National Security Experts Warn: Reject Brennan

Right Side News

Washington, D.C.: With the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence re-scheduled this week’s vote on John Brennan’s nomination until Tuesday, March 5th to become the next Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, it has become clear that Senators simply do not have all the information necessary for an informed decision on so sensitive an appointment.

In an effort to illuminate the nominee’s shortcomings that demand – but have yet to receive – close scrutiny, the Center for Security Policy convened a virtual press conference featuring video-taped comments by six of the country’s preeminent experts on, among other things, the threat of Islamism and Brennan’s blindness to it.

The video includes powerful statements by Steve Emerson, Executive Director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism; Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy; Chris Farrell, Vice President for Investigations and Research for Judicial Watch; Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, USA Ret., former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; Andrew C. McCarthy, former federal prosecutor and author of The Grand Jihad and Spring Fever; and Stephen Coughlin, Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Policy and author of the forthcoming book, Catastrophic Failure.

The video, National Security Experts Warn: Reject Brennan, compliments the Center’s other efforts to educate the public, media and policymakers about the dangers of a possible Brennan tenure at the CIA, including a collection of Brennan-related resources and several investigative pieces.

Andrew McCarthy–who successfully prosecuted the Blind Sheikh who, twenty years ago yesterday, conspired to blow up the World Trade Center–said:

Making John Brennan the director of the Central Intelligence Agency is the most monumental mismatch of man and mission that I can imagine. The point of having our intelligence agencies is to make sure that we have a coherent, accurate idea of the threats that confront the United States. Unfortunately, Mr. Brennan’s career, and certainly the signature that he has put on the national security component of the Obama administration has been to blind the United States to the threats against us.

Steve Emerson, one of the country’s preeminent counter-terrorism experts added:

John Brennan, CIA director nominee, is uniquely unqualified to be the CIA director as evidenced by him being the architect of the outreach program to the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States as well as in the Middle East. In the course of the investigation conducted by the Investigative Project on Terrorism, we discovered that there were at least four hundred visits in the three years between 2009 and 2012 to the White House of radical Islamic groups, some of whom were unindicted co-conspirators in terrorism trials, but all of whom had been involved in establishing radical Islamic rhetoric, including support for Hamas, Hezbollah, denigrating the US, calling this a war against Islam by the United States.

Zuhdi Jasser, a leader of anti-Islamist Muslims in America, warned that:

…The reports put out from [John Brennan’s] counter-terrorism office at the White House…did not recognize the [Islamist] ideology. They noted a “radical ideology,” but didn’t name what it was — even though the word ‘ideology’ was mentioned twenty times. Our American-Islamic Leadership Coalition, that includes over 20 different reform-based organizations that are anti-Islamist, were not consulted. And, you can see from the report, that it seems to be very similar to things put out by groups like the Muslim Public Affairs Council and the Islamic Society of North America. Unfortunately, John Brennan has had a very cozy relationship to these groups and has often used their talking points when speaking out about Islam, Islamism, jihad, and the threat…. In every position Brennan has been it, he has been more a facilitator of Islamist groups rather than a counterweight to them, in order to oppose them and confront them.

The Center today also released a letter signed by fifteen conservative leaders – many of whom have extensive experience with national security policymaking and practice – calling on congressional leaders to launch a bicameral select committee to investigate the Benghazigate scandal. John Brennan’s involvement in the run-up to the murderous attack on September 11, 2012, his conduct during that seven-hour engagement and his role in the subsequent cover-up must be addressed before he is allowed, as Rep. Trent Franks recently put it “anywhere near the CIA, let alone running it.”

Transcript: National Security Experts Warn: Reject Brennan

Frank Gaffney
Center for Security Policy

I’m Frank Gaffney with the Center for Security Policy. We’ve brought together several of the country’s leading experts on national security, intelligence, and related matters to discuss in a kind of virtual press conference what is at stake in the nomination of John Brennan to become the next director of the Central Intelligence Agency. And what, if anything, are the implications of the Benghazi-gate scandal for the Brennan nomination on the one hand and the national security, more generally. I hope you’ll enjoy the comments of our colleagues and the thought-provoking recommendations they’re making.

Steven Emerson
Investigative Project on Terrorism

John Brennan, CIA director nominee, is uniquely unqualified to be the CIA director as evidenced by him being the architect of the outreach program to the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States as well as in the Middle East. In the course of the investigation conducted by the Investigative Project on Terrorism, we discovered that there were at least four hundred visits in the three years between 2009 and 2012 to the White House of radical Islamic groups, some of whom were unindicted co-conspirators in terrorism trials, but all of whom had been involved in establishing radical Islamic rhetoric, including support for Hamas, Hezbollah, denigrating the US, calling this a war against Islam by the United States. Urging its adherents not to talk to the FBI, claiming the FBI invented and fabricated charges of terrorism against terrorism suspects, of course Muslim. And John Brennan was the man who oversaw the invitation to all of these groups by these lieutenants.

Number two, Mr. Brennan was the man who opened the dialogue with radical Islamic groups as evidenced by his speeches to groups at NYU, including the Muslim Students Association, the NYU Muslim Student, law student group. And answering questions in which he responded to, by saying there was no such thing as holy war in Islam. That jihad meant peace and love. And that there was no such thing as a jihadi. He absolutely went beyond that when he praised groups like Islamic Relief which has demonstrable ties to terrorism and is under investigation by the Treasury for years for its ties to actual Hamas terrorism. He was the architect also of the purge policy at the FBI under FBI director Mueller, embarked on a campaign to purge the FBI and all of its bureaus around the country as well as its Quantico library, any book, pamphlet, paper, power point, picture, of anything that was considered to be, quote, anti-Islam. And who made the criteria? Radical Islamic groups. That was an order handed down initially from Brennan to Holder to Mueller in this. In pursuit of that order, there was literally a literal book burning, the likes of which hasn’t been seen since 1933. In addition to which, Mr. Brennan openly agreed with Muslim Advocates, a radical Islamist front group that believes that the United States has no right to prosecute Islamic terrorists because they’re all innocent.

