Fact Check: Hillary came up with Benghazi video explanation

Hillary Clinton Repub_CawlBy Catherine Herridge:

Hillary Clinton’s newly released memoir leaves little doubt she was the first member of the Obama administration to publicly link an anti-Islam video to the 2012 Benghazi terror attack – though she does not explain what intelligence she relied on to make the faulty connection.

The former secretary of State and potential Democratic presidential candidate discussed the Benghazi attack in her memoir “Hard Choices.” The 33-page Benghazi chapter sheds some light on events, but it leaves plenty of inconvenient details out.

According to the chronology she offers,Clinton issued the statement linking Benghazi to the video before she called President Obama on the night of the attack to provide an update, suggesting she was the originator of the flawed explanation.

The State Department press release, issued in her name, on Sept. 11, 2012 at 10:07 p.m. tied the death of Foreign Service officer Sean Smith to the video. Later that evening, a mortar strike killed former Navy SEALs Ty Woods and Glen Doherty, permanently maimed another CIA contractor and severely injured diplomatic security agent David Ubben – all of whom were defending the CIA annex. U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens also died in the Benghazi assault.

The accuracy of the mortar attack, three out of five rounds on target, from more than a half mile away in the dark of night in under a minute, required military training, and premeditation according to multiple military and intelligence professionals.

“As we work to secure our personnel and facilities, we have confirmed that one of our State Department officers was killed. We are heartbroken by this terrible loss,”Clinton’s press release said. “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet.”

In her book, Clinton makes passing reference to the Sept. 11 press release, and the former secretary of State offers this argument for citing the video:that violence was erupting all over the Middle East and the obscure Internet video was to blame, throwing Benghazi, without credible intelligence reporting, into the same category.

“[The video] was unquestionably inciting the region and triggering protests all over, so it would have been strange not to consider, as days of protests unfolded, that it might have had the same effect here, too,”Clinton wrote. “That’s just common sense.”

But sources told Fox News in late September 2012 that U.S. officials knew it was terrorism within 24 hours and U.S. personnel on the ground in Libya reported a direct assault — not a protest gone awry.

Recently released documents to conservative watchdog Judicial Watch show the Obama administration continues to withhold the full contents of a “media strategy” discussion it had weeks after the attack.

Those emails pertained to a Sept. 27. 2012 Fox News report on how U.S. officials learned the attack was terrorism within 24 hours. The emails were circulated to the State Department and at senior levels of the administration, including to White House communications adviser Ben Rhodes, who also linked the anti-Islam video to Benghazi in a Sept. 14 email.

The administration claims that releasing the contents would have a chilling effect on their “frank deliberations.”

Read more at Fox News

*************

Hillary Won’t Hand Over Benghazi Notes To Congress - 

‘They can read it in the book.’

Truth Revolt, by Larry O’Connor:

 

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton kept private notes about the attack in Benghazi and when asked by NBC News if she would share those notes with the House Select Committee investigating the attacks and the subsequent cover-up by the Obama Administration, she said, “they can read it in my book.”

“They can read it in the book. Let’s see whether this is on the level or not because that really matters to me. I don’t want to be part of something which, in any way, politicizes or demeans the sacrifice that we saw happen there.”

To her credit, reporter Cynthia McFadden ended the report on NBC News by saying, “Of course, there are some who would say it is Hillary Clinton who is politicizing the attack in Benghazi.”

**********

Walid Shoebat has laid out a timeline of events connecting the dots on the genesis of the Benghazi video which points to Clinton and Obama:

Many Fear To Tread Where Benghazi Facts Lead

There is a perfect storm brewing over Benghazi and Hillary Clinton’s role. The confluence of events and realities continues to close in around her. Try as she might, the truth is so ugly that her own book may inadvertently reveal some of it. A case in point may be that her account of events on that night indicate that she personally was the one who first decided to link the attacks to the anti-Muhammad video:

According to the chronology she offers, Clinton issued the statement linking Benghazi to the video before she called President Obama on the night of the attack to provide an update, suggesting she was the originator of the flawed explanation.

Up until now, as Shoebat.com has laid out, the timeline of events seemed to afford Clinton a modicum of plausible deniability in this regard. According to then Press Secretary Jay Carney, President Barack Obama called Hillary at 10pm ET and Hillary’s statement pointing to the video was released shortly thereafter. An admission by Clinton that the video narrative originated with her would be explosive indeed, simply by introducing that fact into a larger fact pattern.

Here are some facts as we know them:

1.) The Special Mission Compound (SMC) was woefully short on security prior to the attacks. Clinton herself has conceded that, though has deflected accountability to unnamed security ‘experts’ upon whom she relied.

2.) Muslim fundamentalists in Egypt ginned up anger at the video in the days prior to the attacks. Two in particular – identified by Shoebat.com at the time – professed that exploiting the video was designed to help create the environment for criminalizing speech critical of Islam in non-Muslim countries.

3.) The maker of the video – Nakoula Basseley Nakoula – became a federal informant in 2009 after a plea deal involving a lighter prison sentence in exchange for his help in nabbing the ringleader of his bank fraud scheme operation. Shoebat.com has clearly demonstrated that when that ringleader was apprehended by Canadian authorities, the FBI refused to take him. It can be logically concluded that Nakoula became an agent of the Feds for reasons other than those stated.

4.) In the same month that Nakoula began casting for his video (July of 2011), Hillary traveled to Istanbul, Turkey and chaired the first of several meetings that would constitute “The Istanbul Process”. That first meeting took place on July 15, 2011. It was chaired by Hillary, the Foreign Minister of Turkey, and the Secretary-General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The shared timing of these two events was laid out by Shoebat.com in great detail.

5.) On March 26, 2011, the impetus for “The Istanbul Process” was born. On that day, the UN Human Rights Council passed Resolution 16/18. It was designed to help thread the needle between freedom of expression and being allowed to criticize religion (Islam). Hillary championed its passage.

