Breitbart, liberal activist cooperated on GOP primary disruptions: report

By: Mark Hensch | The Hill


A liberal activist and organizer collaborated with the right-wing news site Breitbart on coverage of him interrupting GOP presidential primary candidates, according to a new report.

Aaron Black teamed with the pro-Donald Trump outlet by alerting them to stunts, sharing raw video footage and orchestrating coverage, Politico reported on Monday.

“He worked directly with Breitbart’s political team on the ground in the primary states to sabotage [Sens.] Marco Rubio [R-Fla.] and Ted Cruz [R-Texas], and elect Trump as nominee of the [Republican] party,” a source with direct knowledge of the arrangement told Politico.

“[Black] was coordinating with [Breitbart’s] top staff to rabble rouse against Rubio at rallies,” citing various disruptions during the former White House hopeful’s events.

Politico’s source said Black coordinated with Breitbart journalists via email, phone and even in-person meetings.

Black is an associate with the liberal-leaning Democracy Partners super PAC, it said, and is also a former Occupy Wall Street organizer.

Politico added Black has since conducted interviews with Breitbart and appeared on the outlet’s radio programs.

Read more here…


2012 FLASHBACK: Trump slams Santorum ‘these lost delegates show that he is badly organized and not a good manager’

By: Renee Nal | New Zeal

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump laughs as Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum jokes about not being photographed in front of a Trump podium sign at a event in support of veterans at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa, Thursday, Jan. 28, 2016. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump laughs as Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum jokes about not being photographed in front of a Trump podium sign at a event in support of veterans at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa, Thursday, Jan. 28, 2016. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

“He @RickSantorum lost his 06 Senate race by 18 points. He is also disqualified for 18 Ohio delegates. Coincidence? And these lost delegates show that he is badly organized and not a good manager.” Donald Trump, March 2012

Kyle Cheney of Politico found some tweets from Donald Trump from 2012, where he slammed then-presidential candidate Rick Santorum for not understanding delegate rules.

Here is the list:

Read more here…


Politico Exonerates, Blames Snowden for Paris

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

Some of our media, including the publication Politico, seem totally confused about the role of NSA defector Edward Snowden in the crimes of the terrorists who murdered and maimed hundreds of people in the Paris attacks. The verdict is in: he has bloody hands.

In a November 16 story, “Blaming Snowden for Paris,” David Perera of Politico insisted that no evidence had surfaced that the “revelations” of NSA defector Edward Snowden had “made a difference” in the case of the Paris terrorist attacks, and there was no evidence the perpetrators had “used encrypted communications to conceal their activities.”

Once again, the publication had gotten ahead of the facts in this story, prejudging the case in order to get Snowden off the hook for facilitating the activities of the Islamic State, or ISIS.

Politico is the same publication that alleged that GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson had admitted fabricating an offer of a West Point scholarship, only to reverse course and drop the claim in a rewritten version of the same story.

Only 24 hours later, after exonerating Snowden, the publication again reversed itself, running an interview with Michael Morell, the former acting head of the CIA, who said the Snowden revelations not only helped the Islamic State but probably contributed to the Paris attacks.

Morell stated, “First, ISIS went to school on how we were collecting intelligence on terrorist organizations by using telecommunications technologies. And when they learned that from the Snowden disclosures, they were able to adapt to it and essentially go silent…And so, part of their rise was understanding what our capabilities were, adjusting to them so we couldn’t see them. No doubt in my mind. And the people who say otherwise are just trying to defend Edward Snowden.”

As embarrassing as this was, the original Politico story had referred to “journalist Glenn Greenwald” as “a Snowden ally” who was arguing “that U.S. officials had complained of difficulty tracking terrorist communications long before the NSA whistleblower emerged.”

It’s true that the terrorists had been evading the NSA before Snowden went to Russia, but that was beside the point. What Morell and others were pointing out is that Snowden had made it easier for the terrorists to plot to kill Europeans and Americans.

Rather than being a “journalist,” Greenwald is a political extremist who speaks before Islamist, Marxist and libertarian groups. He has, for example, been afeatured speaker at conferences sponsored by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Cato Institute and the International Socialist Organization. At one of these conferences he declared that al Qaeda’s 9/11 terrorist attacks on America were “very minimal in scope compared to the level of deaths that the United States has been bringing to the world for decades—from Vietnam to illegal wars in Central America…”

He is more than a “Snowden ally.” He is a mouthpiece for Snowden’s illegal disclosures and an accomplice in his alleged espionage activities.

A former gay pornography executive, Greenwald was the recipient of the first annual I.F. Stone Award, named in honor of the left-wing journalist identified as an agent of influence for Soviet intelligence. At the awards ceremony, Greenwald said that Soviet agent Stone “pioneered what modern journalism ought to be.”

Snowden is supposedly a “whistleblower,” but that is a false designation considering that he illegally leaked classified information and fled to Russia rather than face up to the authorities and take his punishment. He is specifically charged with espionage.

Despite the claim about encrypted communications not playing a role in the attacks, Politico had itself reported on November 16 in a separate article that “Terrorists linked to the so-called Islamic State are employing encrypted Internet services—including a new generation of mobile messaging apps—that the authorities do not have the technological capability to break, according to intelligence sources, public comments by senior officials, and evidence disclosed in recent criminal trials.”

By November 18, Cory Bennett of The Hill newspaper had identified and cited a 34-page ISIS manual on how to conceal communications from the NSA and other intelligence agencies. Bennett noted that the Arabic document was translated and released by analysts at the Combating Terrorism Center, an independent research group at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.

“It includes warnings to avoid Instagram because it is owned by Facebook, and Dropbox because former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sits on its board of investors. Famous government leaker Edward Snowden has also criticized Dropbox over its privacy, the document notes,” added Bennett.

In other words, the Islamic State is taking Snowden’s advice and openly citing the NSA defector’s expertise on planning terrorism against the West. The reference to Snowden is clear in the translation.

This means that no honest journalist can claim that Snowden’s activities have not helped the terrorists who want to kill us.

