• Home
  • Mission
  • Federalist Papers
  • Foundation
  • U.S. Constitution
  • Bill of Rights

Federalist Press | Defending Liberty — Informing America

Breaking News and Political Commentary

  • All Stories
  • Economy
  • Elections
  • Entitlement
  • Ethics
  • Foreign
  • Gender
  • Religion
  • Sci-Tech

INTEL ALTERED: Emails Challenge Official Story on Benghazi Memos

May 10, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

benghazi_attackNew details about the Obama administration’s initial story-line on the Benghazi attack are raising additional questions about top-level efforts to downplay terrorism, with one report showing a State Department official pushed to delete a section that could have been used to “beat up” her department.The fresh reports have surfaced two days after three whistle-blowers testified on Capitol Hill about the Benghazi attack. One of them sharply challenged the administration’s decision to describe the attack out of the gate as a protest gone wrong.ABC News reported Friday that, despite administration claims that the flawed description reflected the best intelligence at the time, the talking points that led to the statement were revised 12 times.

Initial versions, as has been previously reported, contained references to Al Qaeda that were later deleted. But the latest excerpts show how State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland pressed the CIA to scrub references to the agency’s prior security warnings.

According to ABC News, the original paragraph read:

“The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”

But Nuland wrote that the lines  “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 either? Concerned …”

The paragraph in question was then reportedly deleted.

The Weekly Standard, which referenced that exchange briefly in a prior account, also reported new details Friday, describing how then-CIA Director David Petraeus voiced surprise when he learned the Saturday after the attack that officials had deleted all prior references to Al Qaeda and jihadists, leaving only the word “extremists.”

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice would use the final version of the talking points to say on several Sunday shows that the attack was triggered by protests over an anti-Islam film.

While administration officials and congressional Democrats have described the protracted debate over the talking points as politically motivated and inconsequential, the testimony this week drew new attention to it.

Greg Hicks, former deputy chief of mission in Libya, said Rice’s comments actually hurt the FBI investigation by insulting the Libyan president — who gave a conflicting account at the time by saying the attack was premeditated.

Hicks said the anti-Islam film was actually a “nonevent” in Libya, and his “jaw dropped” when he heard Rice’s comments.

ABC News reported that the CIA’s first drafts did say the attack appeared to be “spontaneously inspired” by the protests at the embassy in Cairo. However, the early versions also said “we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.”

The State Department and White House have continued to defend their actions and intervention in light of the new details.

After it was first revealed that references to security concerns — in addition to references to Al Qaeda — were removed, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said: “What we said and what remains true to this day is that the intelligence community drafted and redrafted these points.”

He defended administration claims that the faulty statements were merely the product of incomplete intelligence in a rapidly changing environment. Despite the excerpts, he stood by claims that White House involvement was minimal.

“The fact that there are inputs is always the case in a process like this. But the only edits made by anyone here at the White House were stylistic and non-substantive. They corrected the description of the building or the facility in Benghazi from ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ and the like,” he said.

State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell also said Rice’s comments were based on the intelligence community’s “best assessment that there was not any evidence of months-long pre-planning or pre-meditation, which remains their assessment.”

Published May 10, 2013 / FoxNews.com

 

Filed Under: All Stories, Elections, Ethics, Foreign, Religion

Boehner Calls on Obama to Release Benghazi Emails

May 9, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

obama-benghaziPressure on the Obama administration to release more information about the Benghazi attack grew Thursday, as House Speaker John Boehner demanded officials turn over emails pertaining to the controversial “talking points” and another top Republican appealed for more whistle-blowers to come forward.

On the heels of a dramatic hearing where three whistle-blowers testified, Fox News has learned that former Vice President Dick Cheney on Thursday, on the Hill for a meeting with House Republicans, also told lawmakers: “I think Hillary (Clinton) should be subpoenaed if necessary.”

The comments and developments signal that Republicans will continue to press for answers on the deadly Sept. 11 attack. Despite arguments from Democrats that the hearing was not nearly as shocking as Republicans made it out to be, GOP lawmakers said it raised troubling questions that need to be investigated.

“The truth shouldn’t be hidden from the American people behind a White House firewall,” Boehner said Thursday. “Four Americans lost their lives in this terrorist attack. Congress will continue to investigate this issue, using all of the resources at our disposal.”

Boehner specifically urged the Obama administration to make public a set of internal emails that some lawmakers had been able to review but not keep.

One of the emails apparently showed a top State Department official saying a group affiliated with Islamic terrorists was responsible for the strike. Separate emails, though, allegedly depict the White House and State Department pressing lower-level officials to remove references to terrorism in talking points about the attacks.

Based on those talking points, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice would go on five Sunday talk shows shortly after the attacks to claim they were triggered by protests over an anti-Islam film. Top officials would later claim the flawed assessment was based on the best intelligence at the time, but the testimony from whistle-blowers Wednesday indicated that those on the ground knew the attack was terrorism.

“The YouTube video was a non-event in Libya,” Greg Hicks, deputy chief of mission in Libya, testified Wednesday.

After the hearing, Republican Rep. Darrell Issa said he will continue to seek whistle-blowers to “come forward.”

“Candidly, as quickly as possible, we simply want to have the whistleblowers that are still out there, in fact witnesses that are still out there to come forward, tell us their story. We will get it out and we will close up this investigation,” he told Fox News.

Issa, R-Calif., is chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which held the hearing.

The wide-ranging and dramatic testimony Wednesday raised several fresh questions about the attack. Witnesses questioned why security had not been tightened in Benghazi in the months leading up to the assault and why U.S. military assets did not respond sooner that night, with one alleging a military team was not given permission to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi the next morning.

Further, they raised serious concerns about the administration’s initial decision to describe the attack as a protest gone awry despite evidence on the ground to the contrary.

In startling testimony, Hicks also claimed the State Department retaliated against him after he raised questions about that decision. He claimed that Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Elizabeth Jones delivered a “blistering critique” of his management style after he criticized Rice’s initial claim that the attack was tied to anger over an anti-Islam film. He also claimed that he was counseled to avoid personally discussing the attack with Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz and was “effectively demoted” to a desk officer in the end.

Issa, in a written statement after Wednesday’s hearing, called the alleged retaliation and intimidation “perhaps most troubling.”

Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., top Democrat on the committee, vowed to protect the whistle-blowers while criticizing his Republican colleagues for allegedly trying to politicize the tragedy. He claimed afterward that the testimony only served to undercut Republican allegations.

“What should have been a bipartisan investigation involving our national security was another sorry example of Republicans promising explosive new facts but delivering only a press spectacle,” he said in a statement.

The committee may move to hear testimony next from at least one leader of the State Department’s internal review of the Benghazi attack. Though the leaders, former Joints Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen and former Ambassador Thomas Pickering, apparently declined to testify, Pickering told MSNBC on Wednesday that he is willing to speak.

Issa spokesman Frederick Hill on Thursday noted the “change of heart” — but also said neither Pickering nor the administration has contacted the committee about possible testimony.

Several claims from Wednesday’s hearing could open up new lines of inquiry on the attack and its aftermath. Among them, Hicks claimed that Rice’s faulty claims about the nature of the attack hurt the FBI investigation.

Hicks argued that Rice’s comments so insulted the Libyan president — since they contradicted his Sept. 16 claims that the attack was premeditated — that it slowed the FBI’s investigation.

“President Magariaf was insulted in front of his own people, in front of the world. His credibility was reduced,” Hicks said, adding that the president was apparently “still steamed” two weeks later.

This bad blood, he claimed, contributed to the FBI team being stuck in Tripoli for about 17-18 days.

“I definitely believe that it negatively affected our ability to get the FBI team quickly to Benghazi,” he said, adding that the U.S. could not even get the Libyans to secure the crime scene during that time.

Published May 09, 2013 / FoxNews.com

Filed Under: All Stories, Elections, Ethics, Foreign, Religion

BENGHAZI ‘TRAP’: Whistle-Blower Tells of ‘Being Baited’ Into an Ambush

May 8, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

househearingA key Benghazi whistle-blower, responding to Democratic claims that the prolonged scrutiny over the administration’s botched talking points is unwarranted, testified Wednesday that the early mischaracterization of the attack may have actually hurt the FBI’s investigation.

The claim was one of several new accounts given at Wednesday’s high-profile hearing where three whistle-blowers testified.

Democrats, while giving deference to the officials and their version of events, used the hearing to try and deflect criticism away from the administration. In particular, they rejected the notion that early talking points on the attack were deliberately changed, to downplay terrorism, for political reasons.

“People who have actually seen the documents, who have actually conducted a real investigation completely reject the allegation that they were made for political purposes,” Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass., said.

But the substance of the claims Wednesday could serve to re-open questions about that deadly night — and specifically about the initial claim by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice that the attack was triggered by a protest over an anti-Islam film.

‘I definitely believe that it negatively affected our ability to get the FBI team quickly to Benghazi.’ – Greg Hicks, former deputy chief of mission in Libya

Greg Hicks, the deputy chief of mission in Libya who became the top U.S. diplomat in the country after Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed, was asked to respond to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s statement at a prior hearing asking “what difference” do the questions over the talking points make.

Hicks argued that Rice’s comments so insulted the Libyan president — since they contradicted his Sept. 16 claims that the attack was premeditated — that it slowed the FBI’s investigation.

“President Magariaf was insulted in front of his own people, in front of the world. His credibility was reduced,” Hicks said, adding that the president was apparently “still steamed” two weeks later.

This bad blood, he claimed, contributed to the FBI team being stuck in Tripoli for about 17 days.

“I definitely believe that it negatively affected our ability to get the FBI team quickly to Benghazi,” he said, adding that the U.S. could not even get the Libyans to secure the crime scene during that time.

