Newt Gingrich Challenges Megyn Kelly on Anti-Trump Bias in Epic Showdown…Megyn Won’t Call Bill Clinton a ‘Sexual Predator’


Breitbart, by Patick Howley, October 25, 2016:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich engaged Megyn Kelly in an epic showdown over her anti-Donald Trump “bias” on Kelly’s Fox News show Tuesday night.

Gingrich accused Kelly of being “fascinated with sex” after Kelly used the term “sexual predator” to describe Trump. Gingrich challenged Kelly to call Bill Clinton a sexual predator, but Kelly refused to do so, staunchly defending the Clinton ticket and even saying that the polls show people don’t care as much about Bill Clinton’s sexual indiscretions as they do about Trump’s alleged incidents.

At the end of the segment, Kelly accused Gingrich of “anger issues.”

Here are the fireworks:

NEWT: I am sick and tired of people like you using language that is inflammatory that’s not true!

MEGYN: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker…You have no idea whether it’s true or not.

NEWT: Neither do you.

MEGYN: That’s right. And I’m not taking a position on it, unlike–

NEWT: Oh yes you are. When you used the words, you took a position. And I think it is very unfair of you to do that, Megyn.

MEGYN: Incorrect.

NEWT: I think that is exactly the bias that people are upset by.

MEGYN: I think that your defensiveness on this may speak volumes, sir.

NEWT: No, may I just suggest to you–

MEGYN: No! Let me make my point and then I will give you the floor. What I said is, IF Trump is a sexual predator then that’s a big story. And what we saw on that tape was Trump himself saying that he likes to grab women by the genitals and kiss them against their will. That’s what we saw. Then we saw ten women come forward after he denied actually doing it at a debate to say, ‘That was untrue. He did it to me! He did it to me!’ We saw reporters, people who had worked with him, people from Apprentice, and so on and so forth. He denies it all. Which is his right. We don’t know what the truth is. My point to you is, as a media story, we don’t get to say that the ten women are lying. We have to cover that story, sir.

NEWT: Sure. Okay, so it’s worth 23 minutes of the three networks to cover that story, and Hillary Clinton in a speech in Brazil…saying her dream is an open border where 600 million people could come to America. That’s not worth covering?

MEGYN: That is worth covering.

NEWT: You want to go back through the tapes of your show recently? You are fascinated with sex and you don’t care about public policy.

MEGYN: Me, really?

NEWT: That’s what I get out of watching you tonight.

MEGYN: Well, you know what, Speaker, I’m not fascinated by sex. But I am fascinated by the protection of women and understanding what we’re getting in the Oval Office. And I think the American voters would like to know–

NEWT: Ok, and therefore we’re going to send Bill Clinton back to the East Wing, because after all you are worried about sexual predators.

MEGYN: Yeah, listen, it’s not about me, it’s about the women and men of America. And the poll numbers show us that the women of America in particular are very concerned about these allegations and in large part believe that they ARE a real issue. Don’t dismiss the women summarily!

NEWT: Do you want to comment on whether the Clinton ticket has a relationship to a sexual predator?

MEGYN: We on the Kelly File have covered that story as well, sir.

NEWT: No I want to actually hear you use the words. Bill Clinton, sexual predator. I dare you. Bill Clinton, sexual predator.

MEGYN: Mr. Speaker, we’ve covered–

NEWT: Disbarred by the Arkansas bar. Disbarred by the Arkansas bar.

MEGYN: Excuse me. Excuse me.

NEWT: $850,000 penalty?

MEGYN: Excuse me, sir. We on the Kelly File have covered the Clinton matter, as well. We’ve hosted Kathleen Willey, we’ve covered the examples of him being accused as well, but he’s not on the ticket, and the polls also show that the American people are less interested–

NEWT: He’ll be in the East Wing.

MEGYN: In the deeds of Hillary Clinton’s husband than in the deeds of the person who asks us to make him president, Donald Trump. We’re going to have to leave it at that. And you can take your anger issues and spend some time working on them, Mr. Speaker.

NEWT: And you, too.

Virginia: Hamas-linked CAIR enraged that sheriff’s office hosting seminar on jihad threat

Jihad Watch, by Robert Spencer, October 25, 2016:

This vicious little hit piece is a textbook example of how the bought-and-paid-for establishment propaganda media defames freedom fighters and mainstreams allies and enablers of jihad terrorists. Much more below.


“CIA Director A ‘Secret Muslim’? Anti-Islam Conspiracy-Theorist Group Set To Speak At Virginia Law Enforcement Event,” by Jason Le Miere, International Business Times, October 25, 2016:

The Muslim community has reacted with anger after the sheriff’s office of Greene County, Virginia, announced plans to host a seminar on the alleged threat posed by Muslims. The event, scheduled for Nov. 5, will also feature a representative of a group led by former FBI agent and conspiracy theorist John Guandolo who has claimed that CIA Director John Brennan is a “secret Muslim” who has acted as an agent for the Saudi Arabian government.

IBT “journalist” Jason La Miere presents Guandolo’s charge that Brennan is a Muslim as if it were self-evidently false, the raving of a “conspiracy theorist.” On what basis? Has Brennan ever denied being a Muslim? No. Does Guandolo have any basis for saying so? He says it was widely known when he was in the FBI that Brennan had converted while serving in Saudi Arabia. Is that inherently implausible? No. Is it widely known that there is a top intelligence official in the Obama Administration’s CIA who has converted to Islam? Yes. It was reported in none other than the Washington Post in 2012. Why couldn’t it be Brennan? The movie Zero Dark Thirty about the killing of Osama bin Laden, for which the moviemakers gained access to classified material (the Obama administration was criticized for making it available to them) featured a top counter-terror official who strongly resembled Brennan and was shown performing Muslim prayers. Were the filmmakers hinting at something they knew? Did La Miere speak to Brennan? If he did, he doesn’t mention it in the article. What is much more likely is that La Miere didn’t speak to Brennan, and has no idea whether or not he is a Muslim, but since Brennan hasn’t said anything one way or the other about the charge, he uses it to portray Guandolo as a “conspiracy theorist.” (You can see the video of my interview with Guandolo, in which he discusses this charge, here.)

Greene County Sheriff Steven Smith posted on Facebook this past weekend that his office would be sponsoring a seminar for residents titled “Understanding the Threat, a very interesting and informative class on the Muslim religion.”

Following a backlash, Smith has since apologized for the wording of the original post and changed the title of the seminar to “Understanding the Jihadi Threat.”

“It’s not to say all Muslims are bad,” Smith told local station CBS19. “We’re not saying that at all and when the post first came out, I apologize for the way it was worded, it didn’t have Jihad in there, it does now. People that know me here in Greene County know I’m not like that. It’s just an educational tool.”

On Tuesday, Smith held an impromptu poll on his Facebook page asking the residents of Greene County to decide whether the event should still go ahead. Just a few minutes latest he wrote, “The seminar is on.”…

But the proposed presence of Guandolo’s group, as well as Suzanne Shattuck, a local activist who has called for the deportation of all Muslims who are “Sharia-adherent,” has drawn condemnation from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization.

In a letter to Smith, CAIR Department to Monitor and Combat Islamophobia Director Corey Taylor [sic!] called for the sheriff’s office to drop the seminar.

The hapless lackey La Miere can’t even get the names of his masters right. It’s Saylor, not Taylor. No need to thank me, Corey.

“Everyone, even anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant bigots, have the First Amendment right to spew their hatred and conspiracy theories, but that bigotry should not have the implicit endorsement of a law enforcement agency,” the letter read. “Let these individuals pay for their own private speaking venue and be ignored, as they deserve.”

“The sponsorship of this event by the sheriff’s office sends the message to members of the local Muslim community that they may not be protected against the growing number of hate incidents targeting Muslims nationwide due to rising Islamophobia.”

The objective of this hateful and hysterical rhetoric is to stigmatize and demonize any honest discussion of how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism, and to promote a spurious association between such a discussion and supposed “hate incidents targeting Muslims,” although no connection has ever been established. The obvious goal is to make it impossible to examine the motivating ideology of jihad terrorists, which would allow them to advance unhindered and unopposed.