Bennett wrote a separate story noting evidence first developed by NBC News that ISIS had set up a 24-hour “help desk” to advise terrorists about encrypting their communications in order to evade authorities.

In the NBC News story, Josh Meyer quoted counterterrorism analysts affiliated with the U.S. Army as saying that the ISIS help desk is “manned by a half-dozen senior operatives around the clock” for the specific purpose of “helping would-be jihadists use encryption and other secure communications in order to evade detection by law enforcement and intelligence authorities.”

Now that it has been definitively proven that Snowden’s disclosures have aided ISIS in planning acts of terror, it is time for the media to start examining the Snowden network that AIM has been exposing for several years now. All of his apologists, including such figures as Fox News contributor Andrew Napolitano, should apologize to the world for rushing to the defense of this despicable character, who now clearly has blood on his hands.

It was Napolitano who had declared, “I would describe this man [Snowden] an American hero, as a person willing to risk life, limb and liberty in order to expose to the American people one of the most extraordinary violations of the American principles, value judgments and the Constitution itself in all of our history.”

The evil genius of Snowden’s collaborators was to frame his defection in terms of alleging that he was a “whistleblower.”

He didn’t risk his life or limb but has given up his liberty in return for KGB protection in Moscow.

Citizens of France and possibly the United States, however, will be giving up their lives and limbs so that Snowden can be honored as a hero by Napolitano and his ilk.


Red Faces at RedState

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

The publication Politico still won’t admit it, but evidence shows that it fabricated a story about Ben Carson and the West Point scholarship he was offered. Politico says it “stands by its reporting” when it changed the headline and content of the story. This is one of the most dishonest cases of media bias we have ever seen.

The Politico headline went from “Ben Carson Admits Fabricating West Point Scholarship,” which was false, to “Carson claimed West Point ‘scholarship’ but never applied,” which is true but not news. Carson never claimed he applied. For Politico, the incident will go down in media history as a classic case of a false report being redone in such a way as to attempt to conceal the falsity of the original piece.

A post at Free Republic called the reporter, Kyle Cheney of Politico, a “graduate cum laude of the Dan Rather school of journalism.” But perhaps some of Politico’s editors were in on the deception. Only an apology followed by a full investigation will determine this.

At the same time, it’s important to go back and see how conservatives at such outlets as RedState were duped.  “Certainly we all got burned by Politico on Friday,” said RedState writer Leon H. Wolf, a reference to the false Politico story about Carson “fabricating” the offer of a scholarship.

But only those people who accept Politico as Gospel got burned. One of them was RedState’s “Dear Leader” Erick Erickson, who thinks he is a mover and shaker in the Republican Party and is planning to create a multimedia empire with himself at its core.

RedState is the conservative media group which hosts the RedState Gathering, a forum that is supposed to determine who is and who is not a legitimate conservative candidate. Next year’s event is in Denver, Colorado.

Erickson, a Fox News contributor, disinvited Donald Trump to this year’s affair because he had said some nasty things about his colleague, Megyn Kelly, of Fox News. He didn’t invite Ben Carson at all.

For Erickson, the Politico story about the scholarship must have seemed like a perfect opportunity to destroy Carson. Lifting directly from the erroneous Politico headline and story, Erickson wrote that the Carson campaign was “admitting” a fabrication. Erickson predicted it was the beginning of the end of the Carson for president campaign.

Linking to the Politico story, he claimed “the media just drew serious blood.”

In the end, Erickson’s blood was all over the floor of RedState. It was a self-inflicted wound.

In much the same way that Politico rewrote the story and changed its headline, Erickson subsequently rewrote his story, putting lines through inaccurate statements he had made in his previous comments.

RedState managing editor Leon H. Wolf admitted as much in a story under the RedState headline, “Politico Outright Lies about Ben Carson.” But RedState had accepted and publicized the lies.

In his clarification, Erickson conceded, “The Politico’s representation of that [the scholarship] is demonstrably false and is not something Carson claimed.” It’s too bad Erickson didn’t read the Politico story before accepting its headline as true. As we noted, the allegation that Carson “fabricated” the offer of a scholarship was not backed up by facts in the story itself.

So why did Erickson swallow the phony story in the first place? Either he didn’t read the story and didn’t understand the facts were not what Politico claimed, or he jumped to conclusions based on what he thought he had read or wanted to be true. The latter means that he was looking for a way to force Carson from the Republican field for president. Either way, Erickson comes out of this looking like a total buffoon. So does his sidekick, Leon H. Wolf.

In fairness, Erickson took the bait like many others. But Erickson is supposed to be more sophisticated than that.

Politico on October 5 had referred to Erickson as the “influential conservative radio host and RedState editor” who was announcing that he was leaving the RedState website by the end of the year to focus on his radio career.

Erickson apparently thinks he’s so great that he’s going to become another Rush Limbaugh. Indeed, he sometimes substitutes for Rush Limbaugh. He has announced that he has a “vision” of “blending radio, the internet, and conservative activism.”

The flattering press clippings must have gotten to him, such as the magazine cover story about “The uncompromising conservatism of Erick Erickson.” It would be nice for his brand of conservatism to include a commitment to reporting the facts.

Erickson seems to think of himself as a major power broker in the Republican Party. But his ambitions are in the gutter as he attempts to recover from his smears of Ben Carson, garnered from a fraudulent story in Politico.

Politico owes Carson an apology, and so does Erickson.


Pro-abortion bias? Politico replaces ‘pro-life’ with ‘anti-abortion rights’

By: Renee Nal
New Zeal


Politico demonstrates pro-abortion bias with a title update

“…to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical…” – Thomas Jefferson

Jake Sherman of Politico evidently forgot to update the “permalink” when he changed the title of an article discussing how House Speaker John Boehner is fighting to justify continued federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

Sherman’s article started out with the title:

Boehner: Shutdown will hurt pro-life movement

Perhaps after consultation with pro-abortion colleagues, Sherman updated the title to read:

Boehner: Shutdown will hurt anti-abortion rights movement

Sherman and/or his peers, however, forgot to update the permalink when they updated the title.

