Friday, May 10, 2013
To: Friends & Supporters
From: Gary L. Bauer
Benghazi Gaining Traction
For months, liberal elites and their media allies have mocked
conservatives for caring about the Benghazi scandal. But watching three
grown men -- a Marine, a security expert and a career Foreign Service
officer -- moved to tears by this gross injustice has evidently moved
some in Big Media to care enough to start asking questions.
In addition to today's revelations (see next item) is the fact that
other major networks are starting to compete for stories. Other than Fox News, Sharyl Attkisson of CBS
has had the field almost entirely to herself. Attkisson is an
award-winning journalist who did some good reporting on Operation Fast
and Furious.
But she has been fighting with CBS over Benghazi. Politico reported this week, "CBS News
executives see Attkisson wading dangerously close to advocacy on the
issue… Attkisson can't get some of her stories on the air."
That is a perfect marker of the media's mindset, which has almost turned into a mental disorder. The pro-Obama censors at CBS
are accusing her of "advocacy" for daring to question the
administration. That is exactly what a free press is supposed to do!
We expect the independent, free media to hold those in power -- whoever
they are -- accountable to the people. Our Founding Fathers believed
so much in a free press that they put the right to free speech in the
First Amendment!
Obama White House Ordered Political Edits To Talking Points
Now Jonathan Karl at ABC News has joined Attkisson and Fox with breaking news this morning that the Obama White House ordered the CIA talking points to be altered for political reasons.
According to Karl, "ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited."
Now, we already know that the talking points were edited, but a bit of
history is useful here. Consider what White House Press Secretary Jay
Carney said in late November about the talking points:
"Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They
reflect the [intelligence community's] best assessments of what they
thought had happened. The White House and the State Department have
made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those
talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the
word 'consulate' to 'diplomatic facility'…" [Emphasis added.]
Did you get that, my friends? Weeks after key congressional leaders
were demanding Susan Rice's resignation for making false statements, the
White House was still insisting that there was only a "single
adjustment" to the talking points.
Earlier this week, Carney
stated that any changes were purely "stylistic and nonsubstantive."
Really? It took "12 different versions extensively edited" to make
nonsubstantive stylistic changes? The CIA must have some really poor
writers!
Karl's sources tell him that it was Victoria Nuland,
the State Department's spokeswoman, who insisted that all references to
terrorism be stripped out of the talking points. In one of her emails
to the White House, Nuland writes that the CIA's information about
terrorists and Al Qaeda, "could be abused by members of Congress to beat
up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why
would we want to feed that?"
Here a top State Department
official is making a political argument, knowing that the Obama campaign
is vulnerable on this issue. The White House clearly understood the
danger. From Jonathan Karl's report:
"In an email dated
9/14/12 at 9:34 p.m. -- three days after the attack and two days before
Ambassador Rice appeared on the Sunday shows -- Deputy National
Security Advisor Ben Rhodes wrote an email saying the State Department's
concerns needed to be addressed."
So now the White House is ordering the CIA to change the talking points! General David Petraeus, then Director of the CIA, wasn't happy about it, but he followed his orders.
Again, it is too early to assess the fallout from these revelations.
This news is breaking on a Friday, as many families are heading out of
town for college graduations and getting ready for Mother's Day.
House Republicans are promising more hearings, and there is serious
talk of bringing Hillary Clinton back to Capitol Hill for additional
testimony -- this time under oath.
The evidence of a scandal is beyond dispute. Ron Fournier of National Journal
writes today that it is "unseemly" for any White House to try to
finesse a tragedy, adding that Obama's credibility has been damaged.
Victoria Nuland should resign immediately, as should Jay Carney and Ben
Rhodes. I hope more journalists will realize there is a real story
here of government corruption and cover-up.
Thursday, May 9, 2013
To: Friends & Supporters
From: Gary L. Bauer
What's Next On Benghazi?
Yesterday's Benghazi hearing was extraordinary, but you wouldn't know it if you depended on Big Media. Major networks like CNN and MSNBC
did not cover yesterday's whistle-blower testimony on the Benghazi
scandal. Instead they chose to follow Amanda Berry and Gina DeJesus,
who were held captive in an Ohio home for ten years, as they returned to
their families.
In contrast, Fox News covered the vast majority of Benghazi hearing. Also today's Washington Post
had a relatively balanced story, noting that the witnesses "provided a
riveting, emotional account of last year's fatal attack" and "accused
senior government officials of withholding embarrassing facts."
Are Obama and Hillary in real trouble? It's too early to know for
sure. The fact that some of the witnesses appeared to contradict
Hillary Clinton's testimony does not by itself prove that Hillary
committed perjury. You have to prove that she intentionally lied using
sources other than someone else's statements.