As for Rice’s comments that Sunday, when she repeatedly cited the video as the trigger for the attack, Hicks said his “jaw dropped” when he heard that.

“I was stunned,” Hicks said. “My jaw dropped, and I was embarrassed.”

He said Rice never talked to him before those appearances.

Hicks said the only information coming out of his team was that there was an “attack” on the consulate. “The YouTube video was a non-event in Libya,” he said.

He also claimed that, when he asked a superior about the interviews, he was told “he should not proceed” with his questions. He was later given a “blistering critique” of his management style and effectively demoted to “desk officer,” he claimed.

Hicks’ testimony marked some of the most detailed of any delivered Wednesday. He and others also suggested the State Department’s internal review into the attack was lacking. Hicks said when he was interviewed by the group, a stenographer was not present.

In hours of testimony, the witnesses recounted in great detail what happened in eastern Libya on Sept. 11 and how U.S. personnel came under a series of attacks that left four Americans dead. Though Democratic officials have argued the attack has been thoroughly investigated and that the hearing Wednesday was political in nature, the claims challenged several long-standing assertions by the Obama administration.

The witnesses criticized the lax security at the Benghazi site in the run-up to the attack, and suggested the military did not do all it good to respond to the scene that night despite claims to the contrary.

Hicks also revealed that it appeared some were trying to lure even more U.S. personnel into a separate “ambush” while the attack was still being carried out. He described how, as diplomatic officials were trying to find out what happened to Stevens, they were receiving phone calls from supposed tipsters saying they knew where the ambassador was and urging Americans to come get him.

“We suspected that we were being baited into a trap,” Hicks said, adding that he did not want to send anybody into what he suspected was an “ambush.”

Getting choked up, Hicks described how the Libyan prime minister later called him to tell him Stevens was in fact dead. “I think it’s the saddest phone call I’ve ever had in my life,” he said.

At the very beginning of the attack, before Stevens went missing and was later found dead, Hicks said his team believed it was terrorism. He said a regional security officer rushed into his villa yelling, “Greg, Greg, the consulate’s under attack.”

He then spoke by phone with Stevens who told him the same: “Greg, we’re under attack.”

After enduring a night of attacks on the U.S. consulate, Hicks said the team departed at dawn for the nearby annex — shortly after they arrived, “the mortars came.”

Another whistle-blower questioned Wednesday why more military assets were not deployed sooner during the Benghazi terror attack. Mark Thompson, a former Marine and official with the State Department’s Counterterrorism Bureau, said he was rebuffed by the White House when he asked for a specialized team — known as a FEST team — to be deployed. This is a unit made of special operations personnel, diplomatic security, intelligence and other officers.

Suggesting that some were hesitant to deploy because they were unsure what was happening, “One definition of a crisis is you do not know what’s going to happen in two hours,” he said.

Further, Hicks explained how a separate team of special forces personnel were not given the authorization to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi. “They were furious,” he said.

Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the oversight committee holding the hearing, defended the witnesses, calling them “actual experts on what really happened before, during and after the Benghazi attacks,” who “deserve to be heard.”

The three witnesses were Hicks, Thompson and Eric Nordstrom, a diplomatic security officer who was formerly the regional security officer in Libya; and Thompson.

“I am a career public servant,” Hicks said. “Until the aftermath of Benghazi, I loved every day of my job.”

Nordstrom choked up as he began to testify Wednesday.

Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., top Democrat on the oversight committee, said Wednesday that Republicans are using the witnesses’ statements for “political purposes.” He said he’s glad the whistle-blowers are testifying and would ensure they are protected, but pre-emptively challenged some of their claims — including the claim that U.S. military could have responded sooner to the site of the attack.

The Obama administration has adamantly denied several of the latest charges, including a claim that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a key aide tried to cut the department’s own counterterrorism bureau out of the chain of reporting and decision-making on Sept. 11. The administration also denied that the whistle-blowers in question were intimidated — while behind the scenes questioning the credibility of the witnesses.

A “fact sheet” released by the department ahead of the hearing reiterated its denials. The statement said the department has “demonstrated an unprecedented degree of cooperation with the Congress” on Libya, and rejected claims that the military was in a position to help that night but was told to stand down. Citing its internal review, the statement noted the review “found no evidence of any undue delays in decision making or denial of support from Washington or from the military combatant commanders.”

 

Filed Under: All Stories, Elections, Ethics, Foreign, Religion

Benghazi ‘Cover-up’ Unfolds as Whistle-blowers Give Testimony

May 8, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

 

WHISTLEBLOWERSRepublican lawmakers hounding the Obama administration for months over unanswered questions on the Benghazi attack will have their moment, on Wednesday, to demonstrate whether the internal response amounted to a cover-up — as whistle-blowers give long-awaited testimony expected to challenge the White House’s version of events.Two of the whistle-blowers’ opening statements were obtained by Fox News, and in the statements they defend their credibility in testifying about what happened last Sept. 11 in Libya.”I am a career public servant,” Greg Hicks’ statement reads. “Until the aftermath of Benghazi, I loved every day of my job.” He was deputy chief of mission in Libya and became top U.S. diplomat in the country after Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed in the terror attack.

The other statement, by Mark Thompson of the State Department Counterterrorism Bureau, is mostly biographical. Testimony also is due Wednesday from Eric Nordstrom, a diplomatic security officer who was formerly the regional security officer in Libya.

The administration has parried Republican allegations lately by arguing that the attack is old news, that the State Department already has investigated it and that Republicans are engaged in a political witch hunt.

But a series of carefully timed leaks on the whistle-blowers’ testimony indicates House Republicans could have the goods to at least merit a second look at the administration narrative.

“The question is, where’s the accountability for lying to the American people?” Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, told Fox News. “The American people were lied to.”

Issa claimed one “cover-up” is “undeniable” — that the State Department botched security in Benghazi in the run-up to the attack. But, he said, “it still doesn’t explain the president misleading the American people over a period of weeks.”

Three whistle-blowers are set to testify shortly before noon to the oversight committee Issa chairs.

Issa’s Democratic counterpart on the committee, Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, voiced skepticism about the leaks of the witnesses’ claims in advance of the hearing.

“If there was any matter that cries out for bipartisanship, it’s this,” he told Fox News, while raising criticisms that information about some witnesses wasn’t available in advance to Democrats. “This is about making sure that our diplomatic core are safe. … I want to go wherever the evidence leads, but I want all the evidence.”

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, a member of that committee, said if it weren’t for lawmakers’ persistence, “we would be left with a whole host of lies coming out of this administration, because they were not truthful about this.”

The “truth” surrounding the Benghazi attack has been elusive. The Obama administration has adamantly denied several of the latest charges, including a claim that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a key aide tried to cut the department’s own counterterrorism bureau out of the chain of reporting and decision-making on Sept. 11. The administration also denied that the whistle-blowers in question were intimidated — while behind the scenes questioning the credibility of the witnesses.

The witnesses are expected to cover a breadth of material in their testimony Wednesday. Lawmakers have questioned to what extent security requests were ignored before the attack, whether the military could have done more to respond the night of the attack and whether talking points were intentionally changed for political reasons after the attack to downplay terrorism. The witnesses could address all three areas on Wednesday.

A key area of interest is how the attack was described in the immediate aftermath.

The Weekly Standard reported last week that the initial CIA talking points on the attack said “Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.” The reference to Al Qaeda was later taken out, and the initial reference to “attacks” was reportedly changed to “demonstrations.”

According to The Weekly Standard, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland raised “serious concerns” at the time about the draft, concerned it could fuel criticism of the department.

The language continued to be watered down.

Issa told Fox News, in reference to the revisions, that “it’s very clear … that this was a political change.”

State Department officials released a statement Tuesday night labeled “Benghazi Attack Fack Check” to defend its security efforts.

“No one is more determined than the State Department family to bring those who perpetrated this attack to justice and do everything we need to do to keep our people safe,” the statement reads. “That’s where our attention is, and we hope Congress and the media, too, can keep the focus.”

Hicks, according to a transcript, also told congressional investigators that he thought it “was a terrorist attack from the get go.”

The whistle-blowers will be able to provide a new perspective on what was happening on the ground that night.

Hicks, according to transcripts, told investigators that the U.S. military could have prevented one wave of the deadly attack on American personnel in Benghazi if fighter jets had been promptly deployed. Further, he claimed that a second rescue team that was supposed to go from Tripoli to Benghazi early the next morning was told not to go.

He said Special Forces personnel were planning to board a C-130 flight at around 6 a.m. local time on Sept. 12 but got a phone call when they were on their way to the flight telling them “you can’t go now, you don’t have authority to go now. And so they missed the flight.”

He added: “They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it,” apparently because they did not have the “right authority.”

Thompson has also claimed that Clinton and a key aide effectively tried to cut the department’s own counterterrorism bureau out of the loop that night.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney denied the claim on Monday.

Daniel Benjamin, who ran the department’s Counterterrorism Bureau at the time, also put out a statement Monday morning strongly denying the charges.

“I ran the bureau then, and I can say now with certainty, as the former Coordinator for Counterterrorism, that this charge is simply untrue,” he said. “Though I was out of the country on official travel at the time of the attack, I was in frequent contact with the Department. At no time did I feel that the Bureau was in any way being left out of deliberations that it should have been part of.”

Published May 08, 2013 / FoxNews.com

Filed Under: All Stories, Elections, Ethics, Foreign, Religion

Whistle-Blower: US Military Response Would Have Stopped Benghazi Attack

May 6, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

benghazi_hicksThe U.S. military could have prevented one wave of the deadly attack on American personnel in Benghazi if fighter jets had been promptly deployed, a top diplomatic official who was in Benghazi during the Sept. 11 assault told congressional investigators.

