Mary, Muhammad, and Hypocritical Media Dhimmitude, From The New York Times, to Fox News

By Andrew Bostom, May 30, 2015:

Clay Waters of Newsbusters (h/t Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch) underscores the rank “free expression” hypocrisy, and sheer dhimmitude, of the New York Times, resplendent once again, in its Thursday, May 28, 2015 “Arts” section. A prominent photographic reproduction of the 1996 Ofili painting, “The Holy Virgin Mary”, which accompanied the story about its sale, included an accuratedescription of the painting’s contents. The Times report also made a rathercontemptuous assessment of then New York Mayor Giuliani’s reaction to Ofili’s deliberately insulting work, an unabashed “artistic” exercise in scatology and pornography.

The Australian collector David Walsh is selling Chris Ofili’s 1996 painting “The Holy Virgin Mary,” which caused a furor when it was shown at the Brooklyn Museum in October 1999 as part of Charles Saatchi’s touring “Sensation” exhibition of works by Young British Artists (YBAs). The eight-foot-high depiction of a black Virgin Mary, encrusted with a lump of elephant dung and collaged bottoms [i.e., naked buttocks] from pornographic magazines, outraged religious leaders and Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who described Mr. Ofili’s painting and other works in the show as “sick stuff.” Mr. Giuliani’s attempts to close the exhibition by withholding public funds were rejected by a federal judge.

Yet the Times remains steadfast in its refusal to show any drawings of Muhammad, despite their obvious centrality to—wait for it—the news, given the very recent mass murderous Muslim reactions to the Charlie Hebdo cartoons in Paris, and the failed attempt at similar jihadist carnage in Garland, Texas. The latter occurred following an educational conference which displayed historical and contemporary Muhammad images, produced by Muslims and non-Muslims, alike, and also included a contextual discussion of Islamic “blasphemy law,”which is antithetical to free speech as enshrined in the first amendment to our U.S. Constitution.

It must be emphasized, however, that The New York Times’ acquiescent dhimmitude, vis-à-vis its self-imposed “ban” on displays of any images of Islam’s prophet Muhammad, is shared uniformly by all our major television media,notably Fox News (see here; here; here; here; and here). The abject dhimmitude of Fox News is particularly egregious given the network’s continuous preening verbal support for free speech, and its history of appropriately condemning the hypocrisy of displaying works like Ofili’s Virgin Mary, but not artistic images of Muhammad.

I have included both the Ofili painting, and. just below it, Muslim “apostate” artist Bosch Fawstin’s drawing of Muhammad—a pure free speech political cartoon, which garnered first prize at the Garland conference exhibition—for juxtaposition.

Any rational, honest, objective human being should discern—and acknowledge—the stark contrast between these images.

How profound is our media dhimmitude that even “alternative” Fox News, by its repeated actions— i.e. refusing to display Fawstin’s sober, thoughtful Muhammad drawing, not Fox’s empty “free speech support” rhetoric—has effectively conflated Ofili’s dung-clotted, pornographic buttocks-collaged Virgin Mary, an “artistic” exercise in gratuitous profanity, with a brave ex-Muslim’s plaintive, non-profane image extolling our bedrock liberty, freedom of expression?


My Winning Mohammad Contest Drawing

Fox News Lets Sharia (Donald) Trump Freedom of Expression

My Winning Mohammad Contest Drawing

By Andrew Bostom, May 14, 2015:

Last week Fox News’s Sean Hannity was uniquely supportive of journalist/activist Pamela Geller, hosting her on his show 5 nights in a row (including one evening with guest host, Eric Bolling). Ms. Geller remains underISIS death threat for conducting a thoughtful Garland, Texas event upholding freedom of expression in defiance of Islamic Sharia totalitarianism, enforced by would be mass murderous jihadist attackers, who were fortunately slain by an intrepid policeman. (The Garland event can be viewed in full here; and its 30 minute highlights, here). Earlier this week, Hannity courteously provided Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders, featured at the Garland free speech conference, aforum to explain his views.