The United States, which is home to 3.3 million Muslims, has in recent months seen anti-Muslim hate crimes rise to their highest levels since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

La Miere’s link goes to a New York Times story; here is Hugh Fitzgerald’s surgical evisceration of that story.

Guandolo, who has also stated that Muslims “do not have a First Amendment right to do anything,” resigned from the FBI in 2008 ahead of an investigation for misconduct. Since then, he has toured the country speaking to citizens and at anti-terrorism training seminars given to law enforcement agencies.

Last week he also spoke at a high school in northern Minnesota. When CAIR similarly protested his appearance, Guandolo alleged the organization has ties to Palestinian militant group Hamas.

“Guandolo alleged” — as if he made it up. In reality, the FBI and the Justice Department have affirmed CAIR’s ties to Hamas. But La Miere either doesn’t know that or doesn’t care. He has, of course, no business calling himself a “journalist” or working for something that claims to be a news outlet. But these days, he is just another cog in the Soros-funded hard-Left propaganda machine.

Dr. Sebastian Gorka: Hillary Clinton’s Disclosure of Nuclear Response Times During Debate Was ‘Unconscionable’

hc-640x480Breitbart, by John Hayward, October 21, 2016:

On Friday’s Breitbart News Daily, Breitbart News National Security editor Dr. Sebastian Gorka, author of the best-selling book Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War, talked about Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton’s clash over Russia at the third presidential debate.

“As I’ve said repeatedly, if there is anybody who’s been in the pocket of Vladimir Putin, it is Hillary Clinton. Everybody needs to have out there, the millennials that they know, their nephews, their nieces, just watch Clinton Cash on YouTube,” Gorka said. “The fact that 20 percent of our uranium was sold to Kremlin front companies, in a deal that was signed off by Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, means if there’s anybody who can be bought by the Kremlin, it’s Hillary Clinton.”

“That happened when her husband was receiving $120 million speaking fee from the same companies that bought the uranium,” Gorka noted.

“I have to give great credit to your callers,” he told SiriusXM host Alex Marlow. “Your show is really about the callers. They see through this. They understand that there’s the mainstream media spin, and most often, it is 180 degrees out of phase with reality. If Trump were some kind of puppet for Moscow, wouldn’t this man have casinos in Kaliningrad? Wouldn’t he have giant Trump Towers in Moscow? He doesn’t. That tells you everything you need to know. Reality is completely the reverse of what anybody else inside the mainstream media would have you believe.”

One of those callers joined the conversation at that point to observe that audiences for mainstream media outlets like CNN were given a very different perspective on the debate than people who watched it without such a media filter.

“I think that the real story will be that there is, perhaps, a majority of people out there who simply have had enough,” said Gorka. “Look at the viewing figures for stations like CNN. I think it tells you everything. Look at the figures for Breitbart, the viewers and clicks. I think that’s the hidden story of this election – that the mainstream media believes they still dominate, but I think in two weeks’ time, two-and-a-half weeks’ time, there’s going to be potentially a very big surprise for those people who think they still speak for America and can control what America sees, whether it’s the debates, whether it’s any kind of reporting on any issue, whether it’s the border, or the economy.”

“Just the polls themselves – look at the poll figures, and then look at the Trump rallies,” he suggested. “Again, spin versus reality. Look at the fact that Hillary seems to be leading everywhere, if you listen to the polls, and then just watch the turnout for her campaign events. I think that tells you everything you need to know.”

Gorka was pleased that national security has been such an important theme in the 2016 presidential debates, pausing to issue a disclaimer that he has provided national security advice to Donald Trump in the past, “long before anybody took him seriously.”

“I’m not part of his campaign, but I’ve spoken to this man on more than one occasion about the big issues, such as ISIS, North Korea, Russia, and Iran,” he clarified.

With that disclosure made, Gorka faulted Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and theiradvisers for clumsy handling of major foreign policy issues, agreeing with Donald Trump’s criticism that Clinton and Obama constantly telegraph their moves to the enemy.

“It’s not just Hillary. It’s her coterie. It is the liberal elite. The Obama administration has done exactly the same,” he noted. “Every major deployment in Iraq, every major operation, has been announced in advance, which is anathema to just the most basic principles of warfare. And it’s fascinating. This isn’t a new thing. Her husband did exactlythe same thing, during the Balkan wars. Your callers may not recall, but he actually announced before our engagement in the Balkans, he said, ‘I refuse, and I will never put boots on the ground in Yugoslavia.’ Doesn’t that sound familiar? Haven’t you heard somebody else say that, in this current presidential campaign?”

“Telegraphing in advance what you’re going to do is dynamite for the opposition, for your enemy, because then they will prepare to exploit that against you,” Gorka explained. “Look, even after the WikiLeaks became more and more uncomfortable for Hillary, what did we have the vice president do on national television? Announce that, well, they’ve decided Russia is behind all of this, and we’re going to launch a cyber-attack against them, at a time of our choosing. If you read that in a Tom Clancy novel, you’d say, ‘Has Tom lost it?’ Nobody does this.”

“Mr. Trump’s point that he understands we are at war – I can assure your listeners, he knows we are at war, and he wants to win this war, but he’s not going to tell the enemy what we’re going to do. It’s a very, very, valid point,” he said.

Marlow brought up an overlooked moment from the third debate, when Clinton inadvertently revealed some sensitive information about U.S. response times to nuclear attack. Gorka said he wanted to address this issue “in a certain way, if you’ll permit me, as somebody who actually cares for the security of the Republic and who lives in the national security arena.”

From that perspective, he declined to comment on “the veracity, or lack thereof, of what she said.”

“Just one thing has to be drawn, one conclusion has to be drawn: the whole platform of the Hillary campaign, that Mr. Trump is not fit to serve as commander-in-chief, he’s not stable, he can’t be trusted – all of that applies to her, and solely to her,” Gorka said. “Anybody who puts Top Secret/SCI super-classified information on a private homebrew server, and then talks about our nuclear reaction times on live television, in front of tens of millions of people – that woman should not be allowed – I know this is a line Mr. Trump has borrowed from me, but I have to use it – that individual should not be allowed to run for local dog catcher, let alone the most powerful person in the world. It is unconscionablewhat she did on national television, and the fact the liberal media is giving her heat on that tells you everything you need to know.”

Gorka turned to the chaos currently engulfing two key cities in the Middle East, Iraq’s Mosul and Syria’s Aleppo.

“What we have is this group of – a very heterogenous military force has deployed to Mosul. Again, this was announced weeks in advance by the current administration. We have the Sunni elements of the standing Iraqi army. We have elements of the Kurdish Peshmerga. And, on top of that – this is perhaps the most problematic – we have so-called ‘mobilization forces,’ which are made up Shia former militias, working together, hopefully, to take Mosul with our brave men, and some of our women, as well, as advisers providing training, providing intelligence, and also bombing capabilities for those forces,” Gorka explained.

“The idea is to recapture the second-biggest city in Iraq, which isn’t just important for the size of the city, but because this is the location where, in June 2014, the head of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, declared formally the re-establishment of the Caliphate, the new empire of Islam,” he noted. “So Mosul is very, very important. The problem with this operation is the very mixed nature of who’s fighting. They have very, very different interests in terms of the future of Iraq.”

“And the biggest problem of all: you can launch an attack to capture a city – but what happens if you capture it?” he asked. “Are you going to stay there? Are the local Sunnis going to allow Shia or Kurds to stay in the region? And what happens when the fighters come back? It’s like squeezing a balloon. You can push the fighters out, but sooner or later, if you haven’t killed all of them, they will be back.”

As for Aleppo, Gorka called it a “tragedy,” saying that “the last five years in Syria are truly a humanitarian disaster.”

“Here again, we have reality, and we have spin,” he said. “The idea that somehow, we’re going to have a cooperative Russia assist us in stopping the killing and bring stability to that nation is a fantasy. The whole Obama administration’s policy is based on an article of faith that is, again, just phantasmagorical – the idea that Assad must go.”

“Whatever the desperate situation in Aleppo, Assad is not going anywhere,” Gorka noted regretfully. “As long as that man enjoys the support not only of Russia, but Iran and even China, this is a head of state that isn’t going anywhere – unless, of course, America wishes to go to war with Russia, China, and Iran, which is not advisable right now.”

“So we have to stabilize the region. We have to realize that only a political resolution is realistic. And unfortunately, the current powers-that-be in Washington simply do not understand that,” he said.