That said, I
continue to believe the Benghazi scandal has legs and that more
disclosures are forthcoming. At a press conference today House Speaker
John Boehner called on the Obama White House to release more information
on Benghazi. Referring specifically to an email to the Libyan
ambassador, Boehner said:
"I hope you all tuned in to
yesterday's hearing on the tragedy in Benghazi. We learned that on
September 12 -- the day after the attacks and four days before Susan
Rice's TV appearances -- a senior State Department official emailed her
superiors to relay that … she had told the Libyan Ambassador that the
attack was conducted by Islamic terrorists.
"The State
Department would not allow our committees to keep copies of this email
when it was reviewed. And I would call on the president to order the
State Department to release this email so that the American people can
see it."
During an interview this morning, Senator Tom Coburn
(R-OK) said, "Having sat on the Intelligence Committee and seen the
review of emails that went back and forth as they developed the list,
there is a glaring problem there that will eventually come out." Stay
tuned!
What's More Important: Dead Babies Or Gay Athletes?
There is a saying in journalism, "If it bleeds, it leads." In other
words, high profile crimes make headlines. Unless, of course, the news
threatens left-wing dogma like the "freedom of choice." In that case,
Big Media dutifully ignore the story as though it never happened.
For example, one Washington Post reporter brushed off the trial of abortionist Kermit Gosnell as a "local crime story"
presumably with no public policy implications. Right -- just like the
Trayvon Martin shooting or the Newtown shootings were "local crime
stories" with no policy implications.
Fortunately for the
media, just as the pressure to cover Gosnell was gaining momentum, along
came the kind of story the media love: a professional basketball
player, Jason Collins, announced that he prefers sleeping with men.
According to CNSNews,
nearly 2,400 news stories were run about Jason Collins in the week
following his admission that he is a homosexual, compared to just 115
news stories about Gosnell during the first eight days of his trial -- a
difference of 1,970%.
Clearly, in Big Media's view, it is
far more important for you to know that a basketball player sleeps with
men, and that the president is proud of him, than it is to know about
the babies whose spinal cords were "snipped" in the name of choice.
The media's bias could not be more obvious. It is a perfect example of
how Big Media fully cooperates with the left to push its radical,
destructive agenda. And that agenda has tremendous implications for
public policy as it seeks to drive men and women of faith out of the
public square, forcing them into the proverbial closet.
Read more about this issue in my latest guest editorial in USA Today.
Democrats Duck Gosnell Debate
Kudos to Senator Mike Lee (R-UT). The liberal media may not want to
talk about Kermit Gosnell, but Senator Lee is forcing Senate Democrats
to confront the reality of their abortion-on-demand agenda.
Lee introduced a resolution demanding an investigation and legislation
to "correct abusive, unsanitary and illegal abortion practices." His
resolution now has 21 co-sponsors.
When he tried to bring up
his resolution, Senate Democrats objected. Lee said, "It is difficult
to imagine why anyone would object… The resolution is simply an
affirmation that we as a country -- a moral and compassionate society --
have an interest in acting to save the lives of innocent women and
children, and to prevent these kinds of heinous acts from happening to
anyone again."
Senator Lee is right. This is a debate the
country should have, and I encourage him to bring up his resolution
again and again and again, each time exposing the pro-abortion extremism
of Senate Democrats.
Democrats' Misplaced Priorities
What are the issues Democrats have been pushing since the beginning of
the new year? Gun control and immigration reform. After having spent
the first four months of the year working almost exclusively on gun
control and coming up empty handed, Senate Democrats turned immediately
to immigration reform.
Today the Senate Judiciary Committee
began hearings on the "Gang of 8" comprehensive immigration reform bill.
Vice President Joe Biden said yesterday that the amnesty legislation
must pass by the end of the summer. After immigration reform, Democrats
plan to do what? You guess it -- gun control again.
But what do the American people want? A Gallup poll
released this week asked Americans to identify the issues they wanted
Congress and the president to make top priorities. On Gallup's list of
12 issues, where do you think the American people ranked gun control and
immigration reform?
Not surprisingly, job creation and
economic growth tied as the most important priorities. Next was making
government more efficient, tied with improving education, followed by
fixing Social Security and Medicare, reducing the cost of health care
and reducing the deficit.
Gun control and immigration reform
were dead last on the list -- 11th and 12th places, respectively. The
issues the American people care least about are the very issues that
Barack Obama and his left-wing Senate allies are pushing non-stop.
One of the biggest reasons Democrats got shellacked in the 2010
election was that they pushed a radical agenda -- Obamacare, cap and
trade energy taxes, etc. -- at the expense of the economy. They are
doing it again!
