Ridiculous: MSNBC Seeks To Discredit Benghazi Investigation

We are pleased that MSNBC has finally taken notice of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi (CCB), but certainly not surprised at their failure to report on the Commission’s findings. Instead, they attempted to smear the Commission by suggesting sinister motives for one of its members, when the truth is something very different. In a recent column, I argued that MSNBC and their new website have essentially become a “Vote Democrat” haven akin to The Huffington Post.

Underlying MSNBC’s reporting is the notion that Benghazi is not a real scandal, which ties directly into the administration’s narrative. Press Secretary Jay Carney called Benghazi one of several phony scandals last July, and this argument has been consistently furthered by progressives unwilling to support any investigation that would potentially pose a problem for Hillary Clinton in her 2016 presidential run–or for President Obama while he retains office.

Thus, we have Politico reporting last Wednesday that “Hillary Clinton’s world was so worried about a Republican investigation of the Benghazi attacks, they sent a message to House Democrats: We need backup.” Due to this pressure, the Democrats, through Pelosi’s leadership, decided to participate in the Select Committee on Benghazi instead of condemning it as a partisan charade from the sidelines.

This should have been an obvious choice: the tragedy demands answers, and our Representatives have a civic duty to search for them on behalf of the American people. That was also why Accuracy in Media founded the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi, to search for truth outside the Congressional process, which has, to date, been fragmented and partial.

In a recent broadcast on her daily MSNBC show, Joy Reid put Democratic Representative Linda Sanchez (CA) on the defensive for joining her four colleagues on the Select Committee, asking whether Democrats were legitimizing Republicans’ fundraising efforts and partisan politics by participating. “And so, as lawmakers on both sides meet to discuss their strategies, the question is: ‘Did the Democrats’ decision to join just elevate Republicans’ Benghazi circus to the big top?’” Reid asked, referring to the Select Committee as a “Kangaroo court” twice, and also as a fundraising circus. Apparently, she only invited Democrats onto her show to talk about it.

MSNBC hosts are playing partisan politics, as usual, and trying to encourage the Democrats to protect President Obama and Clinton by not participating in the hearings. Rather, as Joy Reid says, they should be going to the microphone and attacking the Republican witch-hunt. The same issue was raised on several other MSNBC shows as well. Is it really this supposed news organization’s job to advise the Democrats on political strategy?

“Ah, yes, the American people,” commented Reid, a former staffer to then-Sen. Obama in 2007, on her show. “The ones who have decidedly not been clamoring for yet another Benghazi investigation. Except, of course, on the far right, where Benghazi will soon go from a pet obsession of the GOP base, to [what] Republicans certainly hope will be a summer blockbuster, complete with major fundraising at the box office and bankable stars on the witness stand…”

Pages: 1 2 3

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

CNN Cancels Hillary Clinton Film





hillary clinton food security 300x200 CNN cancels Hillary Clinton film

While Republicans expressed initial concerns regarding a proposed documentary on prospective 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, it appears Democrats were ultimately responsible for its cancellation.

According to director Charles Ferguson, over 100 individuals — including many high-profile Democrats — refused to be interviewed for the film. Clinton aides were similarly dismissive, he said, indicating she had no interest in providing any assistance in the process.

“Neither political party wanted the film made,” he confirmed, though Democrat objection to his project seemed to ultimately seal its fate.

“Part of what’s going on right now is that many, many, many people want to be in her campaign,” Ferguson noted, “they want a job in her administration, they want access to the White House, they want some specific thing that they care about; and most of the people, probably over 90 percent, are going to be disappointed.”

He called the decision to cancel his project “painful,” explaining a well-coordinated attack on the film caused more damage than he expected.

“When I approached people for interviews, I discovered that nobody — and I mean nobody — was interested in helping me make this film,” he noted.

Only two individuals with personal knowledge of Clinton would agree to an interview for the film, he said, adding his assumption that “even they would back out.”

Ferguson said he was not entirely surprised by the GOP’s disapproval of the film, which led the party to announce it would not host 2016 presidential primary debates on the network.

“What did surprise me,” he noted, was that, quietly and privately, prominent Democrats made it known to both CNN and to me that they weren’t delighted with the film either.”

Calling the push to halt his film a “victory for the Clintons,” Ferguson added “this is not her finest hour.”

Ultimately, he still hopes to finish the film.

“After the election, no matter if she wins or loses … it’ll be a lot easier to get access,” he predicted.

The refusal of any Clinton flacks to participate in this ostensibly friendly political documentary is as telling as anything they might have contributed to the film.