The account, contained in a transcript obtained by Fox News, was given by Gregory Hicks during an interview last month with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Hicks, a whistle-blower who is preparing to testify Wednesday before that committee, was deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya — after Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed that night, he became the highest-ranking diplomat on the ground.

Hicks, in his interview, argued that after the first wave of attacks on the U.S. consulate, the U.S. military could have prevented additional violence with a quickly scrambled flight — after the first wave, terrorists would go on to launch a pre-dawn mortar assault on the CIA annex.

“And so, in my personal opinion, a fast-mover flying over Benghazi at some point, you know, as soon as possible might very well have prevented some of the bad things that happened that night,” Hicks said, according to the transcript.

He acknowledged that this would have required clearance from the Libyan government, since it is their airspace, but claimed the government would have approved such a flight.

This, he said, could have stopped that mortar assault.

“I believe if we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split,” he said. “They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them.”

Hicks suggested the Libyan government expected a request to use their airspace, and claimed the Libyans “were as surprised as we were” that U.S. military personnel did not arrive until later on.

Pentagon officials have said military assets were not in position to respond fast enough that night, and also have cautioned about the potential risks of sending additional military into the area.

“There was not enough time given the speed of the attack for armed military assets to respond,” former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February. “We were not dealing with a prolonged or continuous assault which could have been brought to an end by a U.S. military response. … Time, distance, the lack of an adequate warning, events that moved very quickly on the ground prevented a more immediate response.”

Panetta, during an Oct. 25 briefing with reporters, also said that while the military was prepared to respond, the “basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on.” He said the attack was over before “we had the opportunity to really know what was happening.”

Hicks acknowledged there were concerns that the nearest fighter jets did not have the requisite tankers in the area to support a flight.

However, he said a second rescue team that was supposed to go from Tripoli to Benghazi early that morning was told not to go.

He said Special Forces personnel were planning to board a C-130 flight at around 6 a.m. local time on Sept. 12.

“We fully intended for those guys to go, because we had already essentially stripped ourselves of our security presence, or our security capability to the bare minimum,” he said.

But he said the military team on the ground in Tripoli got a phone call when they were on their way to the flight telling them “you can’t go now, you don’t have authority to go now. And so they missed the flight.”

He added: “They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it,” apparently because they did not have the “right authority.”

The account is one of a series of new details and claims that are emerging about the night of the Benghazi attack in advance of congressional testimony.

Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for operations in the agency’s counterterrorism bureau, has also claimed that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a key aide effectively tried to cut the department’s own counterterrorism bureau out of the chain of reporting and decision-making that night. He, too, is set to testify Wednesday.

Sources close to the congressional investigation who have been briefed on what Thompson will say tell Fox News the veteran counterterrorism official concluded on Sept. 11 that Clinton and Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy tried to cut the counterterrorism bureau out of the loop as they and other Obama administration officials weighed how to respond to — and characterize — the Benghazi attacks.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney denied the claim on Monday.

Daniel Benjamin, who ran the department’s Counterterrorism Bureau at the time, also put out a statement Monday morning strongly denying the charges.

“I ran the bureau then, and I can say now with certainty, as the former Coordinator for Counterterrorism, that this charge is simply untrue,” he said. “Though I was out of the country on official travel at the time of the attack, I was in frequent contact with the Department. At no time did I feel that the Bureau was in any way being left out of deliberations that it should have been part of.”

He went on to call his bureau a “central participant in the interagency discussion about the longer-term response to Benghazi.” He said “at no time was the Bureau sidelined or otherwise kept from carrying out its tasks.”

State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell also said Monday that the new hearings appear to be political in nature.

Separately, a senior State Department official told Fox News that Hicks and Thompson both have “axes to grind.”

Published May 06, 2013 / FoxNews.com

Filed Under: All Stories, Elections, Ethics, Foreign, Religion

$6.3 TRILLION TO FUND AMNESTY

May 6, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

illegals_crossing_fenceThe comprehensive immigration overhaul being taken up in the Senate this week could cost taxpayers $6.3 trillion if 11 million illegal immigrants are granted legal status, according to a long-awaited estimate by the conservative Heritage Foundation.

The cost would arise from illegal immigrants tapping into the government’s vast network of benefits and services, many of which are currently unavailable to them. This includes everything from standard benefits like Social Security and Medicare to dozens of welfare programs ranging from housing assistance to food stamps.

The report was obtained in advance by Fox News.

“No matter how you slice it, amnesty will add a tremendous amount of pressure on America’s already strained public purse,” Robert Rector, the Heritage scholar who prepared the report, said in a statement.

The numbers could raise additional concerns for Republicans as a Senate committee prepares to consider the legislation later this week.

The comprehensive study also factored in the cost of public education and other services like highways and police. The government is already providing some of those services to illegal immigrants, so the $6.3 trillion figure would not represent all new costs.

Illegal_ImmigrationBut most of that cost would be new spending, according to Heritage, as illegal immigrants gain access to additional government benefits. The study acknowledges that, for a 10-year period, illegal immigrants seeking a reprieve would be barred from these benefits. After that window, though, Heritage forecasts the costs skyrocketing.

On an annual basis, the report estimates the cost will be $106 billion after the interim phase is over. In the course of their lifetime, the report estimates that illegal immigrant households would receive an average of $592,000 in government benefits.

The $6.3 trillion figure is based on what illegal immigrants would cost the government over the course of their lifetime. It factors in the expected taxes they’d pay to the government.

Supporters of immigration legislation have been skeptical of efforts to assign a cost to the immigration bill. Proponents argue that the value of bringing millions of illegal immigrants out of the shadows and presumably into the taxpaying workforce is immeasurable.

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., a key co-author of the legislation, has also stressed that illegal immigrants applying for legal status would not have access to federal benefits while they are applying.

Their eligibility, though, would change once they get a green card.

The legislation also might not legalize all 11 million illegal immigrants. Some could be disqualified if they have a felony record or other problems in their background

Heritage claims its estimate is on the conservative end.

“Those who claim that amnesty will not create a large fiscal burden are simply in a state of denial concerning the underlying redistributional nature of government policy in the 21st century,” the report said.

Published May 06, 2013 / FoxNews.com

Filed Under: All Stories, Economy, Elections, Entitlement, Ethics, Foreign, Religion

BENGHAZI BOMBSHELL: Clinton Cut Anti-Terror Unit Out of Loop

May 6, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

illary-clinton-benghaziOn the night of Sept. 11, as the Obama administration scrambled to respond to the Benghazi terror attacks, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a key aide effectively tried to cut the department’s own counterterrorism bureau out of the chain of reporting and decision-making, according to a “whistle-blower” witness from that bureau who will soon testify to the charge before Congress, Fox News has learned.

That witness is Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for operations in the agency’s counterterrorism bureau. Sources tell Fox News Thompson will level the allegation against Clinton during testimony on Wednesday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.

Fox News has also learned that another official from the counterterrorism bureau — independently of Thompson — voiced the same complaint about Clinton and Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy to trusted national security colleagues back in October.

Extremists linked to Al Qaeda stormed the U.S. Consulate and a nearby annex on Sept. 11, in a heavily armed and well-coordinated eight-hour assault that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans.

Thompson considers himself a whistle-blower whose account was suppressed by the official investigative panel that Clinton convened to review the episode, the Accountability Review Board (ARB). Thompson’s lawyer, Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. attorney, has further alleged that his client has been subjected to threats and intimidation by as-yet-unnamed superiors at State, in advance of his cooperation with Congress.

Sources close to the congressional investigation who have been briefed on what Thompson will testify tell Fox News the veteran counterterrorism official concluded on Sept. 11 that Clinton and Kennedy tried to cut the counterterrorism bureau out of the loop as they and other Obama administration officials weighed how to respond to — and characterize — the Benghazi attacks.

“You should have seen what (Clinton) tried to do to us that night,” the second official in State’s counterterrorism bureau told colleagues back in October.  Those comments would appear to be corroborated by Thompson’s forthcoming testimony.

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki called the counterterrorism officials’ allegation “100 percent false.” A spokesman for Clinton said tersely that the charge is not true.

Thompson’s attorney, diGenova, would not comment for this article.

Documents from the State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Council, first published in the May 13 edition of “The Weekly Standard,” showed that senior officials from those agencies decided within days of the attacks to delete all references to Al Qaeda’s known involvement in them from “talking points” being prepared for those administration officers being sent out to discuss the attacks publicly.

Those talking points — and indeed, the statements of all senior Obama administration officials who commented publicly on Benghazi during the early days after the attacks — sought instead to depict the Americans’ deaths as the result of a spontaneous protest that went awry. The administration later acknowledged that there had been no such protest, as evidence mounted that Al Qaeda-linked terrorists had participated in the attacks. The latter conclusion had figured prominently in the earliest CIA drafts of the talking points, but was stricken by an ad hoc group of senior officials controlling the drafting process. Among those involved in prodding the deletions, the documents published by “The Weekly Standard” show, was State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, who wrote at one point that the revisions were not sufficient to satisfy “my building’s leadership.”

The allegations of the two counterterrorism officials stand to return the former secretary of state to the center of the Benghazi story. Widely regarded as a leading potential candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, Clinton has insisted she was not privy to decisions made by underlings about the inadequate security for the U.S. installations in Benghazi that were made in the run-up to the attacks. And she has portrayed her role — once the attacks became known in Washington — as that of a determined fact-finder who worked with colleagues to fashion the best possible response to the crisis.

Clinton testified about Benghazi for the first and only time in January of this year, shortly before leaving office. She had long delayed her testimony, at first because she cited the need for the ARB to complete its report, and then because she suffered a series of untimely health problems that included a stomach virus, a concussion sustained during a fall at home, and a blood clot near her brain, from which she has since recovered. However, Clinton was never interviewed by the ARB she convened.

