert the hounds- / to appease the gods- / to cleanse our filth and /satisfy our guilty consciences…”

In another poem called “Trapped in a purgatory of their own deceit,” Maxwell wrote: “The web of lies they weave / gets tighter and tighter / in its deceit / until it bottoms out – / at a very low frequency – / and implodes…Yet all the while, / the more they talk, / the more they lie, / and the deeper down the hole they go… Just wait…/ just wait and feed them the rope.”

Former Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Maghreb Region Raymond Maxwell during a visit to Algiers in 2011

Several weeks after he was placed on leave with no formal accusations, Maxwell made an appointment to address his status with a State Department ombudsman.

“She told me, ‘You are taking this all too personally, Raymond. It is not about you,’” Maxwell says.

“I told her that ‘My name is on TV and I’m on administrative leave, it seems like it’s about me.’ Then she said, ‘You’re not harmed, you’re still getting paid. Don’t watch TV. Take your wife on a cruise. It’s not about you; it’s about Hillary and 2016.”

Since Maxwell retired from the State Department, he has obtained a master’s degree in library information science.

By Sharyl Attkisson for The Daily Signal

By permission The Daily Signal

Sharyl Attkisson, an Emmy award-winning investigative journalist, is a senior independent contributor to The Daily Signal. She is the author of the forthcoming book, “Sonewalled”.  

This is a Daily Signal special feature.

Do you have an interesting news story that just doesn't "add up," or is not receiving the appropriate coverage in the news, just let us know. We'd love to hear it! And, we'll investigate. CLICK HERE.
Get What Am I Missing Here delivered to your inbox for FREE!