He wrote a letter back to a leader of that group, Farhana Khera, claiming that she was right in her critique of US counter-terrorism policy, that the Patriot Act was in violation of civil rights. That there was abuse of – by the FBI agents of the rights of Muslims when there wasn’t any. That there was excessive surveillance and that in fact Islamic terrorist charities should not have been shut down. This was a disgrace. The letter was released by us to Breitbart News which they published. It was never meant for public consumption. And that was the beginning of the purge policy.

In addition to which [Brennan] has overseen the policies of outreach and embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Mr. Morsi, who is nothing but a terrorist thug, has been the darling of Mr. Brennan’s policy. Mr. Brennan openly advocated that in the White House the sale of the F-16s and the two hundred tanks to a regime that is dedicated to the destruction of Israel.

So all together, considering his open embrace of radical Islam, his embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood, his policy of appeasing these groups by eviscerating the national security of the United States, not only makes him disqualified to be the CIA director, it disqualifies him from the position he currently occupies on the National Security Council as counter-terrorism director. I think his nomination and any subsequent approval by the Senate would put our national security in shambles and make us a disgrace in the world, at least in the eyes of moderate Muslims who depend upon the United States for their support. Unfortunately, who have not gotten it, as evidenced by the absence of support to the Green Revolution in the first two years of the Iranian underground revolution during Obama’s term. And now we see the absence of support to the democratic liberal oppositions in Morsi. A policy again designed by Brennan.

So when we look at his policies about the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamist groups in the United States, that are against the US, that deny US interests, that promote terrorism, and how he’s embraced them and how he’s embraced the larger Muslim Brotherhood groups in the Middle East, I can only tell you as someone who is not partisan, someone who would be willing to criticize any party for putting up such a nominee, this appointment should be adamantly and unanimously opposed first by the Senate intelligence committee and by the Senate itself. Thank you. I’m Steve Emerson from the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

Zuhdi Jasser
American-Islamic Forum for Democracy

My name is Zuhdi Jasser. I’m the president and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. And I’m joining my colleagues in speaking out against the nomination of John Brennan to head the Central Intelligence Agency.

I’ll tell you, as somebody who’s dedicated my life to countering political Islam and exposing the link between Islamism or political Islam and the threat, the security threat globally, I can’t think of a more important position in countering that threat than the head of the Central Intelligence Agency. And in fact, that CIA has had a center for the strategic analysis of political Islam and has really, with that center been one of the only government agencies in the United States that has recognized the importance of political Islam or Islamism in driving the radicalization of Muslims around the world. And the supremacism of the concept of the Islamic state and the ascendancy of Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and their ability to feed into groups all over the world and create al-Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Jamaat al-Islamiyya and all the other hundreds of permutations of radicalism.

Unfortunately, the choice of John Brennan is clearly inappropriate. He has, in his position at the White House, has demonstrated the inability to make that decision, and I’ve been actually disappointed that he’s not been confronted on his position on that. And he’s demonstrated an inability to make that connection with a number of aspects. Number one, he – in the reports put out from the counter-terrorism office at the White House, for example, last summer they put out a report on their strategy and they did not even recognize what the ideology is. They noted a radical ideology, but they didn’t name what it was, even though the word ideology was mentioned twenty times. Our American Islamic leadership coalition that includes over twenty different reform based organizations that are anti-Islamist were not consulted and in fact you can see from the report that it seems to be very similar to things put out by groups like the Muslim Public Affairs Council and the Islamic Society of North America. And unfortunately, John Brennan seems to have a very cozy relationship with these groups. And has often used their talking points about, when speaking out about Islam, Islamism, jihad and the threat, and he’s made comments about jihad that I would find very concerning, in many ways apologizing for it and not confronting the ideology that we’re faced with domestically and globally.

Secondly, the facilitation of these organizations by his position at the White House has demonstrated that he not only doesn’t get the ideology, but works with the wrong groups. And if the future head of the CIA is unable to pick which groups to work with, and without – I am very concerned that we will thus be facilitating the growth further of groups that are very anti-American, antisemitic, and look to progress ideas such as the ascension of the Islamic state in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood or in Saudi Arabic with Wahaabis and others. And in every position John Brennan has been in, it has almost been as if he has been more of a facilitator of Islamist movements rather than a counterweight to them in order to oppose then and confront them. And if there is anyone I think that will be ill suited and has demonstrated an inability to confront the ideology and the threat before us, it’s John Brennan. So I’d ask those who are looking to vote for or against him, to vote against this nomination and find an appropriate head that would keep our country safe abroad against the real threat of Islamism and all of its permutations around the world.

Chris Farrell
Judicial Watch

My name is Chris Farrell. I’m the director of investigations and research for Judicial Watch.

When it comes to the appointment of Mr. Brennan as CIA director, Judicial Watch has several concerns. Many of them focused around the Benghazi attack of September 11th, 2012. In that regard, we’ve focused very carefully, very heavily, on Benghazi, on the attack. On the State Department and the national security apparatus and what they were doing or not doing concerning the safety and security of the special mission consulate at Benghazi and the safety, of course, of Ambassador Stevens and his crew, the three other folks who died with him at the embassy. Or at the consulate.

