Breitbart Feed

LA County Official Uses Taxpayer Funds for 600 Mile Weekly Commute

Fri, 24 May 2013 14:50:27 GMT

A top Los Angeles County official who uses a taxpayer-funded SUV for his 600 mile commute every week is unrepentant about it, as well as the bill he racks up by staying in a hotel five days a week before driving 300 miles home for the weekend.

He has driven 46,000 miles in the vehicle in the last year; if he drove home every weekend, that means roughly 30,000 of those miles were back-and-forth from his home.

LA County Chief Probation Officer Jerry Powers is in charge of the largest probation department in the nation. Salaried at $255,000 a year, he lives in the San Joaquin Valley but works in Downey, 300 miles away. Every Friday he drives home 300 miles after spending the work-week in a hotel, then drives back Monday morning to arrive in Downey.

Powers told CBS2 investigative reporter David Goldstein, “If I can get out because I don’t have appointments... yes... I try to get out on Fridays early. It’s not a secret.”

Powers pays $50 a month to use the SUV for business or personal use. Powers’ county gas credit card statements show more than $5,400 spent on fuel since January 2012. His hotel room charges over the same period amounted to nearly $23,000. He is allowed up to $25,000 in relocation expenses.

Powers told Goldstein he’d pay the hotel charges when he reaches the limit, and offered no apology for his use of taxpayer money, instead saying defiantly, “I can’t speak to what the taxpayer feels is appropriate or not appropriate. I can only respond to... I’m not violating any county policy.”

Hollywood's Favorite Villain: The Businessman

Fri, 24 May 2013 14:49:59 GMT

Whether it's Mortimer and Randolph or Gordon Gekko, Hollywood loves to make businessmen villains. From the Free Enterprise blog:

Hollywood script writers must be going through an unimaginative streak. As The Wall Street Journal reports, this summer will see the release of movies in which the antagonists are…surprise - corrupt, evil, and greedy business executives scarier than Darth Vader, the Joker, or Hannibal Lecter.

Doesn't Hollywood feel some shame for continuing to perpetuate trite mischaracterizations? Apparently not:

Hollywood's latest wave of business bashing is far from over, says Mr. Batmanglij. "A lot of people think 'Oh, making the corporations bad is cliché, we've seen it before,' " he says. "That holds as much water as saying that shooting a scary scene in the dark has been done before. It's scary for a reason."

The East, due out May 31, is about an underground activist collective whose creative attacks allow corporate bosses to “experience the terror of their crimes.” The group creates an oil spill inside the home of an oil-company CEO and makes drug-company executives taste the ruinous side effects of their own medicine. The bad business barometer reaches so high in this film that the "good guys" are people who intentionally inflict harm on others.

I'm waiting for the movie about the oil company executives whose investments in energy technology are responsible for turning small, depressed towns into bustling centers of commerce and new, high-paying jobs due to the miracle of shale oil and gas recovery. Considering that oil and natural gas have created 1 million jobs since 2002, script writers could visit any number of towns across America for inspiration. I'm also waiting for the movie about the pharmaceutical executives who take financial risks in investing millions of dollars to develop antretroiviral blockbuster drugs responsible for saving and improving the lives of millions of HIV-positive Africans. But I'm not holding my breath. The scripts of those movies, if they've ever been written, are at the bottom of a trash can in some movie executive's office.

Personally, I always thought Mortimer and Randolph were kind of lovable. Who wouldn't want one of them for a grandfather?

Rasmussen: Voters Beginning to Turn Against Obama Admin

Fri, 24 May 2013 14:46:00 GMT

According to Rasmussen Reports, although Barack Obama’s approval ratings are remaining steady, the scandals around the White House are beginning to shift the American public’s attitude toward the Obama Administration. Obama’s personal approval is at 47%, roughly the same as they were during his first term, but there are other numbers that show a growing disaffection, such as:

39% of those polled think that the IRS targeting of conservative groups was prompted by someone at the White House; as opposed to 26% who believe it came from the IRS itself and 20% who think some low-level IRS employees. And only 19% of those polled believe that the IRS normally goes after presidents’ opponents.
60% think that other parts of the Obama Administration were employed to target the conservative groups, Two-thirds of independent voters agree.
Before the scandals became news, 8% more of voters felt that the Democrats were trusted more on ethics and dealing with corruption, now the GOP leads by 2%. Among independents, it was even before the scandals, now the GOP leads by 23%.
Obama’s national security numbers have plunged 7% in the last week.

Politico Takes Hit with Loss of Jonathan Martin

Fri, 24 May 2013 14:36:00 GMT

Washington Post's Erik Wemple:

As big a move as it is for the New York Times, it may be double for Politico, for Martin offers the sort of reporting that the site badly needs. In its short time on the planet, Politico has perfected fast-moving news and analysis pieces — reacting to strange statements and developments on Capitol Hill and elsewhere in the political universe and breaking its fair share of news stories, too.

Martin gave Politico a higher gear, however. In October 2011, for instance, he anchored a Politico team that scooped everyone on the story of sexual harassment accusations against Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain. Critics slighted the story for reliance on anonymous sources, but it held up as the media hopped on and dug deeper.

More here.

Sweet Home Alabama's Reputation Revenge

Fri, 24 May 2013 14:29:44 GMT

It is not fair, intellectually we know otherwise or we should, but the state of Alabama gets a bad rap. Many jokes have been told and now Alabama can have a little sweet revenge.

Meet the [Alabama] family who sent six kids to college by age 12

The Hardings are a great example of an ordinary family doing extraordinary things.