Dr. Gorka’s parting thought was to “reinforce that November the 8th is primarily about one issue, as far as I’m concerned, and I think most Americans agree with me: it’s about which person do you think is going to keep you and your family safe.”

“So when you’re going to the polling booth, and please bring as many people with you as you can, remember it’s a choice between Hillary – Servergate, Benghazi, nuclear launch times – and a man who believes we are at war with the jihadists and wishes to win. It really is quite that simple, Alex,” he said.



Top 5 Clinton scandals you’re missing due to media bias



Warning: rough language:

Also see:

Bolton on WikiLeaks Revelations: Hillary Clinton Thinks the World Must ‘Get Ready for Open Borders’

Jeff J Mitchell/Getty

Jeff J Mitchell/Getty

Breitbart, by John Hayward, October 13, 2016:

Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton discussed the latest WikiLeaks revelations of favors done for “FOBs” (Friends of Bill Clinton) in Haiti on Thursday’s edition of Breitbart News Daily on SiriusXM.

“Just to start with, Haiti, it is a series of violations of AIDs, typical procurement practices,” Bolton pointed out. “Not that I would hold them up as the best in the world, but there arerules about competitive bidding, and rules against the directed award of contracts.” (AID is the United States Agency for International Development, also commonly referred to as USAID.)

“I can speak as an alumnus of AID, having been general counsel, the chief lawyer in the agency in the Reagan Administration, and also later being in charge of policy and budget. Things have changed, obviously, since then, but the main lines of competitive bidding have never changed,” he said.

“I just this morning, in fact, in the wake of all these emails, heard from a friend who was a former senior official at AID, that he was told by a career AID person that they had been told specifically by Cheryl Mills that they should direct contracts to some company that she had never heard of. And I think that’s the sort of favors being indicated in all these emails,” Bolton added.

“It’s just extraordinary that this kind of corruption – and that’s what it is. That’s what competitive bidding is designed to protect against, to get the best value for our tax dollars obviously, but to prevent this kind of political favor,” he explained. “And when the mainstream media finally talk about it, they don’t know we’ve moved toward objective reporting in America. I don’t see much sign of it, I must say.”

 Breitbart’s Washington Political Editor and SiriusXM host Matthew Boyle observed that the mainstream media and political class are “really stopping at nothing to try to keep Donald Trump from winning.”

Bolton responded:

Well, I think within the mainstream media, the Wall Street Journal editorial page some weeks back pointed out very well, they called the media – and really it’s true both with respect to the Obama Administration and the Clinton campaign – they called the mainstream media their stenographers. Whatever they put out, they write.

They’ve just abandoned all pretense of objectivity, and so it really comes down to whether the American voter can withstand this barrage of misinformation, and still make a clear choice about who they want for President and Senate and House, in all the various elections we’re going to see in less than a month now.

Bolton thought it was a little too early to draw comparisons between the 2016 presidential race and the Brexit vote, but added:

I think what was uncovered there has been something that’s happened in various American elections over the years as well. When people know what the politically correct answer is to a pollster – whether they’re doing it over the phone, whether they’re doing it automatically on a touch-tone phone, or whether it’s a real person interviewing them – they understand that their answers are gonna be seen by other people, and so they will tend, for their own protection, to give the politically correct answer, whether it’s what they really believe or not.

“So in the case of Brexit, there were undoubtedly people who didn’t want to say that they were going to vote to leave, so they either said Remain or undecided,” he continued. “It turned out to be a substantial number of people, and they prevailed on the referendum day, June 23. Now, whether that’s the case here, we don’t know, but I don’t think there’s any doubt people know what the politically correct answer is.”

Bolton said another WikiLeaks document revealing Hillary Clinton’s support for “open borders” was “not that different really, in fact it’s the same phrase that John Kerry used just a few months ago, to say that the world had to get ready for open borders.”

“It’s going to be very interesting, for example, to see if the new U.N. Secretary-General, who has held essentially that same position, pushes for that when he takes office on January the 1st,” Bolton said.

“And it ties into another statement in one of Podesta’s emails that was leaked, that it’s increasingly necessary for candidates, at least on his side, to have one public position and one private position. So, you know, if you like organized hypocrisy, if you like flat-out deceit, then that’s the campaign that’s taking it to new heights. Seems to me if this is something that matters still to the American people, they ought to reflect that in how they vote on Election Day,” he concluded.


HuffPost Fires Contributor, Deletes Articles Questioning Hillary’s Health [VIDEO]

Daily Caller, by Christian Datoc, Aug. 29, 2016:

Former Huffington Post contributor David Seaman was terminated Sunday evening for writing two articles questioning Hillary Clinton’s health.

Seaman uploaded a lengthy video to YouTube early Monday morning explaining the reason behind his firing.

“It’s chilling,” Seaman noted. “I still haven’t really absorbed it.”

Seaman’s articles — “Hillary Clinton’s Health Is Super (Aside From Seizures, Lesions, Adrenaline Pens)” and “Donald Trump Challenges Hillary Clinton To Health Records Duel” — “were pulled without notice… just completely deleted from the Internet.”


“I’ve written hundreds of stories, filed hundreds of stories over my years as a journalist and pundit, and I’ve never had this happen,” Seaman stated. “A couple of times in the past, I’ve had legal concerns with something I’ve reported on so there was discussion with something I’d reported on… but they didn’t simply delete the articles, make them disappear from the Internet and revoke my access.”

“I’ve honestly never seen anything like this, and this is happening in the United States in 2016,” he continued. “It’s frankly chilling. I’m a little scared.”

I’m doing this video right now to say I’m not suicidal, I’m not a clumsy person. I don’t own a car at the moment, I uber everywhere,” Seaman told the audience. “So if I am to slip in the shower over the next couple of days or something like that, we have to employ probability and statistics here, because I am not a clumsy person and I am not a depressed person.”

“I am a person who is spooked out though.”

Follow Datoc on Twitter and Facebook




Speaking of things being censored:

Daniel Greenfield: The Lie is Coming Apart

Daniel_Greenfield_imageGates of Vienna, by Baron Bodissey, Aug. 28, 2016:

On August 21 the American Freedom Alliance sponsored a conference in Los Angeles, “Islam and Western Civilization: Can they Coexist?” Daniel Greenfield, a.k.a. Sultan Knish, was one of the featured speakers.

Many thanks to Henrik Clausen for recording, and to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:


FACT CHECK: Islamic Terrorists Have Killed More In Domestic Attacks Since 9/11 Than the ‘Right Wing’

Fact-Check.sized-770x415xcPJ MEDIA, BY PATRICK POOLE, AUGUST 17, 2016:

In recent years the establishment media has pushed a narrative that right wing terrorism has been exploding while domestic Islamic terrorism posed very little threat to Americans at all.

Just last year, media outlets claimed that so-called “right wing” terrorists had killed more since 9/11 than Islamic terrorists. Even now the establishment media repeat this claim, despite the fact that even using their own preferred data sources, such claims are no longer true.

When that narrative was being spun last year, including by the New York Times, the data was at best questionable; after the jihadist terror attack in Orlando this past June, the claim isn’t even debatable.

In fact, the number of those killed at the Orlando Pulse night club by Omar Mateen (49) was more than all the deaths from “right wing” terrorism since 9/11 COMBINED (48).

This false media narrative is so ubiquitous that just yesterday Anthony De Rosa, digital production manager for “The Daily Show” was invoking it:

But according to the most recent data from New America – the same source cited last year by the New York Times and other media outlets, including taxpayer-supported NPR – shows that domestic jihadists have killed 94, while those attributed to “right wing” killers is 48.


And yet the media “right wingers kill more than Islamic terrorists” narrative continues to circulate despite a string of deadly jihadist terror attacks in the U.S. since the media began circulating the claim last year.

When the media began to push this narrative in earnest in June 2015, the New America numbers cited in all the press articles claimed jihadists only were responsible for 26 deaths, while the “right wing” was blamed for 48 (note, that number hasn’t moved since).

But when those articles appeared last year, some noted the suspicious attributions by New America on the “right wing” side of the ledger included suspects whose “right wing” credentials were far-fetched at best.