In that regard, we have reason to believe that Mr. Brennan not only had active participation and knowledge of what was going on as Benghazi began to unfold, but perhaps was even instrumental in the administration’s initial cover story. That somehow the attack was related to this fictitious, now proven to be ridiculous story that there was an internet video that somehow went viral and inflamed the populace in Benghazi. Something the administration repeated endlessly. And so there’s substantial reason to believe Mr. Brennan not only had knowledge of that, but perhaps participated in crafting that phony cover story. In pursuing that and not just the cover story and Ambassador Rice’s appearances on five different shows to repeat that lie over and over again, to include the president repeating that lie at the United Nations, we have sued the office of the director of national intelligence to obtain the original talking points that Ambassador Rice supposedly relied upon. And again, the reason we mention this is because it’s our belief that Brennan either had knowledge of or participation in that story. It would be hard to explain how he wouldn’t know about it. So exactly what his role is, what he did or didn’t know, how that policy or how that story came to be crafted, we think it’s very important to get his understanding, his knowledge, his role in exactly what was going on in Benghazi – the ground truth of what was occurring on the ground at Benghazi as well as whatever stories were crafted by the administration to get around that to try to cover that or explain it away, a lie that they were clearly caught in.

So we’ve engaged in Freedom of Information Act requests, FOIA requests. We have a number of them pending with the State Department. I just told you we have sued the director of national intelligence to get the talking points. We’ve also asked for both still and video recordings of what was going on in Benghazi during the attack. We have asked for the security assessments of the compound there. Again, these are all things that would have come under Mr. Brennan’s review, either at the time of the attack or shortly thereafter. And it all plays into his knowledge, his participation, and being honest and forthcoming, not just with other government officials, but of course to the American public who he would be accountable to ultimately.

Along those lines, also, we have created a special report. It’s called The Benghazi Attack of September 11th, 2012. This special report that we’ve produced isn’t just some academic articulation of unknown points or questionable policies by these virtues. It’s not a product of the faculty lounge. It’s a report that is authored by a defense – excuse me, a diplomatic security service special agent and RSO, a regional security officer, someone who served in embassies as the chief security officer in places like Afghanistan and Israel among others. And a very experienced, very seasoned state security service specialist with thirty-plus years of service. So our expert, our analyst, produced this report, came to us and gave us his analysis based on thirty years of experience on the ground and asked some very important, very penetrating questions, many of which, frankly, should be asked of Mr. Brennan because there’s no way to reasonably assume he wouldn’t know the issues and the topics discussed in our special report.

So Mr. Brennan has a – to call it, to be generous, a somewhat checkered professional lead up to the point where he is now being recommended as the CIA director. There are more unanswered questions than there are answered questions. And unlike Hillary Clinton, who blustered at the senators and said, what difference does it make, why does it matter, which frankly shocked me because the senators were cowed by her outburst of temper. Someone should have spun it around and said, well, exactly. It does make quite a big difference. Answer the question. But in this case, Mr. Brennan really is subject to the same line of questioning. And hopefully, he will not bluster and cow the senators into submission by losing his temper.

There are legitimate questions and they need to be answered. We’ve spent an awful long time looking at Benghazi and trying to unravel that. And he certainly should have knowledge of it and be able to explain not just his role and his position in it and his knowledgeability, but also the broader question of what was going on in the administration as this unfolded. And it is directly on point, it is directly – it goes directly to his position that he’s vying for, to be CIA director. Because of course there is a large operational base co-located with the consulate in Benghazi. So it’s relevant, it’s timely, it is literally a matter of life and death and it touches on a subject that Mr. Brennan owes the American public an answer on.

Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, US Army (Ret.)
Family Research Council, former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence

My name is Jerry Boykin. I spent thirty-six years in the US Army and I want to say that I’m very concerned about the nomination of John Brennan as the next CIA director.

This post at CIA is so critical to the security of our nation. The CIA director has to be an individual that is not only experienced in intelligence, but clearly understands the threats against America. My concern is that John Brennan is not a man who has demonstrated that he truly understands the full magnitude of the threats against this nation today. His unwillingness to recognize the Muslim Brotherhood is operating in America and poses an existential threat to our Constitution and consequently to our freedoms and liberty I think disqualifies him.

It was John Brennan who forced the purging of some very accurate information in the FBI’s curriculum that talked about what the Koran and the hadiths say about the basic tenets of the Islamic religion, but more importantly the aspects of Islam that deal with their geopolitical system, their determination to perform jihad, their financial system, their legal system called shariah. John Brennan is one who has not publicly recognized that that’s a problem for Americans, for our Constitution. I’m also very concerned about the fact that John Brennan has yet to recognize that Israel is one of our very strong and closest allies. Brennan still calls Jerusalem al Quds, which is the terminology of the jihadists, the people who want to destroy Israel. He has also called Israel Palestine. That further reflects his sentiments towards the nation of Israel and I believe the Jewish people as well.

This nomination I think portends a weakness in American intelligence if he is confirmed. The fact that we would have a man who does not recognize the enemies of America, a man who has been very active in trying to downplay the role of the authoritarian Islamic theology with regards to what’s happening in our nation, and the successes that the Muslim Brotherhood is having in our nation I think is really a bad thing and something that Americans need to pay attention to.

This man is not the right man to be the CIA director. And I hope that Republicans and Democrats will recognize that this is not good for America. In fact, it will increase the threats to America if John Brennan is in fact confirmed.

Andrew McCarthy
Former federal prosecutor, author of Willful Blindness, The Grand Jihad and Spring Fever

Making John Brennan the director of the Central Intelligence Agency is the most monumental mismatch of man and mission that I can imagine. The point of having our intelligence agencies is to make sure that we have a coherent, accurate idea of the threats that confront the United States.