Stockholm riots and the failure of welfare state integration

Fri, 24 May 2013 14:21:37 GMT

The riots gripping Stockholm, Sweden for the past five nights are a fascinating case study in the failure of a welfare state to assimilate immigrants. Sweden is noted for its graciousness and generosity to what it terms "asylum seekers." It provides free language instruction to overcome linguistic barriers, gently but firmly insisting on a common language. It grants them access to the most lavish welfare state in the world.

And yet, gangs of "youths" from "immigrant-dominated areas of Stockholm" have been running wild all week, burning down restaurants and community centers, torching cars, throwing rocks at cops, and trying to blind firefighters with laser pointers. Stockholm firefighters say they have "never seen so many fires raging at the same time" - they had ninety fires to deal with last night. The unrest now threatens to spread to other Swedish cities.

All pretense that this is some kind of general "youth" unrest has been dropped. "Leaders of immigrant communities were out on the streets in a bid to stop young people from rioting. Despite their efforts, as soon as the night fell, groups of arsonists took to the streets to set cars on fire," says a report at RT.com.

The riots were ostensibly kicked off by the police shooting a man who came at them with a machete, but everyone involved agrees that a lack of job opportunities, and the decline of the insolvent Swedish welfare state, are major motivations. The table was set by years of large-scale immigration, coupled with a catastrophic failure to assimilate. "The last 20 years or so, we have seen so many immigrants coming to Sweden that really don’t like Sweden," said a Swedish newspaper editor. "They do not want to integrate, they do not want to live in Swedish society: Working, paying taxes and so on."

There's a huge lesson for every welcoming nation in the world, including the United States, in the Stockholm crisis. Welfare states don't assimilate anyone - they only breed entitlement, ennui, and resentment. The only thing that does integrate new citizens is opportunity. They need jobs and the chance to create their own business enterprises. Commerce has a way of bringing people together.

Big Government saps the economic vitality needed to create these opportunities. Vibrant boom economies with healthy job creation and business formation do not exist comfortably alongside high-taxing, hyper-regulating welfare states. And there is simply no way for any nation's culture and economy to process a huge, indiscriminate wave of low-skilled immigrants. They remain alienated, and often come to despise the very people who might offer them opportunity. Their resentment is deliberately cultivated by politicians and community leaders, who view them as a power base. How many immigrants want to "integrate" with a society they hold in contempt, after their quest for a new life has ended in frustration... a society they are constantly told hates them in return?

Cover-ups have their rewards

Fri, 24 May 2013 13:56:27 GMT

In response to Victoria Nuland Getting a Promotion:

The chief talking-point scrubber from the Benghazi outrage is getting a promotion? Next you're going to tell me one of the key figures in the IRS abuse-of-power scandal has been put in charge of ObamaCare enforcement.

It's an interesting gamble that Obama would send Nuland to the Senate for confirmation, but he's probably gambling on the famed collegiality of that august body, and he's putting a lot of chips on the Benghazi scandal reaching its expiration date. If Nuland's career froze, or if she was reprimanded somehow, it would look bad for the Obama narrative. Promoting her is a way of brazening through the scandal.

I don't understand how anyone could honestly wonder what the Benghazi scandal was about, or wonder what Obama stood to gain. (The President himself has issued that challenge, in an effort to put it to bed.) This Administration knows that spin control is all about timing and endurance. If devastating information is released slowly, the friendly media will avoid stitching it together into a damaging narrative, as they would for a Republican Administration. The puzzle pieces of scandal remain forever mixed and unconnected on the media's table. They don't remind viewers of what Obama said yesterday, when they report what he's saying today.

And the press stands ever ready to treat damaging information as "old news." Obama's team seemed mildly annoyed when they had to explicitly instruct the press that Benghazi happened "a long time ago." They don't usually have to scribble the expiration date on bad stories; the media takes that stuff off the shelf for them.

So on the morning of September 12, 2012, Team Obama had every reason to believe they could survive Benghazi by slow-walking its answers and pumping out disinformation. If they could get through the first few days, it would be all downhill from there. The one thing they could not do was put all the pieces of the scandal before us at once - it was an organized terror attack, the Ambassador was left bizarrely unprotected, Libya is a mess, al-Qaeda is still very much in business, Obama scooted off to his Vegas fundraiser instead of taking charge of the situation, the Administration's image was deemed more important than helping the men under fire. Mitt Romney might have been able to put it all together into a damaging "narrative," or the voters might have done it on their own.

That's why every story this Administration tells is a shaggy dog story. Even the most damaging revelations can be treated as minor quibbles or armchair quarterbacking, when those "bumps in the road" have grown small enough in the rear-view mirror. Keep an eye on the one thing Team Obama does not want to talk about, at all, even though Benghazi was a "long time ago": the President's activities on that terrible night. That would still hurt him with the public, and there would be no way to palm it off on low-level employees.

MOOSE ATTACK!

Fri, 24 May 2013 13:42:20 GMT

(Missoula, MT) A Montana woman was attacked by a moose Thursday afternoon while hiking the Blue Mountain trail west of Missoula. Accompanied by her 5 dogs, she encountered a moose and her calf. Officials say that the dogs instinctively attacked the moose. When the woman attempted to pull the dogs off, the moose instinctively attacked the woman.

The extent of her injuries has not yet been disclosed.

For more of the story

For more about moose

Under Pressure, Pigford Lawyers Hire Lobbyists

Fri, 24 May 2013 12:40:00 GMT

With increased scrutiny of fraud allegations in the Pigford farmers' settlements, the lead Pigford co-counsel has enlisted the help of two lobbying firms. One of the lobbyists listed is Phil Fraas, an attorney who has been deeply involved in creating the settlements.

Fraas's online resumé lists one of his accomplishments as:

Federal Litigation: Served as the co-lead counsel for the black farmers suing USDA in the 1999 landmark civil rights case, Pigford v. Glickman. The USDA agreed to pay the farmers the largest civil rights damages award every (sic) made by the federal government--approximately $1 billion.

