GOP rep wants to cut funding for federal ‘paramilitary units’ after BLM dispute

A Republican congressman wants to crack down on the proliferation of armed law enforcement units within the federal government, on the heels of the standoff last month between supporters of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and a federal land agency. 
Both sides of that standoff -- agents with the Bureau of Land Management, and states' rights protesters who streamed into Nevada -- were armed, leading the BLM to back down for fear of violence. 
But Utah GOP Rep. Chris Stewart told The Salt Lake Tribune that the BLM doesn't need an armed unit in the first place. He's reportedly looking at ways to cut funding for what he calls "paramilitary units" and require them to rely on local law enforcement instead. 
"There are lots of people who are really concerned when the BLM shows up with its own SWAT team," he told the newspaper. "They're regulatory agencies; they're not paramilitary units, and I think that concerns a lot of us." 
The bill could apply to a host of federal agencies, including the BLM, IRS and others. 
FoxNews.com previously reported, followed controversy over a separate armed raid by the EPA last year in Alaska, that 40 federal agencies have armed divisions. This includes nearly a dozen typically not associated with law enforcement. 
The agencies employ about 120,000 full-time officers authorized to carry guns and make arrests, according to a June 2012 Justice Department report. 
Though most would expect agents within the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Bureau of Prisons to carry guns, agencies such as the Library of Congress and Federal Reserve Board also employ armed officers.    
Among those with the largest armed units are the Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management and Park Service. 
A BLM spokeswoman told the Tribune that the BLM and Park Service had law enforcement on the scene in Nevada to ensure safety -- and that, with just 300 officers covering millions of acres of public land, they already coordinate with local law enforcement. 
But Stewart says they should be able to rely on the local sheriff in these types of incidents. 
Other lawmakers, though, are focusing more on the armed militia members who showed up to protest agents taking Bundy's cattle over a grazing fee dispute. 
KLAS-TV in Las Vegas reported that Sgt. Tom Jenkins, of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, said officers were concerned for their lives. 
"We didn't show any fear that day, but I can tell you, we all thought in the back of our minds, we all thought it was going to be our last day on earth, if it went bad," he reportedly said.

'Anti-Islam' Filmmaker Blamed for Benghazi Attacks Vows to Finish Controversial Movie

By Stoyan Zaimov, Christian Post Reporter

June 11, 2013|1:41 pm

The filmmaker behind the controversial "Innocence of Muslims" film, the trailer for which was initially blamed for the violence that led to four Americans being killed at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in September 2012, has said that he is not anti-Muslim and wants to finish up his movie. His mission is to fight terrorism.
"It is not [a] religion movie," Nakoula Basseley Nakoula shared with Fox News. "I have a lot of Muslim friends and not all the Muslims believe in the terrorism culture. Some of them believe in this culture. That's why we need to fight [against] the culture, not the Muslims. My enemy is the terrorism culture; this is my enemy."
In September 2012, Muslim extremists stormed the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, killing U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. After Anti-American protests ranged in front of other Western embassies in the Middle East, reports came out linking a trailer for "Innocence of Muslims" as a motive behind the attacks.
The movie, which apparently depicts the Prophet Muhammad "as a child of uncertain parentage, a buffoon, a womanizer, a homosexual, a child molester and a greedy, bloodthirsty thug," was financed partially by an Israeli-American real estate developer in California, who said that he raised $5 million from 100 Jewish donors to make the film, and called Islam a "cancer."
The Obama administration initially singled out the film for the hostilities aimed at the U.S. embassies, but then admitted that terrorist attacks were behind the violence. Nakoula, a Coptic Christian born in Egypt who came to the U.S. in 1984, was sentenced last November to one year in prison for lying to his probation officer and using fake names in the production of the film. The filmmaker, who must also serve another four years of supervised release following his prison term, insisted that he is going to finish up the film.
"I am the blood voice for everybody who gets killed, or hurt, in this culture," the filmmaker said. "I dedicate my life to fight with this culture … I'm never afraid."

Follow us Get CP eNewsletter ››

Nakoula continued, "Of course I'm proud of it. If I could go back, I would do it again. Everybody gets hurt in this culture. We need the world free of this culture. We have to fight it."
The Egyptian-born man thanked the U.S. government for protecting him following the scandal surrounding the film, revealing that they have treated him "very good." Nakoula added he is "sorry to everybody" who got harmed during the wave of violence in September 2012, especially the Americans who died in Benghazi.

