Debunking Benghazi... Because The Right Just Can't Let It Go

On September 11, 2012, the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. Four Americans -- U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith and CIA contractors Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods -- were killed in the attack. The attack came during the 2012 Presidential campaign and the Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, wasted no time in blaming President Obama for "sympathizing with the attackers." This was the initial push and the crazy train which followed has never slowed down.

In examining the claims made by the Benghazi conspiracy theorists, we can see a pattern. Blame must always lie at either President Obama's feet or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's feet. Or both. And facts must never, EVER get in the way. What follows is an examination of the claims that have been made. Hang on to your hats, folks -- the crazy train is leaving the station. Thankfully, we can get off at the final stop.

Claim: Administration officials watched the attacks unfold in real time but did nothing to intervene.

The audio feed of the attack was being monitored in real time in Washington by diplomatic security official Charlene Lamb. 10 security cameras' feeds delayed 20 days.

Claim: A "stand-down" order was given.

The CIA denied that any stand-down orders had ever been given, no additional evidence has ever emerged suggesting such orders were given, and reinforcements actually arrived from Tripoli in time for the second attack on the CIA facility. On 1 November 2012, U.S. intelligence officials released an account stating the CIA had in fact rushed security operatives to the U.S. mission compound in Benghazi within half an hour of the start of the attack

CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood:

"We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi," [Youngblood] said. "Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.  In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night-and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades." [FoxNews.com, 10/26/12]

Claim: Available assets were not deployed.

All available assets in the area went into action when the compound fell under attack. The CIA base, which was about a mile away, prepares a rescue squad from their Global Response Staff. The February 17 Brigade, the Libyan intelligence service and other local militias were called. None responded. The six-man squad headed out on their own. A senior intelligence official says that he "wouldn't be surprised" if the team members were chomping at the bit to leave without backup.

Claim: Warplanes in the area could have been sent.

The Department of Defense had no armed drones or manned aircraft prepared for combat readily available and nearby on September 11th. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), AC
130 ground attack gunships, or other similar planes were not in the vicinity, according to SoD Panetta. The Committee requested, and received, the locations of every AC-130 in the military's inventory at the time of the attack. USAF F-16s, while closer (in Italy) were configured for training and were not combat ready. NATO allies also had no fighting planes ready to go, so none of them could respond for us. General Ham (see below) said that he personally "dismissed the prospect" of requesting an alert status for the F-16s in Italy, as he didn't think he'd need them.

Claim: Ambassador Stevens was dragged through the streets and beaten to death. 

According to the report from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in January 2014:

"Local Libyans found the Ambassador at the Mission Facility and brought him to a local hospital. Despite attempts to revive him, Ambassador Stevens had no heartbeat and had perished from smoke inhalation."

Stevens was in a safe room inside the compound and suffered from smoke inhalation. Two other reports --  the Accountability Review Board and the Republican-controlled House Oversight and Government Reform Committee -- concluded the same.

The Associated Press spoke to the doctor who treated him and CNN spoke to some Libyans who found Stevens inside the compound. CNN obtained a video of those Libyans rescuing Stevens. Right-wing radio host Laura Ingraham repeated this previously debunked myth as recently as May 4, 2014.

Claim: General Carter Ham was relieved of his command for attempting to provide military assistance during the Benghazi attacks. 

The "basic principle is that 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 during a joint question-and-answer session with Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff General Martin Dempsey.

"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," Panetta said.

29 October 2012, General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also asserted that this rumor was false

Claim: Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette was relieved of his command for attempting to provide military assistance during the Benghazi attacks.

Adm. Gaouette had been relieved of his command not for any reason connected to the September 2012 attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, but because a complaint about his "unprofessional demeanor" had been filed against him by the USS John C. Stennis' commanding officer, Capt. Ronald Reis. A subsequent Navy investigation reprimanded Gaouette for repeatedly violating U.S. Navy policy by making and sending offensive comments and e-mail messages. Investigation details can be found here.

Claim: Susan Rice was sent on Sunday shows to lie. 

Rice made clear during her appearances that her comments were based on "our current best assessment" that the Libya attack was not premeditated, acknowledged that the perpetrators were "extremists," and said that future investigations and analyses by intelligence services "will tell us with certainty what transpired." suggestion that the attack was linked to an anti-Islam video that had embroiled the Middle East came from talking points generated by the CIA.

Claim: Obama never called it "terrorism."

This is a bit of semantics gymnastics on both the part of the President and of those who say that he "sympathized" with the attackers.
Rose Garden Address, 9/12/12:

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.  Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.  We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act." 

Also at a campaign event in Las Vegas later that night:

"To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished." 

and in Golden, CO 

"No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world..." 

He repeated these remarks in an interview for 60 Minutes soon afterwards. So, while he did not say the words, "terrorist attack," he did call the act terrorism.

Claim: Hillary Clinton never took any responsibility for the attack.

"I take responsibility, I'm the Secretary of State with 60,000-plus employees around the world. This is like a big family...It's painful, absolutely painful." [The Wall Street Journal, 10/16/12]

Claim: The State Department had the ability to keep those Americans safe and no one acted. 