Unfortunately, Mr. Brennan’s career, and certainly the signature that he has put on the national security component of the Obama administration has been to blind the United States to the threats against us. I think the most important of the missteps that he has made in his tenure is to participate in what I call the purge of intelligence materials that are used to give instruction to our agents, whether they’re law enforcement, military, or intelligence agents–the components of government that we rely on to protect the national security of the United States.

There has been an extraction from those teaching materials of information about Islamist ideology on the grounds that it is unflattering to Muslims in the view of leaders of Islamic organizations, some of which were shown in a Justice Department prosecution just a few years ago, the Holy Land Foundation, some of those organizations found to be very hostile to the United States, part of a Muslim Brotherhood movement that, by its own terms, aims to eliminate and destroy Western Civilization from within by sabotage. Mr. Brennan’s participation in this effort has not only been to – as I understand it – order the extraction of materials, but that extraction was done in consultation with leaders of Islamist organizations. Some of which may have Muslim Brotherhood ties. I have to qualify that by saying may have because unbelievably we haven’t been able to find out exactly who it is that the administration has been consulting with in arriving at what should be in the training packages that are given to our agents. They’ve refused to give that information, Brennan has refused to give that information, and unfortunately, Congress has not effectively pressed for that information.

So we not only have a situation where our intelligence agencies and our intelligence agent trainees are being blinded in terms of their understanding of Islamist ideology, which is something it’s vital for them to know if we’re going to go and continue to protect the country, but we also don’t get a read on exactly who it is that has been invited into the councils of government to make the determination about what the agent we rely on to protect us should know about the threat and the many threats that are arrayed against the United States.

Brennan has been involved in this purge effort. He has been very explicit in – in an interpretation of Islamist ideology that is designed to make our enemies appear to be harmless to us. So, for example, he has claimed publicly that jihad – which is a challenge that the United States has been dealing with on our homeland, now, for twenty years – is not actually a military threat against the United States, but is instead an internal struggle among Muslims, the Muslim person or the Muslim community, to become a better person. To purify oneself or to purify one’s community. Authoritative Muslim teaching, including a manual of shariah law called Reliance of the Traveler, completely and directly refutes Brennan’s interpretation of jihad. It says explicitly that jihad is a holy war against non-believers in Islam. But even on its own – face of Brennan’s interpretation, he’s wrong. Because there is no consensus about what the good is between Western Civilization and Islamic civilization. So when Muslim theorists talk about purifying oneself or purifying one’s community, they’re not talking about making it better in the sense that we would all understand better means. To become a more purified individual Muslim means to become a better, more shariah compliant Muslim. To purify one’s community doesn’t mean to, you know, drive out the drug dealers and the criminal elements. What it actually means is to drive out non-Islamic influences from one’s community. It’s a very, very different idea than the one that Brennan has suggested. And it may be perfectly fine for – in some component of government to have someone who is something of a cheerleader for elements that are hostile to the United States. But the one place we can’t afford to have that is at the top level of our premier intelligence service.

The intelligence community is what we rely on to protect the United States. And in order to fulfill its mission, the intelligence community has to be completely removed from political correctness, has to be removed from ideology, and has to be able to scrutinize both sides or multiple sides of any questions in order to know precisely what the threats against the United States are. To have Mr. Brennan, who refused to acknowledge a jihadist threat that even Secretary Clinton in one of her last appearances before Congress acknowledged was one of the most profound challenges against the United States, would just be very, very counter-productive for our national security.

Stephen Coughlin
Center for Security Policy, former DOD counterterror analyst and author of the forthcoming book, Catastrophic Failure

Hello, my name is Stephen Coughlin. I’m here to discuss my concerns about the approval of Mr. John Brennan for the director of central intelligence.

My concern stems from the fact that it seems that with his tenure, the intelligence collection effort, collection of facts that could paint a better and more valid picture of the nature of the threat in the war on terror have been subordinated to a politically correct policy and has had the net effect of leaving us unaware at a time where I think we face great peril from enemies and threats that we confront in the world. Among those – among the activities that I find has been greatly concerning is back in October 19th, 2011, a series of members from the Muslim – from Muslim Brotherhood front groups wrote a letter to Mr. Brennan at the White House and they made certain demands. Now these are groups like MPAC, Muslim Public Affairs Council, CAIR, Council on American/Islamic Relations, ISNA, Islamic Society of North America, ICNA, Islamic Circle of North America, and AMANA. Well, these groups are – many of these groups were identified in a 1991 document called the explanatory memorandum as Muslim Brotherhood front groups. Now this explanatory memorandum was admitted into evidence in a court of law to state that it reflected the strategy of these groups and was used to convict those parties. And this explanatory memorandum flat out said that their goal in America is a grand jihad to eliminate America through a subversion process that required them to get our senior leaders to subvert our way of life for them.

Now, I was one of the people named in this document. Some statements were made or purported to be said about what I said at some briefings that are just simply not true. And I was never given a chance, no due process to affirm what I said. What is very concerning about that memo that was sent to Mr. Brennan back in October, 2011, is that it called for a purge of all government training material and basically individuals, the implementation of retraining, reviews, personal reviews to be conducted against people, quality control measures that ended up being measures that were basically under the direction of these same Muslim Brotherhood front groups. Directly or indirectly.