 

White House on defense over new Benghazi emails, claims controversial ‘prep call’ not about attack

The White House found itself on defense Wednesday following the release of emails tying a top aide to former U.N. ambassador Susan Rice's controversial Sunday show statements after the Benghazi terror attack. 
During those interviews, Rice erroneously blamed the attack on protests over an anti-Islam film. New emails indicate a White House adviser helped prep her for those appearances and pushed the "video" explanation -- and now, the White House is facing credibility questions after having downplayed their role in Rice's "talking points." 
During a heated briefing with reporters Wednesday afternoon, Press Secretary Jay Carney repeatedly tried to claim that the so-called "prep call" with Rice -- as it was described in one email -- was not about Benghazi. The prep session, he said, was just about the demonstrations elsewhere in the Muslim world that week.   
"It is not about Benghazi -- it is about the protests around the Muslim world," Carney claimed. 
The White House has said all along that Rice relied on the best available intelligence, from the intelligence community, when she discussed the Benghazi attack. 
But the documents obtained and released by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, included a Sept. 14, 2012, email from White House aide Ben Rhodes, an assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for strategic communications. 
The Rhodes email, with the subject line: "RE: PREP Call with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET," was sent to a dozen members of the administration's inner circle, including key members of the White House communications team such as Carney. 
In the email, Rhodes specifically draws attention to the anti-Islam Internet video, without distinguishing whether the Benghazi attack was different from protests elsewhere. 
The email lists the following two goals, among others: 
"To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy." 
"To reinforce the President and Administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges." 
Republican critics, who have long claimed the administration's narrative was politically motivated, pointed to that email as a "smoking gun." 
But Carney insisted that the Rhodes email was distinct from the intelligence community talking points in that it referred to preparing Rice for questions about the protests elsewhere. 
"They were about the general situation in the Muslim world," Carney said, going so far as to read headlines from stories at the time that highlighted those protests -- underscoring that they were a big news story at the time. 
He declined to answer directly when asked if the White House would correct the record regarding statements downplaying its role in the talking points. He did acknowledge what was evident from the Rhodes email -- that "the White House had a role in that document, obviously."
House speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, issued a statement Wednesday night saying, “Four Americans lost their lives in Benghazi, and this White House has gone to extraordinary lengths to mislead, obstruct, and obscure what actually took place.
 During the week of the Benghazi attack, protests had broken out by U.S. embassies in several countries in Africa and the Middle East, including intense demonstrations in Cairo. But by the time of Rice's Sunday show appearances, the death of a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi was the dominant story -- Carney faced skepticism in the briefing room in claiming that the Rhodes email was not referring, at least in large part, to that. 
Further, the document sent to Judicial Watch was released in response to a request for records pertaining to Benghazi. 
And the same memo was sent to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, likewise, following a subpoena seeking Benghazi documents. 
"If this is not a smoking gun, proving beyond any doubt, the story told by the administration about Benghazi was politically motivated and fabricated, nothing will ever prove that," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said. 
On the heels of the email release, Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., renewed his call for a select committee to be established to investigate. He wrote House Speaker John Boehner a letter saying "it is now abundantly clear that senior White House staff were directly involved in coordinating the messaging in response to the Benghazi attacks and were actively working to tie the reason to the infamous Internet video." 
The "video" explanation, though, was not only coming from the White House. Late on Sept. 11, 2012, when the attack was still going on, Hillary Clinton's State Department issued a statement that read: "Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to an inflammatory material posted on the internet. ... let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind." 
Fox News' Catherine Herridge contributed to this report.

NATO

Keystone supporters push for swift Senate vote

Supporters of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline proposal are requesting a quick Senate vote on legislation to approve construction of the project delayed indefinitely by the Obama administration and vehemently opposed by environmentalists.
Pipeline advocates in the Senate, who include several Democrats on the ballot next fall as well as Republicans, hold a clear majority. They also may command more than the 60 votes needed to overcome blocking tactics by opponents, but they appear to be short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override any veto by President Barack Obama.
“This bill will allow us to move ahead with construction on the pipeline so we can expand access to North American energy, create jobs and promote economic growth, all while providing a safer and more environmentally friendly method of transporting oil,” Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said in a statement Tuesday.
"I will press hard for a vote in the coming weeks to build this pipeline," Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., the chair of the Senate Energy Committee, said this week in a statement as lawmakers returned from a two-week break. Landrieu and Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, another pipeline supporter, stand accused by Republicans of being powerless to mandate the project's construction, given the numerous delays Obama has ordered without rendering a decision.
In addition, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., faces pressure from Republicans to permit a vote on the project, with the Senate expected to debate energy-efficiency legislation in the next few days.
Sen. John Hoeven of North Dakota said he and other Republicans want the issue voted on either as a part of the energy-efficiency legislation or shortly afterward as a stand-alone bill. He said rank-and-file Republicans have "taken a very strong position" that one or the other must occur.
Aides said no decision had been made, but Reid said he had met in the last 24 hours with both Landrieu and Hoeven and left open the possibility of permitting a pipeline vote. "I'm open to anything that will move energy efficiency," he said.
The White House declined to comment on the latest Keystone gambit, but Obama threatened to veto a previous effort, in 2012, to attach approval of the project to a transportation bill.
The pipeline project has long been at a vexing crossroads of energy policy and politics that confronts Democrats.
The 1,179-mile project is proposed to go from Canada through Montana and South Dakota to Nebraska, where it would connect with existing pipelines to carry more than 800,000 barrels of crude oil a day to refineries along the Gulf Coast.
Advocates say it will create thousands of jobs and aid energy independence, but environmentalists warn of possible spills and say transporting oil will eventually contribute to global warming.
The State Department said in a Jan. 31 report that building the pipeline would not significantly boost carbon emissions because the oil was likely to find its way to market by other means. It added that transporting it by rail or truck would cause greater environmental problems than if the Keystone XL pipeline were built.
The administration unexpectedly ordered another delay in its decision earlier this month, citing a judge's ruling in Nebraska that overturned a state law permitting the pipeline to traverse the state.
Nebraska's Supreme Court isn't expected to hear an appeal to that ruling until September or October, and there could be more legal maneuvering after that to carry past the November elections.
Republicans seized on the announcement to ridicule Landrieu, whose campaign for re-election is based in part on a claim that her position as chair of the Senate Energy Committee is a major benefit to her oil-producing state.
Begich didn't wait for Republicans to criticize him. He said he was "frankly appalled at the continued foot-dragging by this administration on the Keystone project."
Further complicating the political calculations for Democrats, billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer has vowed to spend $50 million of his own money to make climate change a top-tier issue in the 2014 elections. He opposes the pipeline. Environmentally minded voters tend to back Democrats, and the party is already worried about a fall-off in voting this fall by other supporters because of the wobbly economic recovery and controversy over the nation's health care law.
In his comments to reporters, Reid said Republicans had first said they merely wanted to vote on a nonbinding measure expressing support for the pipeline. He said they have now switched positions and want to vote on legislation to allow the project to begin.
Landrieu told reporters that negotiations are continuing, and that it is not yet clear whether the legislation will be binding or not. Hoeven and other Republicans put it differently.
“It’s easy to talk the talk, but it’s time for all members to walk the walk on the Keystone XL pipeline. We ought to have a vote that matters,” Sen. John Thune, R-S.D, said in a statement Tuesday.
In a nonbinding vote last year, 62 lawmakers supported construction. Among them were 17 Democrats, including Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., who has since retired and been replaced by another pipeline supporter, Sen. John Walsh.
More recently, 11 Senate Democrats urged Obama in a letter to approve the pipeline by the end of May. Six of the 11 are on the ballot this fall, including Landrieu, Begich and Walsh, and Sens. Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Mark Warner of Virginia.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Clippers owner Donald Sterling banned for life from NBA, fined $2.5 million by NBA

(Bailey) Just put a post out two days ago talking about the word racist being used at the drop of a hat. For the amount of money these poor mistreated basketball players get, I should be so lucky. Below is a example of a couple of them.