The resumé also points out Mr's Fraas's previous lobbying work:

Drafted a key provision that Congress adopted as part of the 2008 Farm Bill awarding $100 million to black farmers not covered by the Pigford v. Glickman settlement.

The lobbying comes in the slipstream of a front-page New York Times story and years of unrelenting pressure from Breitbart News exposing massive fraud in the farmers' settlements engineered by President Barack Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder and USDA chief Tom Vilsack.

Politico broke the story of the new lobbying and quotes "Dr." John Boyd, longtime cheerleader for Pigford as being confused as the purpose of the new lobbying, saying:

“Three years after I’ve worked so hard to get the settlement done, why would someone be registering now as a lobbyist for the settlement?” Boyd asked, saying that the class settlement did not contact his association. NBFA represents more than 80,000 of the farmers alleging discrimination.

As previously reported by Breitbart News, Boyd is involved in his own legal disputes with attorneys involved in the case. It is also unclear in what way Boyd's organization, located at his home in Virginia, represents 80,000 claimants; during the period of time the discrimination is alleged to have occured, there were no more than a total approximtely 30,000 black farmers in the entire country.

As this story went to press, Mr. Fraas had not returned phone calls or emails seeking comment from Breitbart News.

I Could Not Marry For Money

Fri, 24 May 2013 12:28:03 GMT

Some of you will say I am crazy. Some feminist will say I am, well, whatever? I'm not that shallow but I am honest. I could not marry a rich woman, even one of the 5 richest in America if there was no physical attraction. After looking at this list and making the appropriate male adjustments for age where needed, I have resigned myself to marrying up as I will do but not the top 5. I am a happy man.

If I have offended anyone, you're not being honest.

Strassel: IRS Scandal's Roots in Obama's 2008 Campaign; Attacked Clinton, Edwards, Too

Fri, 24 May 2013 12:13:00 GMT

Kimberly Strassel has a must-read column at the Wall Street Journal today that explains the context in which the IRS scandal emerged--not just during the Obama administration's attempt to quash the Tea Party, but in Obama's efforts to shut down all opposition, both Republican and Democratic, in the 2008 campaign.

Strassel notes that Bob Bauer, the Obama campaign (and later White House) general counsel, wrote letters to the Department of Justice in August 2008 attacking a conservative 501(c)4 called the American Issues Project for running an ad that highlighted Obama's connection to former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. Bauer did not stop there; he also contacted the Federal Election Commission. That same month, a left-wing activist created a 501(c)4 called Accountable America that was designed to intimidate GOP donors.

Earlier that year, Strassel notes, during the Democratic Party primary, Bauer had used the same tactics against a left-wing 501(c)4 that supported Hillary Clinton, and another against one supporting John Edwards. As even Ben Smith, then of Politico and a noted defender of the Obama campaign, noted:

It's worth noting that this isn't the first time Bauer has called for criminal investigations and prosecutions into the donors to independent groups critical of Obama, including one supporting John Edwards and another supporting Hillary Rodham Clinton. His words did have the effect of scaring their donors and consultants, but haven't yet appeared to result in any prosecution.

There are many other examples that one can add to Strassel's analysis. One that I remember with particular bitterness is from September 2008, when the Democratic National Committee and several Obama-aligned organizations pressured the Jewish community to un-invite Sarah Palin from a rally against Iran at the UN.

What happened was that a group of Jewish non-profit organizations had organized the rally and invited both Gov. Palin and Sen. Hillary Clinton. Clinton initially agreed to attend, but the Obama campaign was terrified at the prospect of her sharing a stage with Palin and sending a signal that Democrat women left frustrated by Clinton's loss might switch parties. So they pressured Clinton to withdraw--and then pressured the Jewish groups to deny Palin a platform, claiming that the rally was now "partisan." Jewish members of the Democratic National Committee reportedly made threats to challenge the groups' IRS non-profit status.

J Street, which had only recently started up as an organization devoted to promoting criticism of Israel and Obama's Middle East policy, joined in the pressure campaign, circulating a petition addressed to Jewish leader and rally organizer Malcolm Hoenlein. When Palin was un-invited, J Street celebrated its role in that deplorable display of thuggish intimidation of free speech and assembly: "We Won!" it boasted. (So did Iran, that day.)

The Obama campaign's tactics weren't confined to non-profit groups. Indeed, its present practice of trying to intimidate journalists emerged at the same time. In late August 2008, the Obama campaign organized an effort to shut down a radio interview between Chicago journalist Milt Rosenberg and conservative author Stanley Kurtz, who had just done the definitive research exposing the ties between Ayers and Obama. (The campaign declined an invitation to appear on the show itself.) The producer of the show later wrote: "It’s interesting to see what lengths the Obama campaign is willing to reach to stifle dissenting voices."

Those of us who protested the Obama campaign's tactics at the time were ignored, as were most who noted what the Obama administration later did to the Tea Party and conservatives. Strassel adds that Bauer came back for the Obama re-election campaign in 2012 and used the same tactics against Romney donors.

"None of this proves that Mr. Obama was involved in the IRS targeting of conservative nonprofits," she writes. "But it does help explain how we got an environment in which the IRS thought this was acceptable."

The important point is that the Obama administration's behavior in the Benghazi scandal (intimidating whistleblowers), the IRS scandal (targeting conservative nonprofits and donors), and the AP and Rosen scandals (hounding individual journalists and news agencies) is a feature of Obama's character and leadership, not a bug. He may know well enough to keep himself at arm's length, to retain the façade of "plausible deniability." But the pattern of behavior is becoming undeniable, as is Obama's ultimate responsibility.