There remains a common assumption that the Clinton family is full of secrets. When a supportive filmmaker working with the leftists at CNN cannot even get access, though, one wonders exactly what they want to keep hidden.

Follow WCJ staff writer Chris Agee here.

“Brother Roger” And The Racial Agitators

Roger Ailes Fox News “Brother Roger” and the Racial Agitators

When conservatives complain about Al Sharpton, they usually note his relationship to NBC news or his hosting a show on MSNBC. But a new book says the racial agitator and Democratic Party politician has considerable clout with Fox News, and in fact played a role in getting conservative Glenn Beck fired from the channel.

Fox News host Tucker Carlson says “people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton do not deserve to be called civil rights leaders. They are not. They are hustlers and pimps who make a living off inflaming racial tensions.”

However, The Zev Chafets book, Roger Ailes: Off Camera, has some revealing passages about the clout that Sharpton and Jackson have with the chairman and CEO of Fox News. It says Ailes took a phone call from Sharpton after Beck, then a Fox News host, staged a rally at the Lincoln Memorial 47 years to the day after Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his “I have a dream” speech at the same location. Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally, designed to pay tribute to America’s military personnel and restore traditional values, was strongly attacked by figures such as Sharpton and George Soros-funded groups like Media Matters, then campaigning to have Beck fired from Fox News.

Chafets says Reverend Alveda King, a national pro-life leader, delivered a conservative “I have a dream” message of her own at the Beck-sponsored rally that was “infuriating to many viewers” and Ailes as well. “Ailes didn’t like it much, either,” he reports. However, the book doesn’t explain why Ailes took issue with the rally or the speech.

The book adds, “When Al Sharpton called him [Ailes] to complain, Sharpton was surprised to hear Ailes say he would ‘take care’ of it.” The passage is included in the context of Ailes making a decision that “he would have to get rid of Glenn Beck” and telling Howard Kurtz, then a media reporter with The Daily Beast, that “he was turning down the partisan heat at the network” and was pursuing “a more moderate tone” in programming.

Kurtz, who was recently hired by Fox News, is described by Michael Clemente, Fox’s executive vice president of news, as “the most accomplished media reporter in the country,” despite a series of embarrassments over erroneous and controversial columns and media appearances that resulted in his firing from The Daily Beast.

While the Chafets book is considered sympathetic to the chief of the Fox News Channel, it notes that Beck’s firing followed his strong criticism of billionaire George Soros and a vigorous campaign by various left-wing groups against him.

Chafets also points out that then-Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), another liberal recently hired as a Fox News commentator, is a member of the “roster of Friends of Roger” and an old “buddy” of Ailes.

Accuracy in Media chairman Don Irvine noted that Kucinich was “one of the most liberal members of Congress until he lost his seat after redistricting in 2012,” and that he was “the latest in a string of liberals at Fox, including former Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, Bob Beckel, Sally Kohn, Jehmu Greene and Santita Jackson who have joined the network in recent years.”

Ailes declared, “I’ve always been impressed with Rep. Kucinich’s fearlessness and thoughtfulness about important issues. His willingness to take a stand from his point of view makes him a valuable voice in our country’s debate.”

Chafets notes that Ailes is also personal friends with Jehmu Greene and MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, for whom he wrote an endorsement for her book critical of the use of U.S. military power.

However, the pandering to Sharpton is not new on the part of Fox News. Back in 2007, as AIM reported at the time, popular Fox News Channel host Bill O’Reilly paid homage to Sharpton at the civil rights agitator’s national convention. Indeed, O’Reilly himself was an honored guest at the event.

But Sharpton isn’t alone among civil rights agitators in having clout at Fox News. The Chafets book has a photo of Ailes posing with Jesse Jackson after Jackson delivered a keynote address at a 2012 graduation ceremony of the Ailes Apprentice Program, a venture designed to support and promote “diversity in broadcast & cable journalism.” It is open to “top diversity candidates,” presumably meaning non-whites, and sends young people to events featuring such groups as the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association.

“Few people realized that Jesse Jackson, of all people, is a friend of ‘Brother Roger,’” says Chafets. “Fewer know that Santita Jackson [another liberal hired by Ailes as a Fox commentator] is one of Michelle Obama’s closest friends: Jackson is a godmother to Malia Obama.”

The book says Jesse Jackson “happened to mention” to Ailes that his daughter Santita had lost her job as a Chicago radio talk-show host and was “looking for a new gig” when Ailes decided to hire her.

We noted at the time that Santita Jackson listed the notorious Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr. as being among her personal “activities and interests” on her Facebook page. She was also a supporter of New York University law professor Derrick Bell, who supports race-based hiring policies.