While it is true that a number of requests for additional staffing were sent to the State department, laying the blame for them not being answered at Clinton's feet is disingenuous. There were, according to the House Republican's report, two cable and two email message that indicated the requests were received (March-July, 2012). In them, diplomats requested more security but officials replied that they preferred to train Libyan staff. But were these "signed by Hillary Clinton?"

The communications center at the State Department puts the secretary’s name on all telegrams and posts. Whoever is SoS at the time has their name on everything so, when Clinton was in charge, her "signature" was on all communications. But that doesn’t mean she signed them, just that her name was printed at the bottom of them. The claim that she saw them because she signed them is false. 

Messages to the State department are still referred to as "telegrams" even though they are emails (old habits die hard). They are always addressed:  To "SECSTATE" in "WASHDC." There are about 1.4 million cables every year that are addressed this way. Clinton’s name or title on these millions of messages doesn’t mean that she personally knew of their contents. In the case of Benghazi security, she testified under oath that she didn’t.

"They are all addressed to me. They do not all come to me. They are reported through the bureaucracy. I was not aware of that going on (requests from Libya). It was not brought to my attention, but obviously it’s something we’re fixing and intend to put into place protocols and systems to make sure it doesn’t happen again."

In reality however, Benghazi was only one of nearly 300 areas which were a concern.  In the six months leading to the attack, there were approximately 281 threats to diplomats, embassies, diplomatic facilities, consulates, etc worldwide. But there were no specific indications that Benghazi was in any more danger than any of the other facilities.

Claim: Military assets in the area were deliberately moved to 1) demonstrate that Al Qaeda was in control and 2) we had made a correct choice to intervene the way we did in Libya. 

Rep. Jason Chaffetz made this claim on Fox News on May 6, 2013, saying that there were people who were "willing to risk their lives" to ride into action but they were told to "stand down." As with most claims made on Fox, this one sounds good but is false. The people Chaffetz is referring to are the team in Triploi, headed by Gregory Hicks. Hicks testified before the State Department review board that the people they hoped to rescue were already dead when the team he had prepared was ready to go. Another team (7 security personnel) had left for Benghazi and arrived at 5:00 am at the CIA annex, long after the deaths at the consulate (see timeline). Hicks sent a second team in a C-130 transport plane from Tripoli to secure the Benghazi airport for the evacuation of those remaining. A Defense Department drone was in place as the first group was evacuated. Hicks testified that a Lt. Col. Gibsoan was "furious" that the C-130 was going to Benghazi because it was not authorized. Hicks sent the plane anyway. Nobody was ever told to stand down.

Claim: Hillary Clinton issued a press release at 10 p.m. EST, talking about a video when there was no evidence this was caused by a video. 

From Clinton's press release that night:

"Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet." 

She did not assert that it was the sole, or even any, reason.

Claim: The Obama Administration purposely blamed the attacks on the anti-Muslim video in order to avoid admitting that this was a pre-planned attack.

There was much confusion in the days following the attack, as evidenced by various statements. While it is entirely possible that the Administration was purposely going with the politically expedient explanation of a sporadic reaction to a video, there is ample evidence that the Intelligence Community itself was confused over which of these were correct. 

Claim: Hillary Clinton faked her fall to avoid having to testify at the Senate hearing.

Clinton, who was 65 at the time, had been suffering from a stomach virus and had to cancel a trip to Morocco and the Persian Gulf. Philippe Reines, a State Department spokesman, said Clinton became dehydrated because of the virus and fainted, sustaining the concussion. He said she was been under the care of doctors.

Politico reported on December 18 that State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland told reporters that Bolton's suggestion is "completely untrue." Nulan added that Bolton and others who have questioned Clinton's illness "are people who don't know what they're talking about. "It's really unfortunate that in times like this people make wild speculation based on no information," she said.

Claim: Hillary Clinton said, “What difference does it make?”

This is an out-of-context misquote that Benghaziacs still use. Actual quote: “What difference, at this point, does it make?” Here's the full quote from the video of Clinton's testimony:

"With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again..."

In other words, we lost four Americans because of this so, instead of trying to fit things into talking points, let's figure out exactly what went wrong and why. That way we can prevent it from happening again. Pretty simple concept. It's a shame that some are more interested in making Clinton sound uncaring than in making sure we don't have another similar attack.

Claim: Nobody was ever fired over the attack.

This is true. But, like most things concerning Benghazi, is not telling the whole story. The State department's review board, in December of 2012, removed four State department officials from their posts pending further review. That Accountability Review Board concluded, in August of 2013, that "no employee breached their duty or should be fired." The four were not found blameless but were reassigned, according to protocol. So, while nobody was "fired," four officials were disciplined and reassigned.

Claim: The U.S. was "the last flag flying" in Benghazi.

According to the Senate Intelligence Committee:

"... although some countries and international organizations had reduced their presence in Benghazi, the United States maintained a diplomatic presence there similar to the UN, the European Union, and other Western countries such as Italy, France, Turkey, and Malta."

Putting all of this information into context, here is the Timeline:

2:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (8:30 p.m. Benghazi time): U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens steps outside the consulate to say goodbye to a Turkish diplomat. There are no protesters at this time.

3 p.m.: Ambassador Stevens retires to his bedroom

Approximately 3:40 p.m. A security agent at the Benghazi compound hears “loud noises” coming from the front gate and “gunfire and an explosion.”