Sadly, Hannity’s humane behavior was the exception at Fox News, and he was apparently forced to abide Fox News’s Sharia-complaint ban on actually showing the Garland conference’s liberty-affirming symbol—courageous ex-Muslim artist Bosch Fawstin’s brilliant drawing (shown above), which garnered first prize at the exhibit. Megyn Kelly, who conspicuously distanced herself from the conference organizers, also towed the Sharia-complaint line. Despite Kelly’s “passionate” rhetorical endorsement of free expression, she never displayed Fawstin’s drawing, emblematic of the craven hypocrisy decried in Robert Tracinski’s cogently entitled analysis, “Mohammed Cartoons: If You’re Not Publishing, You’re Pretending.” Jeanine Pirro stepped all over her Saturday evening (5/9/15) monologue warning of the threat of Sharia supremacism by concluding that the Garland event was a “dumb move,” segueing into an utterly uninformed, rather hostile interview of Geller, and kowtowing to Fox’s interdiction on display of the Fawstin drawing.

Worse still were Fox News’s “sorry seven” (a composite of hosts/guests), whose sniping, ignorant, and cowardly commentary was summarized in a series of extracts by Brendan James. The Fox News statements of Donald Trump best illustrate this toxic genre of sheer idiocy and cowardice—the latter made all the more despicable by the phony bravado with which it was conveyed.

I watched Pam Prior [sic], and it looks like she’s just taunting everybody. What is she doing? Drawing Muhammad and it looks like she’s taunting people…what are they doing drawing Muhammad? Isn’t there something else they can draw? They can’t do something else? They have to be in the middle of Texas and on Muhammad? You know, I’m one that believes in free speech, probably more than she does. What’s the purpose of this? She’s taunting them…I don’t know, maybe she likes risk. What the hell is she doing?

Overall, Fox News’s coverage of the Garland free speech conference was appalling—it amounted to journalistic dereliction of duty, indeed malpractice, for willful sins of commission and omission. I have elaborated on this depressing phenomenon at these blogs (here; here; and here), and yesterday (5/13/15) in an interview with Tom Trento, who attended and scrupulously recorded the entire Garland event. Please watch our interview embedded below, starting at 13:40.

See more videos with Tom Trento here: theunitedwest

Scandal Rocks Fox News Over Saudi Terror Link

timthumb (10)AIM, Cliff Kincaid  —   February 6, 2015

Fox News Correspondent James Rosen reported on Wednesday night that a “major investor in the parent company” of Fox News has been implicated in financing the terrorist group al-Qaeda. Rosen made the embarrassing disclosure in a story on the channel’s “Special Report” show hosted by Bret Baier.

The alleged al-Qaeda financier, Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, is a very close friend of Rupert Murdoch and his family, who control major media companies like News Corp and 21st Century Fox. The latter is now the parent company of the Fox News Channel.

The second largest shareholder in the Fox News parent company after the Murdoch family, Alwaleed has been addressed as “Your Highness” during his appearances on the network. His recent appearances have made him sound moderate, while denouncing Islamic extremism and the ISIS terrorist group.

Fox News is to be congratulated for reporting on a developing scandal that puts its chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Rupert Murdoch, in a very bad light.

A video posted by Alwaleed’s company, Kingdom Holdings, shows Alwaleed and Murdoch warmly embracing at one of several intimate meetings they have held over the years. Alwaleed has also met regularly with Murdoch’s liberal son, James Murdoch, the co-chief operating officer of 21st Century Fox.

Shortly after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, Alwaleed offered a $10 million contribution to a 9/11 fund for families and victims. Then-New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani rejected the money because Alwaleed had blamed the terror attacks on U.S. Middle East policy.

Rosen, a hard-charging investigative reporter, really had no alternative but to cover the damaging disclosures. The allegations were made by Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker of 9/11, and provided in the form of a sworn statement to attorneys for families of 9/11 victims for their lawsuit against Saudi Arabia. He is serving a life sentence at a supermax prison in Florence, Colorado.

Fifteen of the 19 terrorist hijackers involved in the 9/11 attacks came from Saudi Arabia, and the role of the Saudi government and its top officials and citizens in the massacre of nearly 3.000 Americans on that day has been a matter of controversy ever since.

Rosen said Moussaoui’s sworn statement named Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal,“a leading Saudi businessman and major investor in the parent company of this network,” as one of the financiers of al-Qaeda.

