"I have not yet begun to fight!"

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976?Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. Unless you are in this field of investigative journalism, especially covering extremely sensitive subjects and potentially dangerous subjects as well, you simply cannot understand the complexities and difficulties involved with this work that I face every day.

Monday, August 19, 2013

Scandal at State: Congress wants answers as fight brews over leaked IG documents

The Washington Times

Thursday, June 13, 2013

Enlarge Photo
**FILE** House Foreign Affairs Chairman Rep. Ed Royce, California Republican, questions Secretary ... more >

The chairman of a key House committee on Thursday demanded that the State Department’s office of inspector general explain passages in internal documents that refer to pressure from department higher-ups to quash investigations into suspected criminal activity — including the solicitation of prostitutes, illegal drug activity and sexual assault — by U.S. diplomatic personnel overseas.
The call, which came in a biting letter to the office’s leadership by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Edward R. Royce, California Republican, now may set the stage for congressional hearings on the matter. But it also arrives amid a widening and bitter legal fight between the inspector general’s office and an employee turned whistleblower who brought the documents into public view this week.
No charges have been filed, but one State Department official said that officials within the inspector general’s office believe Aurelia Fedenisn — who previously worked as an investigator — may have inappropriately shared the “internal and preliminary” documents in a manner that violated a nondisclosure “separation agreement” she signed upon retiring from the inspector general’s office in December.
Prior to their appearance in the media this week, the documents already had triggered inspector general investigations into the suspected criminal activity by diplomats, as well as into the claims that earlier probes into such activity were blocked by senior State Department officials under Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.
With those ongoing investigations at risk of being jeopardized by the release of the internal documents, the inspector general’s office declined to comment Thursday on whether it is considering taking legal action against Mrs. Fedenisn.
The notion, however, that the State Department’s main watchdog agency could file charges against one of its own former watchdogs adds an ugly twist to the scandal, which has rocked Foggy Bottom since the documents possessed by Mrs. Fedenisn were first highlighted in a CBS News on Monday.
The State Department has repeatedly refused to comment on the charges outlined in one of the documents, an internal memo believed to be based on anonymous complaints from rank-and-file diplomatic security agents that arose during a 2012 inspector general review of their department.
Mounting frustration
The situation has caused frustration to mount on Capitol Hill. “I am troubled by reports that senior State Department officials may have prevented the Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) from investigating instances of administrative and criminal misconduct within the department,” Mr. Royce wrote in his letter Thursday to Deputy Inspector General Harold Geisel.
Attorneys for Mrs. Fedenisn assert that she acted within her legal rights in bringing the charges to light because the separation agreement she signed upon retiring from the inspector general’s office included a federal whistleblower clause.
Damon Mathias, a Dallas-based lawyer representing Mrs. Fedenisn, said his client acted appropriately because federal whistleblower protection status is afforded to former employees seeking to share sensitive materials with members of Congress.
Before internal documents were leaked to CBS News, they were provided to the offices of House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell E. Issa, California Republican, and Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Republican, Mr. Mathias said.
But one State Department official said questions remained over whom Mrs. Fedenisn leaked the documents to first.
“What you have to look at is the timing,” said the official, who asked not to be identified by name. “In order for her to officially become a whistleblower, she has to give the documents to a congressional authority first.
“Giving them to her lawyers in Texas does not make her a whistleblower. It makes her a violator of the separation statement she signed,” the official said. “So, did she give it to the lawyers first, or did she give it to the media first?”

Story Continues →

Investigators find State Department drew down Libya security as threats rose

By John Solomon

Washington Guardian

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Enlarge Photo
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will testify before Congress about the ... more >

Congressional investigators have pieced together a series of decisions that led State Department officials to inexplicably draw down security in Libya last year even as threats and attacks against Western diplomats were rising in the violent, chaotic city of Benghazi where America’s ambassador was killed last Sept. 11.
The investigators have determined that between May and September, the department reduced the number of Mobile Security Deployment teams from three to one, thinning the potential U.S. security officers available to protect diplomats by at least twelve, the Washington Guardian has learned.
In addition, the lone remaining six-member Mobile Security Team in Libya at the time Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed was detailed primarily to training Libyan security officials rather than providing force protection to U.S. officials, the sources told the Washington Guardian.
The two-thirds reduction in the number of special six-member security teams came in addition to decisions by the administration not to place a Marine security contingent at the main embassy in Tripoli and to send home in August a special military attachment that was also providing security for U.S. officials in Libya, the sources said, speaking only on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the specifics of the department’s security planning.
The commander of the military team sent home in August has already told Congress he requested that his team be extended or replaced but his request was denied.
The dual drawdowns help explain why the U.S. compound in Benghazi and its visiting ambassador were protected on Sept. 11 only by a few U.S. security agents and some retired Navy SEALS who worked for the CIA, a force that fought valiantly but was significantly outmanned by the al-Qaida inspired terrorists who struck with guns, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars. Local Libya security guards also at the location proved incapable of repelling the attack, officials have said.
At hearings planned for Wednesday, lawmakers in both the House and Senate plan to confront Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about the security reductions, which stood in stark contrast to the decisions made by one of America’s closest allies.
British officials pulled their diplomats from Benghazi after a brazen summer attack against one of their own, and they had not yet returned them when the U.S. special mission in that city was attacked the night of Sept. 11, the 11th anniversary of the deadly 2001 terror attacks in Washington and New York City
In fact hours before he and three other Americans died in the attack, Stevens reported to Clinton in a diplomatic cable that he had conferred with British authorities, and they would not be making a decision on whether to return until at least October.
In that same cable, Stevens painted a portrait of Benghazi that was violent, chaotic and suffering through constant attacks from Islamist extremists that ranged from car bombings to explosive attacks on power lines.
Stevens also warned that the loyalties and capabilities of local Libyan militias helping to protect U.S. officials in the region were also increasingly dubious, specifically reporting that one group of militia leaders had threatened to pull their security if Americans continued to support a particular candidate for Libyan prime minister.
Stevens’ final, fateful cable was hardly the first sign of deteriorating security. Congressional investigators have assembled a list of more than a dozen threats or attempted attacks on Western diplomats in the Benghazi area in the months before the attack on the compound.
The prior episodes included a gunfire incident near the U.S mission in Benghazi in March, an explosives attacks against the compound in June that blew a hole in a security wall, a grenade attack on the International Red Cross station in Benghazi and an attack on the British ambassador’s motorcade in the city.
U.S. officials clearly understood the deteriorating conditions, congressional investigators found, because they increased the hazard pay for State Department officials serving in the region, the sources said. But at the same time, they drew down the security assets sent by both the State Department and the military.
Obama administration officials declined comment, referring a reporter to the State Department’s recent report on the episode. That report cast blame on the entire agency for keeping a woefully inadequate security posture for the threats faced in Libya.
While the primary focus at Wednesday’s hearings will be on the State Department bureaucracy, Democrats plan to blame House Republicans for failing to approve in the recent Sandy recovery bill more diplomatic security funding for the State Department.
“I know from personal experience that there are many thoughtful Republicans in positions of responsibility in the House who want to do the right thing,” Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said Tuesday in testing the new line of attack. “Yet a small but apparently dominant obstructionist cadre within the Republican ranks seemingly is willing to push the bounds of irresponsibility to ever greater heights.”
Overall, Congress since 2007 had increased diplomatic security funding for the department by about 27 percent, officials have said.

