DISGUSTING! 24 Moore Oklahoma Children Dead But Dem Senator Whitehouse Uses Tragedy To Bash GOP

What a disgusting individual. There is no other way for it to describe him.  As I watch the unimaginable devastation in Moore Oklahoma, where 51 people have been reported dead so far, where 24 young children drowned in the basement of an elementary school-- one disgusting individual Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse is using the tragedy in an attempt to score political points.

Whitehouse blamed the tornadoes on Global Warming and on the GOP for not believing in the global warming hoax.

“So, you may have a question for me,” Whitehouse said. “Why do you care? Why do you, Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, care if we Republicans run off the climate cliff like a bunch of proverbial lemmings and disgrace ourselves? I’ll tell you why. We’re stuck in this together. We are stuck in this together. When cyclones tear up Oklahoma and hurricanes swamp Alabama and wildfires scorch Texas, you come to us, the rest of the country, for billions of dollars to recover. And the damage that your polluters and deniers are doing doesn’t just hit Oklahoma and Alabama and Texas. It hits Rhode Island with floods and storms. It hits Oregon with acidified seas, it hits Montana with dying forests. So, like it or not, we’re in this together.”

Whitehouse went on to condemn the current Republican position on global warming, citing economic, environmental and diplomatic damages.

“You drag America with you to your fate,” he continued. “So, I want this future: I want a Republican Party that has returned to its senses and is strong and a worthy adversary in a strong America that has done right by its people and the world. That’s what I want. I don’t want this future. I don’t want a Republican Party disgraced, that let its extremists run off the cliff, and an America suffering from grave economic and environmental and diplomatic damage because we failed, because we didn’t wake up and do our duty to our people, and because we didn’t lead the world. I do not want that future. But that’s where we’re headed. So I will keep reaching out and calling out, ever hopeful that you will wake up before it is too late.”

This is not the  time for snarky comments about the global warming hoax or about the Democratic party. I do have some serious questions for Senator Whitehouse:

"Do you have a heart...a soul?"  Most human beings are watching the incredible horror of Moore Oklahoma and at best are holding back the tears, but you dive into a political rant. Couldn't you at least have waited till the recovered all of the bodies of the children who died in the basement of the school pictured above?  How about waiting till the dead were buried?  Why did you need to make it a political issue while the bodies were still warm? Before all the dead were counted? Senator Whitehouse I cannot comprehend how a disgusting individual like you can sleep at night.

Obama's DOJ Tries to Shut Up Fox News By Threatening Reporter James Rosen With Criminal Action

If you think the Department of Justice/AP investigation was "chilling." This latest case against Fox New's James Rosen is and ice age. It is very obvious the Obama White House is trying to silence the only news outlet with a consistent record of reporting the truth (both good and bad) about this administration. 

Earlier today the Wash. Post reported that the Department Of Justice received a warrant to seize the phone records of Fox News' Rosen as part of a leak investigation. 

The case of Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, the government adviser, and James Rosen, the chief Washington correspondent for Fox News, bears striking similarities to a sweeping leaks investigation disclosed last week in which federal investigators obtained records over two months of more than 20 telephone lines assigned to the Associated Press. 

At a time when President Obama’s administration is under renewed scrutiny for an unprecedented number of leak investigations, the Kim case provides a rare glimpse into the inner workings of one such probe. 

Court documents in the Kim case reveal how deeply investigators explored the private communications of a working journalist — and raise the question of how often journalists have been investigated as closely as Rosen was in 2010. The case also raises new concerns among critics of government secrecy about the possible stifling effect of these investigations on a critical element of press freedom: the exchange of information between reporters and their sources. 

“Search warrants like these have a severe chilling effect on the free flow of important information to the public,” said First Amendment lawyer Charles Tobin, who has represented the Associated Press, but not in the current case. “That’s a very dangerous road to go down.”

This DOJ action goes a much farther than the Associated Press action. An FBI agent involved reportedly claimed there's evidence the journalist in question -- Fox News' James Rosen -- broke the law "at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator."

This particular part of the investigation is incredibly frightening.  No reporter has ever been prosecuted for seeking information. Such cases often target the suspected leaker, but not the journalist who published sensitive or classified information. I suspect this action has more to do with who James Rosen  works for than what James Rosen may have done.

Michael Clemente, Fox News' executive vice president of news, defended Rosen in a statement issued Monday afternoon.

"We are outraged to learn today that James Rosen was named a criminal co-conspirator for simply doing his job as a reporter," Clemente said. "In fact, it is downright chilling. We will unequivocally defend his right to operate as a member of what up until now has always been a free press." 