Such liberal hires, the book notes, “makes Fox more difficult to assault as a bastion of racism.” Chafets adds, “It means that one of the nation’s premier civil rights leaders owes him [Ailes]. And, as an extra bonus, it is sure to cause a little heartburn for Jackson’s chief rival, Al Sharpton. After all, Sharpton has daughters, too.”

The implication is that Sharpton might hold back on his criticism of Fox because of favors Ailes could do for him.

Nevertheless, some Fox News personalities continue speaking the truth. “They don’t represent anybody, they’re not elected to anything, they don’t have constituencies,” Tucker Carlson said of Sharpton and Jackson. “The only reason they’re allowed to do this is because we in the press enable them by calling them civil rights leaders. Why do we do that?”

Perhaps it’s because the head of Fox News fears and respects their political power.

 

This article originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission. 

Anti-Obama “Witch Hunts?”… Or “WHICH Hunts?”

Valerie Jarrettjpg Anti Obama “Witch Hunts?”… or “WHICH Hunts?”

Surprise, surprise!!  Left-wing Congressman Elijah Cummings, senior Democrat on the House Investigations Subcommittee, is trying to end the ever-expanding House investigation of the Internal Revenue Service’s illegal “political targeting” of conservative applicants for 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status, by loudly insisting that “This witch hunt needs to end.”

This nonsense repeats the demands of a major May 15 article from Media Matters (an integral part of socialist George Soros’ blindly pro-Obama Center for American Progress) — to the effect that “New Talking Points Revelations Should End Benghazi Witch Hunt.” 

How outrageous that there should be not only one but two dastardly Republican-led “witch hunts” atop each other in Barack Obama’s two supposed scandals and subsequent cover-upsHow dare the GOP go digging around for witches and warlocks in the President’s inner circle.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

Avoiding the Dreaded “Cover-up” Label

Of course, this is only one of many misleading, blame-game mantras by which today’s Obama partisans attempt to avoid the dreaded “Cover-Up” label for the President’s culpability in a long list of scandals involving the huge Benghazi fiasco, the plainly illegal IRS discriminations, the Associated Press and Fox News incursions, and multiple other scandals big and small.

Other such labels of derision and misdirection from Obama’s “Age of Scamalot” crowd over the last several months have included a “partisan sideshow,” a concocted “Fox News story,” a mere “political carnival,” a matter of “there’s no there there,” a “right-wing distraction,” a display of “radical extremism,” a transparent “GOP tool for fundraising,” ad infinitum..

But the false label that is most repeated – but which, ironically, offers the best opening for effective counter-attack — is the spurious charge that this is nothing but a partisan “Witch Hunt,” to which we should respond that this is actually a multi-layered “WHICH Hunt,” instead.

The deadly serious goal should now be to discover exactly which guilty government officials – including the President himself — have been lying, covering up, and even committing perjury in the scandal at hand …

o  which White House, IRS, and Treasury officials?

o  which State, DHS, INS, and DOD officials?

o  which DOJ, FBI, CIA, and NSA officials?

o  which “Soroctopus” (Soros-funded) operatives?

o  which “ProgSoc” Congressmen and Senators?

o  which lockstep-Left members of the Media, etc.?

Looking first at the uniquely complex “Benghazi Affair” – the congressional inquiries of which do not currently include the names of either Valerie Jarrett (Obama’s “brain”) or Huma Abedin (Hillary’s former “brain”) — this search should clearly not be abandoned, as Cummings demands, but should be expanded, instead, into a Watergate-style “Select Committee” whose authority should extend at least

a)  until all brave “whistleblowers” (especially among the 30-plus rescued personnel who have been so effectively “disappeared” by the endless Benghazi Cover-up) have told their truthful versions of this monumental story; and

b) until several major reluctant and even hostile witnesses from all across Barack Obama’s Administration have been subpoenaed, questioned under oath, and made subject to charges of perjury and Contempt of Congress if they dare to lie.

Is Valerie Jarrett Our Prime Suspect?

Looking next at the IRS “Targeting of Conservatives” infractions, we notice again the absence of Obama’s closest and most senior political advisor, policy strategist, and de facto “Producer” in TV-programming terminology for over two decades – one Valerie Jarrett. As this lady’s last quarter-century record reveals, it was she

o  who recruited young Michelle Robinson in 1988 and the young Barack Obama in 1990 into the highly “political” and left-leaning law firm of Sidley Austin;

o  who appears to have been the “cupid” of their relationship  and 1992 marriage in the Marxist-inspired Black Liberation Theology church of the (former Muslim) Rev. Jeremiah Wright;

o  who apparently steered Barack into socialist “Progressive Chicago” in 1993 and the Chicago New Party in early 1996 – under whose banner he was elected to the state Senate in late 1996;

o  who has continued in both “Mother Hen” and “Chicago Politics” fashion to promote both his and Michelle’s legal and political careers into his successful races for the US Senate in 2004 and for the US Presidency in 2008 and 2012; and

o  who has been his principle liason to the entire inner circle, and especially to the President’s off-campus “Soroctopus” think tank and revolving-door employer of first resort, the George Soros-funded Center For American Progress – from which many Obama political appointees and regulatory “czars” have come and by which many former White House socialists (e.g., Van Jones, Carol Browner, Anita Dunn, and Cass Sunstein, just to name a few) are now employed.