We have an affirmative duty to take in the facts. And those facts have to take us where they go. If we were going after the Ku Klux Klan and they hid behind a religious facade, we would get past that religious facade. In fact, we have done that many times. But the fact of the matter is, is the people we’re confronting in this war say they fight jihad according to Islamic law. And even if it is true that they are incorrect about their understanding of Islam, it is still true that is why they fight. And we need to get a factual, professional handle on that. This is something that we’re not able to do right now. Because since that letter was written a purge has been implemented where the FBI, DHS, the Department of Defense have gone after people.

In fact, we can take a look at a June 20th, 2012 Reuters article where they talked – titled, Military Instructor Suspended Over Islam Course. Where a military instructor at the joint forces staff college was removed, relieved of his duties, on the allegation that he was briefings things that actually was not true. And in fact we know that that was not true. It called – the article made it clear that they were looking for disciplinary action, retraining, and counseling. So what we’re looking at right now, we’re looking at it in bold, bold form, is the fact that there’s a witch hunt going on. Where there’s no due process. People are not being asked, given the chance to defend their work product. They’re not being able to – they’re not even being told who these people are who are getting word of their – or purging their documents and making judgments. Where is the due process? Mr. Brennan, this is not the Soviet Union. This is the United States.

And I must say if you’re banning materials or you’re overseeing the banning of materials that could show a factual nexus to be made, this causes a grave compromise of our national security. And it doesn’t matter whose religious views that might – that might make uncomfortable.

Our job is the defense of the Constitution and against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And we follow the evidence where it goes. So my objection against the approval of Mr. Brennan is it seems that he is willing to compromise the collection efforts of our intelligence systems for non-professional reasons. And thereby hurt our understanding of the nature of the threat in the war on terror.

Frank Gaffney
Center for Security Policy

Clearly, there is considerable information that has yet to come to light in the course of these Senate deliberations about John Brennan’s confirmation to become the next director of the Central Intelligence Agency. We believe those questions are of sufficient magnitude, especially as they relate to Islamism and the Benghazi-gate scandal to justify a much more serious drill-down by the Senate committees. Specifically the Senate select committee on intelligence needs to have outside witnesses like those you’ve just heard to illuminate the problems with this nomination and the necessity for a course correction. Not the confirmation of John Brennan. And in addition, a number of prominent conservative leaders have come together to call on the Congress on a bicameral basis to convene a select committee with full subpoena and deposition powers to explore what really went on in the run up to, during, and after the attack on our facilities in Benghazi on September 11th, 2012. Congress needs to get to the bottom of this. And so do we.


The Bible: A New Mini-Series

If you watch one thing on TV, please watch this series on the History Channel starting this Sunday evening. Our nation is on the verge of something either terrible or wonderful or both. I urge everyone to watch this incredible adaptation of the Bible. It will give you hope and will lift your soul. It will ready you for the battles ahead. This series gives me the chills.

From: Wall Builders

As Christians in today’s culture, it is important for us to support Godly TV programs.
This new mini-series is a great opportunity to show your support with your remote.
(If you are watching it with your friends and family, be sure to record it on your own TV as well.)

Be sure to visit the Bible Series website for church kits and additional resources!

“A must see!”

“Living history at its best!”
Dr. Rick Warren, Author of The Purpose Driven Life

“Truly reflects the masterpiece that is the Holy Bible.”
Joel Osteen, Senior Pastor of Lakewood Church

“…Great passion, exquisite skill and cinemagraphic triumph.”
Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington

“A unique opportunity to convey God’s redemptive message.”
Jim Daly, President of Focus on the Family

The Bible is an epic 10-part miniseries retelling stories from the Scriptures for a whole new generation. Breath-taking in scope and scale, The Bible features powerful performances, exotic locales and visual effects that breathe spectacular life into the dramatic tales of faith and courage from Genesis through Revelation. This historic television event is sure to entertain and inspire the whole family!

Official Resource Website: www.BibleSeriesResources.com


Bob Woodward is a White House Appeaser

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

If the White House will push Bob Woodward around on such a mundane matter as Obama’s role in a budget stand-off, what else will they do? A look at Wikipedia’s page on Obama’s communist mentor Frank Marshall Davis might give us some indication. It is apparent that Obama supporters and Internet “trolls” have sanitized the page in order to eliminate any hint that Obama’s Marxist policies are being driven by the relationship he had for almost 10 years with a Communist Party operative under surveillance by the FBI.

In the current controversy involving Washington Post reporter Woodward and Obama White House official Gene Sperling, the email exchange publicized by Politico shows Woodward referring to “Gene” and being called “Bob” in return. This is a friendly exchange of views.

Alluding to how “Gene” had yelled at him and apologized, Woodward said, “You do not ever have to apologize to me. You get wound up because you are making your points and you believe them. This is all part of a serious discussion. I for one welcome a little heat; there should [be] more given the importance. I also welcome your personal advice. I am listening.”

Can you imagine famed Watergate reporter Woodward referring to Nixon Administration officials in such friendly terms?

This exchange has all the earmarks of a “journalist” who, rather than being threatened, is being fed a line by the Obama White House and wants more of it. Woodward comes across not as a tough reporter engaged in an adversarial relationship with the White House but rather a whiner who wants more access to Obama.

Sadly, it is all too typical of how the liberal media do Obama’s bidding. The treatment of Frank Marshall Davis is a case in point.

The 600-page FBI file on Frank Marshall Davis covers the years 1944-1963, meaning that he was under investigation or surveillance for at least 19 years. One document refers to Frank Marshall Davis having CPUSA affiliations dating back to 1931. Davis was included in the FBI’s security index, meaning that Davis could be arrested or detained in the event of a national emergency. The FBI material also documents Davis’s anti-white and pro-Soviet views, and the Communist infiltration of the Hawaii Democratic Party.