6.) Barack Obama’s envoy to the OIC (State Department employee) and Muslim Brotherhood infiltrator of the U.S. Government – Rashad Hussain – is intricately involved in “The Istanbul Process”. At this year’s annual summit, Hussain continues to push the same agenda the anti-Muhammad video was supposed to push – an assault on the first amendment.

7.) A Muslim agent who is also an employee of the White House – Mehdi K. Alhassani – was on the distribution list of the September 14, 2012 email from White House Deputy Ben Rhodes, as Shoebat.com reported. The email instructs that Susan Rice is to blame the video for the Benghazi attacks. As someone with Muslim Brotherhood ties (Alhassani was the President of the George Washington University chapter of Muslim Brotherhood front group, Muslim Students Association), Alhassani’s agenda would have mirrored that of Hussain and the OIC’s “Istanbul Process”.

8.) Charles Woods – the father of Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, who was murdered in the attacks – relayed that Hillary told him the man behind the video would be arrested. Again, this comports with the agenda of “The Istanbul Process” and the OIC.

9.) Nakoula was ultimately arrested one month prior to the second annual “Istanbul Process” summit in London, as Shoebat.com reported. In the U.S., Nakoula’s arrest was pinned on a parole violation but the not-so-subtle message was that he was being punished for making the video.Note: Re-read item #3. Nakoula’s plea bargain for a lesser sentence in 2009 was not for the reason stated. Again, what was it for? It is known that at that time, Nakoula was beholden to the Feds for something.

10.) Cindy Lee Garcia – an actress who appeared in the video – has come forward to state that Nakoula confessed to her that he is a Muslim, as Shoebat.com EXCLUSIVELY reported.

11.) Barely more than hour prior to the Benghazi attacks, Ambassador Stevens said good night toTurkey’s Consul General, Ali Said Akin.

All of this says nothing about Hillary’s very close Muslim Brotherhood agent and former Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin. What happened in Benghazi is clearly drawing the most media interest in Hillary’s new book. In a very surreal – and rather brazen – development, Abedin has joined Hillary on the tour…

Denying the Truth of Islamic Terrorism in the National 9/11 Memorial Museum Film

World Trade  Center 9-11-01NER, By Jerry Gordon:

Anyone who witnessed the events of 9/11, what we described as the “Pearl Harbor of the 21st Century”, that took the lives of 3000 innocent people, knows the truth about what motivated the 19 Al Qaeda perpetrators from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It was radical Islam or Islamist terrorism spawned by the Muslim Brotherhood rejectionist doctrine of Egyptian Sayyid Qutb grounded in doctrinal Islam. Over the 13 years since those horrific events on 9/11,  that took down the iconic twin towers in lower Manhattan, there have been continuing efforts by Muslim and  fringe groups to suggest otherwise. Even to the point of engaging in blood libel, accusing Israel of perpetrating the attack. Bizarre Truthers even suggested that the CIA might have been involved. Those untruths are reflective of a disturbing aspect of Islamic Doctrine, taqiyyah – religiously sanctioned dissimilitude and kitman, omission of facts. That is reflected in obfuscation and outright denial of Jihad, calling it the inner struggle, instead of warfare against non-believers in furtherance of conquest of  Dar al Harb, the realm of war.

Benighted Muslim and non-Muslim interfaith groups have made these articles of dialog. They  propound the view that it was Al Qaeda terrorism and not Islam that former President Bush declared on 9/12 in a tableau at the Washington Islamic Center was a religion of peace. Hardly the case with more than 23,000 attacks since 9/11 against non-Muslims and nominal Muslims across the Umma, the global community of believers. One only has to bring up the images of the radical Islamist group Boko Haram – rejecting the West – slaughtering thousands in the areas of Nigeria that divide the Islamic north from the Animist Christian South. Or the burning of Churches in Egypt and extrajudicial violence perpetrated by Muslim Brotherhood and Salafists against Coptic women. Or the beheading of Catholic priests in Syria by Al Qaeda affiliates, the Al Nusrah Front and the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant. Then there are the attacks on Christians in Pakistan. In both Canada and America we have witnessed the honor killings of Muslim wives and daughters by professing Muslim fathers and husbands.

Which brings us to the matter of the controversy over the 7 minute film, “The Rise of Al Qaeda” produced by the National September 11 Memorial Museum. The film endeavors to tell the truth about the motivation of the 19 Jihadists who perpetrated the deaths of thousands of innocents in Lower Manhattan, at the Pentagon in Northern Virginia and in Southwestern Pennsylvania. A fateful late summer day in 2001 that is forever riveted in the minds of all who witnessed the horror up close and from afar.

The New York Times in a report in today’s edition noted the controversy over the film’s imagery:

The film, “The Rise of Al Qaeda,” refers to the terrorists as Islamists who viewed their mission as a jihad. The NBC News anchor Brian Williams, who narrates the film, speaks over images of terrorist training camps and Qaeda attacks spanning decades. Interspersed are explanations of the ideology of the terrorists, from video clips in foreign-accented English translations

The controversy was created by a review of the film by a panel from the Interfaith Center in New York led by its executive director, Rev. Chloe Breyer, an Episcopal priest and daughter of US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. She who had ministered to the injured and families of survivors following 9/11. The controversy followed the comments in a letter to the Museum’s director by a panel member Sheik Mostafa Elazabawy of the Masjid Manhattan Mosque who wrote:

The screening of this film in its present state would greatly offend our local Muslim believers as well as any foreign Muslim visitor to the museum. Unsophisticated visitors who do not understand the difference between Al Qaeda and Muslims may come away with a prejudiced view of Islam, leading to antagonism and even confrontation toward Muslim believers near the site.

In a separate interview, Elazabawy was reported to have said:

Don’t tell me this is an Islamist or an Islamic group; that means they are part of us. We are all of us against that.