If It Wasn’t For Valerie …

As the outspoken political biographer Ed Klein has stated with emphasis in his best-selling book, The Amateur: “If it wasn’t for Valerie Jarrett, there’d be no Barack Obama to complain about. … She knows the buttons, the soft spots, the history, the context.”

And as yet another careful student of the Jarrett-Obama relationship, Karin McQuillan, observes in a recent posting on AmericanThinker.com:

Obama relies on Valerie Jarrett to create the White House bubble he likes to live in, where his narcissism is stroked and his desire to do the big, left-wing thing is encouraged.  Jarrett is the doorman. She runs access to the president. As Klein puts it, she guards him from meeting with ‘critics and complainers who might deflate his ego.’ No one gets past Jarrett who has an incompatible point of view.

Still, other observers anoint her as Barack Obama’s “alter ego,” as “the other side of Obama’s brain,” as “Barack and Michelle’s consigliere” and as the President’s “ultimate gatekeeper.” The emphatic confirmations of her White House prowess go endlessly on. And in explanation of what this woman thinks about the power she wields, here is what she told a group of rabid supporters on the eve of last year’s presidential election.

After we win this election, it’s our turn. Payback time! Everyone not with us is against us and they better be ready because we don’t forget. The ones who helped us will be rewarded; the ones who opposed us will get what they deserve. There is going to be hell to pay. Congress won’t be a problem for us this time. No election to worry about after this is over, and we have two judges ready to go.

And did not the President himself embrace this “punish the enemy” attitude when he stated in an October 2012 campaign speech that “voting is the best revenge”? Partisan revenge from Obama and hell to pay from his ‘round-the-clock enforcer.  As the French would say about the Obama Inner Circle (OIC), “The more things change, the more they remain the same, n’est-ce pas?”

Uncovering “Who Knew What and When”

All of which means that within this tight-knit group, the only one who truly “speaks for Obama” and who decides what he should know and when he should know it is this mysterious woman whose name seldom comes up when the Congress, the media, and the American people quite properly continue their search for who, indeed, knew what and when – and who is, therefore, so shamefully responsible for the multiple scandals now crippling the nation.

Yet, when Congressman Cummings angrily alleges a partisan “witch hunt,” he argues that even if senior IRS officials knew all about and directed the illegal “targeting” of conservative groups, “These facts are a far cry from accusations of a conspiracy orchestrated by the White House to target the President’s political enemies.”

But in so contending, Cummings conveniently ignores the fact that the President’s own political orchestrator, and Obama himself, have recently threatened just such a profiling of enemies and a “hell-to-pay” punishment of them — as was also being recommended in formal letters to the IRS by left-wing Senators (Chuck Schumer, Al Franken, Sheldon Whitehouse et al) and by certain highly ProgSoc congressmen, as well.

So, as the several well-founded investigations go forward on Capitol Hill, we should finally begin asking about the vital roles almost surely played before, during, and after both the Benghazi and IRS scandals by presidential confidante Valerie Jarrett – as suggested in Cover-up # 35 of an earlier essay entitled “Hillary’s – And Now Obama’s – Vast Left-Wing Cover-up.”

Although her culpability is not yet proven, there is every reason in the world for the Congress to ask these three proverbial “$64,000 Questions”:

First, was it not this Obama alter ego (and thus Obama himself) who knew all about the IRS misdeeds from their start in early 2010 (apparently on April 1, the next day after a March 31 visit to the White House by the highly partisan National Treasury Employees Union president, Colleen Kelly) — and about their conduct, 100% success, and cover-up to this day?

Second, was it not she who almost surely delivered the President’s infamous Benghazi Cover-up marching orders to then-UN Ambassador, and now National Security Advisor, Susan Rice – and who constantly keeps both the President and the First Lady fully informed about all such matters of  monumental importance?

Third, although both Valerie Jarrett and Susan Rice are now protected by “Executive Privilege” from being subpoenaed by Congress, might they – in a heroic fit of transparency, accountability, progress, and balance – simply volunteer to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to the Congress about which of them (and thus the President himself) knew what and when?