Victoria Nuland Getting a Promotion

Fri, 24 May 2013 09:30:00 GMT

The White House announced yesterday that Victoria Nuland will be nominated by President Obama to assistant secretary for European and Eurasian affairs. Nuland has served as State Department spokesperson since 2011 until earlier this year.

The nomination requires Senate confirmation, so this could get interesting.

Nuland is best known for her role in objecting to the initial set of the Benghazi attack talking points when she "asked that references to al Qaeda and previous CIA warnings about threats posed to U.S. diplomats in Libya be scrubbed from the document." Ambassador Susan Rice took these sanitized talking points on Sunday Morning News shows following the attack to "explain" the events in Benghazi and the murder of four Americans.

Who Invited Code Pink's Medea Benjamin to Obama's Speech?

Fri, 24 May 2013 09:02:00 GMT

"The voice of that woman is worth paying attention to."-President Obama paying homage to terrorist supporter Medea Benjamin.

President Barack Obama was heckled Thursday by leftist terrorist ally Susan ‘Medea’ Benjamin while giving a speech on national security issues at the National Defense University at Ft. McNair in Washington, D.C. Curiously, Obama’s staff let Benjamin interrupt and engage Obama several times on issues like Guantanamo and drones over several minutes before she was forcibly removed from the press rows in the back of the auditorium where the speech was being given.

Benjamin initially told The Huffington Post she was invited to attend Obama’s speech by someone she declines to name.

"I had an invitation, somebody gave me an invitation who I'm not at liberty to disclose," Benjamin said, calling her protest "epic" when compared to her other demonstrations.

In a second interview with The Huffington Post, Benjamin teased about who invited her, “Well, getting in that’s a state secret I’m not at liberty to divulge. But I should say that we have friends in many places that some people might not acknowledge including within the military…”

The National Defense University Public Affairs office issued a statement that Benjamin came in through the media.

NDU STATEMENT ON DISTURBANCE DURING PRESIDENT’S SPEECH

The individual who continued to attempt to interrupt the President’s speech at the National Defense University was given access via the list of media attendees expected. When it was apparent this individual would not be deterred by the President’s effort to address her concerns, officials from the National Defense University staff and Base Police asked her to leave and escorted her from the venue. She has been questioned by Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall police.

This speech was not open to the general public. Attendance for non-media was limited to invited guests from the National Defense University faculty, staff, and student body, along with those invited by the White House.

Please address any additional questions to the White House Press Office.

If standard security procedures for a presidential event were employed, Medea Benjamin would not have been allowed in the same room with a president of the United States.

In the past decade Benjamin and the group she co-founded, Code Pink, have worked with state sponsors of terrorism, terrorist groups and domestic terrorists to undermine the U.S. and her allies in the war on terrorism. However, Benjamin and Code Pink have also worked with President Obama at the same time to accomplish some of the same goals--beginning in early 2007 when Obama tapped Code Pink co-founder Jodie Evans as a fundraising host and then as a fundraising bundler for his nascent presidential campaign. Code Pink has even acted, at times, as a messenger between terrorists and Obama.

Like Code Pink, Obama has worked to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without U.S. victories. Like Code Pink, Obama has worked to close the terrorist detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Like Code Pink, Obama worked with the Muslim Brotherhood to overthrow the Egyptian government of staunch U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak. Like Code Pink, Obama worked to overthrow Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, even after he gave up his nuclear weapons program and allied with the U.S. against al Qaeda. Like Code Pink, Obama ignored Iran’s Green Revolution and threw in with the mullahs and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And, like Code Pink, Obama ‘palled around’ with Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn (Code Pink palled around with Cathie Wilkerson as well.)

Given her background, Benjamin’s submission to be cleared by the Secret Service for the event, even as press, would have lit up the protective agency’s computer screens like a Christmas tree. Her ties to Hamas, Hezbollah, the Iraqi ‘resistance’, Iran and Cuba, etc., would raise red flags that would likely have to be overridden by someone in the Obama administration’s press or public engagement office.

The questions arise as to who invited Benjamin in the first place and who cleared her? Was it someone in the Obama administration, or was it someone on the faculty at NDU? Either way, it raises troubling scenarios. Did the Obama administration plant a heckler like they planted a questioner to break the IRS scandal? Or did someone at the National Defense University commit an act of gross insubordination to embarrass their commander-in-chief on national television?

Democrats have a history of giving Benjamin and Code Pink special passes to score political points. For example the group was given seats up close so they could harass President George W. Bush at his second inaugural in 2005 and again in 2009 when Bush turned over the presidency to Barack Obama.

Code Pink was granted access to Walter Reed Army Medical Center by on-base sympathizers to undermine the morale of the wounded soldiers and their families.

In the past, Benjamin, Jodie Evans and Code Pink have used stolen or phony press passes and IDs to gain access to secure events.

Benjamin also uses Code Pink’s parent group, Global Exchange, for phony press passes. A Daily Kos diarist wrote about how Benjamin asked him to create Global Exchange press passes that were used to infiltrate an event President Bush spoke at in 2008. This was another security failure that led to the spectacle of a Code Pink protester charging toward Bush while he spoke.

BREAKING: Bush heckled at Monticello by CodePink!

by Randgrithr

Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:49:01 PM PDT

Sorry for the short diary...

Early this morning I found an unusual email from Medea Benjamin waiting for me in my inbox. It seems that last week when she was arrested in Florida, they confiscated her Global Exchange press pass, and could I make her another one?

Ever since I figured out how to duplicate Medea's press pass for other members of CodePink, I have been doing so with her blessing. Since Medea is the founding director and CEO of Global Exchange as well as one of the founders of CodePink, how I implemented it may be a bit of a hack; but it is quite legitimate insofar that yes, these are valid press passes for a news organization, created with the full knowledge and permission of the company director.