Wikipedia’s page on Davis ignores Obama’s relationship with Davis, except in a footnote on the bottom, and does not mention Davis’s CPUSA membership. It also ignores Paul Kengor’s authoritative 2012 book on Davis, The Communist.

Wikipedia says Davis’s “actions were tracked” by the FBI. But without the facts about Davis’s involvement in a subversive Soviet intelligence network on the island of Hawaii, a major strategic target of the Soviets, this makes it seem as though Davis was an innocent victim of government authorities.

Wikipedia refers to Davis as an “avid photographer” without noting that the FBI was suspicious of Davis taking photographs of the Hawaii coast, an activity that suggested espionage on Davis’s part.

One of the most disturbing FBI documents refers to information that Davis “was observed photographing large sections of the [Hawaii] coastline with a camera containing a telescopic lens.” The FBI information states:

“Informant stated that DAVIS spent much of his time in this activity. He said this was the third different occasion DAVIS had been observed photographing shorelines and beachfronts. Informant advised that it did not appear he was photographing any particular objects.”

AIM’s original piece on Davis, Obama’s Communist Mentor, was published on February 18, 2008, about nine months before Obama was elected for his first term. Trevor Loudon, a New Zealand-based writer and activist, had noted evidence that the mysterious “Frank” in Obama’s book, Dreams from My Father, was Frank Marshall Davis, in a posting in March of 2007.

There was plenty of time for the major media to “vet” Obama. But they were not interested. And that includes Bob Woodward and his Washington Post colleagues. Now, all of a sudden, there is a controversy over Woodward reporting something that seems negative about Obama’s position on the sequester. This is so minor in the overall scheme of things that you wonder if it is all just a diversion from the big picture.

The big picture is that Obama operatives have been actively trying to suppress the truth about Obama’s relationship with Frank Marshall Davis and a Soviet-sponsored network in Hawaii since Jerome Corsi, in his 2008 book, The Obama Nation, cited some of the facts during the presidential campaign. As we noted at the time:

“Barack Obama’s 40-page so-called ‘rebuttal’ to Jerome Corsi’s book, The Obama Nation, acknowledges for the first time that the senator once had a personal relationship with identified Communist Party USA (CPUSA) member Frank Marshall Davis, a key high-level operative in a Soviet-sponsored network in Hawaii.

“But the 40-page report, advertised and sold to the media as a refutation of Corsi’s ‘lies,’ doesn’t identify Davis as a hard-core communist and it dishonestly edits an article about Davis to eliminate references to his admitted involvement in CPUSA activities and make the black revolutionary writer and ‘poet’ look like a civil rights activist.”

Corsi had largely drawn the facts about Davis from blogger Trevor Loudon and this columnist, who confirmed Davis’s identity and obtained the 600-page FBI file on Davis. All of this information was available in 2008.

Incredibly, Wikipedia continues the essential cover-up that began during the 2008 campaign. Here’s how the entry begins:

“Frank Marshall Davis (December 31, 1905 – July 26, 1987) was an American journalist, poet, and political and labor movement activist.”

In fact, he was also a Communist, pornographer, a pedophile, heavy drinker and dope smoker. Davis, who was black, was a racist who blamed white people and corporations for much of what was wrong in the U.S. and the world. His influence on Obama helps explain his policies as President.

While Wikipedia quotes Davis as saying that he worked with “all kinds of groups,” including some “labeled Communist, Socialist or merely liberal,” it makes no mention of the fact that he was actually a member of the Communist Party USA. The only other reference to Communist activities was a charge that Davis wrote for what appeared to be a Communist front publication.

While Wikipedia confirms that he “authored a hard core pornographic novel,” Sex Rebel: Black, its page on Davis, a self-described sex “specialist,” makes no mention of the fact that Davis, using a pseudonym, refers to having sex with children.

In an analysis of Sex Rebel: Black, Andrew Walden wrote:

“Children are a target of the sex ‘specialist.’ Davis explains: ‘Undoubtedly an individual’s sexual patterns can be traced back to early childhood experiences.’ (p 35) Davis later writes of a threesome between himself, his first wife and a thirteen year old Jamaican girl. (p 71-78) His account begins, ‘Spring: warmer weather, children playing on the sidewalk in front of our building. An unusual looking child stared solemnly at me each day as I approached the entrance, then turned away when she caught my eye. I knew she was a niece of dad’s former landlady, but that was all. Someday she’d be brightly beautiful; she now had it in miniature.’ The next seven pages are a detailed description of their sexual encounters.”

Footnote number 25 on the Wikipedia page on Davis refers to an August 22, 2008, Toby Harnden story from the London Telegraph, “Frank Marshall Davis, alleged Communist, was early influence on Barack Obama,” as the source of the information about the novel. Harden also wrote that Davis “had been suspected of being a member of the Communist Party in the 1950s,” though Davis’s membership was confirmed in his FBI file, which we had publicized in August of 2008.

Trevor Loudon says Wikipedia’s treatment of the Obama-Davis relationship demonstrates that “It is a waste of time adding something about a contemporary politician’s socialist ties or communist background… it will be deleted faster than you can type it. The left has armies of trolls, surfing the net, purging all information that reflects badly on their heroes.”

Loudon analyzes the Wikipedia page on Davis and comments:

“Zero about Davis’s long time membership of the Communist Party USA. Zero about the FBI’s 600 page file on the man. Zero about Davis’ mentorship of the young Barack Obama. The two most important features of Davis’ life get ZERO coverage in Wikipedia. Woefully inadequate and misleading to put it mildly! Dangerous even, because many people swear by Wikipedia.”