Fox News disclosed last week that the conduct of the ARB is itself now under review by the State Department’s Office of Inspector General. A department spokesman said the OIG probe is examining all prior ARBs, not just the one established after Benghazi.

The counterterrorism officials, however, concluded that Clinton and Kennedy were immediately wary of the attacks being portrayed as acts of terrorism, and accordingly worked to prevent the counterterrorism bureau from having a role in the department’s early decision-making relating to them.

Also appearing before the oversight committee on Wednesday will be Gregory N. Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attacks. Like Thompson, Hicks is a career State Department official who considers himself a Benghazi whistle-blower. His attorney, Victoria Toensing, a former chief counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee, has charged that Hicks, too, has faced threats of reprisal from unnamed superiors at State. (Toensing and diGenova, who are representing their respective clients pro bono, are married.)

Portions of the forthcoming testimony of Hicks — who was one of the last people to speak to Stevens, and who upon the ambassador’s death became the senior U.S. diplomat in Libya — were made public by Rep. Issa during an appearance on the CBS News program “Face the Nation” on Sunday.

Hicks told the committee that he and his colleagues on the ground in Libya that night knew instantly that Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and that he was astonished that no one drafting the administration’s talking points consulted with him before finalizing them, or before U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice delivered them on the Sunday talk shows of Sept. 16.

By James Rosen, Chad Pergram / Published May 06, 2013 / FoxNews.com

Filed Under: All Stories, Elections, Ethics, Foreign, Religion

Benghazi Witness: Clinton Sought End-Run Around Counter Terror Unit

May 5, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

clinton_hillaryOn the night of Sept. 11, as the Obama administration scrambled to respond to the Benghazi terror attacks, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a key aide effectively tried to cut the department’s own counterterrorism bureau out of the chain of reporting and decision-making, according to a “whistle-blower” witness from that bureau who will soon testify to the charge before Congress, Fox News has learned.

That witness is Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for operations in the agency’s counterterrorism bureau. Sources tell Fox News Thompson will level the allegation against Clinton during testimony on Wednesday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.

Fox News has also learned that another official from the counterterrorism bureau — independently of Thompson — voiced the same complaint about Clinton and Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy to trusted national security colleagues back in October.

Benghazia_survivorsExtremists linked to Al Qaeda stormed the American consulate and a nearby annex on Sept. 11, in a heavily armed and well-coordinated eight-hour assault that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans.

Thompson considers himself a whistle-blower whose account was suppressed by the official investigative panel that Clinton convened to review the episode, the Accountability Review Board (ARB). Thompson’s lawyer, Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. attorney, has further alleged that his client has been subjected to threats and intimidation by as-yet-unnamed superiors at State, in advance of his cooperation with Congress.

Sources close to the congressional investigation who have been briefed on what Thompson will testify tell Fox News the veteran counterterrorism official concluded on Sept. 11 that Clinton and Kennedy tried to cut the counterterrorism bureau out of the loop as they and other Obama administration officials weighed how to respond to — and characterize — the Benghazi attacks.

“You should have seen what (Clinton) tried to do to us that night,” the second official in State’s counterterrorism bureau told colleagues back in October.  Those comments would appear to be corroborated by Thompson’s forthcoming testimony.

Neither Clinton, contacted through the Clinton Global Initiative, nor Kennedy, contacted through a State Department spokesman, returned requests for comment.

Thompson’s attorney, diGenova, would not comment for this article.

Documents from the State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Council, first published in the May 13 edition of “The Weekly Standard,” showed that senior officials from those agencies decided within days of the attacks to delete all references to Al Qaeda’s known involvement in them from “talking points” being prepared for those administration officers being sent out to discuss the attacks publicly.

Those talking points — and indeed, the statements of all senior Obama administration officials who commented publicly on Benghazi during the early days after the attacks — sought instead to depict the Americans’ deaths as the result of a spontaneous protest that went awry. The administration later acknowledged that there had been no such protest, as evidence mounted that Al Qaeda-linked terrorists had participated in the attacks. The latter conclusion had figured prominently in the earliest CIA drafts of the talking points, but was stricken by an ad hoc group of senior officials controlling the drafting process. Among those involved in prodding the deletions, the documents published by “The Weekly Standard” show, was State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, who wrote at one point that the revisions were not sufficient to satisfy “my building’s leadership.”

The allegations of the two counterterrorism officials stand to return the former secretary of state to the center of the Benghazi story. Widely regarded as a leading potential candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, Clinton has insisted she was not privy to decisions made by underlings about the inadequate security for the U.S. installations in Benghazi that were made in the run-up to the attacks. And she has portrayed her role — once the attacks became known in Washington — as that of a determined fact-finder who worked with colleagues to fashion the best possible response to the crisis.

Clinton testified about Benghazi for the first and only time in January of this year, shortly before leaving office. She had long delayed her testimony, at first because she cited the need for the ARB to complete its report, and then because she suffered a series of untimely health problems that included a stomach virus, a concussion sustained during a fall at home, and a blood clot near her brain, from which she has since recovered. However, Clinton was never interviewed by the ARB she convened.

Fox News disclosed last week that the conduct of the ARB is itself now under review by the State Department’s Office of Inspector General. A department spokesman said the OIG probe is examining all prior ARBs, not just the one established after Benghazi.

The counterterrorism officials, however, concluded that Clinton and Kennedy were immediately wary of the attacks being portrayed as acts of terrorism, and accordingly worked to prevent the counterterrorism bureau from having a role in the department’s early decision-making relating to them.

Also appearing before the oversight committee on Wednesday will be Gregory N. Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attacks. Like Thompson, Hicks is a career State Department official who considers himself a Benghazi whistle-blower. His attorney, Victoria Toensing, a former chief counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee, has charged that Hicks, too, has faced threats of reprisal from unnamed superiors at State. (Toensing and diGenova, who are representing their respective clients pro bono, are married.)

Portions of the forthcoming testimony of Hicks — who was one of the last people to speak to Stevens, and who upon the ambassador’s death became the senior U.S. diplomat in Libya — were made public by Rep. Issa during an appearance on the CBS News program “Face the Nation” on Sunday.

Hicks told the committee that he and his colleagues on the ground in Libya that night knew instantly that Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and that he was astonished that no one drafting the administration’s talking points consulted with him before finalizing them, or before U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice delivered them on the Sunday talk shows of Sept. 16.

By James Rosen, Chad Pergram / Published May 05, 2013 / FoxNews.com

Filed Under: All Stories, Elections, Ethics, Foreign, Religion

State Department Intimidating Benghazi Witnesses

May 5, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

benghazi-1Utah Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz suggested Sunday that potential witnesses to the 2012 Benghazi terror attacks are being intimidated by the State Department but they will come forward after so-called “whistle-blowers” testify this week before Congress.

“I think these people are afraid of retaliation, afraid of what the State Department will do to them,” Chaffetz, a member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, told “Fox News Sunday.”

Chaffetz’s remarks came one day after the committee announced three witnesses for its hearing Wednesday on the Sept. 11, 2012, fatal attacks on a U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya.

The witnesses are three career State Department officials: Gregory Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the time of the attacks; Mark Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for operations in the agency’s Counterterrorism Bureau; and Eric Nordstrom, a diplomatic security officer who was the regional security officer in Libya, the top security officer in the country in the months leading up to the attacks.

Chaffetz_J“Others are out there and will testify,” Chaffetz said. He also suggested Thompson has been “suppressed” but did not say how.

President Obama and the State Department have denied knowledge of such actions.

“I’m not familiar with this notion that anybody has been blocked,” the president said last week.

Massachusetts Democrat Rep. Steve Lynch told Fox on Sunday that independent investigators interviewed more than 100 witnesses and determined “no breach of duty” during the attacks in which U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed.

Lynch, also a member of the House oversight committee, defended House Democrats on the issue, saying the Republican-led chamber calls the hearings and picks witnesses.

“We don’t have the ability to hold a hearing,” he said.

Published May 05, 2013 / FoxNews.com

Filed Under: All Stories, Elections, Ethics, Foreign, Religion

Benghazi ‘Whistleblowers’ Identified

May 4, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

Benghazi_whistleblowerTheir identities have been a well-guarded secret, known only to their high-powered lawyers and a handful of House lawmakers and staff. But now Fox News has learned the names of the self-described Benghazi “whistleblowers” who are set to testify before a widely anticipated congressional hearing on Wednesday.

Appearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will be three career State Department officials: Gregory N. Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attacks; Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for Operations in the agency’s Counterterrorism Bureau; and Eric Nordstrom, a diplomatic security officer who was the regional security officer in Libya, the top security officer in the country in the months leading up to the attacks.

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on the U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya.

Hicks was at the time of the highest-ranking American diplomat in the country.

Nordstrom previously testified before the oversight committee, which is chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., in October 2012. Of the three witnesses, he is the only one who does not consider himself a whistleblower. At last fall’s hearing, however, Nordstrom made headlines by detailing for lawmakers the series of requests that he, Ambassador Stevens, and others had made for enhanced security at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in the period preceding the attacks, requests mostly rejected by State Department superiors.


Filed Under: All Stories, Elections, Ethics, Foreign, Religion

Benghazi Review Board Coverd Up Facts

May 2, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

benghazi_ProbeThe State Department’s Office of Inspector General is investigating the special internal panel that probed the Benghazi terror attack for the State Department, Fox News has confirmed.The IG’s office is said by well-placed sources to be seeking to determine whether the Accountability Review Board, or ARB — led by former U.N. Ambassador Thomas Pickering and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen — failed to interview key witnesses who had asked to provide their accounts of the Benghazi attacks to the panel.The IG’s office notified the department of the “special review” on March 28, according to Doug Welty, the congressional and public affairs officer of the IG’s office.