Obama, no doubt hoping to head off another
shellacking in 2014, is heading to Texas today, vowing to refocus on the
economy. But we have heard that before. I wonder if he is taking his golf clubs with him?
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
To: Friends & Supporters
From: Gary L. Bauer
Benghazi Whistle-Blowers Testify
Three State Department whistle-blowers testified under oath today
before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee about their
knowledge of the Benghazi attacks on September 11, 2012. They were
emotional, breaking down on several occasions. They witnessed a gross
wrong, had friends die and watched a cover-up unfold from the inside.
The star witness was Gregory Hicks, a career foreign service officer.
Fluent in Arabic, he has served throughout the Middle East and was the
second-highest-ranking official at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli, just
beneath Ambassador Stevens, on the night of the attacks. Here are some
brief highlights of his testimony:
- Hicks began by
saying, "I am a career public servant. Until the aftermath of Benghazi,
I loved every day of my job." He provided the committee a detailed
account of what transpired the night of the attack, describing the call
he received from Ambassador Stevens in which he said, "Greg! We're under
attack!" and the call he took from the Libyan prime minister informing
him that Stevens was dead.
- Hicks recounted under
oath how a Special Operations team from Tripoli was directed by its
superiors not to board a plane bound for Benghazi to save U.S.
personnel. The officer in command of the team told Hicks, "I have never
been so embarrassed in my life that a State Department officer has
bigger balls than somebody in the military."
- Rep.
Trey Gowdy (R-SC) asked Mr. Hicks if U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice ever
called to speak to him. (As you may recall, the Obama White House sent
Rice on all the Sunday talk shows to repeat a false narrative about
protests over a film.) He said she never called him. Asked his
response to Rice's claims about the protests being caused by an
anti-Islamic video, Hicks responded, "I was stunned. My jaw dropped,
and I was embarrassed."
- Rep. Gowdy then read an
email from a State Department official sent the day after the attack to
the Libyan ambassador. The message encouraged him and other Libyan
officials to make it clear that the attack was committed by Islamic
extremists.
So Rice never talked to the top embassy official,
yet her statements contradicted Hicks' on the ground knowledge of
events, contradicted statements of the president of Libya and
contradicted statements from the State Department to Libyan officials.
- Under questioning from Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH),
Hicks revealed that State Department lawyers told him not to speak to
members of Congress who were coming to Libya to conduct an investigation
of the attack. Hicks told Rep. Jordan that was the first time in his
decades-long career he had ever been told not to cooperate with or speak
to members of Congress.
After he did meet with them, he got
an angry call from Cheryl Mills, chief of staff to the then-secretary of
state. Clearly, Hillary was paying very close attention to the
investigation and must have been annoyed that efforts to obstruct it had
failed. Why else would Mills be calling?
Mills, by the way,
is a long-time Clinton loyalist. She was a deputy White House counsel
during the Clinton Administration and one of Bill Clinton's defense
lawyers during his Senate impeachment trial. Now here is someone who
might know a thing or two about obstructing investigations!
Please share this report with friends and family members. Not many folks are glued to C-SPAN
during the middle of the day, and Big Media is not inclined to say
anything that hurts Obama. Sharing these reports can make a big
difference.
I have heard from numerous sources that yesterday's "End of Day" was widely read on Capitol Hill. I've taken calls from the Washington Post and other media outlets in response to our reports.
Of course, many in Big Media are interested only in spinning the
investigation as a political witch-hunt. But I am enjoying every
opportunity I get to shame them into doing their jobs, reminding them
that a free press should care about exposing corruption at the highest
levels!
Smear Campaign Next
We don't
know what will ultimately come of today's hearings. But we can safely
predict that if the accusations made by the whistle-blowers today get
any traction, the left-wing, Soros-funded smear machine will go after
the witnesses with an unbelievable degree of vengeance.
They should expect the worst. Michelle Malkin looks at the experience of previous whistle-blowers who dared to cross the left, and it's not pretty.
Mother Blames Hillary
One of the men killed during the Benghazi attacks was Sean Smith. His
mother has been dogged in demanding answers from the Obama
Administration, supporting Rep. Frank Wolf's call for a select
committee, and speaking publicly about her loss. During an interview on
CNN this week, Mrs. Smith had harsh words for the Obama Administration and for Hillary Clinton in particular.
Smith said that Obama, Biden, Hillary and former Secretary of Defense
Leon Panetta all personally promised her that they would get answers for
her about her son's death and find those responsible. She said, "I got
one telephone call from a clerk… He was reading to me from the time
line, which I already had. And that was it."
Asked if she
blamed Hillary Clinton, Smith said, "Yes. Because that's her
department. She is supposed to be on top of it. Yet she claims she
knows nothing. It wasn't told to her. Well, who is running the place?"