Bloomberg View columnist Megan McArdle noted several “right wing” cases in New America’s data set that were dubious at best:

Counting the other types of extremist terrorism is a little murkier. Some of them are fairly obvious: When a white supremacist starts shooting people at a Sikh temple, I don’t think we need to wonder too hard what his motives were. On the other hand, the data set The Times relies on also includes Andrew Joseph Stack, who you may remember piloted a small plane into an IRS building in Austin. Stack left a manifesto behind, and it doesn’t exactly read like an anarcho-capitalist treatise. Oh, he’s mad at the government, all right, but he’s mad about … the 1986 revision to Section 1706 of the tax code, which governs the treatment of technical contractors […]Its closing lines are “The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.” Labeling this as a “deadly right-wing attack” is beyond a stretch; it’s not even arguably correct.

McArdle identifies several other eye-rolling examples of New America’s “right wing” killers.

Florida State Professor Andrew Holt also looked at New America’s data and criticized their cooked statistics for not including several cases of Islamic-inspired terrorist attacks, including DC Beltway snipers John Allen Mohammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, who modeled themselves on Osama bin Laden and conducted their attacks to extort money from the federal government to set up a terror training camp in Canada to wage war against the United States.

Professor Holt notes other cases excluded from New America’s data set:

In June of 2006 in Denver, a man shot four of his co-workers and a swat team member, killing one. He later claimed he did it because it was “Allah’s choice.” In December of 2009 in Binghamton, a Saudi Arabian graduate student named Abdulsalam S. al-Zahrani killed Richard T. Antoun, a non-Muslim Islamic studies professor who served on al-Zahrani’s dissertation committee, in revenge for “persecuted” Muslims. Prior to the killing one of al-Zahrani’s roommates tried to warn the university administration that he had been acting “like a terrorist.” In 2012 in Houston, in two separate incidents in January and in November, two people were shot to death by a Muslim extremist for their roles in his daughter’s conversion to Christianity. In March of 2013 in Ashtabula (Ohio), a Muslim convert walked into a Christian Church during an Easter service and killed his father, claiming it was “the will of Allah.” In August of 2014 in Richmond (California) killed an Ace Hardware employee by stabbing him seventeen times, claiming he was on a “mission from Allah.”

So if New America is going to include a 2004 Tulsa bank robbery, why would they also not include the May 2008 bank robbery in Philadelphia by three burqa-clad suspects inspired by “jailhouse Islam” that killed Sgt. Stephen Liczbinski who died trying to apprehend them?

And if you’re going to include the 2009 Pittsburgh police shootings (the circumstances of which McArdle raised issue whether it would be classified as “right wing”), why wouldn’t you include the April 2009 killing of Philadelphia Police Officer John Powlowski by Rasheed Scruggs, aka Rasheed Abdulghaffer, who Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey said may also have also been inspired by “jailhouse Islam”?

The reason is that the establishment media and organizations like New America are driving an agenda trying to spin up fears about looming “right wing terrorism” while simultaneously downplaying domestic terror attacks.

It should be noted that the string of articles last year came right after the attempted terror attack on a Mohammed drawing contest in Garland, Texas, where law enforcement authorities killed the would-be jihadists before they could injure any civilians, and about a month before the Chattanooga terror attack that killed five.

The media has a history of bad luck spinning up the “right wing terror” narrative.

Take for instance the New York Times oped by a former State Department counter-terrorism official noting, “The Declining Terror Threat” — eight weeks before the 9/11 attacks.

Or a Peter Bergen opinion piece at CNN warning of the “Growing Threat of Right Wing Extremism” — eleven days before the Boston bombings.

There are other media failures pushing the “right wing terrorism” narrative. That’s not to say that some would-be Timothy McVeigh could kill dozens of Americans and up-end these statistics.

But the whole agenda of warning about deaths from “right wing terrorism” compared to Islamic terrorism becomes clear when you observe that these data sets begin their count THE DAY AFTER 9/11, something both Megan McArdle and Professor Andrew Holt note.

To talk about terrorism deaths on American soil while intentionally excluding the largest and most lethal terror attack in modern history is laughably lame. It would take a terror attack on an unimaginable scale for “right wing” terrorism to ever catch up to Islamic terrorism’s death toll.

And for anyone in the media to still repeat the now false claim that “right wing” terrorism is more lethal than Islamic terrorism, without fact checking the claim following a string of shockingly deadly jihadist attacks over the past year, is grossly irresponsible.

But don’t be surprised when you still see the false claim bandied about by the establishment media and political hacks. Just note the agenda.

How do news outlets from around the world identify jihad murder in their headlines?


As of 9 am EST on July 26, 2016, here’s how they did:

Left-leaning outlets:

Al Jazeera English – Priest, 84, ‘killed with blade’ in French church attack

BBC – Priest killed in French church attack

CNN – Hollande: Deadly church attack in France carried out in name of ISIS

Deutsche Welle – Hostage situation in French church

Huffington Post – Police Kill 2 attackers who took hostages in Normandy church

NY Times – Attack on church in France kills Priest, and ISIS is blamed

Washington Post: French president: Church attackers were affiliated with ISIS

Right-leaning outlets:

Breitbart – ‘Islamic State’ chanting attackers ‘behead’ priest during morning mass in France

Fox News – ISIS hit in France, Attackers hit church, slit priest’s throat during Mass

Neutral outlets:

Russia Today (RT) – ISIS hostage takers kill at least 1 at French church, priest’s throat reportedly slit


The only news outlets that had their link to the story at the front and center of their websites were Breitbart, Deutsche Welle, and RT. The rest had small boxes towards the center or bottom of their homepages.

While some use the terms ISIS or Islamic State, others must preface these words with “so-called” in an attempt to brainwash readers into believing ISIS is neither Islamic nor a state. The mainstream media not only censors the obvious links to Islam in these attacks, but also seems to censor violence by not indicating just how savage these jihadis can be.

Maybe with time, headlines will change.


Also see:

The Democrat Media Complex


Politically Short, by Nick Short, June 26, 2016:

The late Andrew Breitbart in his book Righteous Indignation perfectly captured the essence of the press in America when he labeled the press as being a Democrat-Media-Complex. Writing in Righteous Indignation, Breitbart noted that, “the left doesn’t win its battles in debate. It doesn’t have to. In the 21st century, media is everything. The left wins because it controls the narrative. The narrative is controlled by the media. The left is the media and narrative is everything.”

The people who are allegedly neutral reporters and journalists are on the frontline of the political battle and they use their objectivity as their greatest weapon against impressionable minds to reinforce a herd mentality that toes the Democrat party line within the culture. As Breitbart continued, “the mainstream media portrays themselves as objective observers of reality when they’re no such thing —they’re partisan critical theory hacks who think they can destroy everything America stands for by standing on the sidelines and sniping at patriotic Americans with all their favorite slurs. They have nothing but contempt for the American people.” What Breitbart was alluding to was the reality of the press in America as the press acts as a piano on which the government plays the public in whichever direction it desires. The objective of the press today is not merely to inform, but to instruct the millions of impressionable American minds on what to believe, who to believe, and how to believe.

The content is so rigidly controlled today that in a way the fourth estate has now become nothing more than an institution of the government restricted to publishing and advancing White House directives and Democrat policy agendas. The role that the press plays is to make clear to the American people what the Obama adminstration is doing, why the adminstration is doing it, and why it is forced to act in a certain way. Of course, as we have become accustom to hearing, the Obama adminstration is always forced to “act in a certain way” because of the “obstructionist” Republicans. The effect of this is to demonize the Republican party to the point of capitulation. This formula for “reporting” by the press encompasses every single issue advocated by the Obama adminstration and the Democrat party.

The press toes the party line and advances the Democrat agenda to the point in which there is no objectivity and no resistance from any opposition. There simply is no neutrality. For example, in the wake of the horrific terrorist attack on an Orlando night club by a jihadist who pledged allegiance to the Islamic State terrorist organization known as ISIS, the big three networks comprised of ABC, NBC, and CBS, immediately took to the airwaves before the bodies were even cold to push the political line of the Democrats for more gun control. In a study conducted by the Media Research Center (MRC) for the week immediately following the terrorist attack, it was shown that the network news programs flooded their shows with statements favoring gun control over gun rights by a ration of 8 to 1.