By contrast, the page on Davis maintained by KeyWiki, a site established by Loudon, goes into substantial detail about the Communist and other activities of Davis. It also examines his relationship to Vernon Jarrett, who was later to become the father-in-law to Valerie Jarrett, now a senior advisor to President Obama.

While Bob Woodward’s spat with the White House makes for interesting reading and gets headlines, the famed Watergate reporter has barely scratched the surface of what Obama and his people will do to suppress the truth about the nature of this administration and its policies.

On one level, it seems too late, since Woodward was asleep on these matters as Obama won the presidency and re-election. But at least he could now begin to set the record straight.

The Davis-Obama relationship was a Watergate-type story which, if told by Woodward and his colleagues in the “mainstream media,” could have spared America from the domestic and foreign policy catastrophes that now grip the United States.

Woodward should not be praised for standing up to the Obama White House’s alleged “threats.” Rather, he should be asked what he was doing for the last several years as Obama and his allies ruthlessly suppressed the truth about his Marxist background and agenda for America and the world.

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected].


Andrew Breitbart: One Year Later


“The flame that burns twice as bright burns half as long.” – Lao Tzu

Big Journalism.com: The funny thing is, Andrew would give me an endless hard time for quoting Lao Tzu–pretentious, he’d say.

But Andrew did live larger than life–which made his sudden passing so truly hard to believe and accept. He was a flame that burned twice as bright. It was in his DNA. I know. I knew him since he was less than one year old. (Some pictorial proof below.)

But if Andrew’s flame burned half as long, his legacy will never burn out. To the contrary, it will only burn brighter and brighter. It is one of love and laughter, of an amazing family consisting of his widow Susie and their four extraordinary young children, and of a friend, a patriot and a happy warrior.

It burns in my heart and the heart of all those who loved him and whom he so deeply affected.

It also burns as his mission continues and expands at Breitbart News Network.

In his book, Righteous Indignation: Excuse Me While I Save the World! (which was largely written at my kitchen table while I hovered over Andrew forcing him to focus) he wrote some words I find particularly pertinent about that mission.


The left does not win its battles in debate. It doesn’t have to. In the twenty-first century, media is everything. The left wins because it controls the narrative. The narrative is controlled by the media. The left is the media. Narrative is everything. I call it the Democrat-Media Complex–and I am at war to gain back control of the American narrative.


Walk toward the fire. Don’t worry about being called a racist, a homophobe, a sociopath, a violent heteronormative xenophobe with fascistic impulses. They say all those things about you because they’re keeping you inside the Complex, forcing you to respond to their playbook. They want to stop you in your tracks. But if you keep going, if you tell them you can stop their verbal bullets and keep walking, you’ll send messages to people who are rooting for you, who agree with you. That’s how you build an invincible movement willing to play by its own rules.

As CEO and President of Breitbart News Network, and as Breitbart.com attests over the last year, let me assure you that Andrew’s mission and vision only grows brighter with every day that passes.

Now, as promised, let me show you a few pictures. Why? Because for all of us who knew Andrew personally, and especially for those who did not–supporters and detractors alike–at the end of the day, I think it is important on this anniversary, to humanize Andrew. He was a man who did extraordinary things that guarantee him a place in the history books of this great country, but still a man.

We should all take personal inspiration from that. No matter who we are. No matter where we came from. No matter which side of the aisle we are on. There is nothing we cannot do if we live with passion and are willing to sacrifice and fight for what we believe in. Andrew embodied that very premise.

I call the following picture, “First Business Meeting.” It took place in 1972 over the hood of my Mom’s Ford Country Squire, with authentic, fake wood paneling. What could be so serious to four year olds? I have no idea.

Cut to Halloween, late-70’s. This was a last minute costume. The key: some eye black, two Dodgers caps (like we didn’t have 20 or so lying around), and Andrew’s father’s extra-large orange shirt.

A little more friendly than 1976:

Lastly, this picture was taken as an afterthought at the end of the photo shoot for Andrew’s Righteous Indignation book cover, slightly over a year before Andrew passed away. I’m grateful to Andrew’s brother-in-law, Marc Atlan, both for originally suggesting we take it, and then for presenting it to me several days after Andrew’s death.

I love Andrew, my brother. And I miss him more than words can express. Thank you to everyone who over the last year has provided his loved ones comfort and support, and who today remember him and his family in their thoughts and prayers.


Obama’s Green Money Scheme Exposed – Part One

By: Sharon Sebastian

Few realize that the “green movement” is about building large personal fortunes for an elite few. As with all robber barons, it is about the money. It is why President Barack Obama laid out his threat to again bypass Congress and ignore the American people during his 2013 State of the Union address. Mr. Obama will attempt to force his ill-conceived green energy plans into existence with the stroke of his pen via Executive Orders:

“.I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.” – President Barack Obama, February 12, 2013

Obama is determined to resurrect his green energy schemes by drying up America’s access to oil and gas no matter the pain inflicted on American families and businesses. Having put the coal industry on life-support, his next target — restricting power plants that generate electricity to homes and businesses.

What the President hides behind the curtain and does not reveal is his alliance with international green elites, White House and Wall Street cronies and energy regulatory czars who have orchestrated a CO2 carbon-taxing scheme that puts billions of dollars into their own hands. It’s a money scheme. Three years ago, the global-warming money transfer scam surfaced and named not only this president, but a former Democrat president and vice-president as participants planning to accumulate vast personal wealth as a result. One need only ask, why did Al Gore so confidently tout that he was destined to become the “first global-warming billionaire?”

Long in the designing, the elements were close to being in full play. The plans were drawn, the carbon-credit trading exchange registered as the Chicago Climate Exchange was formulated (New York Times – Click here // Trading symbol CCX – Click here.), set to both transfer and stash cash, the green barons’ privately-owned Chicago bank was on the ready and the right president was in office to perpetrate the scam on the American people. That is, until the great global-warming-climate-change fraud stopped the United Nations-supported, elite cadre of well-connected political, banking and Wall Street associates in their tracks. British Freedom quotes The Times of India:

“Billionaire globalists like George Soros fund green groups and seek to promote the globalist ‘climate change’ scam as a way to enrich themselves and infiltrate developing nations in order to financially exploit them and their natural resources for profit.”

The June 2009 Bloomberg article, Sandor Got Obama’s Nod for Chicago-Style Climate Law by Jim Efstathiou Jr., reported that a carbon-capping bill set to be imposed on American businesses was the cornerstone of Obama’s environmental agenda. Bloomberg quotes CCX founder Richard Sandor as saying that the bill “…began way, way to the left with provisions to push U.S. utilities into bankruptcy.” The article further reads: “Sandor launched the Chicago Climate Exchange, or CCX, in 2003 after getting two research grants from the Chicago-based Joyce Foundation. Obama was on the foundation that gave us the grant, Sandor said. We know him well.” CCX reportedly now operates under the auspices of Environmental Financial Products.

When “global-warming-climate-change” was exposed as a blatant fraud, the American people and a Republican House refused to play ball. By doing so, they stymied the global clique of politicians and socialist ideologues who remain ready to bring America to its economic knees for their own financial and ideological gains. Even so, Mr. Obama is making another high-stakes play to push through his green agenda to fully activate the global CCX exchange despite the high cost to even the poorest of Americans.

While Obama is gearing up to invest billions of America’s tax dollars into the green abyss, other countries are backing away. Never mind that China and India refuse to put a dime into the scam. European nations have already experienced a severe hit to their economies and negative blow-back from their citizens. In the face of worldwide data to the contrary, Obama claimed during his State of the Union address that: “…the fact is, the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15.” How an American President can make such an erroneous claim to the American people in the face of existing facts reveals him as sorely misstating or misinformed.

A February 27, 2013 news release by the Global Warming Policy Foundation states that it has highlighted the global warming standstill for many years against fervent denial by climate activists. Its Chairman, Nigel Lawson, states: “…there has been no further recorded global warming at all for at least the past 15 years.” Backing-up Lawson’s findings are reported reversals by such global-warming heavy-weights as the United Nation’s Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, head of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and NASA’s James Hansen who both reportedly now recognize that global temperatures have not risen for more than a decade.

Europe is facing a green backlash.

“The BBC has backed down over Sir David Attenborough’s widely contested claim that parts of the world have warmed by 3.5C over the last two decades. …The comment was removed from Sunday night’s repeat of the show.” — Harley Dixon, The Daily Telegraph, 11 Feb. 2013

“…long-term consequences of the Energy Bill will be horrible. It’s a recipe for deindustrialization.” — Professor Gordon Hughes, Mail on Sunday, 24 February, 2013

“Today energy policy is framed with only one factor in mind: satisfying the green lobby. It is, to be blunt, mad.” — Stephen Pollard, Daily Express, 20 February 2013

“Carbon emissions are no longer the driving factor setting UK energy policy. The new and dominant issue is cost.” — Nick Butler, Financial Times, 21 February, 2013

Scientific facts that Mr. Obama and his cronies prefer you not know come from Edmund Contoski, an environmental consultant for more than 40 countries. In Liberty Unbound, Contoski writes: “The overwhelming majority (97%) of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere comes from nature, not from man.” Based on scientific data, “Not only are worms contributing to the CO2 in the atmosphere,” Contoski further notes that, “volcanoes, swamps, rice paddies, fallen leaves, and even insects and bacteria alone emit ten times more carbon dioxide than all the factories and automobiles in the world. Even natural wetlands emit more greenhouse gases than all human activities combined.” Nature itself foils the environmentalists as The U.S. Department of Energy admits that once emitted that 98% of all the carbon dioxide emissions are again absorbed by nature. Contosky then queries, “Termites emit ten time more CO2 than humans, should we cap-and-tax them?”

The media neglect the real reason Barack Obama wants your dollars to flow into his green machine that will swallow them up and then divvy them up among an elite group that will reap financial gain as America loses. The scheme is hidden in plain sight. Perhaps a great investigative journalist like Bob Woodward will peel back the layers of this political fraud. After all, he’s already endured one tongue-lashing threat from the White House.

List of reported quotes from Green Globalists compiled by real-world-news, click here.

White House and Green Globalists’ Action Plan

Email a link of this website with the information provided to fellow Americans and to Congress.

Sharon Sebastian (www.DarwinsRacists.com) is a columnist, commentator, author, and contributor to various forms of media including cultural and political broadcasts, print, and online websites. In addition to the heated global debate on creation vs. evolution, her second book, “Darwin’s Racists: Yesterday, Today & Tomorrow,” highlights the impact of Social Darwinism’s Marxist/Socialist underpinnings on the culture, the faith and current policy out of Washington. Critics are calling Darwin’s Racists, “Incredibly Timely” and “A Book for our Times.” Sebastian is a featured guest on broadcasts nationwide on topics ranging from politics, the economy, healthcare, culture, religion and evolution to Agenda 21’s global green movement. Sebastian’s political and cultural analyses on a wide range of national and global events are published nationally and internationally. Website: www.DarwinsRacists.com. “Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow” may be purchased at: www.DarwinsRacists.com, www.Amazon.com, www.BarnesandNoble.com and at bookstores online and worldwide.