Clearly the title change was meant to convey a certain image of those who do not agree with the federal funding of abortion, which “is the outright killing of fetuses, often by chopping them up, crushing their skulls, and otherwise destroying them” as admitted by pro-abortion bioethicist Daniel Callahan, who co-founded the Hastings Center, the premiere bioethics think tank in the world. Callahan actively worked to get Americans on-board with the concept of abortion by using euphemisms in the 1960s and 1970s.

On Wednesday, a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Capitol Hill focused on Planned Parenthood, who has been shown in recent months to have been involved in the selling of “fetal” body parts, an act that should be abhorrent to anyone who isn’t a Nazi eugenicist… or Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, who referred to the abortion organization as a “beloved institution…”

Jake Sherman is not alone in framing the debate about federal funding for planned parenthood as a discussion on a potential “government shutdown,” a silly and disingenuous attempt to steer the debate away the substantive discussion on whether taxpayer funding should be used for child dismemberment.

Watch the entire hearing here:


China and Russia are Waging War on America

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

In a typically cynical article, “GOP presidential candidates have a new country to bash: the People’s Republic of China,” Politico complains about “China-bashing” by various Republican candidates. The story by Nahal Toosi carries the headline, “The Republicans’ Red Scare,” but only mentions one time that China is a “communist-led state.”

Politico uses the term “red scare” to suggest that the problem is being greatly exaggerated.

If there is any doubt about the “red” in Red China, consider the Chinese Constitution, which declares, “The People’s Republic of China is a socialist state under the people’s democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants. The socialist system is the basic system of the People’s Republic of China. Sabotage of the socialist system by any organization or individual is prohibited.”

Mao Zedong, considered by many the greatest mass murderer in history, ispictured on the Chinese currency.

After Politico went to press with its defense of Beijing, the Los Angeles Timesreported that “Foreign spy services, especially in China and Russia, are aggressively aggregating and cross-indexing hacked U.S. computer databases—including security clearance applications, airline records and medical insurance forms—to identify U.S. intelligence officers and agents, U.S. officials said.” The Times added, “At least one clandestine network of American engineers and scientists who provide technical assistance to U.S. undercover operatives and agents overseas has been compromised as a result, according to two U.S. officials.”

Politico reported that criticism of China “might lead Chinese leaders to cozy up to another world power instead, like Russia (another favorite GOP boogeyman), the former ambassador said.”

This former ambassador is Jon Huntsman, the “moderate” Republican who served as Obama’s Ambassador to China. He ran for president in 2012, dropped out, and threw his “support” behind Mitt Romney, who lost a race he should have won.

Later in the article, Politico refers to China’s “alleged” cyberattacks.

“U.S. officials have not publicly blamed Beijing for the theft of the OPM and the Anthem files, but privately say both hacks were traced to the Chinese government,” reported the Los Angeles Times. “The officials say China’s state security officials tapped criminal hackers to steal the files, and then gave them to private Chinese software companies to help analyze and link the information together. That kept the government’s direct fingerprints off the heist and the data aggregation that followed. In a similar fashion, officials say, Russia’s powerful Federal Security Service, or FSB, has close connections to programmers and criminal hacking rings in Russia and has used them in a relentless series of cyberattacks.”

Why is there such a determination by a well-read publication like Politico to play down threats from China and Russia? This article is a case study in Republican-bashing. Politico is trying to warn Republicans running for president not to follow Donald Trump’s lead in focusing on how foreign countries are taking advantage of the United States.

The article by Nahal Toosi says that “…while scapegoating Beijing and its questionable economic policies may seem like an appealing campaign tactic, China specialists—including many in the GOP—warn that Republicans run the risk of looking ignorant about U.S.-Chinese ties.”

The ignorance comes from those in politics and the media who play down the nature of the communist regime.

The author goes on to warn against “bullying” or “isolating” the world’s “most populous country.”

“To be fair,” she writes, “China gives White House hopefuls lots of material for a tough-guy routine. Beijing’s aggressive moves in the South China Sea, its suspected role in cyberattacks on the U.S. and its dismal human rights record are just a few areas already seized upon by Republicans (and some Democrats) for criticism. China’s currency policies have long frustrated the United States in particular, and its increased military spending has led to wariness around the world.”

Notice how “alleged” cyberattacks have become “suspected.”

But in order to “be fair” to Republicans, she grudgingly admits some “questionable” Chinese policies that give the GOP candidates enough material to appear “tough.”

This is a despicable whitewash of a communist regime that is clearly waging war on the U.S.

“Potential enemies of the United States have claimed that they have the ability to crash our markets and our former head of NSA acknowledged that they do have that capability,” notes Kevin Freeman, author of Secret Weapon: How Economic Terrorism Brought Down the U.S. Stock Market and Why It can Happen Again.He notes that the Dow Jones Industrial Average crashed by more than 1,000 points at the open on August 24 “after China accused us of crashing their market.” He says that China has published a book, Unrestricted Warfare, calling a stock market crash a “new-era weapon.”

Instead of holding the Obama Administration accountable for safeguarding our national security information, Politico attacks Republicans for being too critical of China.

Later in the article, Politico quotes some comments about why we have to take the time to understand that the rulers in Beijing will realize this is just campaign rhetoric. “Top U.S.-watchers in Beijing are pretty savvy,” says Melanie Hart, identified as “director for China policy at the left-leaning Center for American Progress.” It turns out she “worked on Qualcomm’s China business development team, where she provided technology market and regulatory analysis to guide Qualcomm operations in Greater China. She has worked as a China advisor for The Scowcroft Group, Albright Stonebridge Group, and the University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation.”

In other words, part of her career has been devoted to facilitating U.S. investment in China. She went to China in June to work on U.S.-China cooperation on “climate change” matters. She has a vested interest in making the communists look non-threatening.