MRC analysts reviewed all 47 gun policy stories (41 full segments, 6 anchor read briefs), plus 10 other stories that mentioned gun policy on the Big Three networks’ evening (ABC’s World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News) and morning show programs (ABC’s Good Morning America, CBS This Morning, NBC’s Today), beginning with the evening (June 12) after the shooting through Friday evening, June 17. The study found that the time spent arguing in favor of more gun control overwhelmed time devoted to opposing gun rights by 65 minutes and 12 seconds, to just eight minutes and 12 seconds. Here are just a few of the examples listed by MRC:

  • CBS This Morning co-host Charlie Rose was enamored by the Boston Globe’s front page assault on the Second Amendment: “Pressure’s growing on Congress to act against gun violence after America’s deadliest mass shooting. Page one of this morning’s Boston Globe demands ‘Make it Stop.’”
  • NBC began their push for more gun control when correspondent Harry Smith closed the June 12 NBC Nightly News by yearning for action: “We have been here too many times before and with no sign that anything will change, we fear this will not be the last.”
  • When anti-gun rights guests like Senator Murphy, Hillary Clinton and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson were interviewed they were celebrated. On the June 14 CBS This Morning show, co-host Gayle King advocated to Jeh Johnson: “What will it take to move the needle when it comes to gun control? People thought it would be Sandy Hook.”
  • When Hillary Clinton showed up on the June 13 Today show, co-host Savannah Guthrie pushed: “Continually you hear policymakers and the President say, ‘The American people are with us, they don’t think that common sense gun reforms are a problem.’ And yet, even after you have 20 first graders killed, you can’t even get the bare minimum of gun legislation passed. Why is that? What needs to change?”

While this was just a handful of the examples given, one can begin to see how feverish the media has become in pushing for gun control in wake of the largest terrorist attack since September 11, 2001. It didn’t even take the New York Daily News twenty four hours before blaming the National Rifle Association (NRA) for the terrorist attack. On their front cover for the June 13th edition, the headline blared “Thanks NRA” while the piece went on to state that the jihadists “killing machine of choice was a mass murderer’s best friend — and his enabler a gun lobby that has long opposed efforts to keep assault weapons out of the hands of bloodthirsty maniacs.” Not to be outdone though, the Boston Globe published a full front page editorial three days later on June 16th with the headline “Make it Stop” featuring an image of an AR-15. The editorial of course goes on to attack the Second Amendment while calling for an “assault weapon and high-capacity magazine ban.”

If you were wondering why the Democrat Media Complex is pushing this agenda, in unison, it’s because they received their marching orders by the President himself the day of the attack on June 12th. Speaking during an appearance at the White House not even five hours following the attack, President Obama stated that “this massacre is a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school, or a house of worship, or a movie theater, or in a nightclub.”

The steady drumbeat by the President and the media continued as last week White House press secretary Josh Earnestrevealed that Obama had become “profoundly frustrated” after Senate Republicans blocked anti-gun legislation from being rammed through Congress. Earnest continued by mocking Republicans as “cowards” who talked tough on terrorism, but were “AWOL” when it came to standing up to gun rights organizations like the National Rifle Association (NRA). Obama, like Hillary Clinton, believe that the “gun lobby” which is the NRA, is at the root of impairing progress to solving America’s “gun problems.” Moreover, the real impediment to their anti-Second Amendment agenda always traces back to Republicans, which Democrats and the media at large have asserted were the ones responsible for the Orlando terrorist attack.

To reinforce the Obama adminstration’s stance, the New York Times last Wednesday ran a piece by their editorial board in which they argued that Republicans were to blame for the Orlando terrorist attack committed by the jihadist Omar Mateen. In an excerpt from the piece the Times states that, “while the precise motivation for the rampage remains unclear, it is evident that Mr. Mateen was driven by hatred toward gays and lesbians. Hate crimes don’t happen in a vacuum. They occur where bigotry is allowed to fester, where minorities are vilified and where people are scapegoated for political gain. Tragically, this is the state of American politics, driven too often by Republican politicians who see prejudice as something to exploit, not extinguish.” Completely ignoring the fact that jihadist openly declared allegiance to ISIS multiple times to 911 operators, Alex Griswold of Mediate explains that the New York Times piece doesn’t even bother to mention ISIS or Islam (radical or otherwise), or even hint at Mateen’s faith or ideology at all. Griswold writes, “Were it not for his traditionally Arabic name, it’s not an exaggeration to say that one gets the impression from the Times piece that the shooter must have been an ultraconservative Christian nut,” which was precisely the effect of the piece. It could be argued that this was also the intended effect of Obama’s own statements following the attack.

Yet, this wasn’t enough for the Democrat-Media-Complex as this week the American people were treated to a full-court press by the media in their over the top coverage of the Democrats taking to the House floor to demand gun control with an all-night sit-in. On Thursday morning the media went into propaganda overdrive by promoting the Democrats childish sit-in as “unprecedented” and “historic.” Here are just a few of the examples:

  • On NBC’s Today, correspondent Peter Alexander declared the partisan political stunt to be “truly one of the most dramatic demonstrations on the House floor in modern American history.” Alexander continued by announcing that the “Democrats with signs bearing the names and faces of gun violence victims….Their voices echoed on the Capitol steps, hundreds gathering in support, rallied by Congressman John Lewis, the civil rights icon who spearheaded Wednesday’s sit-in.”
  • On ABC’s Good Morning America, co-host Robin Roberts stated, “breaking overnight, the historic sit-in showdown stopping Congress in its tracks as the battle over gun control boils over.”
  • On CBS This Morning correspondent Nancy Cordes asserted that “the rules appear to have gone out the window” and promoted the propaganda effort stating, “It started as a sit-in, but by nightfall, Democrats were on their feet, holding up the names and pictures of Orlando victims as a crowd of supporters swelled in the gallery and outside.”

From here, the media then perpetuated the myth that according to polls the majority of Americans want “common sense gun control” measures. As NBC’s Matt Lauer on Thursday’s Today show pleaded with Congress to take action. Lauer stated, “If you look at the polls…people across this country say they want more than a moment of silence after a mass shooting, they want some real change.”

In closing, with the media pushing the Democrats agenda and carrying weight for the Obama adminstration on not only gun control but issues ranging from Illegal immigration to Islamic terrorism, it is worth recalling the following statement delivered by Joseph Goebbels during his first official press conference as the head of the Third Reich’s Propaganda Ministry on March 15, 1933. Goebbels, whom turned press conferences into secret meetings where the Propaganda Ministry would pass on detailed instructions to selected journalists, supplying articles to be printed verbatim or used as the basis for reports stated the following to the journalists, “You are to know not only what is happening, but also the government’s view of it and how you can convey that to the people most effectively.” That they were not to convey or print any view in opposition to the regime did not need to be said. This applies to our own press today.

Also see:

The American Gulag

550px-censored_rubber_stampFront Page Magazine, by Phyllis Chesler, June 27, 2016:

For years, beginning in 2003, I have personally faced both censorship and demonization. When I began publishing pieces about anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism, and Islamic gender and religious apartheid at conservative sites, I was seen as having “gone over to the dark side,” as having joined the legion of enemies against all that was right and good.

My former easy and frequent access to left-liberal venues was over. I learned, early on, about the soft censorship of the Left, the American version of the Soviet Gulag. One could think, write, and even publish but it would be as if one had not spoken–although one would still be constantly attacked for where one published as much as for what one published.

Since then, Left censorship has only gotten worse. (There is also censorship on the Right–but not quite as much.)

A week ago, a colleague of mine was thrilled that a mainstream newspaper had reached out to him for a piece about the violent customs of many male Muslim immigrants to Europe. He discovered, to his shock, that his piece had been edited in a way that turned his argument upside down and ended up sounding like American Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s view, namely, that home-grown terrorists need “love and compassion,” not profiling or detention.

I told him: One more left-liberal newspaper has just bitten the Orwellian dust. He could expose this use of his reasoned view for propaganda purposes–or wear out his welcome at this distinguished venue.

“But,” I said, “on the other hand, what kind of welcome is it if they change your words and the main thrust of your argument?”

That same week, right after the Jihad massacre in Orlando, another colleague, long used to being published–and published frequently at gay websites–wrote about the male Muslim immigrant/refugee physical and sexual violence against girls and women (their own and infidel women); against homosexuals–and paradoxically, also against young boys. He counseled gays to understand that the issues of gun control and “hate,” while important, were also quite beside the point, that “homosexuality is a capital crime in Islam.”