This disclosure marks a significant turn in the ongoing Benghazi case, as it calls into question the reliability of the blue-ribbon panel that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton convened to review the entire matter. Until the report was concluded, she and all other senior Obama administration officials regularly refused to answer questions about what happened in Benghazi.

But State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell disputed the characterization of the review, saying it is “simply false” to assert the panel is being investigated.

“Rather, it is conducting a review of the ARB process itself going back two decades, looking at how Boards are convened, their standards, and the implementation of ARB recommendations,” he said.

Since the ARB report was issued in December — finding that “systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels” well below Clinton were to blame for the “inadequate” security at Benghazi — Clinton and other top officials have routinely referred questioners to the conclusions of the board report. Now the methodology and final product of the ARB are themselves coming under the scrutiny of the department’s own top auditor.

On Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said: “The Accountability Review Board which investigated this matter — and I think in no one’s estimation sugarcoated what happened there or pulled any punches when it came to holding accountable individuals that they felt had not successfully executed their responsibilities — heard from everyone and invited everyone. So there was a clear indication there that everyone who had something to say was welcome to provide information to the Accountability Review Board.”

On Monday, State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell said of the ARB’s work: “We think that we’ve done an independent investigation, that it’s been transparent, thorough, credible, and detailed, and … we’ve shared those findings with the U.S. Congress.”

In an interview for the Fox News program “Geraldo” taped Thursday afternoon and set to air this weekend, Joe diGenova, a former U.S. attorney, told host Geraldo Rivera that he is legally representing a career State Department officer whom the board failed to interview. DiGenova called the ARB a “cover-up.”

DiGenova and his wife Victoria Toensing, a former Justice Department official who represents another State Department whistle-blower in the Benghazi case, said their respective clients will testify next Wednesday at a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee being chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.

Asked to comment for this article, a senior State Department official told Fox News the IG probe is not a “formal investigation” but rather a review process, and one, moreover, that will examine previous ARBs in addition to the one established after Benghazi.

The official noted that the department had published a notice early on instructing employees on how they could furnish information to the ARB for Benghazi, and that the panel ultimately interviewed more than 100 witnesses.

The original law that established accountability review boards mandates that they act completely independently, the official said, adding that the department in this case neither sought nor enjoyed any influence over the panel’s work.

By James Rosen / Published May 02, 2013 / FoxNews.com

Watch Video:

 

Filed Under: All Stories, Economy, Elections, Ethics, Foreign, Religion

Benghazi: Cries for Backup Ignored by Administration

May 2, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

libya_attackOn the night of the Benghazi terror attack, special operations put out multiple calls for all available military and other assets to be moved into position to help — but the State Department and White House never gave the military permission to cross into Libya, sources told Fox News.

The disconnect was one example of what sources described as a communication breakdown that left those on the ground without outside help.

“When you are on the ground, you depend on each other — we’re gonna get through this situation. But when you look up and then nothing outside of the stratosphere is coming to help you or rescue you, that’s a bad feeling,” one source said.

Multiple sources spoke to Fox News about what they described as a lack of action in Benghazi on Sept. 11 last year, when four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, were killed.

“They had no plan. They had no contingency plan for if this happens, and that’s the problem this is going to face in the future,” one source said. “They’re dealing with more hostile regions, hostile countries. This attack’s going to happen again.”

Under normal circumstances, authorities in Benghazi would have fallen under the chief of mission, one source said — the person in charge of security in the country who in this case was Stevens. But once Stevens was cornered and members of his security detail pushed his distress button, that authority would have been transferred to his deputy. However, that deputy was out of the country.

benghazi-1That meant the authority then reverted directly to the U.S. State Department, and oversight of the response to the attack that night fell to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy, who were calling the shots.

Sources said that shortly after the attack began around 9:40 p.m., special forces put out the calls for assets to be moved into position.

“What that does is that enacts … every asset, every element to respond and it becomes a global priority,” one source said. “I would tell you that was given and the only reason it was given is because of special operations pack.”

However, the source said, “Assets did not move.”

The failure of the State Department or White House to give the military permission to go into Libya, according to the source, only accentuates the significant breakdown in communication among the State Department, military, CIA and White House.

“I can see the initial confusion in the beginning. I mean, you have a situation that’s developing. The problem with the State Department is they don’t have procedures in place. And if they do, they haven’t practiced or exercised them. And now they are making up for all the mistakes they have made, with excuse. And there is no excuse,” the source said, describing a “huge breakdown between State and military.”

Last October, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta defended the response, saying the military was reluctant to put forces at risk.

“You don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on, without having some real-time information about what’s taking place,” Panetta said. “And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, General Ham, General Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”

The State Department Accountability Review Board, which investigated the attack and what led up to it, also claimed that “Washington-Tripoli-Benghazi communication, cooperation, and coordination on the night of the attacks were effective.”

But one source told Fox News there was “not good communication” between State and Defense “on any level.”

By Adam Housley / Published May 02, 2013 / FoxNews.com

Filed Under: All Stories, Economy, Elections, Ethics, Foreign, Religion

Bomber Texted ‘LOL’ When Friends Saw Pics on TV

May 2, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

Dzhokahar_FriendsWhen the alleged Boston Marathon bomber was told by one of his friends that he resembled one of the suspects in the widely released surveillance video, he sent a chilling response: “Lol, you better not text me,” an affidavit unsealed Wednesday said.

The brief interaction between bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his friend Dias Kadyrbayev occurred three days after the April 15 bombing, the affidavit said. Kadyrbayev was among three others charged Wednesday for allegedly conspiring to get rid of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s incriminating backpack filled with gutted fireworks.

He also texted Kadyrbayev to say, “Come to my room and take whatever you want,” according to the affidavit.

“Kadyrbayev knew when he saw the empty fireworks that Tsarnaev was involved in the marathon bombing,” the affidavit reads. “Kadyrbayev decided to remove the backpack from the room in order to help his friend Tsarnaev avoid trouble.”

The exchange came just a few hours before the Tsarnaev brothers would carjack a Chinese immigrant, murder an MIT police officer and engage in a wild shootout with police through the streets of Cambridge and Watertown, police say. Tamerlan Tsarnaev died April 19, after a shootout hours after authorities showed the brothers on surveillance video and named them as suspects.

Documents based on interviews with the young men reveal Dzhokhar Tsarnaev allegedly dropped sinister hints before the attack, telling his friends a month before that he had learned how to make a bomb. However, it wasn’t until the FBI released a surveillance photo of the suspects that the friends realized Tsarnaev may have been involved.

The FBI claims this prompted Dias Kadyrbayev and Azamat Tazhayakova both 19-year-old natives of Kazakhstan and friends of Tsarnaev at UMass-Dartmouth, to go to Tsarnaev’s dorm and take a laptop, the backpack and some Vaseline that may have been used in making the deadly pressure cooker bombs that killed three and injured more than 200 at the race. Police believe the bombs were packed with shrapnel and gunpowder removed from fireworks.

Robel Phillipos, of Cambridge, Mass., also 19, was charged with willfully making materially false statements to federal law enforcement officials during a terrorism investigation.

The affidavit filed in support of a complaint said Kadyrbayev was the one who carried out the disposal of the backpack after the three saw the fireworks that had been hollowed out and emptied of gunpowder.

Although the three new suspects initially appear to have stonewalled authorities, Phillipos came clean in a fourth interview, conducted April 26. He confessed that the three took the backpack out of their friend’s dorm room, according to the affidavit. Phillipos allegedly told investigators that the two others “started to freak out” after seeing Tsarnaev identified on television.

Robert Stahl, an attorney representing Kadyrbayev, said his client denies the allegations and added that Kadyrbayev assisted authorities in their investigation.

“He is just as shocked and horrified by the violence that took place in Boston as the rest of the community is,” Stahl said. “He did not have anything to do with it.”

Prior to the latest development, authorities had named only the brothers as suspects in the bombing at the finish line of the world-famous race.

Kadyrbayev and Tazhayakov face maximum sentences of five years in prison and fines of $250,000. Phillipos, a U.S. citizen, faces a maximum sentence of eight years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

Kadyrbayev’s attorney, Robert Stahl, says his client will be transported to the federal courthouse later Wednesday to appear on new criminal charges. On Friday, Yerlan Kubashev with the Consulate General for Kazakhstan in New York confirmed in a statement to Fox News that the consulate is helping the young men with legal representation. Both Kadyrbayev and Tazhayakov will plea not guilty, according to their attorneys.

Kubashev said the two men are “shocked at the bombings,” and “they express sorrow to the bombing victims and their families.”

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, is in a prison hospital after being wounded in the shootout with police as he and his brother made their getaway attempt. He is charged with using a weapon of mass destruction to kill, a crime that carries a potential death sentence.

Authorities have searched the Rhode Island home of the parents of Katherine Russell, Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s widow.

Published May 02, 2013 / FoxNews.com / Fox News’ Pamela Browne and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Filed Under: All Stories, Economy, Elections, Entitlement, Ethics, Foreign, Religion

Huge Fuel Reserves Found in Dakotas

May 2, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

oil_discovered_DakotaWASHINGTON –  Energy companies are lining up for their shot to drill in the Dakotas and Montana after a new government report revealed that a massive geological formation stretching across the states contains twice the oil and three times the amount of natural gas than was originally believed.

While the new estimate is drawing smaller companies to the game, the larger players like Schlumberger, Halliburton and Continental Resources are pushing forward with ambitious multi-year plans to stake their claim in the industry.

Continental recently announced a five-year plan to triple its production by 2017. The company’s growth is based on success in North Dakota and Montana as well as in parts of Oklahoma.

The dash to drill follows news from the government on how much more oil and natural gas there is to tap.