Meanwhile, last January, a Russian spy ring was uncovered in New York City whose purpose in part was to “collect economic intelligence” and recruit New York City residents as intelligence sources. One of the targets of the economic intelligence gathering, a Justice Department press release said, was the New York Stock Exchange. The actual complaint filed against the Russians went into more detail, as they are shown discussing how to obtain information about the “destabilization” of U.S. financial markets.

So despite the wisdom conveyed by Jon Huntsman about forcing China into the arms of Russia, it looks like Russia and China are already working very well together.

Nevertheless, the first state visit by President Xi Jinping of China to the United States will take place in September.

Look for another Politico article about GOP “obstructionists” getting in the way of our blossoming relationship with the butchers of Beijing.


Maybe Kevin D. Williamson Should be Writing for Politico

Doug Ross @ Journal

The Passion of the Trump

The usually brilliant and stalwart Kevin D. Williamson of National Review appears at last to have fallen victim to the virus known as Beltway Insider-itis. In doing so, he joins the likes of David Brooks and Jen Rubin, so-called “conservatives” who act as the unofficial PR wing of the Chamber of Commerce, Karl Rove, and the Republican National Committee.

We fully expect the Left to tar Constitutional Conservatives and Tea Party activists as racists (no matter their love and support of Allen West, Ben Carson, Tim Scott, Ted Cruz, Israel, et. al.); most recently the progressive sissy-boy (which is the term he prefers, I hear) Damon Linker of The Week labeled the conservative base a bunch of Birchers who hate, among others, “negroes, elites, decadent city folk, Catholics [and] Jews”.

We do not expect the likes of Williamson, however, to channel Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Karl Rove and Tom Donohue and slam the very group of Americans who handed the Republican Party massive midterm wins at every level of government in 2010 and 2014.

Thus, it was with great surprise that I read Williamson’s latest (“WHINOS: On the Martyrdom of the Holy, Holy Base“), a full-throated attack on you and I, who he terms “WHINOS”.

Never mind the Democrats, economic realities, Putin, ISIS, the geographical facts of the U.S.-Mexico border — all would be well and all manner of things would be well if not for the behind-the-scenes plotting of Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and their enablers, who apparently can be bribed with small numbers of cocktail weenies. The WHINO is a Republican conspiracy theorist, in whose fervid imaginings all the players — victims, villains — are Republicans.

Why the vitriol (and patently false vitriol at that)?

Williamson, like many Beltway insiders, has panicked at the latest polls showing Donald Trump (no, not Donald Trump!) atop the current GOP field.

Recall, however, that at this same moment in the prior election cycle, Rudy Giuliani sat in Trump’s position.

Williamson also insists Romney was a wonderful candidate and anyone who couldn’t see the difference between the former Massachusetts governor and Obama was either a “fanatic or extraordinarily ill-informed”. Or perhaps nominating the Godfather of Obamacare made the dominant policy issue of 2012 a moot point?

And why do I call Williamson’s insipid arguments patently false?

He need look no further than his own website to read the sobering wisdom of Andrew C. McCarthy (“Republicans Have Needlessly Undermined their Ability to Resist the Iran Deal”), which effectively shreds every last molecule of Williamson’s diatribe.

In fact, on the most important national security question in possibly all of American history, the Obama-Kerry nuclear Iran agreement (McCarthy terms it “a disastrous deal that would end sanctions against the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism while paving its way to a nuclear-weapons arsenal”), John Boehner and Mitch McConnell conspired with Barack Obama to simply cede Congressional oversight of a deal that will reward Iran with $150 billion and allow it (easily) to build nuclear weapons.

That legislation … enacted as the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, shifts the burden of persuasion away from President Obama and onto opponents of the Iran deal, thus making the deal virtually impossible to stop or undo…

…Iran, of course, is not just an accused party; it is an incorrigible recidivist. In overt contempt for our nation and president, Tehran is already in flagrant violation of the “Joint Plan of Action” it agreed to with the administration. The mullahs see that, even as they systematically flout this interim deal, Obama is hell-bent on looking the other way. It is therefore certain that they will violate the final deal — which will be so frontloaded with carrots (e.g., a $150 billion signing bonus in the form of immediate sanctions relief) that the sticks can be laughed off…

…Under the Constitution, the president must persuade a two-thirds supermajority of senators to approve an agreement with a foreign power. That is, as I’ve repeatedly contended in connection with the Iran negotiations, the Constitution’s presumption is against legally binding international pacts…

…Under the Constitution’s burden of persuasion, then, the Iran deal did not have a prayer of becoming law … In the final Iran deal, the burden of persuasion is key. Enter the Corker legislation. It undermined the Constitution’s presumption against international agreements by shifting the burden of persuasion: Rather than forcing the president to persuade two-thirds of the Senate to approve the deal, it imposes on opponents the burden of persuading two-thirds of the full Congress to reject it.

In other words, the Corker bill (and, remember, Bob Corker is simply a puppet of Mitch McConnell in this and many other matters) surrendered full control of the most dangerous deal imaginable — handing cash and nuclear weapons to a terror state whose unofficial slogan is “Death to America” — to Barack Hussein Obama.

I don’t know whether McCarthy wrote his piece as a direct assault on Williamson, but suffice it to say that it appears purpose-built.

Williamson must also ignore the fact that, in order to get elected, men like Boehner and McConnell pledged fiscal responsibility, a full repeal of Obamacare, and investigations of Barack Obama’s high crimes and misdemeanors.

In fact, a Republican Congress has aided and abetted the most massive expansion of government since World War II; an act of fiscal irresponsibility so unhinged and detrimental to society that Mark Levin’s new book on the topic (Plunder and Deceit) is already a #1 bestseller weeks before it hits the shelves.

In fact, a Republican Congress has done nothing of import to repeal the disastrous Obamacare law, even as the Supreme Court and the Department of Health and Human Services rewrites it at will.

In fact, a Republican Congress has failed to name a Select Committee to investigate the weaponization of the IRS (the mere suggestion of which was outlined in Richard Nixon’s prospective articles of impeachment); it has permitted Hillary Clinton to destroy her government records that were under subpoena with virtually no repercussions; and it has failed to diligently pursue any one of dozens of other scandals (e.g., Fast and Furious, Solyndra, the UAW bailout, the violation of the War Powers Act, etc.) that should be front and center every single day.