About 4 p.m.: This is the approximate time of attack. “The compound where our office is in Benghazi began taking fire from unidentified Libyan extremists.”

About 4:15 p.m.: “The attackers gained access to the compound and began firing into the main building, setting it on fire. The Libyan guard force and our mission security personnel responded. At that time, there were three people inside the building: Ambassador Stevens, one of our regional security officers, and Information Management Officer Sean Smith.” http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/09/197694.htm

Between 4:15 p.m.-4:45 p.m.: Sean Smith is found dead.

About 4:45 p.m.: “U.S. security personnel assigned to the mission annex tried to regain the main building, but that group also took heavy fire and had to return to the mission annex.”  http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/09/197694.htm

About 5:20 p.m.: “U.S. and Libyan security personnel … regain the main building and they were able to secure it.” http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/09/197694.htm

Around 6 p.m.: “The mission annex then came under fire itself at around 6 o’clock in the evening our time, and that continued for about two hours."

6:07 p.m.: The State Department’s Operations Center sends an email to the White House, Pentagon, FBI and other government agencies that said Ansar al-Sharia has claimed credit for the attack on its Facebook and Twitter accounts.

About 8:30 p.m.: “Libyan security forces were able to assist us in regaining control of the situation. At some point in all of this – and frankly, we do not know when – we believe that Ambassador Stevens got out of the building and was taken to a hospital in Benghazi. We do not have any information what his condition was at that time."

About 10:00 p.m (EST): Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issues a statement

Sept. 12: Clinton issues a statement confirming that four U.S. officials, not one, had been killed. She called it a “violent attack.”  Later, she delivers a speech at the State Department.

Sept. 12, 6:06 p.m.: Beth Jones, the acting assistant secretary of state for the Near East, sends an email to top State Department officials that reads in part: “[T]he group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic extremists.”

Sept. 13: At a daily press briefing, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland was asked if the Benghazi attack was “purely spontaneous or was premeditated by militants.” She declined to say, reiterating that the administration did not want to “jump to conclusions.”

Personally, I think much of the GOP obsession with Benghazi boils down to a couple of things:
1) They hate Obama and Hillary so much that they think that hatred is all the "proof" they need of wrongdoing.
2) This is what they would do if the situation were reversed. How can I say this? It's what they did after 9/11 -- covering up, passing the buck, evading blame. So, if they think this way, they cannot fathom anyone else not doing the same. When one is constantly lied to -- by one's own party and Fox News, its PR arm -- then one believes that everyone is lying to them. This creates paranoia, which is the compost for conspiracy theories.

If the right were sincere in its desire to "find answers," then they would ignore these debunked myths. As they often tell others: "Get over it." But not for those who also believe this same old nonsense. They are perfectly willing to turn their noses up at previous investigations because those didn't bring them the "answers" they want. But was it really worth the millions it cost the taxpayers to fund this dog and pony show? I don't think so. I agree with Hillary Clinton: at this point, what difference does it make (what she actually said)? We take what we've learned and make sure that our other embassies and consulates are safe. Nothing we do now can ever bring back those four Americans who lost their lives in Benghazi. We've discovered, to the best of our ability, why we lost them.

The families of Ambassador Stevens and Officer Sean Smith have asked that we stop. We know what we need to know. Everything else is just partisan politics.

Sources:
Explainer: A Year Of Benghazi Myths 

Declassified Benghazi Transcripts Debunk Fox's Favorite Myths 

Maddow Blog: Benghazi conspiracy theorists come unglued

State Department Background Briefing on Libya

State Department Briefing by Senior Administration Officials to Update Recent Events in Libya

Senate Select Committee report, Jan. 15, 2014

State Dept. Accountability Review Board Report 

It Begins: House Republicans Vote To Turn Apache Ancestral Lands Over To Mining Company

Last week, the House voted to keep the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) going strong. But they added a provision that has nothing to do with Defense. Included in this re-upping of the NDAA is a provision that gives 2,400 acres of Apache ancestral lands to a mining company. We saw this coming but it's a gut punch nevertheless.

The sneaky provision was added by the House and Senate Armed Services Committee. It would transfer Apache lands in the Tonto National Forest to Resolution Copper, a subsidiary of Rio Tinto, an Australian-English mining company. And guess who was the driving force behind this provision? Arizona's own Sen. John McCain. I wonder what his cut is?

The tribal leaders happened to be in Washington, D.C. for a White House Tribal Nations conference. In this case, irony is definitely not fun. Terry Rambler, chairman of the San Carlos Apache tribe had this to say:

“Since time immemorial people have gone there. That’s part of our ancestral homeland. We’ve had dancers in that area forever – sunrise dancers – and coming-of-age ceremonies for our young girls that become women. They’ll seal that off. They’ll seal us off from the acorn grounds, and the medicinal plants in the area, and our prayer areas.”

Republicans have been trying for years to take away this land and rape it of its minerals. Democrats have always been able to help the tribe block the land grab. But now, with a majority in both the House and the Senate, this theft is very likely.

If you haven't seen what copper mining can do to the environment, you need to read the EPA's study about radioactive minerals associated with copper mining. The tailings concentrate uranium, thorium and radium. In situ leaching can distribute these into the groundwater. What copper mining does to the environment is ugly and dangerous.

But you know this means nothing to Republicans when it comes to coddling their favorite corporations. So what if the Apache lose a sacred place? Money is what the Republicans worship.