But Alwaleed is much more than just an investor in Murdoch’s companies. He is also a personal friend of Murdoch’s who boasted in 2005 that a phone call to Murdoch resulted in the Fox News Channel altering its coverage of Muslim riots in France, in order to eliminate references to the religious affiliation of the Muslim extremists.

“I picked up the phone and called Murdoch and said that I was speaking not as a shareholder, but as a viewer of Fox. I said that these are not Muslim riots, they are riots,” Alwaleed reportedly said. “He [Murdoch] investigated the matter and called Fox and within half an hour it was changed from ‘Muslim riots’ to ‘civil riots.’”

I asked Murdoch about this at the 2006 annual meeting of News Corporation. Heconfirmed that a call from Alwaleed had resulted in the change. Murdoch said the change was made after it was determined that there was also a Catholic role in the riots. I had never heard or seen it reported anywhere that there was a Catholic role in the riots.

In 2002, it was revealed that Alwaleed had contributed $500,000 to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim Brotherhood front that has boasted of influence over Fox entertainment programs. The bio for Nihad Awad, CAIR’s Executive Director and co-founder, describes how he “has successfully led negotiations with Fortune 500 companies and Hollywood film corporations on issues of concern to American Muslims. These issues include religious discrimination in the workplace, racial and religious profiling, negative stereotypes about Muslims in major Hollywood films, and products that are offensive to Muslims.”

In recent years, however, Alwaleed has postured as an opponent of the Muslim Brotherhood and terrorist groups. In 2013, for example, he announced the sacking of Tarek Al-Suwaidan as director of one of his TV channels because of his Muslim Brotherhood ties. Alwaleed said at the time that he was opposed to “the Brotherhood terrorist movement.”

The channel is a part of Alwaleed’s Rotana Group, an Arab media conglomerate based in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, that is partly owned by News Corp.

On the October 26, 2014, “Sunday Morning Futures” Fox News Channel program hosted by Maria Bartiromo, Alwaleed declared that Saudi Arabia was opposed to the terrorist group ISIS, regarded by many experts as a spin-off from al-Qaeda.

The following exchange took place:

Bartiromo: Prince Alwaleed, what do you say to those out there who say that Saudi Arabia has had a history of supporting and funding some extremists, particularly in Syria, for example? Do you believe Saudi Arabia should take some responsibility for ISIS even being formed?

Alwaleed: Well, the whole world has to take responsibility, not only—I mean, there is no doubt there are some Saudis, like there are some people in the United States, like in Europe, in some other Arab countries, who really are (INAUDIBLE) and support these terrorist groups.

Alwaleed didn’t explain who these Saudis or other people were. He went on to tell “Maria” that she should “rest assured” because Saudi Arabia “right now has enacted laws” against supporting terrorist groups.

During another appearance with Bartiromo, Alwaleed called ISIS a “disease” that has to be eradicated.

While Alwaleed is now putting the best face on what the Saudis and other “moderate” Muslims are supposedly doing around the world to counter terrorism, his behind-the-scenes influence on the Murdoch empire continues to generate controversy. Speculation emerged recently that Alwaleed’s influence was a factor in the Fox News Channel’s apology for covering Muslim-dominated “no-go zones” in Europe where non-Muslims and police fear to enter.

The unwarranted apology dismayed conservatives who were counting on Fox News to cover the growing problem of the Islamization of Europe.

It is curious that as the Moussaoui allegations against Alwaleed and other Saudi officials and citizens were making news, it was suddenly disclosed that Alwaleed was reducing his stake in News Corp while maintaining his investment in 21st Century Fox.

Alwaleed’s organization, Kingdom Holding, discussed the change in stock ownership in an announcement featuring a photo of Alwaleed and Murdoch walking through what appears to be a newsroom. It said Alwaleed remains “fully supportive of Rupert Murdoch and his family.”

The disclosures of a Saudi role in financing al-Qaeda is a subject that deserves more follow-up from Fox News and other media organizations.

To its credit, the Fox News website is now running a follow-up story noting that the new charges are prompting calls for the declassification and release of 28 classified pages of the full report on 9/11. The role of Saudi Arabia in the attacks is said to be a major topic covered in the 28 pages.