“These world-class formations contain even more energy resource potential than previously understood, which is important information as we continue to reduce our nation’s dependence on foreign sources of oil,” newly confirmed Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said Tuesday in a statement.

The new U.S. Geological Survey estimates there are 7.4 billion barrels of oil, 6.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 0.53 billion barrels of natural gas liquids in the Bakken and Three Forks Formations in the Williston Basin Province of Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota.

Since 2008, close to 450 million barrels of oil have been produced in the area and if the government estimates are correct, that leaves billions of barrels of oil and trillions more cubic feet of natural gas left for the taking.

That’s good news for North Dakota — a state that’s already reaped big benefits from the oil boom and has one of the strongest state economies in the country coupled with an exceptionally low unemployment rate. Tax revenues from natural gas and oil hit $1 billion last year in North Dakota and the state is on track to double that number next year.

Republican Sen. John Hoeven believes numbers from the new USGS survey will draw even more developers to the area.

“This will mean a lot of jobs,” he told FoxNews.com. “Financially we are already very strong, we have no debt, but this will mean a lot more. Stores, restaurants, movie theaters – we’ll have to build and we’ll have to hire workers.”

The competition to court employees is already on at the McDonalds in Dickinson, N.D. where prospective hires are being lured in with $300 signing bonuses, Hoeven said.

Calls to McDonalds Corp. for comment were not immediately returned.

Some environmental experts like John Harju, associate director for research with the Energy and Environmental Research Center at the University of North Dakota, believe the possibilities are even greater than what the government forecasts.

“Like any of these USGS estimates, think of them as a milemarker that’s well behind you in the rearview mirror,” he told the Grand Forks Herald in North Dakota.

Still, not everyone is as gung-ho as Hoeven about drilling for natural gas, and the controversial process known as fracking used to access it.

The government hopes to calm some opposition to natural gas by releasing a set of draft rules to regulate hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. The process involves injecting a high-pressure mix of water, sand and chemicals deep into rock formations to release trapped oil and gas.

Supporters say the drilling method should continue and is credited for the country’s domestic energy boom. They say fracking gives the country a chance to cut its dependence on foreign oil.

Environmental groups have long objected to the practice and say it pollutes the groundwater and kills crops and livestock. They also argue that fracking releases heat-trapping methane gas into the air.

But in mid-April, the Environmental Protection Agency dramatically lowered its estimate of how much methane leaks during natural gas production. The agency said that tighter pollution controls put in place by the industry from 1990 to 2010 cut the country’s average of methane emissions by more than 850 million metric tons overall, or about 41.6 million metric tons annually. That’s a 20 percent decrease from previous EPA estimates – a decrease that took place as natural gas production in the country grew by nearly 40 percent in the past two decades.

It is not clear exactly when the government will release its fracking regulations, but it is expected in the next few weeks.

By Barnini Chakraborty / Published May 02, 2013 / FoxNews.com

Filed Under: All Stories, Economy, Elections, Foreign, Sci-Tech

Three Charged with Helping Marathon Bombers

May 1, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

Dzhokahar_FriendsThree new suspects have been charged in connection with the Boston Marathon bombing, two for conspiring to get rid of their friend’s incriminating backpack filled with gutted fireworks after learning he was a suspect in the April 15 terror attack, and another for lying to investigators, according to an FBI affidavit released Wednesday.

Dias Kadyrbayev and Azamat Tazhayakova both 19-year-old natives of Kazakhstan and friends of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev at UMass-Dartmouth, allegedly went to Tsarnaev’s dorm and took a laptop, the backpack and some Vaseline that may have been used in making the deadly pressure cooker bombs that killed three and injured more than 200 at the race. Police believe the bombs were packed with shrapnel and gunpowder removed from fireworks.

Robel Phillipos, of Cambridge, Mass., also 19, was charged with willfully making materially false statements to federal law enforcement officials during a terrorism investigation.

The affidavit filed in support of a complaint said Kadyrbayev was the one who carried out the disposal of the backpack after the three saw the fireworks that had been hollowed out and emptied of gunpowder.

“Kadyrbayev knew when he saw the empty fireworks that Tsarnaev was involved in the Marathon bombing.” – FBI affidavit

“Kadyrbayev knew when he saw the empty fireworks that Tsarnaev was involved in the marathon bombing,” the affidavit reads. “Kadyrbayev decided to remove the backpack from the room in order to help his friend Tsarnaev avoid trouble.”

The three acted on April 18, three days after the bombing and hours after investigators aired surveillance footage identifying Tsarnaev and his older brother Tamerlan as the suspects in the bombing, though not by name, according to authorities. Phillipos first saw footage depicting Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the news Thursday, and told Kadyrbayev over the phone that he suspected their friend was the bomber. When Kadyrbayev later texted Tsarnaev and said he bore a resemblance to the subject of an intense manhunt, Tsarnaev allegedly sent back a chilling response: “Lol, You better not text me.” He also texted Kadyrbayev to say, “Come to my room and take whatever you want,” according to the affidavit.

The exchange came just before 9 p.m. on April 18, a few hours before the Tsarnaev brothers would carjack a Chinese immigrant, murder an MIT police officer and engage in a wild shootout with police through the streets of Cambridge and Watertown, police say. Tamerlan Tsarnaev died April 19, after a shootout hours after authorities showed the brothers on surveillance video and named them as suspects.

Although the three new suspects initially appear to have stonewalled authorities, Phillipos came clean in a fourth interview, conducted April 26. He confessed that the three took the backpack out of their friend’s dorm room, according to the affidavit. Phillipos allegedly told investigators that the two others “started to freak out” after seeing Tsarnaev identified on television.

Prior to the latest development, authorities had named only the brothers as suspects in the bombing at the finish line of the world-famous race.

Kadyrbayev and Tazhayakov face maximum sentences of five years in prison and fines of $250,000. Phillipos, a U.S. citizen, faces a maximum sentence of eight years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

Kadyrbayev’s attorney, Robert Stahl, says his client will be transported to the federal courthouse later Wednesday to appear on new criminal charges. On Friday, Yerlan Kubashev with the Consulate General for Kazakhstan in New York confirmed in a statement to Fox News that the consulate is helping the young men with legal representation. Both Kadyrbayev and Tazhayakov will plea not guilty, according to their attorneys.

Kubashev said the two men are “shocked at the bombings,” and “they express sorrow to the bombing victims and their families.”

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, is in a prison hospital after being wounded in the shootout with police as he and his brother made their getaway attempt. He is charged with using a weapon of mass destruction to kill, a crime that carries a potential death sentence.

Authorities have searched the Rhode Island home of the parents of Katherine Russell, Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s widow.

Filed Under: All Stories, Elections, Ethics, Foreign, Religion

3 More Suspects Arrested In Boston Marathon Bombings

May 1, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

boston-marathon-terrorismBREAKING STORY  The Boston Police Department arrested three more suspects connected to the bombings at last month’s Boston Marathon that killed three people and wounded more than 260.

The police made the announcement with a Twitter message Wednesday morning.

Three new suspects have been taken into custody in the Boston Marathon bombings investigation, the Boston Police Dept. tweeted Wednesday morning.

The development comes as investigators have continued to scrutinize two of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s classmates at UMass-Dartmouth.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s alleged associates are natives of Kazakhstan and have already been detained by U.S. immigration officials for alleged immigration violations.

Azamat Tazhayakov and Dias Kadyrbayev were in federal immigration court earlier Wednesday morning on those matters, a government source said; however, the court hearing was delayed.

Authorities were not immediately saying who the three detained were or if Tsarnaev’s two classmates were part of the new group of suspects.

An attorney for Kadyrbayev has told media outlets that the two young men have been interviewed by FBI agents and that they were cooperating.

The Boston Police Dept. broke the news in a tweet, writing, “Three additional suspects taken into custody in Marathon bombing case. Details to follow.”

The Boston Police Dept. says there is no threat to the public.

Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, two ethnic Chechen brothers from southern Russia, are accused of planting two explosives near the marathon finish line April 15, killing three people and injuring more than 260.

Tamerlan, 26, was killed during a getaway attempt in Watertown. Dzhokhar, 19, was transferred Friday from a Boston hospital to a federal prison medical center in Devens.

Five FBI agents paid a visit Monday to the family home of Katherine Russell, the widow of Tamerlan, Bomber No. 1. Investigators spent an hour and a half inside the North Kingstown, R.I., home. According to the Wall Street Journal, investigators collected Russell’s DNA.

In the last two weeks, the FBI has visited the Russell home four times. Monday was the first time they’ve left with evidence, including an agent seen holding a pair of scissors in a clear plastic bag, which may indicate the feds took a hair sample.

Russell’s lawyer claims she had no prior knowledge of the attacks and is doing everything she can to help the investigation.

Female DNA was found on bomb components used in the attack this month on the Boston Marathon, a source familiar with the investigation confirmed to Fox News, though the source cautioned that it is too early to draw hard conclusions from that evidence. “No one should expect that the investigation is over,” the source told Fox News in confirming the development first reported by the Wall Street Journal, adding that it is just one piece of evidence that investigators are looking at.

The revelation about female DNA came on the same day that the FBI went inside the Rhode Island home of bomber Tamerlan’s widow’s parents, and the nearby family of a man identified as his mysterious mentor hired a family spokesman to keep the media at bay.

Filed Under: All Stories, Elections, Entitlement, Ethics, Foreign, Religion

Benghazi Whistleblower: Obama Gives Pass to Terrorist Behind 9/11 Attack

May 1, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

whistleblowerThe US government knows who organized the Benghazi attack that killed our ambassador and three others and yet he walks freely in Libya today. Why? The whistleblower says “we basically don’t want to upset anybody”.