Now, ironically, I was going to have to whip out a copy of the document that served as the original.

As they work with our terrorist enemies overseas and high-ranking Democrats, Benjamin and Code Pink also harass our military and their families on the home front. At Walter Reed, Benjamin and Code Pink called the wounded warriors there “terrorists” and “war criminals.” At an Obama White House Halloween party for children of service members, Benjamin and Code Pink terrorized the kids waiting to get in by acting as ghosts of dead soldiers and bloodthirsty witches.

Barack Obama says terrorist supporter Medea Benjamin is a voice worth paying attention to. When will someone in the mainstream media challenge Obama on his ties to Code Pink?

Vehicles, People In Water After Washington Interstate Bridge Collapse

Fri, 24 May 2013 08:48:00 GMT

Boehner: House Will Not Be 'Stampeded' On Immigration By White House

Fri, 24 May 2013 08:46:00 GMT

Rand Paul: Obama Drone Speech 'Misdirection Campaign'

Fri, 24 May 2013 08:44:00 GMT

AP Reporter: DoJ Harrassing, Intimidating Journalists

Fri, 24 May 2013 08:39:00 GMT

After State Department Deputy Spokesman Patrick Ventrell praised the agency's support of a "free press" on Thursday, Associated Press reporter Matt Lee engaged Ventrell over the release of Department records and the Department of Justice's investigation into James Rosen's activies.

Fox News questioned Ventrell on whether former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knew that the State Department was investigating James Rosen's activities while in the Department building. Ventrell declined to answer because the investigation is a "law enforcement matter." Lee immediately engaged Ventrell by asking if Diplomatic Security handed over the movements of reporters inside the State Department freely or if they required a subpoena. Ventrell claimed he didn't have knowledge of the exchange of information but said that his "understanding" was a "legal process" was required to be followed.

Later in the press briefing a reporter told Ventrell that he had a "broad" question on the Department's views of a "free press." "We support a free press," Ventrell said with a laugh. "Do you? Do you really?" Lee responded with a serious tone.

Ventrell went on to praise the "high priority" the State Department places on supporting the freedom of the press "globally." He claimed the Department has a "deep concern for the well-being of journalists who face violence and repression" for their work.

"Is it just violence and repression? Or is it also government intimidation or – that you’re opposed to?" Lee asked. Ventrell said that intimidation and harassment are also opposed by the State Department.

"So in other words, the State Department opposes the Administration – the rest of the Justice Department’s investigations..." Lee shot back. Ventrell declined to comment and claimed that Lee was "conflating" two separate issues. Ventrell later said the Administration, and the President specifically, has spoken "extensively" about this issue and the White House opposes stifling the press.

Lee maintained that opposing government intimidation and harassment of the press was in conflict of the Department of Justice's investigation. "Again, you’re trying to get me to conflate two issues," Ventrell replied.

Read the transcript and watch the exchange below:

QUESTION: And then on a separate topic, was former Secretary Clinton consulted with the tracking of my colleague James Rosen’s building – State Department building swipe? And were any other employees interviewed in connection with the North Korea reporting that James Rosen did?

MR. VENTRELL: My understanding, this is a law enforcement matter. I really refer you to the Department of Justice for all details on that. In terms of our cooperation with the Department of Justice or the FBI on matters, that would be handled through Diplomatic Security channels and law enforcement channels. That’s how that’s done.

QUESTION: So you – in principle, DS doesn’t have a problem turning over badge records to --

MR. VENTRELL: Again, I’m not aware of the specific cooperation on this case, but --

QUESTION: Well, they got the records of his entry and egress, so you guys obviously handed – I mean, they didn’t make them up, I hope.

MR. VENTRELL: Well, I can’t --

QUESTION: So you guys obviously gave them to them.

MR. VENTRELL: I can’t comment on any details of this particular case, but when we have --

QUESTION: Well, I’m not talking about this particular case. Just in general, I mean, are you, like, running around, giving out the details of our comings and goings from this building?

MR. VENTRELL: Issues of cooperation on law enforcement matters between Diplomatic Security and the FBI are handled in law enforcement channels. I don’t have anything further on it.

QUESTION: Wait. Well, so you mean you’re not – do you just give the information out if people ask for it? Or do they need a court order or something?

MR. VENTRELL: Matt, I’m not sure of the legal circumstances on that kind of information sharing.

QUESTION: Well, can you check?

MR. VENTRELL: Sure.

QUESTION: It would be --

MR. VENTRELL: I’m happy to check on --

QUESTION: If DOJ comes to you and says we want the entry and exit records from people, persons X, Y, and Z, do you just give them to them? Or do they have to --

MR. VENTRELL: My understanding is there’s a legal process that’s followed, but I’d have to check with the lawyers.

QUESTION: Well, can you find out what the – what it is --

MR. VENTRELL: I’d be happy to check.

[...]

QUESTION: Question, Patrick, on the freedom of the press, globally.

MR. VENTRELL: You ask very broad questions, Goyal. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Just simple question on the freedom of the press.

MR. VENTRELL: We support the freedom of the press. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: And the question is --

QUESTION: Do you?

MR. VENTRELL: We do.

QUESTION: Do you really?

MR. VENTRELL: We do, Matt.

QUESTION: Are you speaking for the entire Administration, or just this building?

MR. VENTRELL: We support the freedom of the press. We support it globally. We support it here at home.

QUESTION: That’s the position of this building. Is it the position of the entire Administration?

MR. VENTRELL: It is.

QUESTION: Just to mark the international freedom of the press, and recently Freedom House, they placed another 84 names of the journalists who were killed in 25 countries, but – these are only official from the Freedom House – but hundreds of journalists are beaten, jailed, or killed in many countries – more than 25 countries. My question is here: When Secretary meets with world leaders here or abroad, does he talk ever other than human rights but on the freedom of the press in these countries?