The Apache blood in my veins (about 1/16) is running red-hot at this degradation even being considered on ancestral lands. Haven't we had enough of Manifest Destiny? Hasn't the American Indian been robbed enough already? Why is money more important than ancestral rites and religion?

This NDAA bill now goes to the Senate. Yes, the Democrats may be able to block it. For now. But you can bet it will be attached to another bill once the GOP takes over the Senate (sorry, I just threw up in my mouth a little). There is a petition you can sign to tell the White House to stop this evil theft. Please take a moment to sign it.  Aheeiyeh.

H/T: Last Real Indians  

What is A Patriot?

The flag's been hijacked and turned into a logo--the trademark of a monopoly on patriotism. --Bill Moyers

 

We've been hearing the word, "Patriot," thrown around quite a lot lately. But, as with many words, its real meaning has been twisted to suit a political agenda. Those who do this remind me of Vizzini in The Princess Bride; they keep using that word but it does not mean what they think it means. They've adapted many words to their purpose, words like "socialism," "Marxism" and "communism." Ask them for specific examples of these words and they come up blank. Because they don't know what those words really mean.

So it is with "patriot." Oh, they think they know what it means but their definition is colored by their own biases. They call people like the GOP Reps who fled Oregon, and the armed thugs who came to their sides, patriots. Patrick Henry would've laughed in their faces and George Washington would have arrested the whole lot. The right-wing is full of scofflaws with no real love of country in their hearts, no real allegiance to anything but their ideology. They are not patriots, they are chauvinists. And certain current inhabitants of Washington, D.C. are leading the bunch.

What is a real patriot, then? I have made the following list with a firm basis in the Constitution and U.S. law. Admittedly, it is colored by my own beliefs but those are not without historical precedent.

A real Patriot --

• knows that the Founding Fathers created a representative democracy, allowing for the people to elect officials to levy taxes and make laws and regulations on their behalf.
• understands the rule of law and why it can only be challenged in a court of law. They accept the duty of serving on a jury and try to fulfill that duty, not treat it like a bother.
• understands that the 2nd Amendment was written in the 18th century, long before the age of automatic weapons and takes this into account. That the right to bear arms does not mean every American has a license to own an arsenal of military-grade weapons. Respects the opinion of those who question the intent of the Founders in regards to this Amendment. Can engage in discussion about this without calling one another names or disrespecting each other. Understands that the 2nd Amendment does not supersede other rights of their fellow Americans.
• does not threaten to raise arms against the federal government simply because their candidate did not win an election. Or because they dislike the person who did win. Or because they disagree with that person. A Patriot accepts election results unless there is solid evidence not to.
• does not engage in threats against elected officials because they disagree or dislike them. See points one and two.
• does not make spurious charges against officials in an attempt to disgrace or unseat them. 
• understands that elections can't be nullified on a whim. That, while they may disagree with the outcome, their fellow Americans have rightfully and legally exercised their voting rights. A Patriot understands that we change things by voting, peaceful assembly, free speech and petitioning the government and that Congress holds the sole responsibility of trying any President for impeachment. 
• does not try to void or strip away the votes of fellow Americans. A Patriot knows that voting is one of our most sacred rights and duties. That it should be exercised at every opportunity and that all Americans should be encouraged to do the same.
• does not call their fellow Americans un-American simply because they belong to a different political party or ideology. A Patriot can debate civilly without resorting to such tactics.
• understands that the taxes they pay are vital to keeping America running. That the monies collected go to national defense, infrastructure, education, public safety, safety net programs and everything that makes it possible for us to function as a modern society. A Patriot knows that we don't always get to choose where our tax money goes, which is why we elect people to spend it as we see fit. 
• knows that ALL Americans are protected by the Constitution and understands that race, gender, religion or sexual orientation do not nullify this protection. That their disapproval of another American is not grounds to strip them of these rights and protections.
• understands that America is not a Christian nation. That laws are not to be made based on that religion's -- or any religion's -- beliefs and/or dogma. A Patriot understands that the Founding Fathers believed that the separation of church and state is implicit in the 1st Amendment.
• accepts the proven history of America, with all its beauty and ugliness. Does not attempt to revise that history to fit their ideology, faith or beliefs.
• does not say: "My country, right or wrong" but, rather: "My country; when it is wrong I will work to change that." This is what makes Americans exceptional, not chauvanistic belligerance, arrogance and blind allegiance.
• knows that money does not make one American better or worse than any other. That corporations are not people and should not be placed above actual people in the eyes of the law. Nor should they carry more electoral weight than the people. A Patriot knows that America's real strength lies in its people. 
• understands that our fellow Americans sometimes need help, through no fault of their own. A Patriot does not disparage them or look down on them or begrudge them the aid our government can temporarily provide. A Patriot, conversely, does not defraud the government or commit crimes to obtain federal aid.
• does not automatically agree with everything put forward by their political party, ideology, group or spokesperson. A Patriot carefully gathers information from objective sources, considers all of it and then decides. They can think for themselves and do so.
• believes that the system of check and balances can work only when all branches of government work in the interests of the American people, That, when one branch betrays that trust, this is grounds for losing their offices.
• knows about the Constitution and other important American documents. That these are the basis of our government and part of our history. That every American should know about them and have a basic understanding of what they say.
• understands that America is a diverse country. That it is composed of many different cultures, races, faiths and beliefs. That we need to respect and honor these differences that make America strong.
• understands that America is not perfect but loves it so much that they want it to be.