Not only that, but he says the US is ignoring a much larger terrorist haven that is building in Libya and N. Africa. The whistleblower said “the second highest population of foreign fighters in the war in Iraq came from Benghazi – second to Saudi Arabia.” and that if we continue to ignore this threat it will take another invasion just to turn the tide.

Lastly, he says they are not allowed to capture or destroy any of Qadaffi’s weapons, like the 20,000 MANPADS (shoulder-launched missiles) that are floating around all over the place.

Watch:


Filed Under: All Stories, Elections, Ethics, Foreign, Religion

Benghazi Survivors Claim They Were Silenced by Administration

April 30, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

benghazi-1President Obama said he is unaware of longstanding efforts by Republican lawmakers to question survivors of the Benghazi attacks but pledged to investigate it.

“I’m not familiar with this notion that anybody has been blocked from testifying,” the president said during a White House news conference on Tuesday. “So what I’ll do is I will find out what exactly you’re referring to.”

Obama’s pledge to find out more came as officials at the State Department pushed back against allegations — first aired Monday on Fox News — that career employees at the agency have been threatened if they furnish new information about the Benghazi attacks to members of Congress.

“The State Department is deeply committed to meeting its obligation to protect employees, and the State Department would never tolerate — tolerate or sanction — retaliation against whistle-blowers on any issue, including this one,” spokesman Patrick Ventrell told reporters at a briefing on Tuesday. “That’s an obligation we take very seriously — full stop.”

Four Americans, including U.S. ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, were killed in terrorist attacks on U.S. installations in the port city of Benghazi, Libya on the night of Sept. 11, 2012. While the FBI investigation into the attacks continues, no known instances of any perpetrators being brought to justice have yet been reported.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, will hold the first in a new round of hearings on the subject on May 8.

Benghazia_survivorsIn two letters to the State Department, dated April 16 and April 26, Issa has sought explicit guidance on how attorneys representing witnesses with knowledge of the Benghazi attacks, including their prelude and aftermath, can receive the security clearances necessary to review classified materials.

“Attorneys representing Department personnel in this matter will require clearance to possess and discuss Top Secret and Sensitive Compartmented Information,” Issa wrote on April 16 to Mary McLeod, the principal deputy legal adviser to the State Department.

But Ventrell insisted Tuesday that no such whistle-blowers have come forward, and no requests for security clearances have been made by private attorneys.

Victoria Toensing, a former Justice Department official and onetime Republican counsel to the Senate intelligence committee, disclosed on Monday that she is representing a career State Department official who identifies himself as a whistle-blower. Toensing said this individual has been threatened by superiors with career-ending reprisals if he cooperates with the oversight committee.

“[The State Department has] had two letters from Chairman Issa, one on April 16th, the other one April 26th, that specifically say, ‘We want you to provide a process for clearing a lawyer to receive classified information,’” Toensing said during an interview Tuesday on “America’s Newsroom” with Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum.  “How can they possibly get up there and just lie to the press corps?”

Ventrell said that the State Department periodically sends out notices to the entire staff advising them of the protections whistle-blowers enjoy under federal law, and that such a notice, in accordance with regular practice every spring, was disseminated just last week.

Interviewed on the Los Angeles campus of the University of Southern California on Tuesday, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., argued the allegations of threats and intimidation expose the need for a more comprehensive probe of the Benghazi affair.

“People do not trust the president and his people,” McCain told Fox News. “That’s why we need a select committee.”

By James Rosen / Published April 30, 2013 / FoxNews.com / Fox News’ Martha MacCallum and Lee Ross contributed to this report.

Filed Under: All Stories, Elections, Ethics, Foreign, Religion

Obama Admin Threats to Benghazi Whistle-Blowers

April 29, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

Libya_Consul_Damage2At least four career officials at the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency have retained lawyers or are in the process of doing so, as they prepare to provide sensitive information about the Benghazi attacks to Congress, Fox News has learned.

Victoria Toensing, a former Justice Department official and Republican counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee, is now representing one of the State Department employees. She told Fox News her client and some of the others, who consider themselves whistle-blowers, have been threatened by unnamed Obama administration officials.

“I’m not talking generally, I’m talking specifically about Benghazi – that people have been threatened,” Toensing said in an interview Monday. “And not just the State Department. People have been threatened at the CIA.”

Toensing declined to name her client. She also refused to say whether the individual was on the ground in Benghazi on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, when terrorist attacks on two U.S. installations in the Libyan city killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens.

However, Toensing disclosed that her client has pertinent information on all three time periods investigators consider relevant to the attacks: the months that led up to the attack, when pleas by the ambassador and his staff for enhanced security in Benghazi were mostly rejected by senior officers at the State Department; the eight-hour time frame in which the attacks unfolded, and the eight-day period that followed the attacks, when Obama administration officials incorrectly described them as the result of a spontaneous protest over a video.

“It’s frightening, and they’re doing some very despicable threats to people,” she said. “Not ‘we’re going to kill you,’ or not ‘we’re going to prosecute you tomorrow,’ but they’re taking career people and making them well aware that their careers will be over [if they cooperate with congressional investigators].”

Federal law provides explicit protections for federal government employees who are identified as “whistle-blowers.” The laws aim to ensure these individuals will not face repercussions from their superiors, or from other quarters, in retaliation for their provision of information about corruption or other forms of wrongdoing to Congress, or to an agency’s inspector-general.

Rep. Darrell Issa, the Republican from California who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, wrote to Secretary of State John Kerry on Friday to complain that the department has not provided a process by which attorneys like Toensing can receive the security clearances necessary for them to review classified documents and other key evidence.

“It is unavoidable that Department employees identifying themselves as witnesses in the Committee’s investigation will apply for a security clearance to allow their personal attorneys to handle sensitive or classified material,” Issa wrote. “The Department’s unwillingness to make the process for clearing an attorney more transparent appears to be an effort to interfere with the rights of employees to furnish information to Congress.”

The Obama administration maintains that it has been more than forthcoming on Benghazi and that it is time for the State Department to move on. At a recent hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Kerry noted that administration officials have testified at eight hearings on Benghazi, provided 20 briefings on the subject and turned over to Congress some 25,000 documents related to the killings.

“So if you have additional questions or you think there’s some document that somehow you need, I’ll work with you to try to get it and see if we can provide that to you,” Kerry told committee Chairman Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., on April 17. But Kerry added: “I do not want to spend the next year coming up here talking about Benghazi.”

Asked about Issa’s complaints about attorneys not receiving security clearances, State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell on Monday indicated that – far from threatening anyone – the administration hasn’t been presented with any such cases. “I’m not aware of private counsel seeking security clearances or — or anything to that regard,” Ventrell told reporters. “I’m not aware of whistle-blowers one way or another.”

Ventrell cited the work of the FBI – whose probe of the attacks continues almost eight months later and without any known instances of perpetrators being brought to justice – and the Accountability Review Board. The board was an internal State Department review panel led by former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Thomas Pickering and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen. An unclassified version of the board’s final report that was released to the public contained no conclusions that suggested administration officials had willfully endangered their colleagues in Benghazi or had misled the public or Congress.

“And that should be enough,” Ventrell said at Monday’s press briefing. “Congress has its own prerogatives, but we’ve had a very thorough, independent investigation, which we completed and [which was] transparent and shared. And there are many folks who are, in a political manner, trying to sort of use this for their own political means, or ends.”

By James Rosen / Published April 29, 2013 / FoxNews.com

Filed Under: All Stories, Elections, Ethics, Foreign, Religion

Black Voter Turnout Rate Passed Whites, Elected Obama

April 28, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

obama_tax_hikeWASHINGTON –  America’s blacks voted at a higher rate than other minority groups in 2012 and by most measures surpassed the white turnout for the first time, reflecting a deeply polarized presidential election in which blacks strongly supported Barack Obama while many whites stayed home.

Had people voted last November at the same rates they did in 2004, when black turnout was below its current historic levels, Republican Mitt Romney would have won narrowly, according to an analysis conducted for The Associated Press.

Census data and exit polling show that whites and blacks will remain the two largest racial groups of eligible voters for the next decade. Last year’s heavy black turnout came despite concerns about the effect of new voter-identification laws on minority voting, outweighed by the desire to re-elect the first black president.

“The 2012 turnout is a milestone for blacks and a huge potential turning point.” – Andra Gillespie, political science professor at Emory University

William H. Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution, analyzed the 2012 elections for the AP using census data on eligible voters and turnout, along with November’s exit polling. He estimated total votes for Obama and Romney under a scenario where 2012 turnout rates for all racial groups matched those in 2004. Overall, 2012 voter turnout was roughly 58 percent, down from 62 percent in 2008 and 60 percent in 2004.

The analysis also used population projections to estimate the shares of eligible voters by race group through 2030. The numbers are supplemented with material from the Pew Research Center and George Mason University associate professor Michael McDonald, a leader in the field of voter turnout who separately reviewed aggregate turnout levels across states, as well as AP interviews with the Census Bureau and other experts. The bureau is scheduled to release data on voter turnout in May.

Overall, the findings represent a tipping point for blacks, who for much of America’s history were disenfranchised and then effectively barred from voting until passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965.

But the numbers also offer a cautionary note to both Democrats and Republicans after Obama won in November with a historically low percentage of white supporters. While Latinos are now the biggest driver of U.S. population growth, they still trail whites and blacks in turnout and electoral share, because many of the Hispanics in the country are children or noncitizens.

In recent weeks, Republican leaders have urged a “year-round effort” to engage black and other minority voters, describing a grim future if their party does not expand its core support beyond white males.

The 2012 data suggest Romney was a particularly weak GOP candidate, unable to motivate white voters let alone attract significant black or Latino support. Obama’s personal appeal and the slowly improving economy helped overcome doubts and spur record levels of minority voters in a way that may not be easily replicated for Democrats soon.