MR. VENTRELL: Indeed, he constantly and consistently raises these issues with foreign leaders around the world and here when he meets with them. And I think you heard over the two weeks during our freedom of the press activities, many of the cases that we called out, the high priority that we place on this, and our deep concern for the well-being of journalists who face violence and repression for the work that they do around the world. So that’s something we’re deeply committed to.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) especially in China or Saudi Arabia and --

MR. VENTRELL: It includes all those countries.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir.

QUESTION: Is it just violence and repression? Or is it also government intimidation or – that you’re opposed to?

MR. VENTRELL: That as well. All of that.

QUESTION: So in other words, the State Department opposes the Administration – the rest of the Justice Department’s investigations into --

MR. VENTRELL: Well, again, I think you’re trying to conflate two issues here.

QUESTION: No, no. I’m asking about freedom of the press. That was what the question was.

MR. VENTRELL: And we do – and we support freedom of the press. I think you’ve heard the President – I think you’ve heard the White House talk about this extensively.

QUESTION: Right. So you – and you think that violence and repression against journalism – journalists is wrong, as you do harassment or intimidation by government agencies.

MR. VENTRELL: All of the above.

QUESTION: So you do not regard what the Justice Department has been doing as harassment or intimidation.

MR. VENTRELL: Again, I can’t comment on a specific law enforcement investigation.

QUESTION: I’m not asking about a specific case. In general, would the State Department oppose or support harassment, intimidation, or prosecution of journalists for publishing information?

MR. VENTRELL: We oppose that, in terms of them – is this around the world --

QUESTION: Okay. So the State Department then opposes the Justice Department’s prosecution.

MR. VENTRELL: Again, you’re trying to get me to conflate two issues.

Benghazi Review Board Chair To Meet With Issa Behind Closed Doors

Fri, 24 May 2013 08:28:00 GMT

The State Department announced on Thursday that it had no involvement in the decision of retired diplomat Thomas Pickering to meet in a closed session of the House Oversight Committee with Chairman Darrell Issa. Pickering, along with former Joint Chiefs Chair Mike Mullen co-chaired the Accountability Review Board that investigated the security failures surrounding the attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya in September of last year.

The Associated Press reported that Representative Issa lifted his previous subpoena in exchange for testifying before the Oversight Committee in a closed session. State Department Deputy Spokesman Patrick Ventrell claimed Pickering's "viewpoint" remains that he is still under a congressional subpoena and is compelled to testify before the committee.

Matt Lee from the Associated Press pointed out "the whole point of [Representative Issa's] statement yesterday was that [Pickering] had voluntarily agreed to this private deposition." Ventrell said as of "half an hour" before the briefing, that was the latest information he had on Pickering's viewpoint.

The closed-door committee hearing is scheduled for June 3rd. A public hearing has yet to be scheduled.

Read the transcript and watch the exchange below:

QUESTION: On Benghazi. Did the State Department have any involvement with Ambassador Pickering deciding to – agreeing to a private interview with Representative Issa?

MR. VENTRELL: Well, just to say, as you know, that Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen have been clear about their willingness to testify publicly – that’s something that they’ve said previously before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee – in order to directly answer questions regarding the ARB procedures, findings, and recommendations. We understand that Ambassador Pickering continues to consider himself to be under subpoena and will appear in accordance with that compulsory obligation for a deposition.

We further understand that counsel for Ambassador Pickering and the committee have agreed upon a date for the deposition of June 3rd. And finally, we understand the fact that a deposition has been scheduled does not preclude future discussions between Ambassador Pickering’s counsel and the committee about the circumstances and rules for his appearance. So that’s something that Ambassador Pickering and his outside counsel have been discussing with the committee directly.

QUESTION: So the State Department has no involvement?

MR. VENTRELL: I mean, again, this is somebody who has private counsel. He certainly was in his capacity in chairing the ARB, did that work inside here inside the State Department, but he has retained private counsel in this matter.

QUESTION: Has there been any further conversations with lawmakers between the State Department about future Benghazi hearings?

MR. VENTRELL: I’m not aware of a status update in terms of back and forth on future hearings. There is correspondence that goes back and forth with us on the Hill, but I’m not aware of any future hearings at this point.

[...]

QUESTION: Just the other thing, on the initial question, you said that Ambassador Pickering considers himself still to be the subject of a subpoena. Because my understanding of Representative Issa’s statement yesterday was that he had lifted the subpoena. Maybe I’m wrong.

MR. VENTRELL: I believe that is Ambassador Pickering’s view at this point still.

QUESTION: Well, why would he have that view if Representative Issa said the subpoena no longer exists?

MR. VENTRELL: I’m not sure if that’s because it hasn’t formally been lifted or they’re still working out the details of the June 3rd appearance, but my understanding is that he continues to consider himself to be under subpoena and will appear in accordance with that compulsory obligation to appear.

QUESTION: Yeah, but the whole point of the statement yesterday was that he had voluntarily agreed to this private deposition.

QUESTION: And the subpoena was lifted.

MR. VENTRELL: Well, these are the views that have been expressed and that I understand, as of coming down here about half an hour ago. I can check again, but this was what I understood to be --

QUESTION: Okay. I was just curious as to why he would think that he was still under the subject of a subpoena when the subpoena has been lifted. And if he – if, in fact, he has not voluntarily – if he has not voluntarily agreed, if he’s not – if he is doing this only because he’s being – he thinks he’s being compelled to by subpoena, then I would be interested to know why, since that doesn’t really comport with the facts – or with the statement that Representative Issa’s office gave out yesterday. And then – so if you could check on that.

MR. VENTRELL: I’d be happy to check in on it.