Democrats Lose Big
Democrats had hoped
to start off the 2014 congressional elections with some momentum by
winning a special election in South Carolina's First Congressional
District. They had everything going for them too -- from a big name
recruit, Elizabeth Colbert Busch (sister of Comedy Central's
Stephen Colbert), to a scandal-plagued GOP nominee, former Governor Mark
Sanford. Democrats and their liberal allies threw the kitchen sink at
this race, while the national Republican Party abandoned Sanford because
of his severe ethical lapses.
Sanford was not our choice to
run, but he won the primary. We know there is a double standard in
politics and we want conservative candidates to be as free of scandal as
possible in a fallen world. Nevertheless, he did win. And despite
Democrats' best efforts to take the seat, Sanford won convincingly last
night.
Quite frankly, Sanford may have won because of Democrat
hubris. His opponent followed Obama's playbook. She was pro-abortion.
She favored same-sex marriage. As that information came out polls,
which had Sanford down significantly, shifted rapidly in his favor.
Similarly, last year Obama came out for same-sex marriage right after
the voters of North Carolina had resoundingly rejected it. We hit the
president hard, even though the GOP establishment was largely silent.
In November, the only swing state that voted for Obama in '08 but
switched to Romney in 2012 was North Carolina.
North Carolina
last year and South Carolina's race yesterday provide further evidence
that the cultural extremism of Obama and the Democrats on life and
marriage can hurt them if the GOP finds its voice to make the case on
values issues.
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
To: Friends & Supporters
From: Gary L. Bauer
Barack & Benghazi
There is an odd coincidence in American politics -- presidential second
terms often seem cursed. For Ronald Reagan it was the Iran/Contra
scandal. For Bill Clinton it was Monica Lewinsky and impeachment. For
George W. Bush it was the financial collapse. For Barack Obama it could
well be Benghazi.
Whistle-blowers are scheduled to testify
before Congress tomorrow. We hope that this cover-up, which began more
than six months ago, will be fully exposed and that those responsible
will be held accountable. The families of four dead, brave Americans
deserve at least that.
Exposing corruption and demanding
honesty from our leaders is what a real opposition party and a free
press are supposed to do. Amazingly, the New York Times continues to ignore Benghazi, refusing even to report the fact that blockbuster hearings are taking place tomorrow.
On the eve of the hearings, I want to remind you of what was happening
in the days leading up to the attacks and immediately following.
The attacks on the Benghazi consulate took place on the anniversary of
9/11 -- September 11, 2012. Seven days prior, Democrats gathered in
Charlotte, North Carolina, for their national convention.
At
that convention, Obama "spiked the ball in the end zone" -- reminding
everyone listening that he had taken out Osama bin Laden. (You would
have thought that he had personally escorted the Seal Team on its
mission.)
But more importantly, Obama claimed Al Qaeda was on
the ropes -- "defeated" or "decimated" as we were told over and over
again. It was the theme of virtually every speech in Charlotte. Joe
Biden hammered it home with his line, "Osama bin Laden is dead, and
General Motors is alive." That was all voters needed to know, according
to Biden, to reelect Obama.
But just one week later that
theme was in jeopardy as riots engulfed many Muslim capitals in the
Middle East, allegedly in reaction to an anti-Islam movie trailer. The
U.S. embassy in Cairo was assaulted. Egyptians stormed the walls and
raised the black flag of the "dead" Al Qaeda movement. Then came the
military-style attack on our consulate in Benghazi, an attack that
lasted at least seven hours.
What happened next was a
significant moment. On the anniversary of 9/11, as Islamist rioters
surrounded the walls, embassy officials in Cairo released a statement
condemning the American filmmakers for exercising their free speech
rights rather than condemning Islamic extremism for the violence. Mitt
Romney held a press conference criticizing the statement, citing it as
an example of the administration's weakness.
Big Media,
heavily vested in Obama's reelection, launched a full-throated assault,
not on Obama, Biden and Clinton for their false bragging a week earlier,
but on Mitt Romney! The line out of Washington was, "Mitt Romney
doesn't have the demeanor and wisdom to be Commander-in-Chief. Now
people are dead!"
Think about that for a second. You've got
to tip your hat to the naked shamelessness of the president, the
secretary of state and others involved. They knew that Islamists had
caused the attacks. They knew they refused to send help.
And
what did they do? What leftists always do: Faced with huge exposure
and tremendous vulnerability, they went on offense. They successfully
turned the events to their advantage, damaging Mitt Romney in the
process. And the sympathetic media fully cooperated. In politics and
in war the best defense is often a good offense.