Also see:

Watch Deborah Weiss on Fox News discussing “Freedom of Speech Under Attack

NER, by Jerry Gordon, Jan. 21, 2015:

Last weekend, 9/11 survivor and human rights lawyer, Deborah Weiss, Esq. was on Fox News’ Justice with Judge Jeannine discussing “Freedom of Speech under Attack.”   This discussion occurred in the wake of the murderous jihadist attacks in Paris on the French satirical weekly, Charlie Hebdo and Hyper Cacher kosher super market in which 17 died;  cartoonists, journalists, shoppers and workers, five of them Jews.   Ms. Weiss drew attention to media and government self-censorship and the redaction of national law enforcement and homeland security training materials preventing identification of Islamist terrorist threat doctrine based on sacralized Islamic texts.  She also exposed the prominent role of the Saudi-backed Organization of Islamic Cooperation seeking to enforce blasphemy codes under Sharia in Western governments including the US.  Weiss is in the midst of preparing a monograph about the OIC UN resolutions to stifle all criticism of Islam-related subjects.  We interviewed Ms. Weiss about her compelling experience as a survivor of 9/11, who became an advocate for free speech, opposing  acquiescence to Islamic blasphemy codes under Sharia law.  See New English Review: A Survivor of 9/11 Speaks: An Interview with Deborah Weiss, Esq. (September 2014). Thursday January 22, 2014, Weiss will be interviewed on the nationally syndicated radio program, “Line of Fire” at 3:05PM EST. You may listen live, here.

Watch this You Tube video clip of Weiss on FoxNews’ “Justice with Judge Jeanine”:

Steve Emerson Speaks Out: It Was ‘Like I Was Guilty of Murder’

The Blaze, by Erica Ritz,  Jan. 21, 2015:

Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo said Monday that the city will be suing Fox News over commentator Steve Emerson’s discussion of “no-go zones” in the city. Emerson appeared on Glenn Beck’s radio program Wednesday to discuss why he spoke about “no-go zones,” and said some have reacted to his comments as though he was “guilty of murder.”

“Governments don’t recognize that term,” Emerson began. “It’s an informal reference in which policemen or firemen or government agencies won’t go in to areas where there are dense Muslim concentrations for fear of their lives. And it’s been reported on since 2002 in of all places, the New York Times.”

Though Hidalgo said Emerson’s comments “insulted” the image of Paris, Beck and his co-hosts said Emerson’s description was how they understood the term. They never thought it was an “official edict.”

But Emerson was quick to note that he did make a false statement when he referred to Birmingham, England as “totally Muslim where non-Muslims just simply don’t go.”

“I made a total error,” he said. “I was totally wrong. Within hours of making that statement, I issued a declarative, unmitigated, unreserved, unambiguous apology.”

When Beck asked how Emerson’s statements on Fox News became an international controversy, Emerson said he believes a “hatred of Fox” and a hatred of his work in exposing radical Islam “combined to spiral out of control to the point where it seems like I was guilty of murder.”

“The irony of course is that the mayor of Paris — Paris being symbolically now the top city in the world … of free speech, having seen the massacre of people trying to exercise free speech — is now going to sue Fox for emphasizing free speech?” Emerson said.

Emerson apologized for his comments about Birmingham, but took offense to being called a “complete idiot” by U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron.

“Mr. Cameron himself said ISIS and ISIL, all these groups have nothing to do with Islam and they’re just monsters,” Emerson said. “That statement is more idiotic than any statement I’ve ever made.”

More video from the interview at The Blaze

Yes, there ARE ‘no-go’ zones in Europe

muslims-franceBy ART MOORE:

In the wake of the Fox News apology for a guest expert’s on-air claims regarding Muslim “no-go zones” in Europe, an international clamor has ensued with condemnation of Fox, claims that Muslim immigrants really do want to assimilate, and a threat by the mayor of Paris to sue the cable network for “insulting” the great city.

There’s only one problem: Europe is full of Muslim “no-go” zones, which have been documented, lamented, reported on and openly discussed for years.

In fact, the governments of France and other European nations have identified specific enclaves, where Muslim immigrants have chosen not to assimilate, as areas in which law enforcement has lost some degree of control.

The French government lists on its website 751 Zones Urbaines Sensibles, or Sensitive Urban Zones, that the state does not fully control, notes Middle East foreign policy expert Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum.

The French zones, which have specific street demarcations, were first identified by the government in 1996. An estimate that is now 10 years old found 5 million people living in the zones, Pipes noted.