Is it any wonder that the conservative base is frothing at the mouth?

Williamson concludes with the pithy phrase “[w]hining is no substitute for winning”; unfortunately his beloved Establishment has done very little winning, whether in general elections or on the most important policy questions of the day.

In order to win, Kevin, you have to fight.

Feckless, cowardly boobs like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell have surrendered at every opportunity without even considering a fight, insisting before the battle is even joined, for instance, that they’ll never shut down the government.

The American people need a Presidential candidate who will fight. Whether that man is Donald Trump or, more realistically, someone like Ted Cruz, Americans want a candidate who will not hesitate to face our enemies, whether they be foreign or domestic.


Obama Talks DNA-based Racism on Comedy Show

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

Our pro-cross dressing President apparently doesn’t think people have DNA that makes them male or female. But he has just told an interviewer that white people and others have DNA that makes them racist and that American institutions are racist, too. These claims are described by our media as “bold” rather than bizarre racial slurs.

CNN reported that Obama, during an appearance on a comedy show, said “the legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination” exists in institutions and casts “a long shadow and that’s still part of our DNA that’s passed on.” The host, comedian Marc Maron, has been a guest on MSNBC, the failing left-wing cable channel.

Was Obama being serious? Where is the scientific evidence that racism is passed on to others through their DNA?

Obama “did not mince words” in the interview, Politico reported, as he said, “Racism, we are not cured of it. And it’s not just a matter of it not being polite to say nigger in public.”

“Obama Uses N-Word In Honest Conversation About Racism,” proclaimed the always politically correct Huffington Post. Other outlets decided to “bleep” or censor the word.

But what does this have to do with a President, who opposes conversion therapy for gays, expressing the view that there may be a potential “cure” for racism that is not learned through bad examples but through biology and DNA?

It’s tempting to say this was just a figure of speech. Indeed, rather than propose some form of shock treatment for people with this bad DNA, Obama seems to be depending on the politically correct media and education establishment to “cure” people of these bad thoughts.

But we are also being led to believe, as a result of one mentally unstable young man who abused drugs and committed a horrible crime, that white racism permeates our society, and that anyone who appreciates southern heritage is a secret racist who wants to kill black people.

It’s highly ironic that Obama would lecture others about racism, since he was admittedly “schooled” in anti-white racism by communist atheist Frank Marshall Davis. One Davis poem, “Christ is a Dixie Nigger,” dismissed Jesus Christ as “another New White Hope.”

Another Davis poem, “Onward Christian Soldiers,” mocks the Christian hymn by the same name and talks of Africans being killed with a “Christian gun” instead of a spear by the missionaries following “the religion of Sweet Jesus.”

So is Christianity one of the institutions that Obama says is saturated with racism? That surely can’t be the case since mass murderer Dylann Roof, a deranged drug abuser, opened fire in a black Christian church. The response from the families of those killed has mostly been Christian forgiveness and mercy.

We see in the Obama interview with comedian Marc Maron the same kind of anger and bitterness that was drilled into him at a young age by Frank Marshall Davis in Hawaii. The enemy, from the point of view of Marxist community organizers, is white supremacy. This is what has to be emphasized, over and over again, in order to get more black people agitated.

Roof targeted black Christians and said in his alleged manifesto that he became upset over the evidence of black-on-white crime he found on a website. That was no excuse for mass murder, but the fact is that crime of that nature is a terrible reality, as Colin Flaherty has documented in two books. The failure by the liberal media to even cover this problem is a source of frustration to those who seriously seek answers to criminal behavior in modern society and want to restore law and order in our major cities. The answer must be found, if the inner cities of America are to be saved.

Instead, our media act as if such crime doesn’t exist.

As investigative journalist Jim Simpson wrote in an AIM special report, “The media have relentlessly fanned the flames of racial hatred, while engaging in a systematic pattern of misinformation and blatant suppression of facts surrounding the perpetrators and victims of crime.” The media, blinded by political correctness, refuse to face reality.

So who was this white man named Dylann Roof? He committed mass murder, in an act that can be accurately described as terroristic in nature, and wanted to ignite a race war. He was photographed holding a Confederate flag and had sympathy for white-ruled nations. But he was also a drug abuser who came from a dysfunctional family. Significantly, he was also photographed with his feet planted on and burning an American flag. He hated what America had become in fighting a civil war to overcome the confederacy.

So while he hated America for what it is, the agitators on the left still complain about what America used to be. These extremists are strange bedfellows who need one another to make sure racial progress can be frustrated and that racial divisions can be exploited for political purposes.

Not surprisingly, the Confederate flag has now become the center of media preoccupation, when we have had six years of an administration in Washington, D.C. that has faulted white people, “gun violence,” or the police for the systematic problems in the black community. Public interest lawyer Larry Klayman noted, “Barack Obama and Eric Holder created much of this atmosphere of anger, bitterness and bile with their disdain of whites and not too transparent belief and actions that we must now pay what are in effect reparations to the black community, even though this generation does not practice or advocate slavery.”

After Roof killed the black people in the church, CNN highlighted the fact that Holder, the former attorney general, had tweeted, “Hate and gun violence. How often? How long? My heart breaks—again. Condolences to victims, survivors and families at Mother Emanuel” church.

CNN didn’t mention it, but several responded by reminding Holder and his followers that in the Fast and Furious gun-running scandal:

  • You essentially armed the Mexican cartels. How many lives have they destroyed?
  • Did your heart break for Brian Terry’s family? Hell, you supplied the haters’ guns on that one.

AIM editor Roger Aronoff reminds us that Fast and Furious involved the Obama Justice Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and the transfer of some 1,500 guns, about 1,000 of which ended up in Mexico. Border agent Brian Terry was murdered with weapons found near the scene of the crime in Arizona. Those weapons were among 57 linked to Fast and Furious which have been tied to at least 11 violent crimes in the U.S., including the Terry murder, Aronoff notes.