I realize that everyone may not agree with every point, but hope that disagreement is not based on ideology. This country was not built on ideology, it was built on the idea that every American is equal. That we are all free to pursue happiness as we see it, as long as that pursuit does not violate the rights of others. We should all be the caretakers of each others rights for, if they can be stripped from someone else, they can just as easily be stripped from you. We are all the guardians of this gift given to us by the Founders. It is a precious gift. Let's not destroy it.

When the whole nation is roaring patriotism at the top of its voice, I am fain to explore the cleanness of its hands and purity of its heart. -Ralph Waldo Emerson,

This Is What Can Happen When A Promise Is Kept

Stefan Savic was born in Bosnia 14 years ago with a horrible facial deformity. But, thanks to a UN Peacekeeper who was stationed in his town, he now has a new face and a bright future.

14-year-old Stefan Savic was born in Bosnia with a horrible facial deformity. Thanks to a UN Peacekeeper, he now has a new face and a bright future. He needs one more surgery before he’s done. Photo: Courtesy Wayne Ingram via FacingtheWorld.Net

Wayne Ingram, a former Staff Sergeant with the British 9th/12th Royal Lancers, was on duty in Eastern Europe in 2004 when he met then-4-year-old Stefan. Stefan’s congenital condition, Tessier facial cleft, caused his eyes to be set too wide, crushed his skull and he did not have a proper nose. Ingram, a father of two, was so moved by the boy’s difficulty that he promised Stefan that he would receive the surgeries necessary to repair the condition.

“I was on a routine patrol in Bosnia when I was introduced to his father and went to meet Stefan. The condition had been left untreated and had grown between Stefan’s eyes, crushing his skull, forcing his eyes apart to the point he couldn’t see what was ahead of him. But aside from the facial deformities he was just a normal, playful little boy. He was confident and cheeky, climbing all over me as we played football in the yard. He was too young then to be self-aware. But his facial cleft was blocking his airways and without medical attention, could kill him. I had two young sons myself at the time and there was no way I could stand back and do nothing. I knew in an instant I had to do everything I could to help.” (source)

Ingram was true to his word. Through a fund-raising drive that encompassed both Bosnia and the United Kingdom, he was able to raise £85,000 — $143,879 –and Stefan was brought to London in 2003 for his first operation. It took 12 hours to build a nose and close the rift in his face, bringing his eyes closer together. Another surgery was scheduled for 10 years down the road.

Flash forward a decade and Ingram, who had remained in touch with Stefan and his family, got busy raising funds again. With the help of generous donors, one of which called herself “the kind granny,” Ingram raised another $34,000. The surgeon waived his fees (as he had a decade ago) and Stefan came to London for his second surgery. This time, Stefan’s nose was reconstructed. Not only did this make his face more aesthetically pleasing but, most importantly, it let Stefan breathe easier. Stefan will need more surgery and orthodontics, but he is well on his way to having no effects left from his deformity.

Ingram was inspired to become a paramedic because of Stefan. He is moved by the boy’s quiet dignity and by the way he has borne both the deformity and the surgeries to correct it. For his part, Stefan called this series of operations “the best thing that ever happened to me.” Wayne Ingram feels the same: both lives have been changed for the better because of a promise kept.

You can help with the funding of surgeries for Stefan and other children like him. Facing The World provides these kind of surgeries to children in developing countries who are born with Tessier and related cleft syndromes. Visit their web page at facingtheworld.net.

h/t http://aattp.org/

This Is Why You Don't Want To Play The Dozens With Jon Stewart And The Daily Show

Jon Stewart did a report on Sean Hannity’s support of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy on Monday’s edition of The Daily Show. Little did he know that he started a feud that is now in its fourth day. The report on Monday called Hannity out on his hypocrisy, demonstrating — with video proof — that Hannity is selective about his support of the law:

“Apparently Sean Hannity thinks laws are served buffet-style in that you can pick and choose the ones that you like best. The ones that you don’t like, you don’t have to abide. Well that’s not going to sit well with Fox’s immigration/healthcare law expert pundit, a Mr… Sean Hannity!” (from the video)

 Here’s a link to the video of “Apocalypse Cow."

That report didn’t sit too well with Mr. Hannity, either. On his Tuesday night show, Sean decided to strike back. Calling Stewart “a comedic hack” and declaring The Daily Show “apologists for the Obama administration,” Hannity chose not to simply ignore the TDS segment. Against all common sense, Hannity went to make the claim that Stewart was “obsessed” with him and insisted that TDS writers were “struggling.”

Hannity also wondered what Stewart’s “true feelings” on the Bundy situation were. Did he watch the same video we did? Isn’t it clear what Stewart thinks of Bundy and his ridiculous claims? Pretty sure it does. He also brought up Bill Ayers — using that name is one of the symptoms of Teabagger Tourette’s — and Cat Stevens, who appeared at Stewart’s Rally to Restore Sanity. Stevens, who was at the event to sing “Peace Train,” is a convert to Islam who supported the fatwa against Salman Rushdie.