Nevertheless, Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo declared Tuesday in a CNN interview the city will sue Fox News after the network’s coverage “insulted” them.

“When we’re insulted, and when we’ve had an image, then I think we’ll have to sue, I think we’ll have to go to court, in order to have these words removed,” Hidalgo said. “The image of Paris has been prejudiced, and the honor of Paris has been prejudiced.”

On Saturday, “Fox Report” host Julie Banderas told viewers that in the previous week, “We have made some regrettable errors on air regarding the Muslim population in Europe, particularly with regard to England and France.”

“Now, this applies especially to discussions of so-called ‘no-go zones,’ areas where non-Muslims allegedly aren’t allowed in and police supposedly won’t go.

“To be clear, there is no formal designation of these zones in either country … and no credible information to support the assertion that there are specific areas in these countries that exclude individuals based solely on their religion,” Banderas said. “There are certainly areas of high crime in Europe as there are in the United States and other countries – where police and visitors enter with caution. We deeply regret the errors and apologize to any and all who may have taken offense including the people of France and England.”

The New York Times declared in a headline: “Fox News Apologizes for False Claims of Muslim-Only Areas in England and France” while the Atlanta Journal-Constitution blared, “Fox News admits ‘no-go zones’ are fantasy.”

Not so fast, says Robert Spencer, a long-time monitor of the conflict between Islam and Western civilization as editor of Jihad Watch.

He wrote in a Front Page Magazine column that the “only problem with all the cork popping around Fox’s apology was that there is a problem with Muslim areas in Europe – and the Fox apology didn’t go so far as to say there wasn’t.”

Spencer acknowledged inaccurate statements were made by Steven Emerson, director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism. In a Fox News interview Jan. 11, Emerson said “there are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim, where non-Muslims just simply don’t go in.”

“That is false, and Emerson has acknowledged that and apologized,” Spencer wrote.

But Emerson was not guilty of fabrication, Spencer quickly asserted, only of overstatement.

A zone in nearly every city

Pipes, who was one of the first to use the term “no-go zone” in reference to Muslims in Europe, noted in 2006 that France’s Sensitive Urban Zones ranged from two zones in the medieval town of Carcassonne to 12 in the heavily Muslim city of Marseilles, with hardly a town in the country lacking one.

Pipes has continuously updated his original 2006 post, citing references by politicians, civil leaders and journalists to “no-go zones” in Britain, Germany and Sweden, as well as France.

Since 2007, Pipes has visited largely Muslim areas of Paris, Copenhagen, Malmö, Stockholm, Berlin and Athens to find out for himself what is happening. He explained that for “a visiting American, these areas are very mild, even dull.”

“We who know the Bronx and Detroit expect urban hell in Europe too, but there things look fine. The immigrant areas are hardly beautiful, but buildings are intact, greenery abounds, and order prevails,” Pipes said.

“These are not full-fledged no-go zones,” he explained, “but, as the French nomenclature accurately indicates, ‘sensitive urban zones.’ In normal times, they are unthreatening, routine places. But they do unpredictably erupt, with car burnings, attacks on representatives of the state (including police), and riots.”

Britain’s chief inspector of constabulary, Tom Winsor, told the Times of London in an interview that parts of the U.K. are becoming no-go areas for police because minority communities are operating their own justice systems.

“There are some communities born under other skies who will not involve the police at all. I am reluctant to name the communities in question, but there are communities from other cultures who would prefer to police themselves,” said Winsor, who is responsible for the inspection of police forces in England and Wales.

“There are cities in the Midlands where the police never go because they are never called. They never hear of any trouble because the community deals with that on its own.”

Read more at WND

Paris Mayor To Sue Fox News For No-Go Zone Report


Truth Revolt, by Jeff Dunetz, Jan. 20, 2015:

Anne Hidalgo, the Mayor of Paris, France claims “the image of Paris has been prejudiced and the honor of Paris has been prejudiced” and intends to sue Fox News for its a discussion of “no-go zones” in British and Paris neighborhoods, for which the network has apologized four times.