Meanwhile,
as all of this is unfolding, we now know that the CIA had provided
talking points blaming Islamists. But a top career official at the
State Department, Victoria Nuland, sees a watered-down draft of the
talking points and still insists that they failed to "resolve all my
issues or those of my building [the State Department] leadership."
Translation: Hillary Clinton is upset.
Just imagine being
president of the United States or secretary of state and, while America
doesn't know yet and the media show no interest in knowing, you know
exactly what you did and did not do on the night four Americans died.
So what do you do? If you are Barack Obama, you head to Las Vegas for a fundraiser the next day.
Three days later, on September 14th, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and
Hillary Clinton welcome home the caskets carrying the bodies
of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith and Glen Doherty.
Family members of the dead Americans asked, "What happened? Why is our
son dead? Who did this?"
Obama and Hillary looked Patricia Smith
in the eye and promised to get to the bottom of it. But they already
knew what happened. They scrubbed the talking points to make sure the
family members did not know the truth, that members of Congress did not
know the truth, that American voters did not know the truth.
Two weeks later, the FBI
had not arrived in Benghazi to investigate. Why not? One of the
whistle-blowers who will testify tomorrow believes that it was the
result of fallout and bad relations with the Libyan government.
The president of Libya was reportedly furious with U.N. Ambassador
Susan Rice's false statements to the Sunday talk shows denying that
there was any connection between the attacks and Al Qaeda. He called
Rice's remarks, "completely unfounded and preposterous." So when Obama
sent the FBI, they parked in Tripoli for two weeks. News organizations
were in Benghazi before the FBI got there.
From that point
on, anytime Obama or Clinton were confronted by Romney or any reporter
about whether Benghazi was handled correctly, they wrapped themselves in
the burial shrouds of the men who died. "I stood next to President
Obama as the Marines carried those flag-draped caskets off the plane at
Andrews," Clinton said.
The whole time she and Obama knew they
had abandoned their fellow Americans to fend for themselves. Chutzpah
does not even begin to describe it!
In conclusion, this sorry
chapter in American history demonstrates in so many ways all the
problems that bedevil America's current debate and political process.
Today's media are unwilling to do their job and are too often partisan
players in the political process.
Today's Democratic Party is
not the party of JFK, FDR and Harry Truman -- men who took
responsibility for their actions and confronted tyranny. Instead it
produces leaders whose first instinct when faced with terrorism is to
tell the American people to pipe down. The left does have a "killer
instinct," but only when "the enemy" is conservatives.
Against
this formidable force is a Republican Party whose most recent
presidential nominees were not tough enough to deal with people like
Obama or Clinton or the liberal press corps. As a result, Mitt Romney
is a private citizen while Barack Obama has three and half years to do
even more damage to America.
Monday, May 6, 2013
To: Friends & Supporters
From: Gary L. Bauer
Benghazi's Back To Bite "O"
The Benghazi scandal is back! Sunday CBS News used the word "cover-up" for the first time in its reporting on the scandal.
The Weekly Standard
published an exchange of emails detailing the "heavy substantive
revisions made to the CIA's talking points," stripping out all
references to Al Qaeda, jihadists, Islamic extremists and terrorism. As
more of this information is released, it is becoming virtually
impossible to deny the obvious.
Rep. Stephen Lynch, a liberal
Massachusetts Democrat, blasted the House GOP investigation, but
conceded that the Obama Administration's talking points "weren't
accurate." After further questioning by Fox News Sunday host
Chris Wallace, Rep. Lynch admitted that the talking points were
"scrubbed" and were "totally inaccurate." Lynch added, "There's no
excuse for that."
By the way, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) said this morning on Fox & Friends,
"No Democrat decided or elected to go" to Libya as part of the House
investigation. Ignorance is bliss to House Democrats who don't want to
cross Obama.
One of the Benghazi whistle-blowers who will
testify this week is Gregory Hicks, the number two official at the U.S.
embassy in Tripoli. CBS News reports that Hicks "took the
frantic call" from Ambassador Christopher Stevens on the night of
September 11, 2012, saying, "Greg, we are under attack." Hicks
reportedly told House investigators, "everyone in the mission thought it
was a terrorist attack from the beginning."
You may recall
that the preliminary House GOP report on Benghazi accused the Obama
Administration of a cover-up, stated that then-Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton misled Congress and that the White House misled the
American people. This week, the American people will have the
opportunity to hear from individuals who know what happened on the night
when four Americans died and Obama did nothing.
The Benghazi scandal must be exposed for what it is. Be certain to check out the ad my public policy organization American Values is running right now.
What Did Hillary Do?