The case has also caught the attention of Congress. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said in a statement Monday he was "very concerned" about the reports of "possible criminal prosecution for doing what appears to be normal news-gathering protected by the First Amendment." 

He added: "The sort of reporting by James Rosen detailed in the report is the same sort of reporting that helped Mr. Rosen aggressively pursue questions about the Administration's handling of Benghazi. National security leaks are criminal and put American lives on the line, and federal prosecutors should, of course, vigorously investigate. But we expect that they do so within the bounds of the law, and that the investigations focus on the leakers within the government -- not on media organizations that have First Amendment protections and serve vital function in our democracy."

It will be interesting to see if Eric Holder recused himself from this action.  As you may remember, the AG was a guest on NPR last week and was asked if he signed off on any subpoenas such as the AP one, his answer was that he couldn't remember but had turned down some like subpoenas and forced a few others to limit the scope of others. Which is an indication that he may very well have been involved in this Fox action.

The probable reason for identifying Rosen as a "co-conspirator" is so the DOJ could avoid its own rules and regulations for getting records from reporters.  By identifying him in a possible criminal action the Obama administration gets to treat Rosen like a suspect (not as a reporter).

In a way Rosen is a lucky man.  If the Associated Press action wasn't revealed first the media wouldn't have given a damn about the DOJ going after James Rosen but now thankfully the mainstream media is joining in on the Fox broadcaster's defense.

Lets face it--this Administration has been whining about Fox News since before Obama was first elected in 2008.  This Department of Justice subpoena and threat of criminal action is the most frightening assault on the freedom of the press in my lifetime.

Wash.Post Brands IRS's Lois Lerner a LIAR Says Scandal HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH CITIZENS UNITED

WOW. If this keeps up the Washington post may seem like a non biased newspaper.  Last week we reported the Post's fact checker Glenn Kessler gave the President four Pinocchio on his contention that Benghazi was called a terror attack on September 12th, and today he went after the IRS' Lois Lerner with both guns blazing.

The clumsy way the IRS disclosed the issue, as well as Lerner’s press briefing by phone, were seen at the time as a public relations disaster. But even so, it is worth reviewing three key statements made by Lerner and comparing them to the facts that have since emerged.

“But between 2010 and 2012, we started seeing a very big uptick in the numb er of 501(c)(4) applications we were receiving, and many of these organizations applying more than doubled, about 1500 in 2010 and over 3400 in 2012.”

Lerner made this comment while issuing a seemingly impromptu apology at an American Bar Association panel. (It was later learned that this was a planted question — more on that below.) In her telling, the tax-exempt branch was simply overwhelmed by applications, and so unfortunate shortcuts were taken.

But this claim of “more than doubled” appears to be a red herring. The targeting of groups began in early 2010, after the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC was announced on Jan. 21. The ruling paved the way for political groups to apply under a tax-exempt status known as 501(c)(4).  Most charities apply under 501(c)(3), but under 501(c)(4), nonprofit groups that engage in “social welfare” can also perform a limited amount of election activity.

... while there was an increase in 2010, it was relatively small. The real jump did not come until 2011, long after the targeting of conservative groups had been implemented. Also, it appears Lerner significantly understated the number of applications in 2010 (“1500”) in order to make her claim of “more than doubled.”

Kessler also raises the issue that Lerner may have committed perjury. One of the answers outgoing IRS head Steven Miller actually did give was that he met with Lerner and arraigned that they would "plant a question" in her ABA talk so so she could mention the upcoming scandal.

So Lerner was dissembling when she suggested that a simple well-aimed question prompted the disclosure. 

In fact, just two days before the ABA conference, Lerner appeared before Congress and was asked by Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.) about the status of investigations into 501(c)(4) groups. She provided a bland answer about a questionnaire on the IRS Web site, failing to take the opportunity to disclose the results of the probe. (The clip is embedded below, with the question coming at 5:09.) Small wonder that Crowley is now calling for her to resign, saying that Lerner lied to him.

While Kessler gave Lerner his lowest rating (four Pinocchios) based he does title the piece, A bushel of Pinocchios for IRS’s Lois Lerner implying that he wishes he could give them more.

 Having covered this President since before he was a candidate seven years ago, there is no surprise that lies are coming from his administration.  The surprise come from the fact that the mainstream media is beginning to cover those lies. 