On her January 10 program, Judge Jeanine Pirro had Steve Emerson on her show to speak about these zones. Emerson said:

They’re sort of amorphous, they’re not contiguous necessarily, but they’re sort of safe havens. And they’re places where the governments, like France, Britain, Sweden, Germany — they don’t exercise any sovereignty so you basically have zones where Sharia courts are set up, where Muslim density is very intense, where police don’t go in.” Though Emerson claimed that this phenomenon plagued Europe very broadly, he zeroed in on Birmingham, England: “There are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim, where non-Muslims just simply don’t go in,” he said.

Emerson’s mistake was going too broad. If he said parts of Birmingham rather than the entire city he would have made a defensible argument. Ever since Emerson made the claim, the network has faced pressure to retract, which it has.

On Tuesday afternoon, CNN broke into Ashleigh Banfield’s program to announce the lawsuit.

Banfield: Our breaking news comes to us out of Paris. The mayor of that city has just told our CNN’s Christiane Amanpour that she is planning to take legal action against a TV network, Fox News. And it’s all because of comments that were made about so-called Muslim no-go zones in Paris. Just for some background, last week, a terrorism analyst on the Fox News channel suggested that there were entire cities like Birmingham in England there were no-go zones, that people who were not Muslim either could not or would not go, including police. Well, that led to a series of apologies and references to mistakes being made. Fox news is apologizing, suggesting this was an error. But the reporting did continue to include entire neighborhoods in Paris. And that presumably is what has the Paris mayor so upset. Have a listen.

Hidalgo (via translator) : I’m insulted. And when we’ve had an image, then I think we’ll have to sue. I think they’ll have to go to court in order to have these words removed. The image of Paris has been prejudiced and the honor of Paris has been prejudiced. And I think in the great discussion of truth, everyone is to play its role and we have to be realistic and put things as they are.

Amanpour: Can you clarify which exact network you’re going to take to court and sue?

Hidalgo: Fox News. That’s the name.

In related news, The Gateway Institute, run by former UN Ambassador John Bolton, published a report Tuesday morning which seemed to prove that no-go zones do exist in France. Additionally, a two-year old video has been found showing a CNN report describing the no-go zones in London.

No No-Go Zones? Really?

shariahzone3-248x350Frontpage, by Robert Spencer, Jan. 20, 2015:

The Leftist media and Islamic supremacist groups have been doing a victory dance ever since Saturday night, when Fox News issued an apology for statements made on the air by terror expert Steve Emerson and others about Muslim no-go zones in Britain and France. However, the apology doesn’t say what it has widely reported as saying – and there is considerable evidence that Muslim areas in both countries are a growing law enforcement and societal problem.

Fox Report host Julie Banderas stated:

Over the course of this last week we have made some regrettable errors on air regarding the Muslim population in Europe, particularly with regard to England and France. Now, this applies especially to discussions of so-called ‘no-go zones,’ areas where non-Muslims allegedly aren’t allowed in and police supposedly won’t go.

To be clear, there is no formal designation of these zones in either country and no credible information to support the assertion there are specific areas in these countries that exclude individuals based solely on their religion.

There are certainly areas of high crime in Europe as there are in the United States and other countries — where police and visitors enter with caution. We deeply regret the errors and apologize to any and all who may have taken offense, including the people of France and England.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s joyous headline read: “Fox News admits ‘no-go zones’ are fantasy.” The far-Left Crooks and Liars blog exulted: “Fox Pundits Finally ‘Apologize’ After A Week Of Being Mocked For ‘No Go Zones’ Claim.” More restrained but still unmistakably gleeful was the New York Times: “Fox News Apologizes for False Claims of Muslim-Only Areas in England and France.” The Leftist media has seized on Fox’s apology to declare that there are aren’t any no-go zones in France or Britain – and by extension that there is no problem with Muslim populations in Europe. NewHounds’s summation was typical: “Fox News has become the laughingstock of Europe this week as first England and then France lampooned its ignorant, Islamophobic reporting.”

The only problem with all the cork popping around Fox’s apology was that there is a problem with Muslim areas in Europe – and the Fox apology didn’t go so far as to say there wasn’t. To be sure, the controversy began with undeniably inaccurate statements from Emerson. He said on Fox on January 11 that “there are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim, where non-Muslims just simply don’t go in.” That is false, and Emerson has acknowledged that and apologized.