Joseph Daniels, President of the non-profit museum issued a statement in rebuttal to Sheik Elazabawy, noted by the New York Times article on the controversy, saying:

From the very beginning, we had a very heavy responsibility to be true to the facts, to be objective, and in no way smear an entire religion when we are talking about a terrorist group.

What helps me sleep at night is I believe that the average visitor who comes through this museum will in no way leave this museum with the belief that the religion of Islam is responsible for what happened on 9/11. We have gone out of the way to tell the truth.

9/11 families had reviewed the film and expressed some disquiet over the content. But it was left to the Interfaith Center panel who reviewed the film and related exhibit at the Museum to create the controversy. As the New York Times report noted they were pleased with pictures of grieving Muslims and the comments of  US Rep. Keith Ellison, a Muslim. However, what really disturbed the interfaith panel were the uses of the terms “Jihadists’ and “Islamism” that they conveyed in a letter on Monday to the Museum director and staff.

The Interfaith Center was previously involved in the support for the controversial Lower Manhattan Mosque, the so-called Cordoba Initiative championed by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and former Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Last night, Megyn Kelly, host of Fox News’The Kelly Files, weighed into the controversy of the Museum 9/11 film, especially the obsessive public correctness of the Interfaith Center panel and its leader, Rev. Chloe Breyer.  Kelly, who had previously tackled the Honor Diaries, a Clarion Project film, and the CAIR contretemps, brought back into the discussion Brooke Goldstein of The Lawfare Project. She ably contested the arguments by Breyer and Sheik Elazabawy of the Interfaith Center panel. The contrasts between the positions of Rev. Breyer and Goldstein were stark. Breyer supported  the Interfaith  panel and Elazabawy’s  requests for redaction of the Museum film, while Goldstein vigorously and effectively argued that you cannot deny the truth of the extremist Islamic doctrine that motivated the 9/11 perpetrators to commit mass murder.

Watch this You Tube video of Fox News host of The Kelly Files, Megyn Kelly’s interview with Rev. Breyer of the Interfaith Center and Brooke Goldstein of The Lawfare project:

We will publish an interview with Ms. Goldstein about this and related issues of Lawfare in the May edition of the New English Review.

Also see:

Human Rights Attorney appears on Kelly File for second night in a row, Dismantles CAIR Representative

Goldstein: Dismantled CAIR during Fox appearance.

Goldstein: Dismantled CAIR during Fox appearance.

By Walid Shoebat:

Human rights attorney Brooke Goldstein appeared on the Kelly File for the second night in a row, this time, opposite a representative from CAIR-Chicago. During her appearance, Goldstein spoke more truth about who and what CAIR is than has been vocalized on Fox News in a long time, if at all.

One night after Kelly did a segment on the documentary film, ‘Honor Diaries’, and the controversy surrounding it, which now includes CAIR because of the group’s objection to the film, she did a follow-up segment. In it, Kelly told viewers that CAIR demanded a retraction of the previous night’s segment. She looked into the camera and said, ‘Guess what? You’re not getting it’.

In her second appearance on the show in two nights, Goldstein appeared opposite Agnieszka Karoluk, the senior communications coordinator for CAIR-Chicago.

Bizarrely, the position expressed by Karoluk was that the reason CAIR objected to the film had nothing to do with its content, which she didn’t deny was legitimate. Her objection was with the ‘Islamophobic’ group – the Clarion Project – that made the film.

Goldstein explained that CAIR is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. Karoluk could say nothing except ‘that’s not true’, which is a lie by itself. Further damning to Karoluk is the CAIR branch she works for in Chicago. Its Executive Director is Ahmed Rehab, who once referred to Imam Jamal Said as a ‘great American faith leader’.

Jamal Said (Far left) and Ahmed Rehab (Far right).

Jamal Said (Far left) and Ahmed Rehab (Far right).

As Shoebat.com has reported in the past, Said, who used to be Walid’s mentor in Chicago, has extensive connections to Hamas and was himself a colleague of Osama bin Laden’s mentor, Abdullah Azzam.

 

*************

ryan mauro tweet

Herridge: Fmr. CIA Director Morell May Have Altered Benghazi Talking Points to Benefit Obama Admin.

morrelBY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
February 3, 2014 

Former CIA Director Mike Morell may have altered the Benghazi talking points to benefit the Obama administration during the 2012 election, Catherine Herridge of Fox News reports.

On September 15 one day before Susan Rice made her infamous appearances on various Sunday shows, according to the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report Morell received an email from the CIA station chief in Libya indicating the Benghazi attacks were “not/not an escalation of protests.” The report does not indicate when Morell read the email, but that same day Morell cut the word “Islamic” from the talking points and left the word “demonstration.”

On September 16, Morell emailed embassy staff in Tripoli asking for more information. The FBI and CIA reviewed the closed circuit footage on September 18 showing there were no protests. Yet, President Obama still employed the “demonstration” verbiage just days later.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) said Morell accompanied Susan Rice in a closed November meeting to discuss the attack. According to Graham, Morell defended Rice and tried to emphasize there was confusion about what happened in Benghazi. Moreover, Graham alleged Morell did not accept responsibility for altering the talking points, instead blaming the FBI. ”I called the FBI. They went ballistic. Within 24 hours, his statement was changed where he admitted the CIA had done it,” Graham said.

Adding another layer of complexity to the Morell’s backstory, Sen. Richard Burr (R., N.C.) told Fox News many of Morell’s recent statements on the war on terror run contrary to what he told Senate committees over the previous decade as a CIA employee.

Herridge goes on to report some speculate Morell may have higher political ambitions considering his employment at Beacon Global Strategies, a government relations firm founded by close Hillary Clinton confidante Philippe I. Reines.

Morell declined to comment on the story but said the Senate Intelligence Committee report supports the contention that the Benghazi talking points were not politically altered in a written statement.