His piece was rejected by every gay site he approached. One venue threatened him:  If he published his piece “anywhere,” that his work would no longer be welcome in their pages.

I welcomed him to the American Gulag.

He told me that he finally “had” to publish the piece at a conservative site.

Gently, I told him that what he wrote was the kind of piece that was long familiar only at conservative sites and that he should expect considerable flack for where he’s published as well as for what he’s published.

Another gay right activist told me that when he described Orlando as a Jihad attack, he was castigated as a “right-wing hater.” He, too, had to publish what he wanted to say at a conservative site.

I published two pieces about Orlando. I said similar kinds of things and I privately emailed both articles to about 30 gay activists whom I know.

The silence thereafter was, as they say, deafening. I was not attacked but I was given the Silent Treatment.

For a moment, I felt like gay activist Larry Kramer might have felt when, in the 1980s, he tried to persuade gay men to stop going to the baths and engaging in promiscuous sex, that their lust was literally killing them. Kramer was attacked as a spoilsport and as the homophobic enemy of the gay lifestyle. Alas, Kramer had been right and many gay male lives were lost to AIDS.

Thus, gay activists see their collective interests as best served by marching, lock-step, with politically correct politicians who view “mental illness,” “gun control,” and “American right-wing hatred of gays”–not Jihad–as the major problems. Such gay activists also prefer “Palestine” to Israel. It makes absolutely no difference that Israel does not murder its homosexual citizens and that in fact, Israel grants asylum to Muslim Arab men in flight from being torture-murdered by other Muslim Arab men.

A number of European activists have recently visited me.  They described what has been happening to women who undertake the journey from Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Turkey;  along the way, the girls and women are continually groped and sexually assaulted, even penetrated in every possible orifice, by gangs of male Muslim immigrants. If they want to live, their husbands and fathers can do nothing.

So much for Muslim immigrant women on the move.

And now, European women are being told to “dye their hair black,” stay home “after 8pm,” “always have a male escort at night;” a group of German nudists, whose tradition goes back 100 years, have just been told to “cover up” because refugees are being moved into the rural lake community.

Where will this all end? In Europe becoming a Muslim Caliphate dominated by Sharia law and by all its myriad misogynist interpretations? In Muslim immigrants assimilating to Western ways? In Europeans voluntarily converting to Arab and Muslim ways? In non-violent but parallel Muslim lives?

Bravo to England which has just taken its first, high risk steps to control its borders and its immigrant population.

Death of a Narrative: FBI Finds No Evidence Orlando Shooter had Gay Lovers

(AP Photo/John Raoux)

(AP Photo/John Raoux)


Via the Los Angeles Times:

Since the shooting at an Orlando nightclub last week that left 49 people dead, reports have emerged that gunman Omar Mateen frequented the gay club, used gay dating apps and had gay lovers.But the FBI has found no evidence so far to support claims by those who say Mateen had gay lovers or communicated on gay dating apps, several law enforcement officials said.

Mateen, 29, told police negotiators he had carried out the shooting that began at 2 a.m. June 12 and ended, after a three-hour standoff, when he was killed by police.

He claimed the shooting was carried out in allegiance to the militant group Islamic State, as a message to halt U.S. bombing in Iraq and Syria.

Several Pulse regulars have come forward in the days since the shooting, claiming to have seen Mateen at the club or to have been contacted by him on the gay dating apps Grindr, Jack’d and Adam4Adam.

On Tuesday, Univision aired a report in which “Miguel,” a man wearing a disguise to conceal his identity, alleged he had sex with Mateen after meeting him on the gay dating app, Grindr. He said Mateen had sex with other men too, including a threesome with a Puerto Rican who allegedly told Mateen, after having had unprotected sex with him, that he was HIV positive.

The Leftist Narrative Machine has once again been working overtime in the wake of an attack by an Islamic terrorist to try and make the public think it wasn’t about Islamic terrorism. It’s what they do. After each attack, a revival of “Anything But Islam!” theater is launched because American Democrats are nothing if not committed to being perpetually confused about who the country’s real enemies are.

In the twelve days since this terrible tragedy occurred, the Machine has been running with a “conflicted closeted gay Muslim, not a Jihadist” narrative. They even found an anonymous gay lover to back them up. The FBI seems to be immune to the desires of the narrative mongers:

On Tuesday, Univision aired a report in which “Miguel,” a man wearing a disguise to conceal his identity, alleged he had sex with Mateen after meeting him on the gay dating app, Grindr. He said Mateen had sex with other men too, including a threesome with a Puerto Rican who allegedly told Mateen, after having had unprotected sex with him, that he was HIV positive.But investigators do not consider the man’s account credible, according to one senior law enforcement official with access to the investigation.

Remember, they’ve got access to everything this guy was up to. Thus far, the “secret gay Muslim” stuff isn’t holding up at all:

In seeking to verify the reports, federal agents have culled Mateen’s electronic devices, including a laptop computer and cellphone, as well as electronic communications of those who made the claims, law enforcement officials said.So far, they have found no photographs, no text messages, no smartphone apps, no gay pornography and no cell-tower location data to suggest that Mateen — who was twice married to women and had a young son — conducted a secret gay life, the officials said.

The FBI is continuing to explore Mateen’s past, but investigators now believe the men who made the claims are not credible, or confused Mateen with someone else.

All that remains now is seeing how the Narrative Machine reacts. They will most likely ignore this evidence (or lack thereof). When the media cheer leads for the Left, they tend to simply send anything counter to the narrative down the nearest memory hole.

Then all president’s men can get back to their dangerous game of make-believe.

The Arrogance of Ben Rhodes and the Left’s Foreign Policy Fraud



Ben Rhodes has created quite a stir with his unbelievably arrogant admissions on duping everyone with the Iran deal. What must he have been thinking to admit all the lies and manipulation of the press to the world! A lot has been written in reaction so I will list some of the more noteworthy commentary:

For some context on the Obama administrations foreign policy motivations read this 2013 article by Daniel Greenfield:

The New York Times’ Cover-Up of Hillary’s Illegal Libyan War

hillary_clinton4Frontpage, by Daniel Greenfield, Feb. 28, 2016:

More than any other paper, the New York Times has held Obama’s foreign policy line. It’s been the place where administration sources leaked stories and narratives. The New York Times ran David Kilpatrick’s desperate attempt to shore up the “YouTube Video Caused Benghazi” lie at a time when even most of the media was unwilling to keep repeating that bizarre claim any more.

So the New York Times is the natural outlet for yet another whitewash of the illegal Libyan War. This one is more about Democrats than Republicans. Jim Webb, and in his own clumsy way, Bernie Sanders have raised the Libya issue. Tulsi Gabbard quit the DNC and endorsed Bernie Sanders in part over Libya. The New York Times’ multipart Hillary Libya series is about making that war palatable to liberals.

Excuse #1 is that Hillary Clinton just has a bias for action.

Anne-Marie Slaughter, her director of policy planning at the State Department, notes that in conversation and in her memoir, Mrs. Clinton repeatedly speaks of wanting to be “caught trying.” In other words, she would rather be criticized for what she has done than for having done nothing at all.

“She’s very careful and reflective,” Ms. Slaughter said. “But when the choice is between action and inaction, and you’ve got risks in either direction, which you often do, she’d rather be caught trying.”

That’s probably the worst excuse imaginable. It’s also flagrantly dishonest. Hillary Clinton didn’t have a bias for action in Sudan. She had a bias for action when it came to overthrowing regimes on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Excuse #2 the Genocide Lie

The piece only indirectly addresses this. But it’s the reason Obama gave for intervention. He claimed that massacres were about to happen in Benghazi. He suggested that much of the city might be wiped out. None of this was real or true.

“Jake Sullivan, Mrs. Clinton’s top foreign-policy aide at State and now in her campaign, said her view was that “we have to live in a world of risks.” In assessing the situation in Libya, he said, “she didn’t know for certain at the time, nor did any of us, what would happen — only that it passed a risk threshold that demanded that we look very hard at the response.”

What was the basis for this risk threshold? Why did genocide in Africa fail to meet this imaginary threshold?