However, Emerson was not guilty of fabrication, just of overstatement. Some of the comments on a piece in the UK’s Daily Mail about his gaffe and British Prime Minister David Cameron’s reaction to it (he called Emerson a “complete idiot”) insisted that Emerson was at least partially right: “Just shows cameron doesn’t even know what is happening in this country , as the news presenter is totally correct , its a no go zone .” “There ARE some parts of Birmingham where you darent or shouldn’t go !” “Is he far off the truth? Maybe it’s not true for Birmingham as a whole but there are certain areas where it is true. Certainly it is true of certain other Towns in the UK. Bradford, Leicester, Luton spring to mind.”

Fox’s apology stated that,

“To be clear, there is no formal designation of these zones in either country and no credible information to support the assertion there are specific areas in these countries that exclude individuals based solely on their religion.”

That says as much as it says, and no more. It says that neither the British nor the French government has designated any areas to be no-go zones where non-Muslims aren’t allowed in, and that there is no evidence that non-Muslims are not allowed into any areas in either country.

But this carefully worded statement does not actually say that there aren’t areas in Britain or France in which non-Muslims are menaced for not adhering to Islamic law. That is a real and abundantly documented problem. Emerson pointed to it when he said:

“In parts of London, there are actually Muslim religious police that actually beat and actually wound, seriously, anyone who doesn’t dress according to Muslim, religious Muslim attire.”

While Emerson’s implication that this was an ongoing phenomenon was false, there were indeed such Sharia enforcers in London between 2011 and 2013. In July 2011, the UK’s Daily Mail reported:

“Islamic extremists have launched a poster campaign across the UK proclaiming areas where Sharia law enforcement zones have been set up. Communities have been bombarded with the posters, which read: ‘You are entering a Sharia-controlled zone – Islamic rules enforced.’”

In December 2013, members of one of these self-styled “Muslim patrols” were imprisoned; according to the Guardian, in London they

“harassed people, berating them with shouts of ‘this is a Muslim area!’ They forced men to dump their alcoholic drinks, instructed women on the appropriate way to dress, and yelled insults at those they perceived to be gay.”

They didn’t just berate people; as Emerson said, they beat them. In YouTube videos, they threatened to do so, saying: “We are coming to implement Islam upon your own necks.” In June 2013, Muslims attacked an American who was drinking on the street, grabbing the bottle out of his hands and smashing him in the eye with it, causing permanent injury. In August 2013, according to the Daily Mail, “two brothers in law who went on a sponsored walk wearing comedy mankinis had to be picked up by police – after they were pelted with stones and eggs by residents who told them ‘this is a Muslim area’ and demanded they leave.”

A “Muslim area” – maybe even a “no-go zone.” Not in the sense that non-Muslims are barred from entering, but in that, if they do enter, they have to adhere to Sharia restrictions.

The Fox apology is all the more curious in light of the fact that others, even on the Left, have noticed the no-go zones in France before some Fox commentators began talking about them in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks. David Ignatius wrote in the New York Times in April 2002:

“Arab gangs regularly vandalize synagogues here, the North African suburbs have become no-go zones at night, and the French continue to shrug their shoulders.”

Newsweek, hardly a conservative organ, reported in November 2005 that

“according to research conducted by the government’s domestic intelligence network, the Renseignements Generaux, French police would not venture without major reinforcements into some 150 ‘no-go zones’ around the country–and that was before the recent wave of riots began on Oct. 27.”

The police wouldn’t venture into these areas without major reinforcements in 2005. Does anyone really think that the situation has improved in the intervening years?

And the day after the Charlie Hebdo massacre set off Fox’s discussions of no-go zones in France, the reliably Leftist New Republic wrote:

“The word banlieue (‘suburb’) now connotes a no-go zone of high-rise slums, drug-fueled crime, failing schools and poor, largely Muslim immigrants and their angry offspring.”

So something the New York Times noted in 2002 and Newsweek in 2005, and that the New Republic reported was still a problem in January 2015, is now something that Fox News has to apologize for discussing?

Clearly there is a problem in these areas. Two of the three Charlie Hebdo murderers were born and raised in France. Where did they get their ideas about killing blasphemers? Not from French schools. They learned them in the Muslim areas where they were born and raised. What’s more, France leads the West in the number of Muslims who have traveled from there to wage jihad for the Islamic State, with well over a thousand Muslims leaving France to join the caliphate. Where did they get their understanding of Islam?