Sorry GOP--But Impeachment is NOT an Option

America is getting frustrated with this administration's fight to keep the truth behind the three scandals under wraps. As frustrated as the public may getting, congress, who is in charge of finding out the truth is even more frustrated.  Yesterday's performance by White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer, who appeared on all five Sunday News programs was at best ridiculous, it seemed as if he answered each and every question with "that's irrelevant." His answers were certainly better than Barack Obama and Eric Holder's standard answer which is "I don't (or didn't) know about that. Its hard to believe that if he wasn't flipping around the channels looking for reruns of NCIS last Friday Obama would have never heard about the IRS scandal.

As the Congress and (in some cases) the mainstream media do their job and investigate these scandals there are soft rumblings of the "I" word coming from the right wing blogisphere and from Republicans in Congress (Note: The "I" word is not the new politically correct way to say Islamist terrorists--It means impeachment).  Allow me to suggest that what we know so far does not even approach "I" word levels, and even if they do Impeachment would be a horrible option for the Country and for the Party.

The last two President's who approached impeachment level were Nixon and Clinton, both of whom went way over the line to break the law.  Clinton committed perjury, something to which he eventually admitted after DNA testing.  Nixon may have survived Watergate if there wasn't an audio record of his crimes (the tapes).  This is an administration that is careful to protect its senior leaders by putting very little in writing.  Heck the Attorney General didn't even put it writing that he recused himself from the IRS case even though he is required to by law.

But let us say that eventually it proven the scandals were directly ordered by the President (a long shot but suppose).  On Benghazi it can be proven the president lied for political purposes (he would not be the first) but the only one really culpable would be Hillary Clinton who lied to Congress which (whether she was under oath or not), is a crime.  The AP scandal may prove to be immoral, but doesn't seem like a crime because the DOJ got a court order.  The IRS scandal probably has the biggest chance of toppling an administration, the real question is even if it is proven to be directed by Obama, is impeachment the best option?

Not necessarily for a host of reasons.  The first would be these three horrible words, "President Joe Biden."  Imagine the SCHMOTUS, this gaffe-meister making foreign policy decisions/statements-- there would have been no surge in Afghanistan, we would be living with a nuclear Iran, and Bin Laden would still be alive.  Although it might be funny if he had a summit with North Korean Leader Kim Jong Il and said, "Come on Kim, stand up and take a bow--What am I saying, you are standing!"

A Joe Biden led domestic policy would be just as bad, perhaps the government would even waste money on pamphlets teaching women to protect themselves by emptying their shot guns through closed doors.

Don't worry America, this will never happen. Let's take this scenario a bit further. Say Obama is implicated directly in the IRS scandal and there is a smoking gun.  Let's say he is impeached by the House and there is a trial in the Senate, there is no way a Senate which when you include the one socialist/independent has 56 votes on the President's side is going to come up with the 67 votes to toss him out of office and give the reins to Biden.

However, if the house would move in that direction, Barack Obama ceases to be a scandal-ridden President and becomes a martyr to Republican obstructionism.  The GOP will become the racist party that threw out the first African-American president. Any voters on the fence would go Democrat just based on that meme.

On the other side, if Obama is proven to be behind the IRS and other scandals a weakened Obama is still much better than a Biden.  It is also better than the charges of obstructionism and racism that would be sure to come with any House action.

Thinking longer term if Obama is implicated in these scandals and stays in office he would be too weakened to push through his radical freedom stealing agenda during the remaining 921 days of his administration.  Additionally it will make ripe campaign fodder for the senate and house campaigns in 2014 and the Presidential campaign of 2016.

Any talk of Obama impeachment is way premature, but even if Obama is directly tied to these scandals impeachment would be bad for the United States and bad for the GOP.

Israel "Catches Up," Declares Muhammad al Dura Shooting A Fraud

Thirteen years ago when France 2 and Charles Enderlin sent around the world their fake story about Muhammad al Dura, the video of the staged death of a little boy became the rallying cry of Islamist terrorists all around the world. Instead of investigating the story, the Mainstream media became the biggest supporters of the hoax, and became accomplices this deadly fraud.

But for those who looked at the video with an open mind there were plenty of questions about the video. Why is there no footage of the boy after he was shot? Why does he appear to move in his father's lap, and to clasp a hand over his eyes after he is supposedly dead? Why is one Palestinian policeman wearing a Secret Service-style earpiece in one ear? Why is another Palestinian man shown waving his arms and yelling at others, as if 'directing' a dramatic scene? Why does the funeral appear — based on the length of shadows — to have occurred before the apparent time of the shooting? Why is there no blood on the father's shirt just after they are shot? Why did a voice that seems to be that of the France 2 cameraman yell, in Arabic, 'The boy is dead' before he had been hit? Why do ambulances appear instantly for seemingly everyone else and not for al-Dura?"
Nevertheless Muhammad al Dura became a poster child for Islamist terror. Osama bin Laden referred to al-Dura in a post-9/11 video; the killers of Wall St. Journal reporter Daniel Pearl placed a picture of him in their beheading video; streets, squares and academies have been named after al-Dura.