QUESTION: Thanks. And then the last one is, my understanding was that this deposition, whenever it takes – you say it’s scheduled for June 3rd – does not – that there will be an open hearing at some point at which Ambassador Pickering will appear. Is that part of the agreement for him to appear in private was that he would then get the chance to appear in public? And if so, has that hearing been scheduled, or is that entirely up to the committee?

MR. VENTRELL: Well, we support Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen’s willingness to appear in public hearings and clarify the record, and we hope they’ll be given that opportunity. But in the meantime, our understanding is that Chairman Issa has still opted for a compulsory deposition that is not public. So this is the information I had as of just moments ago.

QUESTION: So the answer to my question is no, it hasn’t been – the public hearing has not been scheduled.

MR. VENTRELL: Not that we’re aware of.

QUESTION: But is that entirely within the purview of the committee, or do you – or does the – Ambassador Pickering or the Department have anything to do with that?

MR. VENTRELL: Well, we support them having the opportunity to testify in public, but that would be under the purview of the committee.

Follow Meredith on Twitter...

World View: China, Taiwan Gang up on Philippines in South China Sea

Fri, 24 May 2013 07:40:00 GMT

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

Tension grows between Taiwan and Philippines in South China Sea
China versus Philippines tension grow as U.S. is distracted
India enters the South China Sea dispute

Tension grows between Taiwan and Philippines in South China Sea

The red line shows the regions claimed by China, while the blue lines shows the regions that below to other countries, according to the United Nations (SAAG)

Anti-Philippine nationalism is growing in Taiwan, over the shooting two weeks ago of a Taiwanese fisherman by the Philippines Coast Guard ship in a disputed region of the South China Sea. A Philippines official has said it was an accident and apologized, but Taiwan is calling the apology insincere, and is demanding both a formal apology and monetary reparations. Taiwan has already stopped approval work permits for Filipinos applying for work in Taiwan, has banned Taiwanese tourists from visiting the Philippines, and has sent warships to the disputed area to conduct naval drills.

Taiwan is exploiting its economic advantage of the Philippines, putting Philippines officials in a quandary. If there's no apology, then the situation may continue to escalate, and Taiwan might deport all 87,000 Filipinos currently working in Taiwan. On the other hand, if the Philippines issues a formal apology, it would affect navy morale and would place their legal claim to the region in jeopardy.

Let me take this opportunity to point out that this is one more example that contradicts the frequently heard claim that country A will never go to war with country B because it would harm business between the two countries. As in other examples, the opposite is true. If A and B are big trading partners, then trade becomes an additional weapon of war, with advantage going to the country that will lose more economically. Asia Times

China versus Philippines tension grow as U.S. is distracted

When the U.S. announced its "pivot to Asia" in 2010, there was hope in the Philippines that America would become directly involved in the South China Sea disputes and support the Philippines' sovereignty at least over regions in its U.N. defined exclusive economic zone (EEZ). However, the U.S. involvement has been limited by the financial crisis, and the U.S. has been distracted by the growing crisis in the Mideast. As a result, the Philippines government is increasingly taking matters into its own hands by working with other countries in the region to gang up on China diplomatically, in the hope of forcing China to back down on some of its claims in the South China Sea (something that is most definitely not going to happen). Asia Times and The Diplomat

India enters the South China Sea dispute

China's claim to vast areas of the South China Sea that have historically belonged to other nations is causing tensions as far away as India. At a time when China's new prime minister Li Keqiang is visiting India to reduce tensions between the two countries, India's Minister of Defense has issued a statement about the South China Sea dispute:

"There should be freedom of navigation as per the UN conventions.
India has commercial interests and though it is not a party to the dispute, it believes that disputes should be settled as per UN laws.

The protection of Sea-Lanes of Communication is becoming more and more important. Economic development, trade and commerce depend on the security of Sea Lanes of Communication."

This seems like a fairly innocuous statement, but in fact it's highly confrontational, because China adamantly refused to have anything to do with the U.N. conventions. China insists that it wants to settle the South China Sea disputes only via "bilateral negotiations." This means that China negotiates separately with each of the other countries with historical claims to parts of the South China Sea and use its vast military and economic power to force each country to back down. China is furious that these countries are ganging up on China through ASEAN (the Association of Southeast Asian Nations), since it's much harder for China to bully the entire group collectively.

India and Vietnam have set up joint oil exploration projects within the regions of the South China Sea that are clearly within Vietnam's exclusive economic zone (EEZ), according to the United Nations, and Chinese ships have nonetheless been harassing Indian and Vietnam ships in the region. South Asia Analysis Group (SAAG)

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail

Iranian Backed Hackers Infiltrating U.S. Energy Companies

Fri, 24 May 2013 07:24:00 GMT

Current and former U.S. officials are reporting "Iran backed hackers have escalated a campaign against U.S. corporations" and have infiltrated "computer networks running energy companies."

According to The Wall Street Journal, the Iranians "were able to gain access to control-system software that could allow them to manipulate oil or gas pipelines."

Although Iran is not the only country or entity trying to hack into U.S. systems--China has been predominant in this area--officials are especially concerned with Iran because their goal is not the acquisition of intelligence or intellectual property merely, but "sabotage." For example, the theory is that the Iranians could "manipulate the software" and use it "to delete important data or turn off key safety features such as the automatic lubrication of a generator."

And while the cyber attacks don't seem to have resulted in theft or any kind of damage yet, officials say this hacking campaign brings Iran closer to U.S. retaliation. In fact, "the White House held a high-level meeting late last month on how to handle the Iranian cybersecurity threat."

The Center for Strategic and International Studies' cybersecurity specialist James Lewis says, "It's reached a critical level." And the U.S. doesn't have much it can do in response, "short of kinetic warfare."