Email Shows State Department Rejecting Request of Security Team at US Embassy in Libya Email Smaller Font Text Larger Text | Print Jake Tapper By Jake Tapper @jaketapper Find on FacebookFollow on Twitter Oct 5, 2012 7:00am ap libya us consulate ll 120912 wblog Email Shows State Department Rejecting Request of Security Team at US Embassy in Libya (Image Credit: Ibrahim Alaguri/AP Photo) ABC News has obtained an internal State Department email from May 3, 2012, indicating that the State Department denied a request from the security team at the Embassy of Libya to retain a DC-3 airplane in the country to better conduct their duties. Copied on the email was U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was killed in a terrorist attack on the diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, Sept. 11, 2012, along with three other Americans. That attack has prompted questions about whether the diplomatic personnel in that country were provided with adequate security support. No one has yet to argue that the DC-3 would have definitively made a difference for the four Americans killed that night. The security team in question, after all, left Libya in August. But the question – both for the State Department, which is conducting an internal investigation, and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is holding hearings next week – is whether officials in Washington, D.C., specifically at the State Department, were as aware as they should have been about the deteriorating security situation in Libya, and whether officials were doing everything they could to protect Americans in that country. Earlier this week, the chair of the House Oversight Committee, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and another member of the committee wrote to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton listing 13 incidents leading up to the attack, ranging from IED and RPG attacks to a “posting on a pro-Gaddafi Facebook page” publicizing early morning runs taken by the late Ambassador Stevens and his security detail around Tripoli. “Was State Department headquarters in Washington aware of all the above incidents?” they asked Secretary Clinton, requesting written responses by Oct. 8. “If not, why not? If so, what measures did the State Department take to match the level of security provided to the U.S. Mission in Libya to the level of threat?” The subject line of the email, from Miki Rankin, the post management officer for Libya and Saudi Arabia, reads “Termination of Tripoli DC-3 Support.” Rankin informs Stevens and the others on the email, whose names have been redacted, that Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy “has determined that support for Embassy Tripoli using the DC-3 will be terminated immediately. Post’s request to continue use of the plane in support of the SST was considered. However, it was decided that, if needed, NEA will charter a special flight for their departure.” You can read the email HERE. An “SST” is a Security Support Team, about 16 Special Forces troops assigned to protect officials from the U.S. State Department. This particular SST was assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli. Shown the email uncovered by ABC News, a spokesman for the committee said the “document is consistent with what the Oversight Committee has been told by individuals who worked in Libya. Ambassador Stevens and the diplomatic mission in Libya made multiple security related requests that were turned down by Washington based officials. Security related transportation has been identified as one of the particular items where embassy personnel did not receive the support they sought.” Provided with a copy of the e-mail, a senior State Department official downplayed the importance of the denied request. The official told ABC News that “the DC-3 was pulled from Iraq and moved to support Libya early on when there was no commercial airline service into Libya. When commercial service was re-established in Libya, the aircraft was reassigned to other State Department business. We use our aircraft when no commercial flights exist.” The U.S. government official who provided the email to ABC News – and wanted to remain anonymous because of the sensitivity of the matter – described the small DC-3 plane as an asset for a security team to more freely and safely move throughout the country, and to more easily transport arms and other security equipment. In short, having the plane allowed the security team to better perform its duties, the official said. The State Department official acknowledged that the plane was used to get around Libya, not just to get in and out of the country. But once commercial air service was re-established, the State Department decided that the SST didn’t need the plane anymore. The security team, it would seem, disagreed. Told of the State Department’s explanation, the House Oversight Committee spokesman said the “State Department’s naive determination to follow rigid bureaucratic policies, instead of making common sense decisions that took the serious threat of terrorism conveyed by those on the ground into account, appears to have been a significant factor in the Benghazi Consulate’s lack of preparedness.” On Wednesday, Oct. 10, the committee will hold a hearing featuring the testimony of Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom, who was stationed in Libya from September 2011 through June 2012; and Deputy Assistant Secretary of International Programs Charlene Lamb.

Email Shows State Department Rejecting Request of Security Team at US Embassy in Libya

By Jake Tapper
@jaketapper
Find on Facebook Follow on Twitter

Oct 5, 2012 7:00am

ap libya us consulate ll 120912 wblog Email Shows State Department Rejecting Request of Security Team at US Embassy in Libya

(Image Credit: Ibrahim Alaguri/AP Photo)