The left spent a decade howling about Iraq. It has still failed to address the simple fact that Obama lied about the basis for the war in Libya. And Hillary Clinton handfed him that lie.

Excuse #3 Regime Change, Not Protecting Civilians

The No Fly Zone was a hoax. No such zone was needed. Nor was it about protecting civilians, but aiding Muslim terrorists.

“We basically destroyed Qaddafi’s air defenses and stopped the advance of his forces within three days,” recalled Mr. Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser.

But the mission quickly evolved from protecting civilians in Benghazi to protecting civilians wherever they were. As the rebellion swelled and bystanders became combatants, the endgame became ever more murky. The United States and its allies were increasingly drawn to one side of the fighting, without extended debate over what that shift portended.

Not only is this a ridiculous lie, but it’s contradicted early on in the same article as it mentions a covert program of transferring weapons to the terrorists. This wasn’t even about protecting the terrorists, though it began that way, it was about destroying Gaddafi’s forces.

It’s 2016 and the media is still maintaining the same tired lie.

“I can’t recall any specific decision that said, ‘Well, let’s just take him out,’” Mr. Gates said. Publicly, he said, “the fiction was maintained” that the goal was limited to disabling Colonel Qaddafi’s command and control. In fact, the former defense secretary said, “I don’t think there was a day that passed that people didn’t hope he would be in one of those command and control centers.”

That’s regime change. It’s invasion and assassination. Gaddafi was a bad guy. He got what he deserved. But let’s stop playing this game in which there was never a war or an invasion. Or it was about protecting “civilians”.

By April, the president had authorized the use of drones, and, according to a senior rebel commander, C.I.A. operatives began visiting rebel camps and “providing us with intercepts of Qaddafi’s troop movements.”

To “protect civilians”.

“There was a moment, around about June or July,” recalled Mr. Shapiro, the State Department’s Libya policy adviser, “when the situation on the ground seemed to settle into a stalemate and we weren’t sure we were winning, or at least winning quickly enough.”

So we’ve gone from the ‘protecting civilians’ myth to straight up trying to win a war.

Obama ultimately took her side, according to the administration officials who described the debate. After he signed a secret document called a presidential finding, approving a covert operation, a list of approved weaponry was drawn up. The shipments arranged by the United States and other Western countries generally arrived through the port of Benghazi and airports in eastern Libya, a Libyan rebel commander said.

“Humvees, counterbattery radar, TOW missiles was the highest end we talked about,” one State Department official recalled. “We were definitely giving them lethal assistance. We’d crossed that line.”

How many of those weapons have been used against us since then?

Excuse #4: Hillary 2016

Mrs. Clinton’s old friend and political adviser, Sidney Blumenthal, who regularly emailed her political advice and vaguely sourced intelligence reports on Libya, urged her to capitalize on the dictator’s fall.

“Brava!” Mr. Blumenthal exclaimed. As always, he was thinking about Mrs. Clinton’s presidential ambitions. “You must go on camera. You must establish yourself in the historical record at this moment.” She should be sure to use the phrase “successful strategy,” he wrote. “You are vindicated.”

This is the first mention of Blumenthal even though it’s clear from her emails that he was far more influential and had his own interests in Libya.

Two days before, Mrs. Clinton had taken a triumphal tour of the Libyan capital, Tripoli, and for weeks top aides had been circulating a “ticktock” that described her starring role in the events that had led to this moment. The timeline, her top policy aide, Jake Sullivan, wrote, demonstrated Mrs. Clinton’s “leadership/ownership/stewardship of this country’s Libya policy from start to finish.” The memo’s language put her at the center of everything: “HRC announces … HRC directs … HRC travels … HRC engages,” it read.

Hillary Clinton had wrecked Libya and was using it to run for office.

“The president was like, ‘We are not looking to do another Iraq,’” said Derek Chollet, then handling Libya for the National Security Council.

Too late.

Still, in her last months at the State Department, Mrs. Clinton rode a wave of popularity, bolstered by an Internet meme called “Texts From Hillary.” Its emblem was a photograph of the secretary of state gazing through dark glasses at her BlackBerry. Few knew that it had been taken aboard the military transport plane taking her to Libya in those heady days after the dictator’s fall.


Confirmed: Obama Sent Weapons to Muslim Terrorists in Benghazi

One of the few interesting items in the New York Times’ whitewash of Hillary and Obama’s illegal Libyan war is the confirmation of weapons shipments.

Obama ultimately took her side, according to the administration officials who described the debate. After he signed a secret document called a presidential finding, approving a covert operation, a list of approved weaponry was drawn up. The shipments arranged by the United States and other Western countries generally arrived through the port of Benghazi and airports in eastern Libya, a Libyan rebel commander said.

“Humvees, counterbattery radar, TOW missiles was the highest end we talked about,” one State Department official recalled. “We were definitely giving them lethal assistance. We’d crossed that line.”

The story blames the problem on Qatar aiding Jihadists and Obama’s unwillingness to defy the terror oil state. But the claim that we had to arm terrorists to fight Qatar’s arming of terrorists doesn’t hold up too well. Furthermore we already know that US forces were told to turn a blind eye to Qatar’s weapons shipments. We could have blocked them instead.

The story mentions a competition between Qatar and the UAE over arming the locals, but fails to clarify that Qatar was arming straight Jihadists, while the UAE had taken an anti-Islamist line.

It also fails to clarify that Qatar was backing the Muslim Brotherhood. Just like Hillary and Obama.

Salvaging Mrs. Clinton’s Legacy in a Shattered Libya


AIM, by Roger Arnoff, February 25, 2016:

The Washington Post seems unable to grasp the irony of its support for President Obama’s latest military intervention into Libya at the same time that it seeks to salvage Hillary Clinton’s reputation on this issue. Libya remains a failed state, and no amount of reporting can change the facts of this debacle.

“With respect to Libya, I have been clear from the outset that we will go after ISIS wherever it appears, the same way that we went after al Qaeda wherever they appeared,” President Obama told the press on February 16.  “And the testament to the fact that we are doing that already is that we took out…one of ISIS’s most prominent leaders in Libya.”

Obama’s words came out just days before the House Select Committee on Benghazi signaled that its report on the events in Benghazi, Libya will be issued “as soon as possible,” now that it has gained access to most of the necessary witnesses and documents.

According to The Military Times, “Many experts note that the current chaos in Libya stems from the power vacuum caused by the American-led air campaign to oust Gaddafi.” Yet reporters at the Post continue to dramatize the issue of Libya as if it were Mrs. Clinton, or President Obama, who faced the tough choices in 2011.

“The stakes Clinton faced were high,” reported Kevin Sullivan for the Post on February 3. “Introducing U.S. military force could have easily led to a much-longer-than-expected and bloodier operation, at a time when Americans were already weary of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

“But failing to act could have led to a massacre that the world would have blamed on Washington,” adds Sullivan. “It also could have solidified Gaddafi’s grip on power as other dictators were falling across the region.”

These fairy tale justifications have been exposed again and again, yet the mainstream media continue to use them in defense of their favorite Democratic presidential candidate. Reporters such as Sullivan aren’t interested in reporting facts that could damage Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy reputation. And Libya is one of Mrs. Clinton’s weakest points, for which she takes full ownership. Her aide, Jake Sullivan, wrote in a 2011 internal email while she was Secretary of State that Mrs. Clinton has “leadership/ownership/stewardship of this country’s [L]ibya policy from start to finish.”

Sullivan is now the top foreign policy adviser for Clinton’s campaign.

As we have reported, Qaddafi was actually an American ally in the war on terror before he was ousted. Our Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi (CCB) interim report demonstrates how the Obama administration, and Hillary Clinton, decided to back al-Qaeda-linked rebels in Libya instead of holding truce talks with Qaddafi, which could have ended with his abdication and a peaceful transition of power.

The Washington Times also reported that it was Mrs. Clinton who told a Pentagon general to stop communicating with Qaddafi’s son, Saif, and other Qaddafi loyalists seeking a truce after the UN resolution calling for military intervention in Libya was passed on March 17, 2011.

Now conflict-ridden Libya has devolved into an Islamic State stronghold with warring militias. And the Post is pushing President Obama to intercede. “Mr. Obama has tried waiting on the sidelines in Iraq and Syria,” argued the Post’s Editorial Board on February 17. “He should not make the same mistake in Libya.”