It’s possible that Stewart and the TDS staff could have let that go. But Hannity just had to get one more dig in:

“They just can’t give their viewers the facts. They have to spin the story.”

You know that Stewart and the TDS staff couldn’t let that go. They don’t need to “spin” a story; they let the story spin itself. The clips of Hannity are proof that he is being selective when it comes to Americans breaking the law. Hannity’s complaint that the clips go back several years is nonsensical. Why shouldn’t everything he said on this subject be open to review? He tapes and airs it. If he doesn’t want that to happen, he probably should find another line of work.

Which leads us to Wednesday night’s edition of The Daily Show. For the show’s “vulgar and extensive audience” (according to Hannity’s guest Kevin Williamson) the team had a real treat. Containing possibly one of the funniest jokes in the show’s history, it was truly an epic pwning.

See for yourself.


If you don’t know what “bukakke” means, Google it. But, be warned… it’s very NSFW. If you do know (and after the rest find out), perhaps you will agree upon the brilliance of that joke.
Stewart allows that, yes, he is obsessed with Hannity’s show, much as he is with…

“… antibiotic resistant super-bugs, the Pacific garbage patch or the KFC Double Down. Because I just can’t believe in this day and age, with all that we know, this shit is out there. That… humanity… that our society is still weighed down by these burdens of a seemingly more medieval time. Like your show. To see it night after night, serving up the same shit… my god, you’re the Arby’s of news.” (from the video)

The video of Hannity calling Ted Nugent a “friend of the show” after seeing Nugent’s horrible remarks about then-candidates Obama and Clinton, is particularly effective. Whereas Stewart didn’t know about Stevens and the fatwa — as most don’t — Hannity actually showed the video of Nugent. He can’t claim that he didn’t know what the man said.

Stewart calls out Hannity’s paradoxical love of America and support of Bundy (whom he calls a “USAtheist”). How can Hannity claim to love this country, its founders and Constitution yet be so partisan in his application? And George Washington, Hannity’s self-proclaimed favorite Founding Father? What would he do when “an armed group of federal government rejectionists” refused to pay their taxes? It was called the Whiskey Rebellion and the Founding Fathers made sure that the federal government could put that rebellion down legally. Just like they can do with Bundy and his camo-wearin’, gun wavin’ supporters.

All-in-all, this was one of the best skewerings in The Daily Show‘s history; absolute proof that you don’t want to play the Dozens with Jon Stewart and crew. But if Hannity wants to escalate again, he would do well to remember that TDS doesn’t air on Friday. That will give the writers 4 days in which to compose a retaliatory reply. If I were Hannity, I’d stop right here.

Michelle Malkin Hates Obama So Much That She Attacks His Aunt, Who Just Died Of Cancer. Despicable.

Displaying the ugliness in her soul, Michelle Malkin used her latest column to attack a woman who just died of cancer. The fact that she was President Obama’s aunt apparently made that okay. Malkin’s column is full of half-truths, misrepresentations and lies. But, hey, she knows her audience. And the haters likely ate this up.

Zeituni Onyango was the half-sister of Obama’s father. He mentions her in his memoir, Dreams From My Father as “Aunti Zeituni,” even though he didn’t meet her — or any of his father’s side of the family — until he was an adult. She came to the U.S. in 2000, looking for political asylum. Since then, she spent a lot of time in and out of immigration court. In 2010, she finally became a legal resident. During that time, she was fodder for right-wing conspiracy theories and disdain. She died on April 7, 2014 from breast cancer.

It took Michelle Malkin only 3 days to produce her hate-filled rant about Onyango. She must have spent half of it using a thesaurus to look up synonyms for “lazy” and “dependent.” As one would expect from the anti-immigrant Malkin (whose own parents were immigrants), the insults flew fast and thick:

Auntie Zeituni had no job skills, no special talent, no compelling reason to keep her here in America as an asset to our culture or our economy. She didn’t value the American Dream. She was a dependency nightmare. She collected $700 a month in welfare benefits and disability payments totaling $51,000. Somehow, Auntie Zeituni also drummed up money to apply for asylum and finagled her way into both federal and state public housing in Boston.

Onyango was granted asylum to this country four years ago. She, her attorneys and doctors spent five hours with Immigration Judge Leonard I. Shapiro on May 17, 2010. They must have made a convincing case, because Shapiro granted Onyango legal residency and permission to work in the U.S. Yes, she was on disability but that doesn’t automatically make her a “dependency nightmare.” In fact, she did volunteer work for several years before her illness forced her to stop. But I guess that’s not good enough for Malkin. Onyango did not “somehow” get the money for attorneys, it was provided by friends and family in Cleveland’s Kenyan community when Onyango was staying there in 2008 to escape from the hounding of the media.

Onyango also did not “finagle” her way into public housing. She spent two years in a homeless shelter before she was granted an apartment. In exchange, she volunteered as a health advocate for the Boston Housing authority. But, again, Malkin turns her nose up at mere volunteer work.

Malkin also mocks Onyango’s struggle for asylum and her ordeal in fighting deportation:

Auntie Zeituni’s illegal activity and ingratitude were rewarded time and time again. She got multiple bites at the immigration court apple, where it ain’t over till the alien wins. Despite twice being ordered to go home, the feds allowed her bogus case to be reopened. After breaking visa laws, campaign finance laws (she donated illegally to Obama three times), deportation rules and judicial orders, she was allowed to have yet another hearing.

Onyango ‘s travails are well-documented and were brought up during the 2008 campaign in an attempt to smear then-candidate Obama. As stated, Onyango came to the U.S. in 2000, requesting asylum. As she is of the Luo tribe of Kenya — a group described as under “sustained political persecution” — that is not unreasonable. Her initial request was denied and she was told to leave the country but she did not. This is not unusual. Many immigrants who have been denied asylum continue to stay. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement is aware of this but their orders are to “target suspects with criminal records before they go after simple immigration violators.” Since she was not a criminal, Onyango’s case was not terribly important. She was disabled due to back surgery and an auto-immune disorder and, since she had been issued a Social Security card in 2001, her case was not a priority.

As for the donations to her nephew’s campaign, Onyango did contribute five times, all of which amounted to a grand total of $65. When the Obama campaign were advised of this, they returned the donations. Obama did not know all the particulars of his aunt’s immigration status and spokespersons could only confirm that Onyango was, indeed, his aunt. When he was apprised of her situation, Obama said that the applicable laws should be applied no matter who the subject was. Interestingly, reporters who dug into Onyango’s private information — which included her immigration status — were in violation of privacy laws set down by the Department of Homeland Security.

In conclusion, Malkin wrote off Onyango’s life and death because she was Obama’s aunt and, consequently, the wrong color to be deserving of the largesse she was granted by America:

Auntie Zeituni’s story is a disgraceful reminder that the only thing worse than the ingrates thumbing their noses at our immigration laws are the people in power on both sides of the aisle enabling them.

The implication, of course, is that President Obama cleared the way for his aunt to stay in this country. That he not only shielded her from deportation but made sure that she was provided for. Honestly, if that were the case, Onyango surely would not have spent 2 years in a homeless shelter nor be living on less than $700 month. But logic isn’t something Malkin possesses. Not when it comes to President Obama. She, like most on the right, suffers from Obama Derangement Syndrome, so facts and logic fall by the wayside. As Ben Cohen of The Daily Banter rightly observed about Malkin’s “eulogy”:

Onyango was someone’s mother, sister, aunt and friend. She had a hard life and died before her time of an awful disease only four days ago. But fuck her… she was Obama’s aunt.

Here was a woman whose husband abused her, who came to this country for protection due to political persecution and had to fight for 10 years to find relief. She had medical problems, disabilities and, finally, cancer. She was hounded by the media during the 2008 campaign and continued to be the object of scorn by those who hate her nephew even after her death. But, to Michelle Malkin, she was a scapegoat. To Malkin, Onyango was the distillation of all the immigrants who came to this country under circumstances different from her own parents (a work visa). Malkin despises anyone not like her, especially if they are darker than she is. She makes no secret that she thinks blacks are lazy and undeserving. Never mind that the majority of welfare recipients are whites in red states.

Malkin’s vile attack on Onyango should be condemned by every decent American. It was uncalled-for, racist and repugnant. But what can one expect from someone who is so full of hate? Malkin should really heed the words of Coretta Scott King: “Hate is too great a burden to bear. It injures the hater more than it injures the hated.” But then, Mrs. King was black. And we all know how Malkin feels about “those people.” What a shame.

As for me, I'm sending my condolences to the Obama family. Having lost many friends and family members to "effing cancer" (as some of my friends call it), I can sympathize with the horrible, hopeless feeling that engenders.Blessed Be and Godspeed, Auntie.

Mike Huckabee Says That He's Not A Homophobe: Why That Is Demonstrably False

Speaking at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition on Tuesday, Mike Huckabee told the crowd that he’s “not homophobic.” He’s just “on the right side of the bible.”

“I’m not against anybody. I’m really not. I’m not a hater. I’m not homophobic. But … when people say, ‘Why don’t you just kind of get on the right side of history?’ I said, ‘You’ve got to understand, this for me is not about the right side or the wrong side of history, this is the right side of the Bible, and unless God rewrites it, edits it, sends it down with his signature on it, it’s not my book to change.’”

Well, that’s a bit disingenuous of him: the book apparently IS his to interpret freely. There is nothing in the New Testament about homosexuality, Jesus never spoke about it. You’d never know it, however, the way Huckabee and his ilk talk. Huckabee obviously forgot — or doesn’t care — that this country isn’t governed by the Bible. That’s just par for the course with him, though. Mike Huckabee has a long history of anti-gay remarks. Here are just a handful:

“Public debate today is filled with arguments that, not long ago, would have been dismissed as ridiculous and insupportable. Consider homosexuality, for instance. There have been homosexuals in every human culture. But until recently, who would have dared to suggest that the practice should be accepted on equal footing with heterosexuality, to be thought of as a personal decision and nothing more?” Character Makes a Difference, by Mike Huckabee, Jun 1, 2007

“… people are who they want to be, and we should respect them for that. But when they want to change the institutions that’ve governed our society for all the years of recorded human history, then that’s a serious change of culture that we don’t just make readily or hurriedly.” Meet The Press, Jan 28, 2007

”I have a problem with changing institutions that have served us. Before we change the definition of marriage to mean something different…” ibid.