ABC News has obtained an internal State Department email from May 3, 2012, indicating that the State Department denied a request from the security team at the Embassy of Libya to retain a DC-3 airplane in the country to better conduct their duties.
Copied on the email was U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was killed in a terrorist attack on the diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, Sept. 11, 2012, along with three other Americans. That attack has prompted questions about whether the diplomatic personnel in that country were provided with adequate security support.
No one has yet to argue that the DC-3 would have definitively made a difference for the four Americans killed that night. The security team in question, after all, left Libya in August.
But the question – both for the State Department, which is conducting an internal investigation, and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is holding hearings next week – is whether officials in Washington, D.C., specifically at the State Department, were as aware as they should have been about the deteriorating security situation in Libya, and whether officials were doing everything they could to protect Americans in that country.
Earlier this week, the chair of the House Oversight Committee, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and another member of the committee wrote to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton listing 13 incidents leading up to the attack, ranging from IED and RPG attacks to a “posting on a pro-Gaddafi Facebook page” publicizing early morning runs taken by the late Ambassador Stevens and his security detail around Tripoli.
“Was State Department headquarters in Washington aware of all the above incidents?” they asked Secretary Clinton, requesting written responses by Oct. 8. “If not, why not? If so, what measures did the State Department take to match the level of security provided to the U.S. Mission in Libya to the level of threat?”
The subject line of the email, from Miki Rankin, the post management officer for Libya and Saudi Arabia, reads “Termination of Tripoli DC-3 Support.”
Rankin informs Stevens and the others on the email, whose names have been redacted, that Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy “has determined that support for Embassy Tripoli using the DC-3 will be terminated immediately. Post’s request to continue use of the plane in support of the SST was considered. However, it was decided that, if needed, NEA will charter a special flight for their departure.”
You can read the email HERE.
An “SST” is a Security Support Team, about 16 Special Forces troops assigned to protect officials from the U.S. State Department. This particular SST was assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli.
Shown the email uncovered by ABC News, a spokesman for the committee said the “document is consistent with what the Oversight Committee has been told by individuals who worked in Libya. Ambassador Stevens and the diplomatic mission in Libya made multiple security related requests that were turned down by Washington based officials. Security related transportation has been identified as one of the particular items where embassy personnel did not receive the support they sought.”
Provided with a copy of the e-mail, a senior State Department official downplayed the importance of the denied request. The official told ABC News that “the DC-3 was pulled from Iraq and moved to support Libya early on when there was no commercial airline service into Libya. When commercial service was re-established in Libya, the aircraft was reassigned to other State Department business. We use our aircraft when no commercial flights exist.”
The U.S. government official who provided the email to ABC News – and wanted to remain anonymous because of the sensitivity of the matter – described the small DC-3 plane as an asset for a security team to more freely and safely move throughout the country, and to more easily transport arms and other security equipment. In short, having the plane allowed the security team to better perform its duties, the official said.
The State Department official acknowledged that the plane was used to get around Libya, not just to get in and out of the country. But once commercial air service was re-established, the State Department decided that the SST didn’t need the plane anymore. The security team, it would seem, disagreed.
Told of the State Department’s explanation, the House Oversight Committee spokesman said the “State Department’s naive determination to follow rigid bureaucratic policies, instead of making common sense decisions that took the serious threat of terrorism conveyed by those on the ground into account, appears to have been a significant factor in the Benghazi Consulate’s lack of preparedness.”
On Wednesday, Oct. 10, the committee will hold a hearing featuring the testimony of Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom, who was stationed in Libya from September 2011 through June 2012; and Deputy Assistant Secretary of International Programs Charlene Lamb.

US intel believes some Benghazi attackers tied to al Qaeda in Iraq

08:21 PM ET

US intel believes some Benghazi attackers tied to al Qaeda in Iraq

By Suzanne Kelly, Pam Benson and Elise Labott

U.S. intelligence believes that assailants connected to al Qaeda in Iraq were among the core group that attacked the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, a U.S. government official told CNN.

That would represent the second al Qaeda affiliate associated with the deadly September 11 attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
Previously, intelligence officials said there were signs of connections to al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the North African wing of the terror group.
The revelation that members of al Qaeda in Iraq are suspected of involvement in the Libya attack comes at a time when there is a growing number of fighters from that group also taking part in the Syrian civil war.

Also: Doubts surface over e-mail on claim of responsibility for Benghazi attack
It also surfaces as questions persist about Benghazi security and the Obama administration's response to the attack that have become issues in the presidential campaign. Republicans have said issues around the attack illustrate weaknesses in President Barack Obama's foreign policy.
The weakened al Qaeda affiliate has had a resurgence in Iraq since U.S. forces left the country at the end of last year. The group had used Libya as a source for fighters. In a 2008 cable, Stevens described a nearby town of Derna as "a wellspring of Libyan foreign fighters" for al Qaeda in Iraq.
The latest intelligence suggests the core group of suspects from the first wave of the attack on the Benghazi mission numbered between 35 to 40. Around a dozen of the attackers are believed to be connected to either al Qaeda in Iraq or al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the government official said.
The attack had two waves: The first targeted the main compound where Stevens and another diplomatic official were believed killed. A second stage a few hours later involved an annex building approximately a mile away.
Security Clearance: The latest on military, diplomacy and intelligence
According to the official, others in the core group are suspected of having ties to the Libyan group Ansar al-Sharia, and many of them are believed to be Egyptian jihadis.
A suspect in the attack is being held in Tunisia where the United States has been denied access to him, according to Sen. Saxby Chambliss, the ranking Republican on the Intelligence Committee.
Chambliss would not name the suspect, but CNN has been told it is Ali Ani al-Harzi, a Tunisian connected to extremist groups in North Africa.
Details about al-Harzi were first reported by the Daily Beast.
In a statement Chambliss said, "Tunisian authorities have a suspected terrorist in custody, yet our guys aren't able to interrogate him."
An aide to Chambliss said the suspect was first arrested in Turkey and later sent to Tunisia.
CNN has learned that the United States first became aware of al-Harzi when he apparently posted details of the attack on social media while it was happening.
At the request of the United States, Turkish officials detained al-Harzi when he entered that country after leaving Libya. Turkey then transferred him to Tunisia.
The United States fully expects to have access to him and is trying to figure out how that will happen, another U.S. official told CNN. The FBI is leading the investigation and the intelligence community, according to the official, is working behind the scenes to help with that as well.
Video from one security camera at the Benghazi mission was recovered from the site, but a U.S. official would not say whether al-Harzi or any other suspects were identified from the video.
E-mails obtained by CNN made clear that less than 30 minutes after the attack began, the State Department notified officials within the agency, the White House, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Pentagon and the FBI that an attack was underway and that Stevens was in the compound.
And just two hours later, one of the e-mails indicated the Libyan extremist group Ansar al Sharia was claiming responsibility for the attack on social media websites. "Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli," the e-mail said.
Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told CNN the e-mails show the attack was not a spontaneous demonstration in protest of an anti-Muslim video as the intelligence community and Obama administration officials initially claimed.
"So what you saw in the e-mails in that real time was a real description," Rogers told Soledad O'Brien on "Starting Point." "And, as you noticed, there was no talk of demonstrations or other things. And it was clearly very early identified with a terrorist affiliate of AQIM."
Eight hours after the first e-mail was sent by the State Department to officials around the government, another message, obtained by CNN on Wednesday from a government official, said that the personnel in the "shelter location" in Benghazi were "under attack by mortar fire." It added there are reports of injuries to staff.
The timing of the message suggests the "shelter" referenced was the CIA annex a mile from the main diplomatic mission where, ultimately, two former Navy SEALs were killed in an effort to fight the attackers.
The email will likely be cited by critics to show that the administration knew within hours about the military nature of the attack.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the documents did not tell the whole story, describing conclusions drawn from the one document as "cherry picking."
"Posting something on Facebook is not in and of itself evidence, and I think it just underscores how fluid the reporting was at the time and continued for some time to be," Clinton said.
Moreover, intelligence officials do not believe Ansar al-Sharia is solely responsible with indications now that some of the attackers were associated with al Qaeda in Iraq, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and an Egyptian jihad network.
A spokesman for Ansar al-Sharia denied the group was responsible the day after the assault.

Biblical find! Piece of Christ’s cross claimed found during Turkey archeology dig

Archeologists believe they found the religious artifact, which was inside a stone chest unearthed at the Balatlar Church in the country's Sinop Province. The find is the latest in a long list of similar claims.

By Joe Kemp / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Saturday, August 3, 2013, 1:59 PM

Anadoluagency via YouTube

An image of the cross is carved into a piece of the stone chest.

An archaeology dig at a Turkey church may have unearthed a sacred relic — a piece of the cross used to crucify Jesus Christ.
The religious artifact was found in a stone chest during an excavation at the Balatlar Church in the country’s Sinop Province, according to the project’s team leader, Gülgün Köroglu.

Anadoluagency via YouTube

Archeologist holds a chunk of the stone chest believed to hold a piece of the cross on which Jesus Christ was crucified.

RELATED: NBC ACQUIRES ‘THE BIBLE’ SEQUEL
“We have found a holy thing in a chest,” Köroglu told the Hurriyet Daily News.

Anadoluagency via YouTube

The excavation — which has also unearthed more than 1,000 skeletons at the site — began in 2009.

“It is a piece of a cross, and we think it was (part of the cross on which Jesus was crucified). This stone chest is very important to us. It has a history and is the most important artifact we have unearthed so far.”
RELATED: IS THAT JESUS ON THIS DOG’S REAR END?

Anadoluagency via YouTube

Excavation site where archeologists believe they found a piece of cross used to crucify cross.

But the biblical find was just the latest in a long list of similar claims. For generations, numerous churches have alleged to have a piece of the hallowed wooden cross.
The famed 16th-century theologian John Calvin once joked that “if all pieces that could be found were collected together, they would make a big ship-load.”

Anadoluagency via YouTube

Archaeologists in Turkey have dug up what they believe to be a piece of Jesus’ cross

RELATED: CATHOLIC CHURCH TO YOUNG NEW YORKERS: JESUS WAS A HIPSTER!
The recent discovery by Köroglu’s team was sent to a lab for testing.
The excavation — which has also unearthed more than 1,000 skeletons at the site — began in 2009.
USING A MOBILE DEVICE? CLICK HERE FOR VIDEO

Abdullah surprised with a Albjadin, a weapons expert at al-Qaeda, the world his statement that the U.S. ambassador to Libya, who was killed in the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, with smoke, but did not die by lethal injection, the method of silent assassination, which was prevalent during the Cold War.

Beirut: weapons expert said al-Qaeda via "شموخ Islam" website that U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who was killed on September 11 (September 2012) was murdered by lethal injection after the failure of a plan for kidnapped. And despite the fact that the coroner said that the cause of death of the U.S. ambassador is the smoke inhalation, which led to suffocation, says U.S. intelligence analysts that this information increases the pressure on the U.S. administration in its dealings on the Benghazi attack. The Washington Times reported that the allegations made by Abdullah with a Albjadin, which U.S. officials describe as a weapons expert in al-Qaeda.
Did not provide the statement, posted on a Web site belonging to al-Qaeda, no evidence confirming the allegations with a Albjadin, but Washington did not raise these allegations aside. Said Kathy Wright, a spokeswoman for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, said the agency familiar with these allegations, but declined to comment on their validity, "because the investigation about Benghazi attacks still exist."
Wright added: "While there is a great deal of information in the media and on the Internet for the attack, which occurred in Benghazi, but the FBI is not in a position at this time to comment on anything specific regard to the investigation."

Improvisation jihadists
Achieves the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the killing of Stevens, information officer at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Sean Smith, and ex-soldiers in the U.S. Marine Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, who were killed in the attacks, which the U.S. suspects it of the implementation of the Ansar al-Qaeda-linked Sharia. The audit report and follow-up committee in the House of Representatives on Stevens to be the cause of death is not clear yet, and that a number of Libyans had found his body in the early hours of the morning on 12 September. The report added: "Libyan doctors tried to revive Ambassador Stevens upon his arrival to the hospital, to no avail."
So far, no progress has been made in the detection of the official cause of death for Stevens, although the doctor who examined the Libyan Stevens said he died from smoke inhalation and suffocation. But according to comments with a Albjadin, Stevens was injected lethal been ignored during the autopsy.
He added: "The plan was based on the kidnapping of the ambassador and used leverage in negotiating for the release of a number of terrorist detainees. However, the process took another turn, for one reason alone God knows truth, Fartgl the jihadist cell members and followed an alternative plan."

Silent assassination
شموخ site of Islam's credibility among some high intelligence analysts in the United States. Western intelligence official said that a Albjadin known jihadist and head figure in the organization and management of a magazine called "rule Arlaenz". According to the official, intelligence analysts believe that a statement Albjadin that the U.S. ambassador was assassinated by lethal injection is aimed, in part, to put pressure on the Government of the United States in dealing with the attacks in Benghazi.
He said that with Albjadin did not mention deadly material used in the lethal injection, indicating that the State Department will be exposed to criticism for not providing adequate security for diplomatic missions in Benghazi.
He added: "It seems that a Albjadin have more information about this issue but did not give any other details."
Comment who wrote in Arabic on "شموخ Islam" says that lethal injection stuck in more than one place in the body, and this is what will make the doctors who are doing an autopsy ignore symptoms, considering it is similar to another disease. "
He added: "Any person familiar with the art of silent assassination, which is used to apply spies during the Cold War, he could easily identify these parts of the body."

- See more at: http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%25D8%25AA%25D8%25B4%25D8%25B1%25D9%258A%25D8%25AD%2B%25D8%25A7%25D9%2584%25D8%25AC%25D8%25AB%25D8%25A9-U-S-%25D8%25A7%25D9%2584%25D8%25B3%25D9%2581%25D9%258A%25D8%25B1%2B%25D9%2583%25D8%25B1%25D9%258A%25D8%25B3%2B%25D8%25B3%25D8%25AA%25D9%258A%25D9%2581%25D9%2586%25D8%25B2%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3D3BI%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ar&u=http://www.elaph.com/Web/news/2013/6/816560.html&usg=ALkJrhgL3CEt0lMY09WB-wdqeGgbCKHKcA#sthash.Vy5xMBbc.dpuf

They wanted to kidnap Stevens to negotiate for the release of terrorists

Qaeda weapons expert: U.S. ambassador in Libya was killed by lethal injection

Lamis Farhat

0 0Blogger0 0

NY Times Hits the Clintons for Getting Rich Off Philanthropy; Ambassador-Designate Caroline Kennedy's Fortune Exposed

August 19, 2013

Windows Media

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: The New York Times continues to unload on the Clintons. It is as though I am editing the New York Times. Maureen Dowd just unloaded on Hillary yesterday. Today we have news that Vice President Bite Me is putting together his 2016 presidential campaign and that his team is revved up and ready to go and they feel good about their prospects.
Now, we had that one story from the New York Times that ripped into the Clinton Library and Massage Parlor and the foundation, and I commented on that on this program. The observation I made, because I thought the New York Times had made the same point, was that here you have this charity that is receiving millions of dollars and they're running deficits. They owe money. I drew the connection that the Clintons are getting rich off of philanthropy, which is usually not how it happens. You don't get rich from philanthropy because philanthropy is not Werewolfism. For those of you in Rio Linda, that's lycanthropy. This is philanthropy, and it's giving money away. And it's impossible to get rich giving money away. You do that after you have become rich.

The Clintons are getting rich in the process of giving money away, but now this story on Hillary actually takes quite a huge number of shots at both Hillary and Bill for the way they're making money making speeches. Clinton collected 700 grand for making a speech in Lagos, Nigeria. And Hillary gets $200,000 a speech, and one of the points -- I think this is in the Modo column, Maureen Dowd. One of the points she makes is this is unseemly. And she talks about Harry Truman who refused to earn a penny trading on the office, refused to accept a penny in his postpresidential life dealing with things like making speeches and so forth. It's a good point and it's all about the decline of the office and the Clintons' quest for money, which has been no secret, and the fact that they have become rich is no secret because they constantly tell everybody.
Anyway, just another couple of stories that just dump all over Hillary, including a column by Maureen Dowd. Anyway, the story I was talking about, the first story on the foundation, I made the connection I thought the author was making, that the Clintons are getting rich giving money away, and this guy goes on TV (paraphrasing), "Well, as usual, when Limbaugh talks about it it's factually incorrect." I wasn't talking about the secretaries and the clerical people, they're not getting rich. Nobody is surprised the Clintons don't pay anybody. Liberals don't pay people. They take all the money for themselves.
Look, Sheryl Sandberg -- name ring a bill? She's the chief operating officer of Facebook. She's got this book out about women and how they should do things, feminist type book. And she's got a job posting for an unpaid intern. When you look at the requirements of the job, it's obviously a job that requires a lot of hours and should pay a lot of money, and she's asking for an intern, you know, no pay. It's just incredible. I think she just cashed in stock and earned money off the book totaling $90 million. There's so much hypocrisy with these people on the left. Hell, let me find it. Caroline Kennedy is up for an ambassadorship to somewhere. I think it may be Japan, yeah. Doesn't matter where. You remember she was toying with running for the Senate at one time, and you remember how she blew it?

She went with Sharpton up to the soul food place in Harlem, Sylvia's, and she made every gaffe that you can make. The cameras are there, and she's eating. As a politician, you never eat on camera. You just don't do it. There's no way it can look dignified, and if you spill something, if you speak while chewing, I mean, there's nothing in it to eat, and there she was chowing down while Sharpton was doing it right. It was obviously a pander tour that just didn't work out. I think it was one of these Senate-appointed jobs, somebody had moved up or passed away, whatever, and they were gonna appoint her. She pulled out. And the reason why she refused to go to the Senate was because she refused to release financial information. Yeah, it was Hillary's seat. She was gonna take over Hillary's seat, that's what it was. Anyway, five years after all of that, "Newly filed documents reveal a personal fortune for Caroline Kennedy that could be as high as $500 million."
Now, you know me, folks. I'm a born-and-bred capitalist, and I begrudge nobody success. But I do zero in on hypocrites, people who have theirs and then support policies that essentially put roadblocks in other people's pathway to success and prosperity. And that's the Democrat Party. New York Post story: "Very private Kennedy declined to release the data in 2008," the financial data. "She subsequently withdrew her request for then-Gov. David Paterson to appoint her to Clinton’s seat."
She was also unable to speak English, and she made that mistake up at Sylvia's soul food eating in public. It was a huge gaffe. "But now, Kennedy has had to file documents with the US Office of Government Ethics for her nominated role as Ambassador to Japan.
Estimates in 2008 were that Kennedy could be worth anywhere between $100 million and $250 million. But, according to paperwork filed by Kennedy last month, that number could be even higher. 'She’s very rich, probably worth between $250 million and $500 million,' said one legal eagle who reviewed the publicly available documents. 'From the figures, it looks like she earns between $12 million and $30 million a year from her trust and from her investments.'
"The documents reflect that beyond her holdings in family trusts, she has positions through Phil Falcone’s Harbinger Capital, Apollo, Goldman Sachs, Vornado Realty Trust, JP Morgan, Blackstone and the Arctic Royalty Limited Partnership, which reportedly relates to two family-owned oil companies." Did you know that? Did you know the Kennedy family owns oil companies? They do. Evil oil, the Kennedy family's deep into oil. This what I mean about left-wing hypocrisy. They're deep into oil. It's possible because they get a pass on it, because they're liberals and they say the right things on social policy, social justice and taxes and all this. They get away with the hypocrisy.

Robert Jr., by virtue of being a Kennedy, is involved in the oil business. Look, don't all the Kennedys participate in these family trusts? Isn't that one of the reasons some of the young Kennedys are in trouble? They have had to go to work, because the family trust, there's so many Kennedys attached to it yanking money out of it, that some of them have had to go to work, and that hasn't worked out well. There's really only been two or three Kennedys that really worked. The old man being one of them.
Anyway, "She also reports almost $1 million annually from speaking engagements and royalties from books." I just love these rich liberals and how they make their money. And when they make their money their way, they're the evil rich. Investments? Wall Street? Profit? All of these things that they criticize, and not just criticize. They impugn. They demean. They criticize. And there they are, nevertheless, right in the middle capitalizing on it as much as possible. And of course, as we discussed last week, so many of them foster this image of not caring about money, that they're solely into charity. All they care about is others, but they're not interested in personal gain. It's all such a crock.
So, anyway, she's up for ambassadorship to Japan, had to disclose the financial information, and she's worth $500 million. Again, it is what it is. I don't know that she's done real work, either. But the family trust is what it was. It's just these people are treated different. They're given a pass on all this. They're allowed to criticize. They are allowed to come up with policy that actually attempts to do damage to the very way they exist. And they get to exempt themselves from their own policies, like Obamacare.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Caroline Kennedy is gonna have to learn how to say "y'know" in Japanese. Well, you've forgotten. Everybody's laughing at that, but people forget. I mean, I don't. My memory is almost unparalleled, and this woman, when she was up for the Hillary Senate seat... I mean, folks, it was everything everybody could do to not just laugh. It was embarrassing. I mean, here you have the aura and image of the Kennedys, and that is one of utter refinement and sophistication, almost erudite elitism, and then Caroline was out there behaving in ways that just surprised people. I mean, she said, "y'know" more than your average high school kid. It was, "Y'know, I was, like, over there, you know."
We put a montage of this together back then. We've got that. Listen to this...

KENNEDY: Y'know, I, uh, and, y'know, uh, y'know, and, um, y'know, in my own case, I mean, y'know, it's in our family, y'know, you always think about, y'know, going into politics, y'know, y'know, after 9/11 I thought about, y'know, and I think, y'know, y'know, everyday New Yorkers. And so, um, y'know, I keep, um, as well as myself, y'know, y'know, all over, y'know, again. And so I thought, y'know, y'know, what can I do, y'know, I ought give it some thought, y'know, in the future, y'know? Y'know. Y'know. And, y'know, while I was thinking about it just sort of, y'know --
RUSH: Stop the tape. There's four minutes of this left, folks. Unrepeated. Every one of these things happened individually. We put this montage together over the course of the period of time that Caroline was considered to replace Hillary in the Senate. That's why I say she's gonna have to learn how to say "y'know" in Japanese. Let's listen just to get a little bit more flavor of this...
KENNEDY: Y'know, "Why you be Senator? Y'know, you'd be great!" Y'know, "Go for it! We're rooting for you, y'know?" Y'know, coming up to me, y'know, thought this was real. So, y'know, so I thought, well, y'know, because, y'know, but I think, y'know, I -- y'know, public service is really, uh, y'know, and, um, y'know, I come at this as, y'know, a mother. Y'know, people, y'know, what made America beautiful. Y'know, I don't think, y'know, we talk, y'know --
RUSH: Okay. All right. Any more and people are gonna accuse us of being mean and making fun of her. That, of course, is not the point here. I mean, she's the one that did it, not us. See, but you're not supposed to say this. See, liberals are good people. They care. They have compassion, the biggest hearts. They have such good intentions, you're not supposed to point out these kinds of... I don't know, y'know, shortcomings or, like, anything, uhhhh, that would, y'know, detract from, like, the image. Y'know? You're not supposed to do that, and so they would accuse me of being mean. That's not what we're trying to do. I'm just trying to refresh your memory and explain why I said she gonna have to learn how to pronounce "y'know" in Japanese.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Here's Sue in Toledo, as we head back to the phones. Sue, welcome to the program. Great to have you here.
CALLER: Thanks. I'm so excited to talk to you, and, unlike the Drive-By Media, I just wanted to tell you that I listen to you every day. But the reason why I'm calling is because I was talking with my father-in-law over the weekend, and I asked him about Hillary Clinton being the potential next president, and he says, "Oh, no." He thought it was going to be Mrs. Obama as the next president. And then, after that, after she has her two terms, then he mentioned that he thought Obama would be back in line. What are your thoughts on that?
RUSH: You know, I hear rumors all the time about --
CALLER: That made me sick. It made me sick to my stomach when I heard that. I didn't even give it a thought.
RUSH: That's just fear, I think, that is inspiring that theory. I don't think that Mrs. Obama wants the job. I don't think that's in the cards. I could be wrong.
CALLER: Are you kidding me? A narcissistic family like that?
RUSH: I think that they both look at it as beneath them. They want the world. You know, when Barack finishes this, it's on to the United Nations or whatever new organization they can come up with. But, you know, your father, your grandfather could be right. I mean, certainly she would be immune to any criticism, the first black female president. Look, anything can happen. I haven't heard that being speculated about in any serious way.

And even if she wants it, she might have to wait her turn. I think the pattern is first black president, then first woman president, then first Hispanic president, and then first black woman president. I mean, if the Democrats have a blueprint, that's what it is. And I think it's one of the worst things that coulda happened to her, but right now the fix appears in for Hillary. You know, we're right back where we were in 2005 and 2006, 2007, everybody assuming Hillary is gonna be the Democrat nominee. History is starting to repeat itself.
Everybody on my side thinks Hillary's gonna be the nominee. The news media on the Democrat side, everybody pumping Hillary out, fait accompli, foregone conclusion, finally it's her turn. It's exactly what happened in 2006 and 2007 and look at what happened. Something came along and totally upset the applecart. So let's, in looking at history, let's go back to the 2012 Democrat convention. Was there anybody who spoke at the 2012 Democrat convention about whom it was said, "That guy's gonna be president someday," or that woman? Because that's what launched Obama. In 2004, his speech, the Democrat convention, and Michelle's introduction of him, that's what launched all the talk of Obama becoming president.
He didn't seek it in 2004. He waited until 2008. And then something happened, and he announced and just moved right to the head of the list, just leapfrogged over Hillary, and the same kind of thing could possibly happen here. Is there some Hispanic Democrat lurking in the wings who could leapfrog over Hillary? I actually think that, at least on our side, the belief that Hillary is gonna be the Democrat nominee is total fear. It's based in nothing but fear and a little conventional wisdom. You live inside the Beltway there's certain things that you think and accept as reality, and one of them is the inevitability of Hillary Clinton as president. I don't see it and I didn't see it in 2008. I wasn't surprised. And now you got the New York Times dumping all over the Clintons, not just one story, we're up to three now.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: New York Times, August the 18th, yesterday, the Sunday paper. "Questions on the Dual Role of a Clinton Aide Persist." This is an all-out -- well, I don't want call it an assault. This is just short of a hit piece on Huma Weiner. "When news surfaced in May that the State Department had approved an arrangement that allowed Huma Abedin, a top adviser to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, to take on work for private clients, officials at the department described it as nothing unusual. But three months later, questions about the arrangement persist, and the department has declined to provide some basic information about Ms. Abedin’s situation and those of other State Department employees who may have been given similar status."
Now, I have to ask, is the New York Times on some sort of a jihad against the Clintons? Just like the rest of the Drive-By Media, they had ignored Huma's sweetheart three way deal. You know, this is something that nobody talked about. Huma had it every which day. She had a deal with the State Department. She had a deal with Hillary. She had a deal with the Clinton Foundation and Library and Massage Parlor, and Teneo. Teneo is a financial consultant outfit that was founded by a Clinton lackey and which is getting rich via the Clinton Foundation.

So Huma has had a relationship with State Department via Hillary, a relationship with the Clinton library massage parlor and foundation, now this Teneo group, which is, again, a financial consultant outfit founded by a Clinton lackey, and it's getting rich via the Clinton Foundation. And Teneo, in turn, is paying Bill and Huma and other loyal Clinton cronies huge salaries for what seems like no real work. Like the kind of job Michelle had at the Chicago hospital. She earned over $300,000, essentially, for what was a no-show community relations job. And these are no-show jobs that are being discussed here, that are being exposed by the New York Times.
Fox News reported back in July that Huma got $355,000 from Teneo. Now, to people like me who pay attention to all this every day, this is old news. The fact that Huma was triple dipping was old news and not a lot was made of it because she's working for Hillary, she's protected, insulated. But now the New York Times is going back in time and bringing it all up again. And in the case of the New York Times, bringing it up for the first time.
Meanwhile, on their Caucus blog, the New York Times presents Bill Clinton's defense of his charity, but it doesn't amount to much of a defense. Basically Clinton says that the foundation's tax forms are misleading. Of course they are. They're too convoluted for the average person to understand. They don't show how much good work the Clinton Foundation has done over its 12 years. That's why they're misleading. Why wouldn't they?
I don't know about you, but my tax return lists every charitable dollar that I donate. What would be so hard about the Clinton Foundation's tax return not being an indicator of what kind of work it's doing? Well, one of the examples that Clinton gives in his own defense here is that his foundation provided five million people with access to low-cost AIDS medications and helped more than 21,000 farmers in Malawi obtain seeds and fertilizer. Well, I mean, forgive me here, but how much could low-cost AIDS medicine cost? How much could seeds and fertilizer for 21,000 African farmers cost? What I mean is, none of this is particularly convincing, if you ask me. It's misleading. We do all this work, and we're spending all this money, and we got all this money coming in, and this is why we're running deficits, because we're buying all this medicine, we're buying all this feed and so forth.

Here's the point of this, though. The Times doesn't even try to help the Clintons out on this. They're simply exposing all this. They're exposing the dual role of a Clinton aide. The headline: Questions persist. So Huma is getting treatment that she's not used to. The Clintons are getting treatment from their own media that they're not used to getting.
Then there's Maureen Dowd and her column on Sunday: "Money, money, money, money, MONEY! Clinton nostalgia being replaced by Clinton neuralgia. Why is it that America’s roil family always seems better in abstract than in concrete? The closer it gets to running the world once more, the more you are reminded of all the things that bugged you the last time around." I wasn't aware that the Clintons bugged Maureen Dowd. I thought the Bushes bugged her.
Anyway, "The Clintons’ neediness, their sense of what they are owed in material terms for their public service, their assumption that they’re entitled to everyone’s money. Are we about to put the 'For Rent' sign back on the Lincoln Bedroom?" Folks, for Maureen Dowd, New York Times, that sentence is absolutely devastating. "The Clintons’ neediness, their sense of what they are owed in material terms," meaning money, "for their public service." She's accusing them of demanding to be paid for their good works, and their assumption that they are entitled to everybody's money. You don't see this about the Clintons in the Drive-By Media.
So people are scratching their heads and trying to figure out what is going on. When that first story came out, that was just to get it behind them so that two years from now Hillary could say, "Oh, that's old news." But now we're up to three, counting Dowd's column. Now we're up to three stories. Is it all still just a ruse to get the bad news out now so that they can say down the road, "Ah, it's old news, it's been reported, been covered." I don't know. Something that I can't quite explain is happening.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Yeah. Maureen Dowd points out that Clinton got $700,000 for a speech in Lagos, $17 million in speaking fees, and she compares it to other presidents who've not traded on the presidency at all. It's not a pretty picture of the golden couple.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Look, folks, I know I'm the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling, all-everything Maha Rushie, but I do not know why the New York Times is dumping on the Clintons. I know what the possibilities are, but I do not know why they're doing it. And they are doing it. There is no question that there is, I don't know, an agenda or a storyline on this. But I mean, Bill Clinton is just raked over the coals here for being a reprobate, for being money hungry, for demanding to be paid for all of their good works. For demanding to be the focus of everybody's attention.

I mean, it is not pretty. This is not something you walk back from. This is not a hit piece that you say, "Oh, okay, maybe I was a bit too whatever," and apologize for it or walk it back. Nor are these stories that are being done on the Clinton Library and Massage Parlor and Foundation, nor are the stories on Huma. I mean, there's nothing the Clintons can do or say to cause there to be retractions on these stories.
The Maureen Dowd piece is an actual character attack, as much as it is anything else. I mean, when you start criticizing people for being money hungry, liberals, money hungry, demanding to be paid for every good work they do, making $17 million giving speeches, and contrasting that with Harry Truman, who didn't earn a penny trading on the office when he left it, and talking about how much Hillary makes per speech... I mean, she's created a picture here of people who are in it for the money, and that is an injurious hit to a liberal, who wants to be thought of as above all of that. A liberal is a liberal because of a good big heart and a compassionate mind and all that. They're not interested in money. It's one of the big myths that survives out there, and it's being blown up here where the Clintons are concerned.
Maureen Dowd also wrote, "The Clintons want to do big worthy things, but they also want to squeeze money from rich people wherever they live on planet Earth, insatiably gobbling up cash for politics and charity and themselves from the same incestuous swirl."
Now, I think that can be said of all of them. That is true of every leftist cause. Isn't that what they do for AIDS, ending poverty, climate change? Don't the left always find a way to get rich while the problems never get fixed?

Look at Algore. Algore has become a three-figure multimillionaire perpetuating a hoax. The hoax of manmade global warming. And all of these liberals get rich while advocating and promoting their causes, and there's always a component that requires everybody else giving up money. You have to change the car you're driving. You have to change your lifestyle. You have to get poorer. They get richer. That's what the first New York Times story was about, essentially, was here you have the Clinton Global Initiative, which is a foundation engaged in philanthropy, and it chronicled all the people getting rich from it. I mean, this is a huge veil being lifted from practically every leftist cause out there.
Let's look at Maureen Dowd here again. "The Clintons want to do big worthy things, but they also want to squeeze money from rich people wherever they live on planet Earth," that's donations to the charity or speech fees or what have you, insatiably gobbling up money for politics, money for policy, selling the Lincoln Bedroom or the White House coffees. All of this was going on, and while it was happening there was laughing about it, there was some reporting that was a little bit critical, but mostly they put a veil over it in order to protect the Clinton image, as people totally focused on good works and not themselves.
And that's why this is remarkable to me, and that's why I said this is gonna be very difficult, I wouldn't say it's impossible, but this is gonna be very difficult to walk back. Now, maybe the Times could get it out of their system and then ignore it and go back to covering the Clintons the way they did, but it's still out there. And I guess it's still possible that what all this is is simply get the junk out of the way now, clear the decks for a Hillary run so that when other people bring these things up, they can say it's been done, reported on. "Oh, yeah, Maureen Dowd wrote about that two years ago, and here I am still on the precipice of becoming the nominee," what have you.
But I think this is every liberal cause. I don't care whether it's AIDS, ending poverty, global warming, stopping malaria, you name it, every liberal involved is getting rich promulgating these charities, while everybody else gets poorer. Here's more from Maureen Dowd.
"Clintonworld is a galaxy where personal enrichment and political advancement blend seamlessly, and where a cast of jarringly familiar characters pad their pockets every which way to Sunday." All right, how is that any different from any other Democrat and his or her cause, like Algore? Personal enrichment. This has long been a point that I've tried to make in my own inimitable style on this program. A lot of liberals get rich running these charities living off of the donations they solicit. They don't actually have real world jobs.
They don't actually start businesses or work at businesses and take a share of what is produced or created. They set themselves up in these profitable or not-for-profit foundations or organizations. They live off the donations. But they do get rich in the process, the Kennedys, and while they get rich, their public image soars as great, compassionate, philanthropic people. Remember, there's another aspect to this. People ask me and have asked me frequently over the course of this program about all these wealthy Democrats and why they're Democrats. People most often mention Buffett and Bill Gates because those two appear to be uber-capitalists. People ask me, "Why are these guys Democrats?" I say, "There's a very simple answer. These really hyperrich people insulate themselves and their wealth by appearing to be opposed to it."

Sort of a modified Limbaugh Theorem. Become rich, get really rich, and then become a person that supports liberal Democrat causes oriented toward helping the poor or what have you. Meanwhile, you don't give any of your money to it, but you just say you're for it, and in the process you create the impression that you're not a greedy capitalist, and therefore nobody wants to go after your money. But they do want to go after AIG's money, and they do want to go after certain Wall Street funds, certain individuals. In one way, it is a gutless way, but smart, of making sure the peasants with pitchforks don't try to cross the moat and get to their house and get their money, because the peasants with pitchforks end up thinking that all these super uber-rich people are looking out for 'em, trying to help them. It's a pretty smart trick.
But I think with what's being exposed with the Clintons here by, in this case, Maureen Dowd, but the New York Times in general, is an open book on every liberal Democrat cause and how these people actually do get rich and then attain this status of super compassionate, big-hearted, only cares about others characterization. Even the Wall Street Journal -- and I say "even" because, aside from the editorial page, the Wall Street Journal also bends a little leftward out there. And they have a piece today entitled, "Hillary's Racial Politics." I won't bore you with the whole piece, but what it focuses on is why Hillary is making such a big deal about voting rights acts and voting laws and why she's out there speaking to the American Bar Association and the NAALCP about the right to vote and black people and how it's being taken away from them and all of this gobbledygook that isn't true.
And here's a pull quote. "The disconnect between these facts and Mrs. Clinton's assertions suggests that she is the one playing racial politics. The current narrow Democratic majority is largely a coalition based on gender and racial identity. It requires big turnout among single women and non-whites. As the Obama era winds down, the fear among Democrats is that these voters won't have the same enthusiasm."
Take the first African-American president off the ballot, not as much enthusiasm. You know, get rid of the front-running feminazi female, not as much enthusiasm. In other words, they need to cheat. They need to avenues to voter fraud. This is why they're so opposed to photo ID. What this story in the Wall Street Journal is pointing out is essentially Hillary knows she doesn't have a prayer without voting laws stacked in her favor. That is, maintaining the standard that there will be no photo ID required. I mean, there's only one reason for that. You can have voter fraud. It's pure and simple, and everybody knows it.
I actually think, given the Democrats' incessant focus on voting rights, the idea here that there's still some effort out there to deny minorities the right to vote, if anything, there's an effort to count their votes more than once. If anything, there's an effort to get people not even qualified the vote to vote. The idea that there's an effort to squash minority voting is absurd. It's just the exact opposite. Everybody's pandering to them, and the way the Democrats operate, they're trying to see to it that minorities can vote multiple times. Early voting, absentee voting, same-day voter registration is voting. All of this is aimed at on overwhelming an electoral system that can't keep up with the fraud.
In one sense you could probably say that it is a wonder Republicans win anything. And then you would say it's gotta be a testament to the power of conservative ideas. But every time I see a Democrat on television wailing and moaning and complaining and crying about Voting Rights Act here, as though there's still this effort from the 1800s to deny the right to vote to minorities. What an insult to intelligence that is. As I said, the effort is to get those people voting multiple times.
The whole idea that a photo idea is the equivalent of a poll tax or some such thing, all this age-old language that incites old ideas of racism and Jim Crow slavery and this kind, it's absurd. Well, anyway, the Wall Street Journal is calling her on it in this piece. It's all happened before she's even announced, which we also must point out.

END TRANSCRIPT