An American warplane killed 49 and wounded six at an ISIS training camp in Libya, reported CNN on February 20. In response, ISIS recently beheaded 12 menat the security headquarters in Sabratha, according to the Atlantic on February 24. “American intelligence officials estimate that the group’s [ISIS] ranks in Libya have grown to 6,500 fighters, more than doubling since the fall,” it reports. “The group is now thought to control 150 miles of Libyan coastline.”

The administration’s mistakes in Libya have already been made, and there have been many. The narrative that somehow the Obama administration’s multilateral intervention into Libya was necessary is false. There was no humanitarian crisis to resolve. “Despite what defenders of the mission claim, there was a better policy available—not intervening at all, because peaceful Libyan civilians were not actually being targeted,” wrote University of Texas at Austin professor Alan Kuperman for Foreign Affairs last year. “As bad as Libya’s human rights situation was under Qaddafi, it has gotten worse since NATO ousted him,” he writes.

According to a column by Pete Hoekstra, former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the CCB, “Libya devolved into a failed state when NATO assisted Qaddafi’s radical jihadist opponents in killing him and then promptly abandoned the country. Left in the wake were two rival governments competing for power, which created space for Islamists to turn Libya into a cesspool of extremism.” He added that “Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton continues to call the debacle American ‘smart power at its best.’”

“How will the West ever learn anything,” asks Hoekstra, “if it can’t identify its most obvious failures?”

Now it seems that the U.S. must again commit additional blood and sweat to fix the situation that Hillary Clinton and President Obama helped create in the first place.

It is no wonder that Mrs. Clinton’s foreign policy reputation needs rehabilitation under such circumstances. The Post’s Sullivan admits that Hillary Clinton’s choice to back the Libyan intervention was the “most significant—and risky—[decision] of her career,” a choice which still haunts her record. However, he takes it upon himself to dispel any doubts about her potential.

“The [Post] story doesn’t come off as uniformly flattering,” writes Cato’s Christopher A. Preble for The National Interest. “The headline calls it ‘a tough call’ that supposedly ‘still haunts’ Clinton, and the subhead references Clinton’s ill-considered support for the war in Iraq in 2002.”

However, Preble writes, “all of the people quoted by name in the story are Clinton supporters or advocates for the operation that ousted Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi from power, and eventually resulted in his death.”

Sullivan’s article contains quotes from an anonymous former official involved in the Libyan negotiations effusively championing Clinton’s decision-making style and leadership. “She consults widely and intensively. She talks to more people, takes more phone calls, travels more miles,” says the supporter. “She’s more disciplined than her husband…Hillary Clinton came into the Situation Room for every meeting thoroughly prepared,” that supporter continues. “She’s a disciplined decision-maker.”

The Washington Post is clearly attempting to pave the way for Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy by casting the intervention into Libya as a necessary evil with an unfortunate ending, and by excusing Obama’s intervention in the same country twice. The truth is, however, that Mrs. Clinton and President Obama spearheaded a policy that ended in abject failure and continues to result in death and danger abroad. The fact that this policy, which the Post now seeks to sell to the public, resulted in the Benghazi scandal and the resulting death of four Americans—and many more Libyans—cannot be overlooked no matter how much Sullivan or other reporters try to spin Libya positively.

Also see:

Anti-Trump Saudi Prince Tied to Both Rupert Murdoch And Hillary Aide


Breitbart, by Lee Stranahan, Feb. 1, 2016:

Fox mogul Rupert Murdoch is partnered in multiple media ventures with Saudi Arabian Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, including an Arabic religious TV network with a direct tie to Hillary Clinton’s top aide Huma Abedin.

Both Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal and Murdoch’s Fox News network have become vocal critics of GOP Presidential frontrunner Donald Trump. On December 11, 2015 Bin Tala took to Twitter to savage Trump:

The Al-Resalah TV network is a venture created by Alwaleed in association with Rupert Murdoch. As The Guardian reported in 2010:

A company headed by the Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal says it plans to launch a new Arabic television news channel in partnership with Rupert Murdoch’s Fox network. The prince said the Kingdom Holding company’s 24-hour channel “will be an addition and alternative” for Arab viewers. It will compete with al-Arabiya and al-Jazeera.

Alwaleed Bin Talal’s stated goal is to “present true Islam” but the network’s programming has been often been radical. As The Sun reported in 2006:

[M]uch of the content on his TV channel is overtly anti-Western. On March 31, the secretary-general of Al-Resalah, Sheik Tareq Al-Suweidan, gave a speech at Dialogue between Europe and Muslims, a convention in Copenhagen that the channel was covering. “The West have done strategic mistakes … they underestimate the power of Islam,” he said. Sheik Suweidan praised the election of Hamas and Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, warning: “The West have no chance but to deal with Islam, and we are extending our hands in peace and dialogue – you have slapped it. We do not accept insults.”

According to the official website of Prince Alwaleed, one of the members of the Supreme Advisory board for his  network is “Dr. Abdullah Naseef, President of World Muslim Congress and President of Forum For Social Studies (FFSS).”

As Breitbart News has extensively documented, Al-Resalah TV  board member Dr. Naseef is the longtime benefactor of top Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin’s family business, the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs.

As Vanity Fair reported:

When (Huma) Abedin was two years old, the family moved to Jidda, Saudi Arabia, where, with the backing of Abdullah Omar Nasseef, then the president of King Abdulaziz University, her father founded the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, a think tank, and became the first editor of its Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, which stated its mission as “shedding light” on minority Muslim communities around the world in the hope of “securing the legitimate rights of these communities.”

It turns out the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs is an Abedin family business. Huma was an assistant editor there between 1996 and 2008. Her brother, Hassan, 45, is a book-review editor at the Journal and was a fellow at the Oxford Center for Islamic Studies, where Nasseef is chairman of the board of trustees. Huma’s sister, Heba, 26, is an assistant editor at the Journal.

In his early years as the patron of the Abedins’ journal, Nasseef was the secretary-general of the Muslim World League, which Andrew McCarthy () claims “has long been the Muslim Brotherhood’s principal vehicle for the international propagation of Islamic supremacist ideology.”

The Muslim World League was the mother organization of two groups the U.S. government thinks was involved in funneling money to terrorists–the Rabita Trust and the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO). Both groups are listed on the Treasury department’s website of terrorist organizations. Naseef’s Rabita Trust co-founder Wa’el Hamza Julaidan was one of the founders of Al Qaeda.

These connections have been hidden by the mainstream media. Breitbart News demonstrated attempted to muddy the connection between Saudi Arabian raised Huma Abedin and Nassef when questions about Abedin were raised by a group of Congress members in 2012.

It’s been widely reported that Bin Talal is a large investor in Murdoch’s Fox News, but much less attention has been paid to Al-Resalah.

In early 2015, Bin Talal’s Kingdom Holding Company reduced his stake in Murdoch’s News Corp to 1 percent but maintains a 6.6 percent interest in 21st Century Fox, which controls Fox News. As CNN Money reported:

News Corp. is Murdoch’s publishing operation, made up of the New York Post and the Wall Street Journal as well as the book publisher HarperCollins. The more valuable 21st Century Fox is home to a host of television and film properties such as Fox Searchlight, the Fox broadcasting network and Fox News.

“We have a strategic alliance with Rupert Murdoch for sure and I have been with him for the last 15 or 20 years,” Alwaleed said. “My backing of Rupert Murdoch is definitely unwavering.”

The connection between Alwaleed, Murdoch, Abedin, Hillary Clinton and Saudi Arabia are troubling given a number of recent events.

Prince Alwaleed is boasting about his role in impacting U.S. elections. As Breitbart News Network’s Aaron Klein reported, the Saudi Arabian news site Sabq claims that “Alwaweed Bin Talal caused a decline in Trump’s popularity.”

 CNN reported in 2008 that “donations to the William J. Clinton Foundation include amounts of $10 million to $25 million from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.” Huma Abedin was hired as a consultant to the William J. Clinton Foundation after Clinton left her role as Secretary of State.

Abedin is also at the center of Hillary Clinton’s private email server scandal.

Huma Abedin’s mother currently lives in Saudi Arabia and runs the Journal for Muslim Minority Affairs and is also a dean at a woman’s college there.

Also see: