Conservative Blogger
Saturday, April 26, 2014
Friday, April 25, 2014
Holder cancels graduation speech amid protests
Attorney General Eric Holder canceled a speech to a graduating class of police cadets in Oklahoma City on Thursday, after crowds of Oklahomans flocked to the ceremony to protest his appearance.
Protest organizers said Holder's planned speech to the law enforcement graduates was "inappropriate," and argued that the attorney general has failed to uphold the law himself.
"A lot of people just felt that it was very inappropriate for this man, with his track record, to speak to law enforcement officers that demand and expect to be backed up by the government working on behalf of the citizens, not against the citizens," State Rep. Mike Turner (R.), who is running for U.S. congress, told theWashington Free Beacon.
Turner said Holder has flouted the law when it comes to illegal immigration, the "Fast and Furious" gunrunning scandal, and the Second Amendment.
The U.S. House of Representatives held Holder in contempt of Congress in 2012, on the grounds that he was impeding investigations into Fast and Furious.
The Oklahoma City protest made national news Thursday afternoon, after Holder backed out of the speech shortly before the graduation ceremony began.
Holder's office told the Washington Times that the last-minute cancelation was due to a scheduling issue.
"The attorney general had been looking to addressing the cadets, and regrets he cannot attend in person," spokesman Brian Fallon told the Washington Times. "He extends his heartfelt congratulations to the cadets and their families."
Student claims community college rejected application because of Christian faith
Now, I have to admit to being a bit skeptical when I first heard about Mr. Jenkins’ plight – seeing how this is the age of tolerance and diversity. But any doubt I had melted away after his attorney showed me the proverbial smoking gun.
David French, an attorney with the American Center for Law and Justice, has an email written to his client by Adrienne Dougherty, the director of the college’s radiation therapy program.
In the email Ms. Dougherty explains why Jenkins was denied entry into the program. She wrote that while his grades were good, there were other students with higher grade point averages. Applicants had to have a 2.5 overall GPA to be eligible. Still, it seemed plausible that there were other candidates with higher averages.
It sounds to me like the Community College of Baltimore County has a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” religion policy.The college also took issue with his desire to stay in Maryland after he got his degree.
“I feel that I would be doing you a disservice if I allowed you into the program and you are not able to find a job based on your past,” she wrote.
Mr. French acknowledged that his client had a single criminal charge on his record – dating back more than 10 years. Early in the admission process, Mr. Jenkins asked if that would be a problem, and he was assured it would not hamper his effort.
But then – Ms. Dougherty dropped the bombshell, the lawsuit alleges.
“I understand that religion is a major part of your life and that was evident in your recommendation letters, however, this field is not the place for religion,” she wrote. “We have many patients who come to us for treatment from many different religions and some who believe in nothing at all.”
And then, Ms. Dougherty offered what I imagine in her mind must have been helpful advice in this age of tolerance and diversity.
“If you interview in the future, you may want to leave your thoughts and beliefs out of the interview process,” she wrote.
This field is not the place for religion.
“I was astonished by the email,” Mr. French told me in a telephone conversation. “While colleges routinely discriminate against Christians, rarely do they state their discrimination so explicitly.”
In a letter to the ACLJ, a law firm representing the community college, defended Ms. Dougherty’s statement.
“Stated bluntly, that is not bad advice,” attorney Peter Saucier wrote. “Mr. Jenkins was not advised to ignore, change or deny his religious views. The suggestion simply was that he not wear them on his sleeve as his best qualification.”
So you might be wondering -- how the college knew that Mr. Jenkins is a Christian?
Well, during the interview process he was asked the following question: what is the most important thing to you? According to the lawsuit, Mr. Jenkins replied, “My God.”
Mr. French said there were no follow up questions and his client did not mention his religious beliefs. But that brief mention of God, coupled with recommendation letters that made references to faith, were enough to disqualify Mr. Jenkins from the program.
Still, the college denied they discriminated against the man. Instead, they argue they were just trying to help him refocus and succeed.
“Her words may have been inartfully stated, but the fact is that in any secular job or program interview it is better to have a concrete reason for wanting to undertake the training at hand than to say only that God directed one to do it,” Mr. Saucier wrote to the ACLJ. “That is true for every job from astronaut to attorney.”
It sounds to me like the Community College of Baltimore County has a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” religion policy.
The ACLJ’s lawsuit alleges the college violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution and they want their client granted admission to the radiation therapy program. A college spokesperson told me they have not yet seen the lawsuit.
In fairness to the college – it’s not like they are kicking him out of the school. Ms. Dougherty’s email clearly shows that she was offering him alternative degree paths. She went so far as to suggest he could work on a degree in mental health study – and noted in her email that he would make a “great candidate.”
I’ve never met Mr. Jenkins, but he sounds like a stand-up guy. Based on the court documents I’ve read, it sounds as if he took a wrong turn in life. But through his faith in God, he made amends and got back on the right path.
Here’s a man who’s trying to better himself with a college education. Here’s a man trying to live the American dream only to be told he can’t do that because he believes in God. That should spark a furious fire in the heart of every red-blooded, freedom-loving American.
The ACLJ lawsuit names four administrators: Sandra Kurtinitis, Mark McColloch, Richard Lilley and Adrienne Dougherty as defendants. Should they be found guilty of discriminating against this man because of his faith – they should be fired. American tax dollars should not be used to fund the salaries of religious bigots.
Todd Starnes is host of Fox News & Commentary, heard on hundreds of radio stations. Sign up for his American Dispatch newsletter, be sure to join his Facebook page, and follow him on Twitter. His latest book is "God Less America”.
Oregon panel recommends moving to federal health care exchange
On Friday, the Cover Oregon board will take up a recommendation made Thursday by a partial panel to hand over the state- run exchange to the federal government.
The move comes nearly seven months after Oregon’s online system was supposed to go live, but never did so completely.
Cover Oregon official Alex Pettit said fixing the existing system would be too risky and take too long to implement.
He also said it would be too costly. Trying to fix the system would cost around $78 million, he said. Switching to the federal system would be considerably cheaper, estimated at $4 million to $6 million.
Oregon would continue using its current technology for Medicaid enrollments, but not for people who are buying private policies.
Aaron Albright, a spokesman for the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, told Fox News in a written statement Thursday, “We are working with Oregon to ensure that all Oregonians have access to quality, affordable health coverage in 2015.”
Oregon's exchange is seen as the worst of those of more than a dozen states that developed their own online health insurance marketplaces. The state is the only one where the general public still can't use an online enrollment system to sign up for coverage in one sitting -- despite an early start building the site and millions of dollars from the federal government.
The Oregon exchange – like the ones in Maryland and Massachusetts- have been hit hard by technical glitches that have made signing up difficult for consumers.
The website was supposed to go live Oct. 1, but Cover Oregon and the technology vendor that built it, Oracle Corp., have been unable to work out all the glitches. Instead, Oregonians must use a costly, time-consuming, hybrid paper-online process to sign up for insurance.
The state has spent nearly $7 million on the paper processing efforts, in addition to $134 million in federal funding paid to Oracle.
Oregon was the only state to receive a month-long enrollment extension because of the technology problems.
The federal Government Accountability Office has announced an investigation into Oregon's exchange, including looking at whether the federal government can reclaim grant money given to Cover Oregon if taxpayer funds were mismanaged.
Separately, former Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius asked for an inspector general's investigation into problems with the rollout of the health care law.
An independent investigation ordered by Gov. John Kitzhaber found state managers repeatedly failed to heed reports about technical problems that prevented the exchange from launching. It also found that Oracle did a shoddy job in building the exchange. Four Oregon officials connected to the development of the Cover Oregon portal have resigned.
Kitzhaber has insisted that communications about the portal's troubles never reached him as the planned Oct. 1 launch neared.
So far, about 240,000 Oregonians have enrolled in coverage through Cover Oregon. More than 69,000 of those enrolled in private health plans, while 171,000 enrolled in the Oregon Health Plan, the state's version of Medicaid.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Thursday, April 24, 2014
Arizona VA boss accused of covering up veterans' deaths linked to previous scandal
Sharon Helman, director of the Phoenix Veterans Affairs Health Care system, is accused with other management officials of keeping a fake waiting list that made it appear sick veterans were being treated in a timely manner -- while hiding the real list that showed up to 1,600 sick veterans were waiting months to see a physician. Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Fla., chairman of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, said investigators have evidence that two sets of records were kept by the facility to conceal the lengthy delays in care.
At least 40 veterans on the secret list allegedly died while waiting for appointments, prompting congressional committees to launch investigations into the circumstances surrounding the deaths.
Helman, who is said to have approved and defended the Phoenix facility's actions, previously served as director of the Veterans Affairs facility in Spokane, Wash., where the VA's Office of Medical Investigations found the number of veteran suicides were being miscounted.
"Leadership, management and accountability is all we have ever required of the VA."- William Thien, Vietnam veteran and leader of 1.9 million-member VFWFrom July 2007 through the first week of July 2008, at least 22 veterans in the Spokane VA service area committed suicide. During that same time period, however, Spokane VA reported nine suicides and 34 attempted suicides, according to Military.com and other media outlets.
Helman was director of the Spokane facility at the time the number of suicides were being misreported. Shortly after news revealed that such data had been falsified, Helman was transferred to the VA facility in Hines, Ill., after having spent less than two years in Spokane. From there, Helman moved to Phoenix, where she became director of the Phoenix Veterans Affairs Health Care system in February 2012.
Helman could not be reached for comment, but the Arizona Republic reported earlier this week that Helman denies knowledge of any patients who died awaiting care or that patient information was improperly manipulated.
In a statement to FoxNews.com, VA spokeswoman Jean Schaefer said the agency has asked for an independent review regarding the claims in Arizona.
“The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) cares deeply for every veteran we are privileged to serve, and we are committed to delivering the highest quality care," Schaefer said. "The Phoenix VA Health Care system takes these issues very seriously and invited the independent VA Office of the Inspector General to complete a comprehensive review of these allegations."
But veterans advocates said Helman's transfers are part of the government agency's pattern of shuffling officials around instead of holding them accountable.
"This is not the first time that Sharon Helman has been involved in an incident involving manipulation of patient data," said Pete Hegseth, chief executive officer for Concerned Veterans for America. "She fudged the number of veterans suicides at a previous job — and was never fired. She just moved."
Public records show that Helman received a $9,345 bonus last year, in addition to her annual base salary of $169,900.
"Leadership, management and accountability is all we have ever required of the VA," William A. Thien, a Vietnam veteran from Georgetown, Ind., who leads the 1.9 million-member VFW and its auxiliaries, said in a statement Thursday.
"When you deal with lives, there should be no leniency granted to anyone with any knowledge of this alleged coverup, to include everyone in Phoenix who knew but didn’t tell, and those in oversight positions at the VA network and VA headquarters in Washington who knew but didn’t care," Thien said.
FoxNews.com's Cristina Corbin contributed to this report.
Hillary Clinton all but erased from tragic story of Benghazi Multiple inquiries about her role hit dead ends
Over the past 18 months, there have been at least seven public congressional hearings and three fact-finding reports on the terrorist attack. If not invisible, Mrs. Clinton is certainly portrayed as being only in the background during Benghazi, unaware of key events.
In the early post-Benghazi days on Capitol Hill, Republicans tried to pry “what did she know and when did she know it” information out of witnesses. But in later hearings, her name came up rarely — if at all.
On key questions, there is a dead end. For example, the nation’s two most senior military officials said they never spoke with Mrs. Clinton during the eight-hour crisis in Benghazi, Libya.
The State Department refused to cooperate for a Senate Select Committee on Intelligence investigation, Republicans say, and her name is not in the final report.
Mrs. Clinton testified that she was never informed about how susceptible the Benghazi diplomatic mission was to attack or about requests for more security officers. On the infamous Benghazi talking points, that process was carried out below her level, she said.
At the recently concluded public hearing of Michael J. Morell, the CIA deputy director who coordinated the “talking points” with State, references to Mrs. Clinton, who leads in polls to be the next Democratic presidential nominee, were made twice as asides, not as to Benghazi facts.
P.J. Crowley, who was Mrs. Clinton’s top spokesman at State in her first year, said Republicans have tried to nail her but there simply is no evidence.
“Benghazi happened on her watch, so she will always have a connection to the attack,” Mr. Crowley said. “There have been some efforts to make it about her, which I suspect will continue despite the lack of evidence.”
Lawyer Victoria Toensing has another view. She said members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence displayed incompetence while questioning Mr. Morell.
“Nobody from the House committee asked about her,” said Mrs. Toensing, who represents Gregory Hicks, the chief of mission in Tripoli that day who was among the first to blow the whistle on lax security in Benghazi and a lack of help from Washington during the crisis. “Was that hearing somewhat incompetent? Yes.”
Mrs. Toensing said the investigative failings pertaining to Mrs. Clinton began much earlier in the search to explain the deaths of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and his aide, Sean Smith.
State’s own investigation, by the accountability review board, gave Mrs. Clinton a pass. It never interviewed her on facts and decided that culpability lay at a much lower level, said former Ambassador Thomas Pickering, a co-chairman of the board.
His report said Stevens was in Benghazi that day “independent” of Washington.
“It’s a lie. An outright lie,” Mrs. Toensing said, adding that Mrs. Clinton’s fingerprints can be seen on that point.
“One of the most important facts about her is left out. Why was Chris in Benghazi?” the attorney said. “He was in Benghazi because on the day he was sworn in, Hillary met with him privately [in May 2012] and said she wanted him to go to Benghazi and assess whether it could be made a permanent post.”
Stevens met with Mr. Hicks and “Chris told him about this priority of the secretary’s,” Mrs. Toensing said. After the new ambassador took care of many initial tasks, September became the month he had to act on Benghazi before the fiscal year — and thus money — ended Sept. 30.
“He was there because of Hillary Clinton, and when the [accountability review board] interviewed Greg [Hicks], Greg said that to Pickering,” Mrs. Toensing said.
The review board took notes but did not transcribe its witness testimonies, which would have formed a more complete historical record.
Mr. Hicks has been denied access to the notes, Mrs. Toensing said.
Talking points issued
Mr. Crowley, Mrs. Clinton’s former spokesman, said there is historical precedence for putting a mission in a contested area such as Benghazi. The State Department erected two large complexes in Iraq and Afghanistan amid wars to further the goal of “expeditionary diplomacy.” Mrs. Clinton embraced the strategy, he said.
“This trend helps explain what Chris Stevens was doing in a post-conflict environment in Libya,” Mr. Crowley said. “He understood better than anyone that diplomats cannot hermetically seal themselves off from danger and do the job they were sent to do. Benghazi is about the nature of conflict in the 21st century, not about any one person.”
In January, a second major report emerged on Benghazi. This one, too, was Clinton-less.
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released a bipartisan report that attempted, after months of investigation, to lay out an official chronology of what officials did to prepare for and respond to the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission. Mrs. Clinton’s name is not mentioned in the report.
The committee’s Republicans wrote in an addendum that the State Department stonewalled the investigation by refusing requests for documents and witnesses.
“We surmise that this lack of forthrightness stems from a desire to protect individual political careers, now and in the future, and the Department’s reputation, at the expense of learning all the facts and apportioning responsibility,” the Republican senators wrote.
Then there are the long-debated “talking points,” President Obama’s first report to the nation about what happened in Benghazi.
The White House-State Department-CIA back-and-forth emails that produced the Sept. 16, 2012, talking points contain no reference to the secretary of state. Her fingerprints do not appear during two days of intense exchanges during which Clinton aides rejected various CIA versions. In the end, the CIA produced a brief statement that blamed protesters — an assertion Republicans say fit the president’s re-election campaign themes but not the facts.
The CIA’s first version turned out to be accurate, but under internal and outside pressure during two days, all references to al Qaeda and Islamic terrorists were removed.
‘She’s definitely culpable’
As Mrs. Clinton worked that late afternoon on Sept. 11 and into the night, no U.S. military help ever arrived at a CIA annex under attack for eight hours. Two former Navy SEALs were killed in their effort to protect CIA officers and huddled diplomats who were rescued from the burning compound.
Retired Army Gen. Carter Ham, who led U.S. Africa Command at the time, has stated that no one from State on Sept. 11 ever asked for a military rescue attempt.
Mrs. Clinton’s role in that lack of a request? Gen. Ham was not asked that question when he appeared in secret before a House Armed Services subcommittee in June, according to a declassified transcript.
Mrs. Clinton’s inner circle is known to be fiercely loyal. When CNN attempted to produce a Clinton documentary that would likely be favorable, all 100 aides and Democrats contacted refused to cooperate. Director Charles Ferguson canceled the project.
“I discovered that nobody, and I mean nobody, was interested in helping me make this film,” Mr. Ferguson wrote in The Huffington Post.
Larry C. Johnson, a former CIA official and State counterterrorism official, said the same thing that happened to Mr. Ferguson happened to Benghazi investigators.
“It’s part of the ‘protect Hillary’ deal. That’s what’s going on,” Mr. Johnson said. “But she’s definitely culpable. The security at the annex and so-called consulate was the responsibility of the State Department. Libya was one of the top five foreign policy priorities for the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton. She didn’t do anything. That’s the point.”
In her own words
Mrs. Clinton’s aides also tried to control post-attack information coming out of the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli.
When Rep. Jason Chaffetz, Utah Republican, visited the embassy, a State Department attorney — referred to by one Republican as a “spy” — was not allowed in his briefing because his security clearance was not high enough.
The next thing Mr. Hicks knew, he was getting a phone call from Cheryl Mills, Mrs. Clinton’s chief of staff.
“She was very upset,” Mr. Hicks told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
An example of a brief and unsuccessful attempt by Republicans to find Mrs. Clinton culpable occurred in February 2013 at a Senate Committee on Armed Services hearing.
Sen. Kelly Ayotte, New Hampshire Republican, noted Stevens‘ cable to the State Department on Aug. 15, one month before the attack, in which he said the Benghazi compound could not sustain an assault.
At the witness table sat the nation’s two highest military officials: Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, Joint Chiefs chairman. Asked whether they discussed the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi with the secretary of state, both men said they had not.
Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Republican, asked what conversations the men had with Mrs. Clinton between the first attack on the diplomatic mission and the next morning when the CIA annex was shelled. Mr. Panetta said he and Gen. Dempsey never spoke with Mrs. Clinton during those critical hours.
When Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, asked whether it was true that Mrs. Clinton never saw Stevens‘ Aug. 15 warning, Gen. Dempsey answered, “Well, I don’t know that she didn’t know about the cable.”
Asked whether he would be stunned if she never saw it, Gen. Dempsey responded, “I would call myself surprised that she didn’t.”
For now, the lone source for a detailed account of what Mrs. Clinton did and did not do regarding Benghazi is — herself.
In January 2013, as her four years as secretary of state came to an end, she sat alone before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations to tell the Benghazi story as she saw it.
About Stevens‘ request for more security, she said: “The specific security requests pertaining to Benghazi, you know, were handled by the security professionals in the department. I didn’t see those requests. They didn’t come to me. I didn’t approve them. I didn’t deny them.”
On the talking points, she said: “I wasn’t involved in the talking points process. As I understand it, as I’ve been told, it was a typical interagency process.”
On what she did that night at her desk in Foggy Bottom, she testified: “I participated in a secure videoconference of senior officials from the intelligence community, the White House and DOD. We were going over every possible option, reviewing all that was available to us, any actions we could take.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Tit for Tat ? ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) — A statue of abolitionist Frederick Douglass was ripped from its base in Rochester on the an...
-
NEW YORK (AP) — As New York City faced one of its darkest days with the death toll from the coronavirus surging past 4,000 — more th...