Hence, Obama’s initial comments after the massacre about gun violence constitute political posturing for the cameras. We know we can’t depend on the liberal media to remind us of the “gun violence” caused by this same administration.

Another response to Holder included, “You never say anything about the genocide of blacks killing other blacks daily in cities across nation. That’s tragic too.”

But talking about black-on-black violence, and black-on-white violence, does not pay left-wing political dividends. So Obama talks about racist DNA and institutional racism and gets hailed for his boldness and honesty.

Another tragic aspect of the mass murders in South Carolina is the media’s use of the discredited Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as an organization that has expertise on “hate” groups in the U.S. Both CBS and NBC have given the group unwarranted publicity and credibility.

It was the SPLC which inspired the terrorist attack on the conservative Christian Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. The SPLC has also hailed former communist terrorist bomber Bill Ayers for his “educational” work in a series on “Teaching tolerance.” It’s amazing but true.

Jim Simpson points out that the SPLC is one of the main practitioners of the tactic known as “partisan tolerance”—that is, partisan hatred for everything non-leftist. While the group is occasionally correct about hate groups on the right, it has a warped tendency to lump mainstream conservatives into categories of alleged extremists, making anybody on the conservative side into some kind of hater, “homophobe” or “Islamophobe.” The group has perfected the art of the smear into a “science” that the media shamefully buy into.

The SPLC should be dismissed as a political and money-grubbing outfit that has no interest in solving any racial problems. Extremism is a problem that could and should be examined by a new House Internal Security Committee, modeled after the old House Committee on Un-American Activities, which conducted masterful investigations into such entities as the Ku Klux Klan and the Communist Party USA.

With a panel such as this conducting official probes and investigations, the SPLC could be pressured to refund the remainder of its $245.3 million financial endowment to donors who thought their money was buying racial justice.

As for Obama, when a U.S. president speaks of “cures” for DNA-based racism on a comedy show, you know there is a lack of seriousness in Washington, D.C., and that the acceleration of a race war is the plan that is unfolding as extremists prepare to exploit the tragedy and increase racial tensions. The Marxist community organizers will take this to the next level and the media will be there to cover it.


The Times’ and the Clintons’ Converging Conflicts of Interest

By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media

The apparent conflicts of interest that the various Clinton family initiatives create constitute a shameful example of media complicity with the left and the Democratic Party. Accuracy in Media has written time and again about the incestuous relationships forged between the Clintons and the media. For example, George Stephanopoulos recently interrogated the author of a book critical of the Clinton’s pay-for-play foundation activities without revealing to his viewers, or his employer, that he had donated to the Clinton Foundation and participated in some of their events.

As we have documented, many media corporations also donate to the Clinton Global Initiative.

Yes, the Clintons do some good work through their various projects, but the Clinton Foundation itself spent only 9.9 percent of its funds on direct charitable grants between 2011 and 2013, according to The Federalist. What purposes, therefore, do the other parts of its spending support, besides their five-star lifestyle?

The latest revelations to turn up in this mutual backscratching world of the Democrat-Media Complex was reported by The Washington Free Beacon’s Alana Goodman, who happens to be a former AIM intern.

“A little-known private foundation controlled by Bill and Hillary Clinton donated $100,000 to the New York Times’ charitable fund in 2008, the same year the newspaper’s editorial page endorsed Clinton in the Democratic presidential primary, according to tax documents reviewed” by the Free Beacon, Goodman reports.

Mrs. Clinton received the Times’ endorsement in January 2008, over then-candidate Barack Obama. The Times has refused to tell Goodman when in 2008 the donation was made.

Was this donation it made before, or after, the endorsement? Did one of them affect the other?

There may be no smoking gun to find, no email that actually says, “We, the Clinton Foundation, will donate to your foundation, and in return, you will endorse Hillary’s presidential campaign.” However, one might argue that a pattern of behavior is emerging with the Clintons. In fact, this pattern of behavior goes back many years.

Questions might also be asked about the actions of Mexican tycoon Carlos Slim Helu, and his relationships with The New York Times and the Clintons. This year Slim increased his share of Times shares from 7 percent to 17 percent. Back in September of 2008 Slim and his family acquired a 6.4 percent stake in the Times.

“Mr. Slim has a history of buying depressed assets he can later sell at a profit, and several analysts familiar with his investments say they see the purchase of the Times Company stock in that vein,” reported The Times in 2008.

Slim has been a long-time contributor to Clinton Foundation causes. On June 21, 2007, President Bill Clinton, Slim, and Canadian mining magnate Frank Giustra worked together on the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative (CGSGI). Both Giustra and Slim committed $100 million apiece.

Giustra has been the subject of controversy following revelations about the Uranium One deal, which resulted in the Russians acquiring 20 percent of America’s annual uranium production capacity.

The Times’s coverage of the Uranium One deal mentions the CGSGI and a number of other donors—but it leaves Slim out.

“As if to underscore the point, five months later Mr. Giustra held a fund-raiser for the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, a project aimed at fostering progressive environmental and labor practices in the natural resources industry, to which he had pledged $100 million,” reported Jo Becker and Mike McIntire. “The star-studded gala, at a conference center in Toronto, featured performances by Elton John and Shakira and celebrities like Tom Cruise, John Travolta and Robin Williams encouraging contributions from the many so-called F.O.F.s—Friends of Frank—in attendance, among them Mr. [Ian] Telfer.”

So many people were mentioned, but not Slim, and his pledge—even though he was featured in the Clinton Foundation press release. Was that not relevant to the Times investigation, or their article?

However, Slim “lent the Times Company $250 million, at an interest rate of 14 percent, in 2009; at the time, with the world economy struggling and credit tight, the company looked to be in peril,” reported the Times earlier this year. “The loan was repaid in 2011, more than three years before it was due.”