Theft of US weapons in Libya involved hundreds of guns, sources say

download (16)By Adam Housley:

EXCLUSIVE: The recent theft of massive amounts of highly sensitive U.S. military equipment from Libya is far worse than previously thought, Fox News has learned, with raiders swiping hundreds of weapons that are now in the hands of militia groups aligned with terror organizations and the Muslim Brotherhood.

The equipment, as Fox News previously reported, was used for training in Libya by U.S. Special Forces. The training team, which was funded by the Pentagon, has since been pulled, partly in response to the overnight raids last August.

According to State Department and military sources, dozens of highly armored vehicles called GMV’s, provided by the United States, are now missing. The vehicles feature GPS navigation as well as various sets of weapon mounts and can be outfitted with smoke-grenade launchers. U.S. Special Forces undergo significant training to operate these vehicles. Fox News is told the vehicles provided to the Libyans are now gone.

091113_hn_housley2_640Along with the GMV’s, hundreds of weapons are now missing, including roughly 100 Glock pistols and more than 100 M4 rifles. More disturbing, according to the sources, is that it seems almost every set of night-vision goggles has also been taken. This is advanced technology that gives very few war fighters an advantage on the battlefield.

“It’s not just equipment … it’s the capability. You are giving these very dangerous groups the capability that only a few nations are capable of,” one source said. “Already assassinations are picking up in Tripoli and there are major worries that the militias are using this stolen equipment to their advantage. All these militias are tied into terrorist organizations and are tied to (salafists).”

The “salafists” are a jihadist movement among Salafi Muslims. This growing movement in Libya directly endangers the U.S.-supported government, and sources worry that this sensitive equipment is now going to be used by these groups in an attempt to overthrow the government and install a more hardline Muslim leadership.

Some diplomats, who asked to remain anonymous, say they are seeing the kinds of conditions that opened the door to the Sept. 11 Benghazi attack now appearing in Tripoli and across the rest of Libya.  They worry that American convoys and western convoys will be attacked using these stolen weapons and vehicles.

Read more at Fox News

 

Media Analysts Dodge Jihad Connection in Boston, London

833_largeby John Rossomando:

In separate attacks a month apart, Islamist terrorists made it clear that they believed they acted in the name of their religion, exacting vengeance for their fellow Muslims. Yet several media pockets have gone into overdrive to deflect attention from that Islamist motivation.

Still carrying the weapons that killed British soldier Lee James Rigby in his bloody hands, Michael Adebolajo explained why he attacked an unarmed man on a London street Wednesday: “We swear by Almighty Allah, we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone. The only reasons we killed this man is because Muslims are dying daily. This British soldier is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. We apologize that woman had to see this today, but in our lands our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your government. They don’t care about you.”

The New York Times omitted reference to the attacker’s invocation of Allah, relegating it to page A7. ABC, NBC and CBS similarly omitted the Islamic reference.

Media Matters for America went further, accusing Fox News of “Islamophobia,” for comments about the attackers’ motivations. The liberal organization made no reference to the attackers’ own words, but emphasized condemnations of the attack from British Muslim leaders. Commentator Michelle Malkin was singled out in the Media Matters post for saying the videotaped attacker was “quoting chapter and verse, sura and verse, from the Quran the justification for beheading an innocent solider there, and of course they’ve targeted civilians as well.”

In fact, that’s exactly what Adebolajo did at 1:15 of the graphic video below.

“But we are forced by the Qur’an, in Sura At-Tawba, through many ayah in the Qu’ran, we must fight them as they fight us,” he says.

Yet Media Matters cites Malkin’s comments as an example of Fox’s “Islamophobia.”

Following the Boston bombing last month, not even the discovery jihadist propaganda on Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s YouTube channel and other social media platforms was enough to convince some media liberals that the he and his brother Dzhokhar were motivated by religion. Instead they chose to look for other more secular explanations such as Chechen nationalism or disillusionment with U.S. foreign policy.

Hours after Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s names became public, The Atlantic‘s Megan Garber penned a column titled “The Boston Bombers Were Muslim: So?” in which she suggested pinning the Muslim label on them reduced them to being “caricatures” and “whitewashed” their humanity.

Had the bombers been white right-wing extremists like Timothy McVeigh chances are that Garber would not have called for tolerance and suggested using a label made them into “caricatures” or demeaned them.

Not to be outdone, Media Matters’ Eric Boehlert charged that Fox News was engaged in a “war on Islam,” a conspiratorial, delusionary and incendiary narrative that Canadian intelligence says is the leading cause of radicalization among young Muslims.

Boehlert has consistently ignored the treatment of women as second-class citizens and the imposition of the death penalty on homosexuals in Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Afghanistan and Iran.

He has also routinely uncritically echoed the radical Islamist narrative pushed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and other groups. In turn, they have frequently cited his work in their own defense.

The Media Matters senior fellow has defended Islamic extremists such as Sami Al-Arian, a Florida professor who pleaded guilty in 2006 of aiding the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist group, accusing his detractors of “sloppy journalism” and of having a “pervasive anti-Arab bias.”

Boehlert also defended Islamic charities in a March 22 blog written after a biography about Fox CEO Roger Ailes showed that Ailes compared the charities to terrorist organizations. In fact, numerous Muslim charities have been shut down and prosecuted due to their support for terrorist groups. The Holy Land Foundation had been the largest Muslim charity in the United States before being convicted of routing more than $12 million to Hamas.

According to a Foreign Policy magazine article published in February, the involvement of Islamic charities in terrorist fundraising continues.

Boehlert refuses to use the term Islam and terrorism in the same sentence. Yet he had no such qualms about using the terms “right-wing” and “terrorist” in the same sentence following the Boston bombing to falsely describe Fox News’s supposed inattention to white supremacist violence during an April 29 interview on Current TV.

“When a right-wing nut, an extremist goes on shooting rampages, the response is how do they possibly stop a lunatic?” Boehlert said. “When a Muslim is accused of an act of terror, Fox News definitely knows how to stop the lunatic, and they are definitely interested in assigning political blame.”

This came six days after reports indicated that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev told his interrogators that he and his brother, as NBC reported, “were motivated by a desire to defend Islam because of ‘the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.’”

That has since been reinforced by reports about Dzhokhar’s note, scrawled inside the boat he was captured in on the night of April 19. “When you attack one Muslim, you attack all Muslims,” he wrote.

Boehlert has yet to acknowledge a religious motivation for the Boston bombings.

Read more at IPT

Rotten to the Core, Part III: Lessons from Texas and the Growing Grassroots Revolt

20130301_Texas_textbooks_largeBy Michelle Malkin:

Texas is a right-minded red state, where patriotism is still a virtue and political correctness is out of vogue. So how on earth have left-wing educators in public classrooms been allowed to instruct Lone Star students to dress in Islamic garb, call the 9/11 jihadists “freedom fighters” and treat the Boston Tea Party participants as “terrorists”?

Here’s the dirty little secret: Despite the best efforts of vigilant parents, teachers and administrators committed to academic excellence, progressive activists reign supreme in government schools.

That’s because curriculum is king. The liberal monopoly on the modern textbook/curricular market remains unchallenged after a half-century. He who controls the textbooks, teaching guides and tests controls the academic agenda.

That is how the propagandistic outfitting of students in Islamic garb came to pass in the unlikely setting of the conservative Lumberton, Texas, school district. As Fox News reporter Todd Starnes noted this week, a 32-year veteran of the high school led a world geography lesson on Islam in which hijab-wrapped students were banned from using the words “suicide bomber” and “terrorist” to describe Muslim mass murderers in favor of the term “freedom fighter.”

Madelyn LeBlanc, one of the students in the class, “told Fox News that it was clear her teacher was very uncomfortable lecturing the students. ‘I do have a lot of sympathy for her. … At the very beginning, she said she didn’t want to teach it, but it was in the curriculum.’”

But the headline-grabbing injection of moral equivalence into social studies and American history is just the tip of the education iceberg.

Top-down federalized “Common Core” standards are now sweeping the country. It’s important to remember that while teachers-union control freaks are on board with the Common Core regime, untold numbers of rank-and-file educators are just as angered and frustrated as parents about the Big Ed power grab. The program was concocted not at the grassroots level, but by a bipartisan cabal of nonprofits (led by lobbyists for the liberal Bill Gates Foundation), statist business groups and hoodwinked Republican governors. As I’ve reported previously, this scheme, enabled by the Obama administration’s “Race to the Top” funding mechanism, usurps local autonomy in favor of lesson content and pedagogical methods.

One teacher described a thought-control training seminar in her school district titled “Making the Common Core Come Alive.” A worksheet labeled “COMMON CORE MIND SHIFTS” included the following rhetorical muck:

–The goal of curriculum should not be the coverage of content, but rather the discovery of content. … If done well, Common Core will elevate our teaching to new heights, and emphasize the construction of meaning, while deepening our understanding of our students.”

–”In our classrooms, it is the students’ voices, not the teachers’, that are heard.”

Blah, blah, blah. In practice, Common Core evades transparency by peddling shoddy curricular material authored by anonymous committees. It promotes faddish experiments masquerading as “world-class” math and reading goals. Instead of raising expectations, Common Core is a Trojan horse for lowering them. California, for example, is now citing Common Core as a rationale for abandoning algebra classes for 8th graders. Common Core’s “constructivist” approach to reading is now the rationale for abandoning classic literature for “informational texts.”
Read more: Family Security Matters 

See also:

Is Saudi prince steering News Corp. coverage?

Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal (center) with the Supreme Advisory Board of Al Risala TV

Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal (center) with the “Supreme Advisory Board” of Al Risala TV in December 2012. The board includes Muslim Brotherhood figure and al Qaeda-linked financier Omar Abdullah Naseef (to the left of Alwaleed, I believe), at whose home this photo was taken. The occasion was Al Risala’s receipt of an award for excellence. Part-owner Rupert Murdoch was not in attendance.

By Diana West at WND:

Ever since Al Gore sold Current TV to Al Jazeera, the network founded and funded by the oil-rich emirate of Qatar, the former vice president has drawn continuous fire in conservative media. Fox News, the New York Post and the Wall Street Journal, for example, have all castigated Gore, a man of the left and leading avatar of “global warming,” for such hypocrisies as timing the deal to avoid lefty tax hikes and bagging $100 million in greenhouse-gas money.

These same news outlets share something else in common: They all belong to Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. That means they also belong to Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal.

Alwaleed owns the largest chunk of News Corp. stock outside the Murdoch family. Shortly after his purchase of 5.5 percent of News Corp. voting shares in 2005, Alwaleed gave a speech that made it clear just what he had bought. As noted in The (U.K.) Guardian, Alwaleed told an audience in Dubai that it took just one phone call to Rupert Murdoch – “speaking not as a shareholder but as a viewer,” Alwaleed said – to get the Fox News crawl reporting “Muslim riots” in France changed to “civil riots.”

This didn’t make the “Muslim” riots go away, but Alwaleed managed to fog our perception of them. With a phone call, the Saudi prince eliminated the peculiarly Islamic character of the unprecedented French street violence for both the viewers at home and, more significantly, for the journalists behind the scenes. When little owner doesn’t want “Muslim” rioting identified and big owner agrees, it sets a marker for employees. Alwaleed’s stake, by the way, is now 7 percent.

We can only speculate on what other acts of influence this nephew of the Saudi dictator might have since imposed on Fox News and other News Corp. properties. (I have long argued that News Corp. should register as a foreign agent, due to the stock owned by a senior member of the Saudi ruling dynasty.) Alwaleed hasn’t shared any other editorial exploits with the public. But that opening act of eliminating key information from News Corp.’s coverage of Islamic news might well have set a pattern of omission.

Recently, such a pattern of omission in News Corp.’s coverage of the Gore-Al Jazeera deal seems evident. I say “seems,” because I can’t be entirely certain that I haven’t missed something in my research. But judging from online searches of news stories and audio transcripts, two salient points are missing from at least the main body of News Corp.’s coverage.

One is reference to the noticeable alignment of Al Jazeera with the Muslim Brotherhood, the global Islamic movement whose motto is, “The Quran is our law; jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.” The second (with an exception noted below) is reference to Al Jazeera’s superstar host and ideological lodestar, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a leading Muslim Brotherhood figure. The influence of al-Qaradawi at the network and in Qatar – where, according to Freedom House’s 2012 press report, it is against the law for journalists to criticize the Qatari government, the ruling family or Islam – can hardly be overestimated.

Strange omission? This relationship between the Qatari-controlled network and the Muslim Brotherhood organization has been observed for years. Back in 2007, for example, Steven Stalinsky reported in the New York Sun that various Arab commentators referred to Al Jazeera as “the Muslim Brotherhood channel” and the like. What’s more, reference to the relationship appears at least in passing in coverage of the Gore deal at mainstream media sites such as USA Today and the Seattle Times. More discussion is available at some conservative outlets, including Rush Limbaugh and The Blaze. (Searches at Breitbart and the Washington Examiner, like News Corp. sites, yielded nothing on these same points. Call it, perhaps, “the Fox effect.”)

Given the rise of Muslim Brotherhood parties in the revolutions of the so-called Arab Spring – undeviatingly cheered on by Al Jazeera – the network’s Muslim Brotherhood connection, which extends to Al Jazeera’s sponsors inside the Qatari ruling family, is a crucial point to miss. Especially when it seems to be missed across the board.

The same goes for failing to mention Al Jazeera’s leading personality, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, in the Gore deal coverage. This longtime “spiritual guide” of the Muslim Brotherhood hosts one of Al Jazeera’s most popular shows, “Shariah and Life.” Among other poisonous pronouncements, al-Qaradawi has called for Americans in Iraq and Israelis everywhere to be targeted by terrorists (“martyrs”) who would then find a place in Islamic paradise. Given Al Gore’s refusal to sell his network to Glenn Beck’s The Blaze TV due to political differences, Muslim Brother Al-Qaradawi and his Shariah ideology become highly relevant. Then again, maybe one man’s news story is just another man’s clipping on the cutting-room floor.

Meanwhile, the one story I found in News Corp. coverage of the Gore deal that mentions al-Qaradawi – a column by Gordon Crovitz – neglected to note al-Qaradawi’s place in the Muslim Brotherhood. Particularly given current events, this is a little like forgetting to mention that Hermann Goring was in the Nazi Party.

Could normal editorial discretion or plain ignorance be at work here? I suppose so. Still, there is that tie-in between News Corp. and the House of Saud to consider, a partnership I find more troubling than Gore’s deal with the Qatari emirate. Not only does Alwaleed own a stake in News Corp., Murdoch owns an even more substantial stake (18.97 percent) in Alwaleed’s Arabic media company Rotana.

Within the Alwaleed-Murdoch-Rotana galaxy is a 24-hour-Islamic outlet called Al Risala, which Alwaleed founded in 2006. The channel’s director and popular “tele-Islamist” is Tareq Al-Suwaidan, widely reported to be a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Kuwait. The station’s “Supreme Advisory Committee” includes Abdullah Omar Naseef, who, according to former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy, is “a major Muslim Brotherhood figure” involved in the financing of al-Qaida.

Al Risala, then, would seem to fit right into the Al Jazeera-Qaradawi-Muslim-Brotherhood lineup.

We know Alwaleed has influenced Fox editorial matters before. Could that Alwaleed influence – even his very presence – account for why News Corp. hasn’t hit harder on the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaradawi angles of the Gore-Jazeera deal?

I don’t know, but I wonder. Don’t you?

Related articles

Exclusive: Cleric may have booked pre-9/11 flights for hijackers, FBI documents show

imagesCAX75C8TBy

The FBI suspected within days of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that  the American Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki may have purchased tickets for some  of the hijackers for air travel in advance of the attacks, according to newly  released documents reviewed exclusively by Fox News.

The purpose of these flights remains unclear, but the 9/11 Commission report  later noted that the hijackers had used flights in the lead-up to the attacks to  test security and surveillance.

The heavily redacted records – obtained by Judicial Watch through a Freedom  of information Act request – suggest the FBI held evidence tying the  American-born cleric to the hijackers just 16 days after the attack that killed  nearly 3,000 Americans.

“We have FBI documents showing that the FBI knew that al-Awlaki had bought  three tickets for three of the hijackers to fly into Florida and into Las Vegas,  including the lead hijacker, Mohammad Atta,” Tom Fitton, president of Judicial  Watch, told Fox News.

He added that the records show the cleric, killed in September 2011 by a U.S.  drone strike in Yemen, “was a central focus of the FBI’s investigation of 9/11.  They show he wasn’t cooperative. And they show that he was under  surveillance.”

One FBI investigative report known as a 302 summarizes the bureau’s investigation  of Al-Awlaki’s Visa transactions. While heavily redacted, the document  indicates a credit transaction for “Atta, Mohammed — American West Airlines,  08/13/2001, Washington, DC to Las Vegas to Miami,” the document says.

The mid-August flight, according to the Joint Congressional Inquiry into  9/11, which first investigated the attacks, was one of Atta’s numerous and  crucial surveillance flights.

“On August 13, Atta flew a second time across country from Washington to Las  Vegas on a Boeing 757 (seated in first class) returning on August 14 to Fort  Lauderdale,” the 9/11 report reads.

The FBI documents also show a credit card record for a “Suqami, S. —-Southwest Airlines, 07/10/2001, Ft. Lauderdale to Orlando.” Satam al-Suqami  was one of the muscle hijackers on American Airlines Flight 11, which slammed  into the World Trade Center on Sept. 11.

The third individual, identified in the records is a “W. al-Sheri — National  Airlines, 08/01/2001, San Francisco to Las Vegas to Miami.”  This appears  to be either Waleed al-Shehri or Wail al-Shehri. The two brothers were also  muscle hijackers, according to the 9/11 Commission report.

As part of its ongoing investigation of the cleric, Fox News was first to  report in the special “Fox  News Reporting – The Secrets of 9/11,” broadcast in September 2011, that the  cleric was an overlooked key player in the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

Read more at Fox News

 

PICKET: Al Qaeda didn’t just disappear from CIA’s original Benghazi memo but also from FBI counter-terror lexicon

By Kerry Picket

Lawmakers told reporters on Capitol Hill Friday that former CIA Director  David Petraeus testified that the White House edited out “Al Qaeda’s  involvement” from the agency’s original talking points. According to Fox News: (bolding is mine)

Former CIA Director David Petraeus stoked the controversy over the  Obama administration’s handling of the Libya terror attack, testifying Friday  that references to “Al Qaeda involvement” were stripped from his agency’s  original talking points — while other intelligence officials were unable to say  who changed the memo, according to a top lawmaker who was briefed.

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., told Fox News that  intelligence officials who testified in a closed-door hearing a day earlier,  including Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Acting CIA  Director Mike Morell, said they did not know who changed the talking points. He  said they went out to multiple departments, including the State Department,  National Security Council, Justice Department and White House.

“To me the question right now is who changed those talking points and  why. … I’d say it was somebody in the administration had to have taken it  out,” King told Fox News. “That, to me, has to be  pursued.”

But should that really be a surprise, though? As pointed out by Liz Sheld of  Breitbart News, the piece I wrote on September 27 showed that even  the FBI counter-terrorism manual does not include the term “Al – Qaeda.” In  fact, it does not even include the terms: Jihad, Hamas, Hizbollah, or Muslim  Brotherhood. PJ Media’s Patrick Poole found this  counter-terrorism document that the FBI attempted to claim did not exist.

As I pointed out previously:

The Obama administration’s response to media inquires over what happened  during the deadly terrorist attack on our U.S. consulate in Libya that took the  lives of four Americans, including a U.S. ambassador, has been that it is  currently under investigation. However, according to CNN, the FBI is only investigating the attack from  afar and “bureaucratic infighting between the FBI and Justice Department, and  the State Department on the other” appears to be delaying the investigation.:  (bolding is mine)

FBI agents have not yet been granted access to investigate in the eastern  Libyan city, and the crime scene has not been secured, sources said.

“They’ve gotten as far as Tripoli now, but they’ve never gotten to Benghazi,”  CNN National Security Analyst Fran Townsend said Wednesday, citing senior law  enforcement officials.

Last Thursday, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told reporters that an  FBI team had reached Libya earlier in the week.

“In fairness to the secretary, it may be that she wanted to be coy about  where they were in Libya for security concerns. That’s understandable. But the  fact is, it’s not clear they’ve been in Libya for very long,” Townsend said on  CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360°.”

“They had difficulty, and we understand there was some bureaucratic  infighting between the FBI and Justice Department on the one hand, and the State  Department on the other, and so it took them longer than they would have liked  to get into country. They’ve now gotten there. But they still are unable to get  permission to go to Benghazi.”

FBI agents have made a request through the U.S. State Department for  the crime scene to be secured, Townsend said, but that has not  happened.

“The senior law enforcement official I spoke to said, ‘If we get  there now, it’s not clear that it will be of any use to us,’” Townsend  said.

The FBI team has conducted interviews of State Department and U.S. government  personnel who were in Libya at the time of the attack, Townsend said, but the  FBI’s request to directly question individuals who Libyan authorities have in  custody was denied.

It took the administration over one week to declare the attack on the  consulate in Benghazi was indeed a “terrorist” attack and many wondered why the  declaration took so long. Fox News Channel’s Megyn Kelly reported that sources  told Fox News that U.S. intelligence knew that the strike against the consulate  was the work of terrorists within 24 hours of the attack.  So why the delay  in the actual declaration from the administration?

Read more at Washington Times

 

Exclusive: Security officials on the ground in Libya challenge CIA account

By

Despite a carefully narrated version of events rolled out late this week by  the CIA claiming agents jumped into action as soon as they were notified of  calls for help in Benghazi, security officials on the ground say calls for help  went out considerably earlier — and signs of an attack were mounting even  before that.

The accounts, from foreign and American security officials in and around  Benghazi at the time of the attack, indicate there was in fact a significant lag  between when the threat started to show itself and help started to arrive.

According to the CIA, the first calls for assistance came at 9:40 p.m. local  time from a senior State Department official at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi,  to the CIA annex about a mile away.

But according to multiple people on the ground that night, the Blue Mountain  Security manager, who was in charge of the local force hired to guard the  consulate perimeter, made calls on both two-way radios and cell phones to  colleagues in Benghazi warning of problems at least an hour earlier. Those calls  allegedly went to local security contractors who say that the CIA annex was also  notified much earlier than 9:40 p.m. U.S. military intelligence also told Fox  News that armed militia was gathering up to three hours before the attack  began.

One source said the Blue Mountain Security chief seemed “distraught” and said  “the situation here is very serious, we have a problem.” He also said that even  without these phone and radio calls, it was clear to everyone in the security  community on the ground in Benghazi much earlier than 9:40 p.m. that fighters  were gathering in preparation for an attack.

Many of these security contractors and intelligence sources on the ground in  Benghazi met twice a week for informal meetings at the consulate with Blue  Mountain and consulate staff, and at times other international officials. They  were all very familiar with security at the consulate — and said the staff  seemed “complacent” and “didn’t seem to follow the normal American way of  securing a facility.”

Both American and British sources say multiple roadblocks set up by fighters  believed to be with Ansar al-Sharia were in place in Benghazi several hours  before the 9:40 p.m. timeline and that communications also alluded to “heavily  armed troops showing up with artillery.” Fox News was told by both American and  British contacts who were in Benghazi that night that the CIA timeline rolled  out this past week is only “loosely based on the truth” and “doesn’t quite add  up.”

Fox News was also told that the local guard force meant to protect the  consulate perimeter “panicked” and didn’t know what to do as the attackers took  up positions. Sources say other guards simply “walked away”.

Read more at Fox news with video

Former head of Senate Select Committee on Intelligence urges Obama to answer Benghazi questions

Published on Nov  2, 2012 by

U.S. Senator Pat Roberts “On the Record” with Greta Van Susteren regarding his letter to President Obama asking him to set the record straight on Benghazi attacks.

Breaking News on the Libya Attack: Top Administration Officials Did Not Call on Counterterrorism Agencies

Fox News Insider:

Fox News national security correspondent Jennifer Griffin had breaking news tonight regarding the attack on the United States consulate in Libya. She reported that top administration officials decided on the night of September 11th, 2012 after the attack had already begun, not to call together the Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG).

CSG is an interagency group that specializes in both hostage situations and any terror attack on U.S. interests. That decision, according to senior military and intelligence officials, may have stymied some of the response to the attack.

According to senior military officials, the administration also did not deploy the interagency team made up of Department of Defense, FBI, CIA and State Department: the Foreign Emergency Support Team (FEST). It was decided that FEST was not to be sent to coordinate an on-the-ground response and help facilitate the FBI’s interests into Benghazi. It took 24 days for the FBI team in Libya to gain access to the compound.

Go here for audio

Fox News: CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say

This is outrageous! It is time to let the mainstream media know how we feel about their lack of coverage on this scandal! Use the contact info supplied in this link: FAIR’s Media Contact List

By :

Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an  urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the  U.S. Consulate and subsequent attack several hours later was denied by U.S.  officials — who also told the CIA operators twice to “stand down” rather than  help the ambassador’s team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in  Benghazi on Sept. 11.

Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA  annex about a mile from the U.S. Consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and  his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they  informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and  requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to  “stand down,” according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they  were again told to “stand down.”

Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the  Consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The quick  reaction force from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the Consulate  and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find  the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.

At that point, they called again for military support and help because they  were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There  were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the  compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In  fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a  heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security  officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested  back-up support from a Specter gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special  Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground  involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more  than four hours — enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just  480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One  Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force  operators.

Watch “Special Report Investigates: Death and Deceit in Benghazi” on  Fox News at 1 p.m. ET on Saturday, 3 p.m. on Sunday and 10 p.m. on  Sunday.

A Special Operations team, or CIF which stands for Commanders in Extremis  Force, operating in Central Europe had been moved to Sigonella, Italy, but they  too were told to stand down. A second force that specializes in counterterrorism  rescues was on hand at Sigonella, according to senior military and intelligence  sources. According to those sources, they could have flown to Benghazi in less  than two hours. They were the same distance to Benghazi as those that were sent  from Tripoli. Specter gunships are commonly used by the Special Operations  community to provide close air support.

According to sources on the ground during the attack, the special operator on  the roof of the CIA annex had visual contact and a laser pointing at the Libyan  mortar team that was targeting the CIA annex. The operators were calling in  coordinates of where the Libyan forces were firing from.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters at the Pentagon on Thursday  that there was not a clear enough picture of what was occurring on the ground in  Benghazi to send help.

“There’s a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here,” Panetta said  Thursday. “But the basic principle here … is that you don’t deploy forces into  harm’s way without knowing what’s going on.”

U.S. officials argue that there was a period of several hours when the  fighting stopped before the mortars were fired at the annex, leading officials  to believe the attack was over.

Fox News has learned that there were two military surveillance drones  redirected to Benghazi shortly after the attack on the Consulate began. They  were already in the vicinity. The second surveillance craft was sent to relieve  the first drone, perhaps due to fuel issues. Both were capable of sending real  time visuals back to U.S. officials in Washington, D.C. Any U.S. official or  agency with the proper clearance, including the White House Situation Room,  State Department, CIA, Pentagon and others, could call up that video in real  time on their computers.

This is stunning new information…read more at Fox News with video

What’s Missing From Our New National Strategy for Counterterrorism

By Kerry Patton:

On June 28, the White House released its 2011 National Strategy for Counterterrorism. This twenty-six page document could be observed as an extremely narrowly focused strategy—possibly too narrow. Al Qaeda is the main focus within the plan and, for many reasons, rightly so. Most of our major command’s areas of operations are identified as well but one crucial region is missing—South and Central America.

First, it’s critical to understand the importance of a strategic plan and how it is developed. For starters, a Strategic Plan is created by Strategic Intelligence. Strategic Intelligence is defined as:

- Intelligence that is required for forming policy and military plans at national and international levels.

- Intelligence that is required for the formulation of military strategy, policy, and military plans and operations at national and theater levels. (DOD)

- “Intelligence employed in the formulation of policy and military plans at the national and international levels.” [Polmar, Norman and Thomas B. Allen. The Encyclopedia of Espionage. New York: Gramercy Books, 1997, p. 538]

- “Warning of the enemy intention to attack, and ‘tactical’ warning, i.e., the detection of actual physical preparations for an attack.” [Luttwak, Edward and Dan Horowitz. The Israeli Army. 1975]

So, in understanding the different types of definitions related to Strategic Intelligence, one can see that prior to a plan being developed, it is critical to have the proper collection and analysis of a broad range of insight globally to formulate plans to secure the nation–known as Strategic Plans.

Read more at Fox News

Kerry Patton is co-founder of the National Security Leadership  Foundation,  a non-profit organization with a pending 501c (3) status. He has worked in South  America, Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and Europe, focusing on intelligence and  security interviewing current and former terrorists, including members of the Taliban.  He is the author of “Sociocultural Intelligence: The New  Discipline of Intelligence Studies” and the children’s book “American Patriotism.”  You can follow him on Facebook.