Romney would have erased Obama’s nearly 5 million-vote victory margin and narrowly won the popular vote if voters had turned out as they did in 2004, according to Frey’s analysis. Then, white turnout was slightly higher and black voting lower.

More significantly, the battleground states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida and Colorado would have tipped in favor of Romney, handing him the presidency if the outcome of other states remained the same.

“The 2012 turnout is a milestone for blacks and a huge potential turning point,” said Andra Gillespie, a political science professor at Emory University who has written extensively on black politicians.

“What it suggests is that there is an `Obama effect’ where people were motivated to support Barack Obama. But it also means that black turnout may not always be higher, if future races aren’t as salient.”

Whit Ayres, a GOP consultant who is advising GOP Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a possible 2016 presidential contender, says the last election reaffirmed that the Republican Party needs “a new message, a new messenger and a new tone.” Change within the party need not be “lock, stock and barrel,” Ayres said, but policy shifts such as GOP support for broad immigration legislation will be important to woo minority voters over the longer term.

“It remains to be seen how successful Democrats are if you don’t have Barack Obama at the top of the ticket,” he added.

In Ohio, a battleground state where the share of eligible black voters is more than triple that of other minorities, 27-year-old Lauren Howie of Cleveland didn’t start out thrilled with Obama in 2012. She felt he didn’t deliver on promises to help students reduce college debt, promote women’s rights and address climate change, she said. But she became determined to support Obama as she compared him with Romney.

“I got the feeling Mitt Romney couldn’t care less about me and my fellow African-Americans,” said Howie, an administrative assistant at Case Western Reserve University’s medical school who is paying off college debt.

Howie said she saw some Romney comments as insensitive to the needs of the poor. “A white Mormon swimming in money with offshore accounts buying up companies and laying off their employees just doesn’t quite fit my idea of a president,” she said. “Bottom line, Romney was not someone I was willing to trust with my future.”

The numbers show how population growth will translate into changes in who votes over the coming decade:

–The gap between non-Hispanic white and non-Hispanic black turnout in 2008 was the smallest on record, with voter turnout at 66.1 percent and 65.2 percent, respectively; turnout for Latinos and non-Hispanic Asians trailed at 50 percent and 47 percent. Rough calculations suggest that in 2012, 2 million to 5 million fewer whites voted compared with 2008, even though the pool of eligible white voters had increased.

–Unlike other minority groups, the rise in voting for the slow-growing black population is due to higher turnout. While blacks make up 12 percent of the share of eligible voters, they represented 13 percent of total 2012 votes cast, according to exit polling. That was a repeat of 2008, when blacks “outperformed” their eligible voter share for the first time on record.

–Latinos now make up 17 percent of the population but 11 percent of eligible voters, due to a younger median age and lower rates of citizenship and voter registration. Because of lower turnout, they represented just 10 percent of total 2012 votes cast. Despite their fast growth, Latinos aren’t projected to surpass the share of eligible black voters until 2024, when each group will be roughly 13 percent. By then, 1 in 3 eligible voters will be nonwhite.

–In 2026, the total Latino share of voters could jump to as high as 16 percent, if nearly 11 million immigrants here illegally become eligible for U.S. citizenship. Under a proposed bill in the Senate, those immigrants would have a 13-year path to citizenship. The share of eligible white voters could shrink to less than 64 percent in that scenario. An estimated 80 percent of immigrants here illegally, or 8.8 million, are Latino, although not all will meet the additional requirements to become citizens.

“The 2008 election was the first year when the minority vote was important to electing a U.S. president. By 2024, their vote will be essential to victory,” Frey said. “Democrats will be looking at a landslide going into 2028 if the new Hispanic voters continue to favor Democrats.”

Even with demographics seeming to favor Democrats in the long term, it’s unclear whether Obama’s coalition will hold if blacks or younger voters become less motivated to vote or decide to switch parties.

Minority turnout tends to drop in midterm congressional elections, contributing to larger GOP victories as happened in 2010, when House control flipped to Republicans.

The economy and policy matter. Exit polling shows that even with Obama’s re-election, voter support for a government that does more to solve problems declined from 51 percent in 2008 to 43 percent last year, bolstering the view among Republicans that their core principles of reducing government are sound.

The party’s “Growth and Opportunity Project” report released last month by national leaders suggests that Latinos and Asians could become more receptive to GOP policies once comprehensive immigration legislation is passed.

Whether the economy continues its slow recovery also will shape voter opinion, including among blacks, who have the highest rate of unemployment.

Since the election, optimism among nonwhites about the direction of the country and the economy has waned, although support for Obama has held steady. In an October AP-GfK poll, 63 percent of nonwhites said the nation was heading in the right direction; that’s dropped to 52 percent in a new AP-GfK poll. Among non-Hispanic whites, however, the numbers are about the same as in October, at 28 percent.

Democrats in Congress merit far lower approval ratings among nonwhites than does the president, with 49 percent approving of congressional Democrats and 74 percent approving of Obama.

William Galston, a former policy adviser to President Bill Clinton, says that in previous elections where an enduring majority of voters came to support one party, the president winning re-election — William McKinley in 1900, Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936 and Ronald Reagan in 1984 — attracted a larger turnout over his original election and also received a higher vote total and a higher share of the popular vote. None of those occurred for Obama in 2012.

Only once in the last 60 years has a political party been successful in holding the presidency more than eight years — Republicans from 1980-1992.

“This doesn’t prove that Obama’s presidency won’t turn out to be the harbinger of a new political order,” Galston says. “But it does warrant some analytical caution.”

Early polling suggests that Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton could come close in 2016 to generating the level of support among nonwhites as Obama did in November, when he won 80 percent of their vote. In a Fox News poll in February, 75 percent of nonwhites said they thought Clinton would make a good president, outpacing the 58 percent who said that about Vice President Joe Biden.

Benjamin Todd Jealous, president of the NAACP, predicts closely fought elections in the near term and worries that GOP-controlled state legislatures will step up efforts to pass voter ID and other restrictions to deter blacks and other minorities from voting. In 2012, African-Americans were able to turn out in large numbers only after a very determined get-out-the-vote effort by the Obama campaign and black groups, he said.

Jealous says the 2014 midterm election will be the real bellwether for black turnout. “Black turnout set records this year despite record attempts to suppress the black vote,” he said.

 

Filed Under: All Stories, Economy, Elections, Entitlement, Ethics, Foreign, Gender, Religion

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Federalist Press Dispatch

Get breaking political news, investigations, and uncensored analysis delivered directly to your inbox.

Please wait...

Thank you for subscribing to the Federalist Press Dispatch.

Get free info to help your life

Get free info to help your life

Simple bite-sized guides for life, money, civics, and more . . . because some stuff school just didn’t cover.

Brit Axton Mysteries Series

Brit Axton Mysteries Series

Brit Axton Mysteries is a series of young adult adventure novels that lead young Brit Axton and her friends on whirlwind adventures to uncover hidden secrets and long lost treasures.

Byrna Non-lethal Self Protection

Byrna Non-lethal Self Protection

Byrna offers non-lethal self protection at an affordable price. Watch the short video, or click to learn more!

Understanding Cryptocurrency: Essentials for Building Wealth in Digital Currency

Understanding Cryptocurrency: Essentials for Building Wealth in Digital Currency

Understanding Cryptocurrency serves as a definitive guide for novice investors looking to understand the world of cryptocurrency and harness its potential for financial growth and prosperity.

Real Estate Wealth Strategies During High Inflation

Real Estate Wealth Strategies During High Inflation

Real Estate Wealth Strategies During High Inflation is a comprehensive guide on navigating the real estate market, offering strategies and insights for successful investing, during high inflation and interest rates.

Follow us

  • parler
  • welcome-widgets-menus
  • facebook
  • envato

Privacy Policy

Terms of Service

Economy

The “Authoritarian” Narrative vs. Reality: Why Trump’s Positions Are Historically Mainstream

Election Autopsy: What Yesterday’s Results Revealed

Why Is the United States Still Allowing Iran to Threaten the Strait of Hormuz?

Elections

Stephen Colbert’s Final Curtain: When Late Night Became Political Therapy Instead of Comedy

Where Are the Handcuffs?

Skid Row Vote-Buying Case Exposes How Dems Cheat America’s Election System

Foreign

BREAKING: President Trump Orders Devastating Airstrikes on Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Facilities in Historic Preemptive Strike

Jamie Lee Curtis Wept Over Kanye’s Antisemitism—But Where Is Her Outrage Now?

Trump confirms ‘comprehensive’ trade deal with UK

Crime

When Political Rhetoric Becomes a Security Threat—Yet Another Assassination Attempt

Where Are the Handcuffs?

Skid Row Vote-Buying Case Exposes How Dems Cheat America’s Election System

Science Tech

Fed Appeals Court Judge Stayed Silent for Decades. Now Witnesses Beginning to Talk.

Trump’s ISIS Strike in Nigeria Sends a Message: America Can Still Hunt Terrorists Anywhere

Trump’s UFO Disclosure Has Changed the Conversation — But Not Yet Answered the Biggest Question

Reader Responses

  • Linda Livaudais on Trump’s UFO Disclosure Has Changed the Conversation — But Not Yet Answered the Biggest Question
  • T059736 on Trump and Musk Announce Plans to Shut Down USAID
  • C.Josef.D on ‘Pay to Play’ at Clinton Foundation Under Investigation
  • John D Cole on Biden Says ‘You ain’t black’ If You Don’t Vote for Him
  • Ed on U.S. Attorney Huber Moving to Indict Clintons and Others

Copyright © 2026 by Federalist Press · All rights reserved · Website design by RoadRunner CRM · Content Wiriting by GhostWriter · Log in