Fox News
is reporting the explosive charge that Hillary Clinton shut out "the
department's own counterterrorism bureau" during the critical hours
following the attack. This allegation comes from two top
counterterrorism officials at the State Department, one of whom (Mark
Thompson) will also testify this week.
Why would Clinton do
that? No doubt she was running defense for Obama's reelection campaign,
but she was likely worried about her place in history too, and her
place in 2016!
On the stump, Obama had said repeatedly --
before and even after the Benghazi attacks -- that Al Qaeda had been
"decimated" or "defeated." Benghazi proved otherwise. Worse, it proved
the Obama Administration's incompetence.
Hillary and those close to her knew all of this and understood just how
damaging the truth could have been, not only to Obama but to her as
well. As The Weekly Standard article makes clear, it was the
State Department's spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, who demanded that the
CIA's talking points be watered down, warning that initial changes
failed to "resolve all my issues or those of my building [the State
Department] leadership."
Meanwhile In Syria…
Israeli forces launched massive airstrikes yesterday near Damascus,
Syria. The bombings struck several military facilities, including one
believed to be Syria's "main chemical weapons facility." But the real
targets are believed to have been Iranian weapons bound for Hezbollah.
There is some speculation that Israel may have been demonstrating its
own ability to launch strikes against Iran's nuclear sites.
Regardless, Israel is doing exactly the right thing. The only stake we
have in all of this is not to allow chemical weapons to start pouring
out of Syria. I believe that it is too late now to remove the Assad
regime without it being replaced by something far worse.
In
fact, U.N. observers are warning that they have "strong, concrete
suspicions" that chemical weapons may have been used by the Syrian
rebels trying to overthrow Assad's government!
Does Obama Understand America?
President Obama delivered the commencement address at Ohio State
University yesterday. During his remarks, Obama offered a predictable
defense of big government. But he also mocked those who favor smaller
government, saying:
"Unfortunately, you've grown up
hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than
some separate, sinister entity that's at the root of all our problems.
…They'll warn that tyranny is always lurking around the corner. You
should reject these voices."
Who are these "voices" warning
us about big government? One undoubtedly was Ronald Reagan, who said in
his 1981 inaugural address, "In this present crisis, government is not
the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
But
Reagan was not the only "voice" Obama has a problem with. America's
Founders were deeply suspicious of big government and warned about
slipping back into tyranny and oppression.
James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers,
"experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions"
against government control. And Thomas Jefferson warned that as liberty
yields, government gains ground.
The Founders and Reagan were
right, but Obama despises Reaganism and does not seem to like the
Founders either. After all, they were part of the 1% of their time!
My hope is that the students at Ohio State University will ignore
Obama's advice and retain a healthy American skepticism about trusting
government to safeguard our liberty.
Friday, May 3, 2013
To: Friends & Supporters
From: Gary L. Bauer
The GOP & The Hispanic Vote
If you read only one item in today's report, I hope this is it.
The conventional wisdom among Beltway elites is that Mitt Romney lost
the 2012 election in part because Barack Obama won a landslide among
Hispanic voters. So, as the logic goes, the GOP must now surrender on
immigration reform and border security in order to attract more Hispanic
votes to remain competitive in future elections.
That is one
reason why many well-meaning conservatives in Congress are rushing
headlong to embrace legislation that has Democrats salivating. But is
it really necessary?
I know conservatives and Christians that
are on all sides of the immigration reform debate. But if anyone has
deluded themselves into accepting the view that we must accept amnesty, please read this analysis by Byron York. He demolishes the myths surrounding the role of the Hispanic vote in the 2012 election.
According to York's analysis, Romney would have needed 73% of the
Hispanic vote last year in order to win the White House. The GOP's best
showing ever was George W. Bush's 44% in 2004. Yet, a minor
improvement of just four points among white voters would have been
enough to defeat Obama.
Whether it is border security or
values, the conservative message is not the problem! The GOP is
learning all the wrong lessons from the 2012 elections and is
suppressing its own base support.
Boston Bombers Planned July 4th Jihad
Just about every day we learn more about the Boston Marathon bombers'
motivation. Here is the latest revelation: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev told the
FBI that they had originally planned on becoming suicide bombers
targeting Boston's popular July 4th celebrations along the Charles
River.
They clearly wanted to hurt America and they wanted to
die martyrs' deaths, taking with them as many innocent men, women and
children as they could. Clearly, that is not the mindset of your
typical political protestor.
So why did the Boston Marathon
become their ultimate target? It was simply a matter of timing.
According to Tsarnaev, they finished building their bombs ahead of
schedule.
But law enforcement officials are skeptical, according to the Washington Post,
citing "the complexity of the bombs." Wait a minute! We were
constantly told in the days following the attack that the bombs were
"crude" and "unsophisticated." If the bombs were in fact complex
devices, it suggests the brothers had help or that Tamerlan's trip to
Russia was more than just a family reunion.