 

JIM GUIRARD — TrueSpeak.org      703-768-0957        Justcauses@aol.com

A DC-area attorney, writer and national security strategist, Jim Guirard was longtime Chief of Staff to former US Senators Allen Ellender and Russell Long. His TrueSpeak.org Web site is devoted to truth in language and truth in history in public discourse.

DHS Ammo Grab: No Longer “Conspiracy” But Plain Reality

world mexguns full 6328 300x200 DHS Ammo Grab: No Longer “Conspiracy” but Plain Reality

 

It now seems clear that the Department of Homeland Security’s stockpiling of ammunition and other warfare supplies can no longer be dismissed as “conspiracy theory,” but is a very real development in the actions of an overreaching federal government.

Many have suggested and assumed that the ammo and gun shortage experienced across the country is the result of private citizens’ unprecedented purchases, in recent years, in preparation for impending gun control measures. While this is true in part, it is only half of the logical explanation that can be assessed based upon available facts.

This phenomenon has been described as creating a perfect storm for private gun owners when paired with the reality that the DHS and other federal agencies are buying up once-available guns and ammunition like never before. Mainstream news sources such as Rawstory and Media Matters have attacked Fox News’ Lou Dobbs and others for their statements affirming that the government has indeed purchased at least 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition (especially including hollow points), 7000 fully automatic assault rifles, and 2700 new light armored vehicles, as well as riot gear including body armor. DHS has also invested $2 million with a contractor that recently apologized for its production of shooting targets depicting elderly gun owners and even pregnant women and children in residential settings, after photos and publicity of the targets recently gained widespread exposure.

As it turned out, these claims have proven to be very accurate, as even Media Matters admitted that DHS officials made the 1.6 billion rounds purchase as they were also busy denying it. The organization also insisted that “the order for 2717 new light armored vehicles [came] from the United States Marine Corps – not the Department of Homeland Security.” This claim seems baseless, as all photos have clearly shown the DHS emblem emblazoned on the tanks in question.

All these dismissive reports against the supposedly “misleading” claim of the DHS stockpiling effort can be traced back to a February 14 Associated Press report, lacking any investigative basis, that simply repeated the statement from DHS official Peggy Dixon, who claimed the bulk ammo purchases to have been made in order to save money, and that the bullets were solely intended for military and federal law enforcement training purposes. This claim becomes weaker upon consideration that hollow-point ammunition is significantly more expensive than standard rounds, and military spokesmen and ammunition experts contend that such bullets are unsuitable for training purposes and have never been used for such a purpose.

Seemingly, at the very least, even if the government isn’t preparing to make war against its own people, they are preparing for civil unrest, which is suspect enough for the warranted concern of the American people. The government may well be, however, deliberately attempting to restrict the supply of ammunition, thus the functionality of firearms, from the American people. It has never been a well-kept secret that the Obama administration is no big fan of the Second Amendment. The longstanding fears of many have begun to be shared by several of our elected officials who are increasingly becoming more vocal in their concerns about the government’s attempt to strip citizens of their right to keep and bear arms. Recently, as a guest on Aaron Klein’s radio show, Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inholfe accused the Obama administration of buying up unprecedented levels of ammunitions as a means to intentionally bypass the Second Amendment until law-abiding citizens “can’t even buy ammunition because government is purchasing so much.” Inholfe cited last month’s testimony from DHS Chief Procurement Officer Nick Nayak who said DHS has the right to buy up as much ammunition as it deems necessary. He mentioned that the ammo grab is an ongoing concern, as even still “they’re planning to buy 750 million rounds. Well, that is more than three times the amount that our soldiers are using for training to defend our nation. So, it’s just another effort to restrict gun activity and ownership.” The senator is in the process of introducing the Ammunition Management for More Obtainability (AMMO) bill that will limit “non-defense, armed federal agencies to pre-Obama levels of ammunition.”

There now seems to be ample evidence that our federal government, namely the Obama administration, is up to no good when it comes to the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding American citizens. Historically speaking, this is a very alarming cause for concern. Hopefully, this concern then will continue to be shared by more elected officials in our local, state, and federal governments, as well as among our military and law enforcement communities. Lou Dobbs likely said it best with the following statement: “It’s like I tell anyone who brushes off what I try to tell them as simple ‘conspiracy theory.’ At some point it stops being a theory, and is in fact a conspiracy. I also remind them that we’re not talking about science fiction or aliens here. We’re talking about the very REAL potential of government misconduct towards its own people; something that has happened time and time again in history.”

Photo: Standard Compliant