The Telmex Foundation, founded by Slim, “provided between $250,000 and $500,000 for a speech by Hillary Clinton,” reported The Washington Post last month, regarding previously undisclosed Clinton Foundation payments. The article said that the Clinton Foundation revealed “that it has received as much as $26.4 million in previously undisclosed payments from major corporations, universities, foreign sources and other groups.”

Even Politico’s Dylan Byers is crying foul at this point, and implying hypocrisy by the Times. “The Free Beacon story is preposterous from start to finish,” Times spokesperson Eileen Murphy told him.

“The Times is no stranger to reporting on possible lines of influence without hard evidence of causation,” Byers writes, referring to Schweizer-inspired stories.

“Yet the Times’ response—or lack thereof—to the Free Beacon’s inquiries suggests that the paper of record holds little regard for [the Free Beacon’s] brand of journalism,” he writes. “In both cases, the Times did not respond to Free Beacon reporters when they emailed requesting comment. Then, following publication of the articles, the Times responded to inquiries from the On Media blog while continuing to disregard emails from Free Beacon reporters.”

“NO donation to The Neediest Cases Fund has ever had any impact on a Times endorsement,” Murphy told the Free Beacon. “We’re not commenting further.”

The Free Beacon later reported on Slim’s connections to the Times, and noted that additional Clinton Foundation donors may include James A. Kohlberg and Mark Thompson. The former is on the Times’ board of directors, and the latter is the CEO of The New York Times Company. Murphy told the Free Beacon that Thompson told her directly that he had not given anything to the Clinton Foundation, but one “Mark Thompson” is listed within the Post’s searchable database of foundation donors, as is one “James A. Kohlberg.”

ABC’s spokeswoman, Heather Riley, who managed Stephanopoulos’ public relations crisis, turned to none other than Byers to manage the ABC host’s scandal. The Free Beacon’s Andrew Stiles then exposed on May 15 that Riley had “worked in the White House press office from 1997 to 2000,” including serving “as a press contact for then-First Lady Hillary Clinton.”

“This is what happens when you have a corrupt media that don’t play fair, but instead put their thumb on the fairness scale to tilt it towards their partisan interests,” I recently wrote.

It is also said to be a problem when corporations try to influence elections.

If the left gets their way, all corporations, except those in the media business, would be severely restricted from supporting candidates or issues. Only corporations like The New York Times Corporation, or NBC Comcast Universal would be allowed to offer round-the-clock, unlimited support for their favorite candidates. You see, those are the good corporations, not motivated by greed or self-interest, or a political agenda—only by the public good, which in their collective wisdom means electing nearly all Democrats—and the more left-wing, the better.


Mike Morell Attempts to Repair His Damaged Credibility

By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media

Mike Morell, the former Deputy CIA Director and Acting CIA Director, is out with a new book, and has been making the rounds on virtually every TV network. This is supposed to be his time to set the record straight, but he has apparently decided not to do that. Instead, his truthful revelations are mixed in with obvious falsehoods, so it becomes difficult to distinguish one from the other.

We noted his difficulty with the truth back in this 2014 column by former CIA officer Clare Lopez, in which she cited, among other things, that Morell and then-UN Ambassador Susan Rice met with several Republican senators about the editing process that the Benghazi talking points had gone through before Rice used them on the five Sunday morning shows, just days after the attacks in Benghazi that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Lopez, in her column titled “Benghazi and the Politicization of Intelligence,” wrote:

Under questioning from the senators about the talking-points editing process, Morell tried to blame the FBI for cutting the reference to al-Qa’eda terrorism; he said the FBI didn’t want to compromise an ongoing criminal investigation. When Graham called the FBI and told them what Morell had said, ‘they went ballistic,’ Graham said in an interview with Fox News. ‘Confronted with this, Morell changed his statement and admitted that he, and the CIA, had been responsible after all.’

Although Morell has made statements undermining Hillary Clinton and President Obama on other intelligence issues, he is actively assisting both the mainstream media and the Obama administration in an effort to ignore and revise the 2012 events in Benghazi with his new book The Great War of Our Time.

“One of the most striking aspects of Morell’s chapters on Benghazi is his dogged insistence that the attacks were simply the result of a mob spinning out of control,” writes Steven Hayes for The Weekly Standard. “But Morell maintains that the attacks were not planned and claims, repeatedly and bizarrely, that the attackers did not necessarily want to harm Americans.”

This, Hayes notes, does not match the Abu Khatallah indictment, which contends that the objective of the attackers in Benghazi was tokill United States citizens at the Mission and the Annex.”

A Defense Intelligence Agency email, obtained by Judicial Watch and made public on May 18, shows that the DIA reported on September 16, 2012 that the terrorist attack had been planned 10 or more days prior by Al Qaeda.

“The memo was copied to the National Security Council, the State Department and the CIA,” reports Catherine Herridge of Fox News. “A third DIA memo, dated Oct. 5, 2012, leaves no doubt that U.S. intelligence agencies knew that weapons were moving from Libya to Syria before the attack that killed four Americans.”

Morell refused to comment on the flow of weapons to Syria during his recent Fox News interview with Bret Baier, host of Special Report. Morell’s carefully crafted chapters on Benghazi, a total of 47 pages, deceive so systematically and so completely as to create an entirely false account of these events. He seeks to rewrite history by contradicting other witnesses. All evidence supporting this scandal that is not ascribed to the White House’s stonewalling efforts is reduced to spurious claims or myths.

But it is his word against those on the ground that night—from Gregory Hicks to the former Libyan president, including the security contractors and diplomatic security agents. Morell’s own account is irredeemably sullied by the fact that he won’t even admit to conversations he’s had concerning the CIA’s Benghazi talking points.

“I told my colleagues that I had some concerns about the talking points and that I knew other agencies did as well,” he writes of his controversial participation in a Deputies Meeting. “I did not say what my concerns were. I concluded by saying I would edit the talking points myself and share them with the relevant deputies before sending them to the Hill. McDonough simply said, ‘Thank you, Michael.’” McDonough is Denis McDonough, then-Deputy National Security Advisor, now White House Chief of Staff.