In objecting to Fox’s coverage, the French government objected to claims that these areas were outside their control and subject to Sharia, but it is obvious that whatever control they do have over these areas is not enough to prevent the indoctrination of all too many young Muslims into the jihad ideology.

There needs to be a balanced, honest public discussion of these Muslim areas in Britain and France. The controversy over what has been said on Fox in recent weeks only obscures the need for that discussion. And Fox’s apology, however carefully worded, only plays into the hands of Leftists and Islamic supremacists who have a vested interest in rendering people ignorant and complacent about the reality of what is going on in these areas.

So now would be a good time for Fox to apologize for its apology – and to devote extended attention to the Muslim areas of Britain and France, and shed light on what is really going on in them. That would be to provide a service far greater than the usual surface-scratching of television news.

Also see:

Persecuting Steve Emerson While Jim Clancy Gets A Pass

Birmingham cartoonIsraellyCool, by Richard Behar, Jan. 17, 2015:

Longtime terrorism expert (and former CNN investigative correspondent) Steve Emerson has been tortured in the New York Times and other major media outlets after identifying a large city in the UK (Birmingham) as “totally Muslim, where non-Muslims just simply don’t go.” He not only issued an apology to every resident of Birmingham for this misstatement on Fox News, he announced a donation to a children’s hospital in the city. Commentators and journalists make errors, but few ever apologize for them. Indeed, the Times story smearing Emerson as a “self-described” terrorism expert (the piece was co-written by Robert Mackey, who has a distinguished record of anti-Israel bias) had three errors in it that the paper had to correct.

Now the paper of record should step forward and issue a fourth correction. When you call someone “self-described,” what you are really doing is calling him or her a kook. Tell that to all the government officials (including two former FBI counterterrorism officials and a former counterterrorism chief of the NSC) who have praised Emerson for his expertise on the subject of terrorism.

In fact, if its reporters were being honest, the Times would note that the contributions Emerson has made to our knowledge about terrorism since he founded the Investigative Project on Terrorism in 1995 are enormous. Prior to IPT, he won the George Polk award—one of the highest honors in journalism—for a documentary titled “Jihad in America: The Grand Deception.” Two of his books—one on the bombing of Pan Am 103—garnered praise in reviews in the Times itself. And the late Abe Rosenthal, the legendary managing editor of the Times, once noted about Emerson: “His investigative work on radical Islamic fundamentalism is absolutely critical to this nation’s national security. There is no one else who has exhibited the same expertise, courage and determination to tackle this vital issue.” (Rosenthal, with his famous temper, must be spinning in his grave over the “self-described” smear that the paper’s current editors published about Emerson.)

However, Emerson has lambasted the Times on many, many occasions when the newspaper failed its readers on the topic of terrorism. And going after the Times too vigorously can exact a price. Thus, it’s not unreasonable to wonder if some of the paper’s writers and editors were salivating at this opportunity to waterboard him and Fox at the same time.

Let’s put aside the fact that there are definitely some parts of Birmingham that can be dangerous places for non-Muslims to go at night — something the Times may or may not choose to inform its readers about. The question I have is why CNN international correspondent Jim Clancy hasn’t received “The Emerson Treatment” from the Times and other major outlets — following a bizarre Twitter exchange last week, in which he accused Israel and Zionist propaganda of being partially responsible for the Paris attacks. He also tweeted, “The [Hebdo] cartoons NEVER mocked the prophet. They mocked how the COWARDS tried to distort his word.” In yet another tweet, he referred to someone as a “cripple,” prompting a disability inclusion organization to call on CNN to apologize for the disparaging remark.

Today, in the wake of his Twitter meltdown, Clancy announced that he’s leaving CNN after 34 years of service – no reason given, and with no apologies to anybody. So far, the only media outlets that have reported on his departure: Jewish publications; Rush Limbaugh; Mediaite and the like. Knock knock, New York Times, anybody home?

Richard Behar is the Contributing Editor, Investigations, for Forbes Magazine, and is writinga book about Bernie Madoff. He’s recently published a revealing first look at the Madoff information he’s uncovered.  He’s not doing cartwheels over the current state of investigative journalism, but is an eternal optimist. Twitter: @beharjournalist

Also see:

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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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