“I can proudly say that no one in the race supported traditional marriage more strongly than I did.. While Massachusetts was allowing homosexuals to marry, I was working to help pass a constitutional amendment.” Do The Right Thing, by Mike Huckabee, Nov 18, 2008

“I would try to do the same things that I did as governor of Arkansas, where I led a constitutional amendment that was passed overwhelmingly by our voters that affirmed what marriage is. Marriage is a relationship between one man, one woman, for life.” 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate, Sep 17, 2007

“I think there’s been a real level of being disingenuous on the part of the gay and lesbian community with their goal of civil unions. You don’t go ahead and accommodate every behavioral pattern that is against the ideal. That would be like saying, well, there are a lot of people who like to use drugs, so let’s go ahead and accommodate those who want who use drugs. There are some people who believe in incest, so we should accommodate them. There are people who believe in polygamy, so we should accommodate them.” Interview, The Perspective, April, 2010

“It is now difficult to keep track of the vast array of publicly endorsed and institutionally supported aberrations—from homosexuality and pedophilia to sadomasochism and necrophilia.” Kids Who Kill, by Mike Huckabee, 1998

“They (the government) want to make sure that we have an institution called marriage that really does mean historically that you have a mother and a father because children need the benefit.” Fox Business’ Freedom Watch, 2/25/11

“I do believe that God created male and female and intended for marriage to be the relationship of the two opposite sexes,” he said. “Male and female are biologically compatible to have a relationship. We can get into the ick factor, but the fact is two men in a relationship, two women in a relationship, biologically, that doesn’t work the same.” New Yorker Magazine, June 28, 2010

Huckabee initiated a Chick-Fil-A “buycott” in 2012 in support of Dan Cathy’s anti-gay views. He has been a booster of groups like the Family Research Council, whose leader, Tony Perkins, considers gay men to be sexual predators whose aim is to “recruit” children. Huckabee gave the keynote speech at a convention of Trail Life USA, the anti-gay analogue to the Boy Scouts, which promotes “pray the gay away” therapies.

As a Fox News host, Huckabee has had many anti-gay guests and fully condones remarks like this:

"Public schools can harm students by suggesting that same-sex attractions are natural and unchangeable. Research shows that youth who experience sexual confusion often do so only for a temporary period. To suggest to a student that temporary sexual confusion means the person is homosexual can be damaging and harmful. The information provided by the ‘Facts About Youth’ website is invaluable for anyone who works with children.” Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, April 7, 2010

Staver also took umbrage with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano:

“Twenty percent of the state judicial appointments Napolitano made as governor were of homosexuals, reflecting her pro-homosexual agenda.” Liberty Counsel, 10/5/09 (something which is completely untrue, by the way)

Other guests…

“If you’re still having a hard time discerning what to do, here’s a helpful hint: if you find yourself on the same side as the ACLU, homosexual activists, the baby killers and the enemies of God, chances are, you’re on the wrong side.” Janet Porter, WorldNetDaily, 6/8/10

“…  he (President Obama) has such a beautiful family and he continued to advocate breaking up that family by interjecting this sort of foreign object called gay marriage. And it just doesn’t fit.” Rev. Anthony Evans, Huckabee, 2/26/11

As if this isn’t enough to contradict Huckabee’s assertion that he’s not anti-gay, there’s this little gem, which he dropped into the speech as an example of how to stand by their convictions. Even if they must do it alone:

“Because the fact is we don’t like to do things by ourselves. We really don’t. Guys like to go fishing with other men. They like to go hunting with other men. Women like to go to the restroom with other women. I don’t get that. I can tell you this much: if I ever say, ‘I have to go to the restroom’ and some guy says, ‘I’ll go with you,’ he ain’t goin’ with me. That much I know.” (source)

Huckabee certainly seems to be very defensive about another man heading to the bathroom with him. Maybe a bit too defensive. You know what they say about men who protest too much.

Radio Iowa has a recording of Huckabee’s speech, in case you want to hear for yourself.

Can we talk for a minute about the idea that allowing marriage equality is "re-defining" marriage? Because the definition of marriage has undergone many permutations, including a few perpetrated by the Christian church.

In ancient Rome, before Christianity dominated, Juno was the deity who governed marriage. As protectress of women, she regulated every aspect of marriage from the arranging of the union to the birth of the children. Her Priestesses – and only they – performed the wedding rites. The idea that a man would presume to sanctify a union was unthinkable. 

When Christianity became the predominant religion, wedding ceremonies were no longer performed at all, leaving the wedded state with no place in canon law. Marriages were performed outside the Church, literally on the steps, where a priest performed a simple blessing on the couple. And it remained that way for centuries until the fourth Lateran Council in 1215, when it was legalized and a ceremony added to the liturgy. When this occurred, folk memory said that June is the month in which weddings were most blessed. Until that time, marriage fell under the auspices of common law, meaning that the union could be terminated by either party at any time for any reason. So when people complain that marriage equality would be “redefining marriage” they have no idea what they are talking about. The Church itself did that very thing at least twice in its history.

So, this nonsense that "we can't re-define marriage" is exactly that. Marriage has been defined by every culture, in every era to be that which suited society best. In the 21st century, our society is served best by everyone being equal. Everyone should be able to marry the person they love. That should be the only prerequisite to marriage. Either the Fundamentalists will catch up with the rest of us or they will become irrelevant.