Contrast this with email records obtained by Judicial Watch, and you find that Morell’s assertions prove entirely false. “On the SVTS [call], Morell noted that these points were not good and he had taken a heavy editing hand to them,” states an administration email from September 15, 2012. “[Morell] noted that he would be happy to work with Jake Sullivan and Rhodes to develop appropriate talking points. McDonough, on Rhodes’ behalf, deferred to Sullivan.” Rhodes is Ben Rhodes, former Obama speechwriter, Deputy National Security Advisor, and brother of David Rhodes, the president of CBS News.

“It was agreed that Jake would work closely with the intelligence community (within a small group) to finalize points on Saturday that could be shared with HPSCI [House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence],” it continues.

In order for there to be an agreement, there must first be a conversation involving multiple parties. And the details of this email clearly demonstrate that there was more of a discussion with others than Morell would like to admit.

But the mainstream media aren’t interested in asking Morell about his factual inaccuracies or contradictions.

During a Q&A, Michael Hirsh of Politico asked Morell a softball question on Benghazi, saying, “You say the CIA reevaluated its security posture in Benghazi after that but it’s unclear why State did not do more. Can you explain?”

This approach revealed that Hirsh hadn’t done any independent research, and was hoping that the Benghazi scandal could be “explained” away by the most authoritative—and, in this case, incredibly biased—administration source.

Politico also published an article by Morell, which claims to be “The Real Story of Benghazi.”

Hirsh’s question doesn’t even reflect Morell’s actual statements. “It was only …after the tragedy of 9/11/12…that we learned that only a few security enhancements had been made” at the Special Mission Compound, writes Morell.

Members of the Annex Security Team write in their book, 13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened in Benghazi, that status updates between them (at the CIA Annex) and the Special Mission Compound (located about one mile from the Annex) occurred “usually every Friday.” Does Morell really expect his readers to believe that these two facilities, located so close together, were not aware of each others’ security efforts? Hirsh apparently does.

By informing his readers about unreleased video footage from the night of the attack at the Special Mission Compound (SMC), Morell seeks to establish himself as a first-hand expert on what happened there. He is not. But because the video footage is not available to others, it is impossible to independently verify the facts.

For Politico to have taken Morell at his word without fact-checking is no better than citing anonymous administration officials.

“Some of the attackers were armed with small arms; many were not armed at all,” Morell writes. “No heavy weapons were seen on the videotape.” This contradicts another account, from the book Under Fire: The Untold Story of the Attack in Benghazi by Fred Burton and Samuel M. Katz, which maintains that “Some of the attackers carried RPGs [rocket-propelled grenades] slung over their shoulders, apparently to be used on the armored doors of the safe haven and the TOC [Tactical Operations Center] or to repel any counterattack. The DS [Diplomatic Security] agents knew they were facing superior firepower.”

“…definitely, it was planned by foreigners, by people who—who entered the country a few months ago, and they were planning this criminal act since their—since their arrival, said former Libyan President Mohammed al Magariaf on September 16, 2012 on CBS’ Face the Nation.

But, according to Morell, this is merely a “myth,” a false perception “that the attacks were well organized, planned weeks or even months in advance.”

“What’s more, the failure to anticipate and prevent such attacks would be, by definition, an intelligence failure,” writes Steven Hayes. Such a failure would reflect badly on the CIA, and therefore Morell himself.

Morell contends that there was no tactical warning for the attacks. Instead, “We routinely sent such cables each year on the anniversary of 9/11—but we did want our people and their US government colleagues to be extra vigilant.”

“Be advised, we have reports from locals that a Western facility or US Embassy/Consulate/Government target will be attacked in the next week,” reads the warning described in 13 Hours.

Morell recounts the stand down order with as much dishonesty as his description of the secret Deputies Meeting. “While these calls were being made, the response team was frustrated that it was not moving out,” he writes. “Although the delay was no more than five to eight minutes, I am sure that to those involved it must have seemed like forever.” But, he writes, it wasn’t ordered by anyone up the chain of command and was totally justified.

Morell’s account doesn’t even address whether the security team left with CIA Chief of Base “Bob’s” blessing or otherwise. They did not. And, according to the 13 Hours account, at least 20 minutes “had elapsed since the operators had first mustered at Building C.”

In a firefight, 20 minutes can be an eternity. AST Member Kris Paronto told Fox News’ Bret Baier last year that, without the delay, “Ambassador Stevens and Sean [Smith], yeah, they would still be alive, my gut is yes.”

Admitting as much would concede the CIA’s role in the overall dereliction of duty. Yet Nick Romeo writes for the Christian Science Monitor that although “it’s clear that he wants to defend the reputation of the agency” Morell has credibility because he notices “the many weaknesses and flaws in the design and function of intelligence agencies.”

However, when it comes to the death of four Americans—where it counts—Morell perpetuates the cover-up.

After leaving the CIA in 2013, Morell joined Beacon Global Strategies, started by Hillary Clinton’s “principal gatekeeper”—as described by The New York Times—Philippe Reines. The company serves as a sort of Clinton government-in-waiting. Thus, Morell’s statements become even that much more suspect due to a conflict of interest, while trying to protect Hillary Clinton’s bid for the White House.

And the dereliction of duty could have been prevented. Chief of Base “Bob” had already been given an opportunity to see the February 17 Martyrs Brigade’s lack of action earlier that year when they failed to come to the aid of another operator and Tyrone Woods during an altercation with a group they believed to be Ansar al Sharia. Woods himself later became a September 11, 2012 casualty. Even the Accountability Review Board notes that on the day of the attacks, the militia “had stopped accompanying Special Mission vehicle movements in protest over salary and working hours.”

But it is easier to ignore and marginalize the Benghazi scandal than for journalists to do independent research. Case in point, CNN’s Christiane Amanpour interviewed Morell on May 13 about ISIS and the Osama bin Laden operation, but did not ask him about his false Benghazi narrative.

If Morell has so transparently lied about the death of four Americans and the resulting administration cover-up, why, exactly, should the media trust him on other matters?