Breitbart's Meredith Dake: 'Arrogance, Profound Ignorance' To Politicize Okla. Tornado

Fri, 24 May 2013 06:32:00 GMT

Hibbert: Battier Kneed Me in Groin on Purpose

Fri, 24 May 2013 05:43:00 GMT

Indiana Pacers center Roy Hibbert accused Miami Heat forward Shane Battier of purposely kneeing him below the belt during Wednesday's game.

The Pacers center, who was inexplicably on the bench during the final play of Wednesday's loss in game one of the Eastern Conference finals, was kneed in the groin as Battier went up for a shot in the first quarter of Wednesday's game. He was in obvious and noticeable pain after the play.

The former Georgetown Hoya went on Twitter and said Battier's actions were not "inadvertent."

U can knee or kick me every time u drive 2the rim. Ill be there 2protect the rim. That wasn't inadvertent. Battier knew what he was doing
— Roy Hibbert (@Hoya2aPacer) May 23, 2013

Here is footage of the play in question. Decide for yourself.

Ailes Letter to Journalists is a Battle Cry for Press Freedom

Fri, 24 May 2013 04:44:00 GMT

Fox News chief Roger Ailes's letter to his employees is a battle cry that will echo beyond the Avenue of the Americas.

"The administration’s attempt to intimidate Fox News and its employees will not succeed and their excuses will stand neither the test of law, the test of decency, nor the test of time. We will not allow a climate of press intimidation, unseen since the McCarthy era, to frighten any of us away from the truth," he wrote.

Already, Fox News has found some unlikely allies--even in the left media. Salon.com's Washington, DC correspondent, a frequent critic of Breitbart News, tweeted his support for Fox reporter James Rosen, who is being treated like a criminal (literally) for the routine practice of reporting on American foreign policy:

I understand lib cognitive dissonance on Obama admin going after Fox reporter, but only right answer is #TeamRosen.
— Alex Seitz-Wald (@aseitzwald) May 20, 2013

As liberal Democrat Alan Dershowitz noted Thursday, there cannot be one rule for Fox and another for the New York Times. And there are enough journalists even in the mainstream media who are beginning to recognize the dangerous game of divide-and-rule that Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder are playing.

The Huffington Post, of all outlets, called for Holder's departure, citing a report that he had signed off on the surveillance of Rosen--and listing, in red, a series of other grievances that had been quietly suppressed until the Obama administration's brazen assault on media freedom became impossible to ignore or wish away.

Ailes wrote: "As Fox News employees, we sometimes are forced to stand alone." But more and more fellow journalists are standing with them--even if just to maintain credibility. It is a cause impossible to ignore.

What is particularly noteworthy about Ailes's response is that it is the first time in a very long time that Fox has felt emboldened to fight back against the Department of Justice in a direct and forthright manner. The phone hacking scandal at the UK's now-defunct News of the World, a fellow News Corp. subsidiary, led the Attorney General to investigate News Corp.'s U.S. arms for potential involvement. Arguably, Fox was more timid in the 2012 election cycle as a result--just as Tea Party groups were less active under IRS scrutiny.

Now that Holder has been caught in a hacking scandal of his own--first of telephones at the Associated Press, then of Rosen and other Fox News journalists--the playing field is leveled.

And even though the wider media solidarity with Fox News is doomed to be short-lived, from now on the White House will face bolder, fearless conservative media, confident in the knowledge that they are defending universal principles.

At Least 150 Horses Killed By Oklahoma Tornado

Fri, 24 May 2013 04:40:00 GMT

The Oklahoma Chamber of Commerce touts the state as the "horse show capital of the world" and "the venue of choice for more than a dozen top national and world championship horse shows, attracting riders from across the nation - and world - each year."

The horse community was hit particularly hard on Wednesday when the devastating level 5 tornado tore through Oklahoma City and its suburb, Moore. More than 150 horses have died as a result of the violent storm that swept through the area.

The number represents the entire community of farms that sit on the southern border of Oklahoma City, including Thoroughbreds and Quarter Horses who were based at Celestial Acres Training Center.

Several organizations coordinating horse-rescue efforts, as well as local veterinarians and horse owners themselves, determined the number, said Joe Lucas, executive vice president of the Thoroughbred Racing Association of Oklahoma.

“We’ve counted, unfortunately, 150 head or more that have been found [dead], were killed, or had to be put down,” Lucas said. “And that’s not just Celestial Acres. That’s the Moore area. That’s what we’ve gotten up to.”

Lucas said a hotline is being set up through the state Department of Agriculture for owners to inquire about lost horses. In addition, there are plans to post photos taken of both surviving and deceased horses for the purpose of identification. The Thoroughbred Racing Association of Oklahoma and the Oklahoma Quarter Horse Racing Association are helping with the process, Lucas said.

A friend who went to Oklahoma to help with the clean-up, reports that a racetrack in Oklahoma City lost 25 horses. The picture above is from their property. Individual pictures of the horses are too grisly to share.

Poor Results Make Charlie Weis a Rich Man

Fri, 24 May 2013 04:39:00 GMT

Charlie Weis's tenure as head coach at the University of Notre Dame was, for the most part, a failure and led to his firing in 2009. However, in the world of college athletics, being a terrible football coach can often make one quite wealthy.

Thus far, Weis has received $10.8 million from the university since his dismissal and is due to continue receiving payments until 2015. The final total Weis is expected to reap as a result of his firing is nearly $19 million.

Currently, Weis is now coaching for the Kansas Jayhawks. Nevertheless, he makes more money from the Fighting Irish than head coach Brian Kelly, who took the team to the BCS Championship last season, basketball head coach Mike Brey, who has had success at the university, and Athletic Director Jack Swarbrick.