Philippe Karsenty a French Jewish activist Identified the al Dura video as a hoax and was sued by the TV Station and reporter. In May 2008 a French Court of Appeals found in favor of Jewish activist Philippe Karsenty, overturning a lower court decision that he had libeled France 2 and its Jerusalem correspondent Charles Enderlin when he accused them of knowingly misleading the world about the death of the Palestinian child Mohammed al-Dura in the Gaza Strip in 2000.

He became a poster child for the Intifada. Osama bin Laden referred to al-Dura in a post-9/11 video; the killers of Wall St. Journal reporter Daniel Pearl placed a picture of him in their beheading video; streets, squares and academies have been named after al-Dura. He became a poster child for the Intifada." 

It took the Israeli government seven years to deny responsibility for the death of al Dura, and thirteen years to declare it a hoax--they were late on both counts.

Today the Israeli government finally released a report telling the world something already known--the Mohammed al-Dura story was a Hoax.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu received today the report of the Government Review Committee on "The France 2 Al-Durrah Report, its Consequences and Implications." The report was presented by the Minister of International Affairs, Strategy and Intelligence Yuval Steinitz, in the presence of Director General of the Ministry of International Affairs and Strategy, Yossi Kuperwasser.

Prime Minister Netanyahu directed then Minister of Strategic Affairs Yaalon to set up the governmental review committee in September 2012. The purpose of the committee was to examine the Al-Durrah affair in light of the continued damage it has caused to Israel, and to formulate the Government of Israel's position with regards to it.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: "It is important to focus on this incident – which has slandered Israel's reputation. This is a manifestation of the ongoing, mendacious campaign to delegitimize Israel. There is only one way to counter lies, and that is through the truth. Only the truth can prevail over lies."

Minister of International Affairs, Strategy and Intelligence Yuval Steinitz: " The Al-Durrah affair is a modern-day blood libel against the State of Israel, alongside other blood libels like the claims of an alleged massacre in Jenin. The France 2 report was utterly baseless."

Following an extensive review of materials related to the affair, the committee determines that:

• The France 2 report's central claims and accusations had no basis in the material which the station had in its possession at the time of the report:
•  Contrary to the report's claim that the boy is killed, the committee's review of the raw footage showed that in the final scenes, which were not broadcast by France 2, the boy is seen to be alive. 
• The review revealed that there is no evidence that Jamal or the boy were wounded in the manner claimed in the report, and that the footage does not depict Jamal as having been badly injured. In contrast, there are numerous indications that the two were not struck by bullets at all.
• The review showed that it is highly-doubtful that bullet holes in the vicinity of the two could have had their source in fire from the Israeli position, as implied in the France 2 report.

If you look at the pictures above you will see that there is no blood on the wall on the bottom picture, If the boy and/or the dad had been shot there would be blood.

• The report was edited and narrated in such a way as to create the misleading impression that it substantiated the claims made therein.

• Over time numerous additional inconsistencies and contradictions have come to light, and question marks have been raised regarding nearly every aspect of the report.

• The report relied entirely on the station's local stringer, without additional evidence for his claims, and this despite the fact that there were numerous other media crews on the scene. The stringer's various claims regarding the affair in the years since the incident have been characterized by repeated contradictions and falsehoods.

The Al-Durrah affair demonstrates the need for media outlets to implement the highest professional and ethical standards when covering asymmetric conflicts. There is a particular need for international media outlets to critically evaluate information provided by local stringers, especially in arenas in which repeated attempts to stage or fabricate media items have been documented.

The al-Dura hoax has long-since been outed. But there is one question that remains to be answered, WHY? Not necessarily why the hoax was started. Hell we all know that, Palestinian cameraman and a French reporter who wasn't on the scene gets the feed an can't wait to broadcast another "horror perpetuated by those horrible Jews." That happens every day.

 The real why is, "why did they hold on to the lie for so many years, why do they still hold on the lie?" The have seen the full tape, they probably saw it years ago, why does/did Enderlin and France2 hold on to the lie that has caused the death of so many? I think to say that there was Antisemitism involved is too easy--but I can't think of another reason.