But one official
lamented, "Maybe we will never know. This is the story he is telling
us." Why won't we know? Because he's not "telling us" anything
anymore.
The Post explains that Tsarnaev was
questioned for 16 hours after his arrest without having been read his
Miranda rights, which is legal under the "public safety exemption" if
law enforcement is concerned about potential imminent threats. But
"Officials have said that he has remained silent since he was arraigned
and represented by lawyers."
Investigating the Investigation?
The Obama Administration's attempt to cover-up the truth of what happened during the Benghazi attacks may be unraveling. Fox News
reported yesterday that the State Department's inspector general has
launched an investigation of the State Department's own Benghazi
investigation.
That effort, known as the Accountability
Review Board, was another "blue ribbon panel" led by Admiral Mike
Mullen, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and former U.N.
Ambassador Thomas Pickering. So what exactly is the inspector general
concerned about? As Fox reports, the board "failed to interview
key witnesses who had asked to provide their accounts of the Benghazi
attacks to the panel."
The Obama Administration is clearly
hiding something. The stonewalling must stop! This is just one more
reason why Congress must form a select committee to get to the bottom of
this scandal.
Obama Picks "Billionaire Bankster"
Barack Obama has spent much of his administration and his political
campaigns exploiting class warfare, railing against the rich and mocking
Mitt Romney for his offshore accounts. That is why more than a few
eyebrows were raised yesterday by his choice of Penny Pritzker to be
Commerce Secretary.
Pritzker is a billionaire and a major
funder of left-wing candidates and causes. She was the finance chairman
of Obama's 2008 presidential campaign. But she also has a "history of
controversial businesses practices," as the New York Post noted,
including the "aggressive repackaging of subprime loans." She ran a
bank that went bankrupt. And the IRS sued the Pritzker family for
exploiting offshore tax havens, eventually seizing $9.5 million.
Obama had considered Pritzker for Commerce Secretary after winning the
2008 election. But her background is so questionable that she withdrew her name from consideration. Now he is apparently prepared to fight for her. Republicans should give him that battle!
Obama Still Tilting At Windmills
During his press conference this week, Barack Obama once again vowed to
close the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Among
the reasons he offered for wanting to shut it down, Obama said, "It is a
recruitment tool for extremists."
The left is so used to being
unserious when it comes to national security that it is virtually
unable to think logically about the issue. My friend Cliff May at the
Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and others have pointed out
the contradictions of Obama's national security views.
For
example, Barack Obama has killed more radical Islamists with drone
strikes than any president in our history. During last year's campaign,
the White House intentionally leaked the news that Obama personally
carries the list of potential targets he wants killed and personally
orders the attacks, even when he knows it will result in civilian
casualties.
I support these drone attacks. I'd much rather
use them than have more American soldiers risk losing their legs or
lives to bombs fighting jihadists on the ground. But using the
president's logic, if having detained prisoners at Gitmo is a recruiting
tool, then certainly killing innocent civilians with drones must be
too.
But the inconsistency gets even bigger. The people
still at Gitmo are the worst of the worst. The largest percentage of
the inmates are Yemenis. We have not returned them because the Yemeni
government refuses to assure us that they will not release them. Many
Gitmo detainees have been released only to show up again on battlefields
trying to kill our troops.
Think about this: Obama is
arguing that it would be acceptable from a human rights stand point to
call in drone strikes that put innocent lives at risk, but it is somehow
inhumane to capture the enemy, feed him three meals a day and give him
copies of the Koran in Cuba. Only the left can make that argument with a
straight face!
Thursday, May 2, 2013
To: Friends & Supporters
From: Gary L. Bauer
Court-Martialed For Christ?
This may make you physically sick. Radical secularists are waging a
cultural jihad against the U.S. military with the cooperation of the
Obama Administration. The same military that is being browbeaten every
day to be more friendly to Islam is now under pressure from Obama
appointees at the Pentagon to restrict the free exercise of religion by
its Christian chaplains.
Here's one example: After the 2009
Fort Hood shooting by jihadist Major Nidal Hasan, Gen. George Casey
said, "Our diversity… is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy
was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse." Casey
was more worried about politically correct diversity than he was about
U.S. troops being shot by a jihadist wearing a U.S. military uniform.
Remember the recent controversy over a draft Army handbook
for our troops in Afghanistan? It blamed jihadi violence not on
Islamic culture but on our cultural ignorance and advised our soldiers
not to offend Islamist sensibilities by "advocating women's rights" or
with "any criticism of pedophilia."
Here's another example:
After the Boston Marathon bombing, a West Point instructor told his
class that he would "bet his life on the Muslims having been behind it
like they always are. It's always the Muslims and everyone knows it, and
everybody is afraid to say it. Well, I am not."
A complaint was filed with the left-wing Military Religious Freedom Foundation led by Mikey Weinstein.
Weinstein has been filing nuisance lawsuits for years. In normal
times, he would be a pimple on the Pentagon, a minor irritation to be
periodically lanced. But under this administration, Weinstein and other
leftists were brought into the Pentagon for negotiations last month.
Who is the Pentagon turning to for policy making advice? Weinstein wrote a column for The Huffington Post
the day after the Boston Marathon bombings. His column was about
"bloody monsters," "monsters of human degradation, marginalization,
humiliation and tyranny." He warned about "their rapacious reign of
theocratic terror."
If you thought Weinstein was writing
about Islamic jihadists you would be wrong. He was referring to
"fundamentalist Christian monsters" inside the U.S. military and outside
it, groups like ours representing the values of good folks like you!
Weinstein also told the Washington Post
that "systematic misogyny, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia in the
military" were "national security threat[s]." To that list, Larry
Wilkerson, another of Weinstein's associates at last month's Pentagon
meeting, included Christian proselytizing. Weinstein added, "the
Pentagon needs to understand … it is sedition and treason. It should be
punished."
Weinstein and Wilkerson are not shy about what they
were demanding. "You need half a dozen court-martials real quick,"
Wilkerson told the Post. Court-martials for sharing one's faith? Sadly, some officers at the Pentagon seem inclined to agree.
I hope in 2016 we will get a president whose values are more consistent
with those of the overwhelming majority of the American people. But
even if we do, it will take years to clean out the rot that this
administration is imbedding throughout the bureaucracy, including in the
armed services that protect us.
"On My Honor"
As you know, the Boy Scouts of America has been a top target of the
militant homosexual rights movement for many years. The constant
campaign of harassment and intimidation has led to the loss of corporate
donations and even legislation seeking to punish the Scouts. As a result, the BSA is in the process of caving in to the radical left's demands.
There is a grassroots effort to push back. OnMyHonor.Net
is planning rallies around the country outside of BSA offices later
this month in support of the Scouts' traditional values. This Sunday,
May 5th, it is hosting an online webcast called "Stand With Scouts
Sunday."
I am happy to join with Family Research Council,
OnMyHonor.Net and others in promoting these opportunities for men and
women of faith to speak up in support of the Boy Scouts of America. Click here to learn more about the "Stand With Scouts Sunday" webcast. Click here to learn more about OnMyHonor.Net.
Pray For America
Today is the 62nd annual National Day of Prayer. This year's theme is
"Pray For America." It is a good time to remind ourselves of one of our
nation's founding principles -- that our liberty comes from God, not
government. If anyone is confused by that, check out the second
paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.
Many thanks to my dear friend Shirley Dobson for the tremendous work she has done over the years in leading this event at the National Day of Prayer Task Force!
There are events all across the country today and on Capitol Hill, but
nothing at the White House marking the event. George W. Bush hosted
National Day of Prayer events at the White House every year of his
administration. President Obama canceled that tradition. This morning
he left for Mexico.
"Bottoms Up, Lame Duck"
Washington is still buzzing about Barack Obama's bizarre press
conference Monday. When asked if he "still [had] the juice" to get his
agenda through Congress, Obama offered a meandering response that
confused many pundits and commentators.
"In Charge, But Not In Control," is how one Time blogger described Obama's response. One of the best reactions came from liberal New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, who wrote "Bottoms Up, Lame Duck."
Dowd blasted Obama for his lack of leadership, writing, "He still
thinks he'll do his thing from the balcony and everyone else will follow
along below."
Dowd is on to something. When Harry Reid once
complimented Obama on one of his speeches, Obama replied, "I have a
gift, Harry." Obama is really good at campaigning and speech-making,
but the former community organizer is not so good at governing.
From day one he has expressed his frustration with the limits of our
system of checks and balances. During an interview with Matt Lauer last
year, Obama whined, "Our Founders designed a system that makes it more
difficult to bring about change than I would like sometimes."
At his press conference this week, we heard that theme again. Obama
complained about the filibuster, and said that it wasn't his job to make
Congress "behave," or do what he wants. He just doesn't seem to get
that this isn't Venezuela. Somehow Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton
managed to work with Tip O'Neill and Newt Gingrich.
The GOP
should not just rollover and play the role of Obama's lapdog. When it
comes to fundamental principles, it is the job of the opposition party
to make sure he doesn't have any "juice" left in his effort to rip
America away from its moorings of free speech, freedom of religion and
free markets.