Chris Paul, PG  Los Angeles Clippers Salary $18,668,431

Blake Griffin, PF Los Angeles Clippers Salary $16,441,500

The NBA threw the book at LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling, banning him for life, fining him $2.5 million and raising the possibility of a forced sale of the team over racist remarks he made to an ex-girlfriend that surfaced on a tape recording.
NBA Commissioner Adam Silver made the announcement at a New York press conference moments after Sterling told Fox News that he was not interested in selling the team. When reached after the press conference by Fox News' Jim Gray, Sterling declined to comment.
Silver, who succeeded David Stern as NBA commissioner in February, said the league interviewed Sterling during its investigation. He said NBA investigators determined that the voice heard on the audio tape obtained by TMZ was Sterling's and called the comments "deeply offensive" and vowed to “do everything in my power” to force a sale of the team, which could be worth more than $500 million.

Lawyer for ex-IRS official Lerner asks to address House

The lawyer for former Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner sent a letter to House Republican leaders on Monday, asking for an opportunity to address the House ahead of a vote to hold his client in contempt of Congress.
Last May, Lerner refused to answer questions at a hearing about IRS agents singling out tea party applications for extra scrutiny. She again refused to answer questions in March, citing her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
The Oversight Committee voted earlier this month to hold her in contempt. All Republicans voted in favor and all Democrats voted against.
Lerner directed the IRS division that processes applications for tax-exempt status. She retired from the IRS last fall, ending a 34-year career in the federal government, including work at the Justice Department and Federal Election Commission. 
"Holding Ms. Lerner in contempt would not only be unfair and, indeed, un-American, it would be flatly inconsistent with the Fifth Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court," Lerner's lawyer, William W. Taylor III, wrote in a letter to House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. 
Taylor requested "an opportunity to present to the House the reasons why it should not hold Ms. Lerner in contempt."
In an email, Taylor told The Associated Press that Lerner's lawyers would address the House, if given the chance -- not Lerner herself.  
Taylor, citing Supreme Court precedent, argues in the letter that Lerner cannot be prosecuted for asserting her Fifth Amendment privilege.
"No court will hold that she waived her privilege," Taylor said. "Supreme Court precedent is clear that a witness compelled to appear before a congressional committee does not waive her Fifth Amendment privilege by asserting her innocence."
Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said, "Ms. Lerner can avoid being held in contempt at any time by testifying fully and honestly, but she has chosen not to." 
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., responded on Twitter: "The House welcomes the opportunity for Lois Lerner to address our members. She can do so at any time before the House Oversight Committee." 
The House is expected to vote on the contempt measure in May, according to a memo from Cantor to House Republicans. 
Taylor's appearance before the House would be extraordinary. Other than House members, the privilege of addressing the full House is generally reserved for foreign leaders, dignitaries and, of course, the president. 
Lerner was subpoenaed by the Oversight Committee last year after publicly acknowledging that the IRS had improperly singled out tea party and other conservative groups for extra scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status from 2010 to 2012.  
Oversight Committee Democrats have compiled a list of constitutional experts who say the contempt case is weak.  Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., countered with a memo from the House general counsel's office saying there is a legal foundation for holding Lerner in contempt.  
Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the top Democrat on the committee, complained that the House is poised to act without hearing from any experts. 
"Before members of Congress are asked to take the grave step of stripping an American citizen of her Fifth Amendment rights -- something Congress has not attempted to do since the McCarthy era -- I believe the Republican leadership should do what Chairman Issa has refused to do for the last nine months: allow members to hear directly from Ms. Lerner's attorney and from some of the more than 30 independent legal experts who have concluded that his contempt proceeding will be thrown out of court," Cummings said.
Last week, House Republicans stepped up their investigation into the Justice Department's possible role in the targeting scandal, citing emails that purportedly suggest high-level DOJ officials may have been involved.
Emails published April 16 showed correspondence between Lerner and others at the IRS regarding the DOJ's interest in investigating "political" groups.
Senior Justice Department have denied the agency's involvement, saying that the accusations surrounding the emails are "conflating two separate issues." 
The Obama administration at the highest level denied the targeting, from 2010 through the 2012 presidential election cycle, was illegal or politically motivated.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

GOP senators demand explanation for Benghazi talking points

Three leading Republican senators are calling on the Obama administration to identify who briefed former U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice in advance of her Sunday show appearances where she blamed a video for the Benghazi attack.
Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., and John McCain, R-Ariz., wrote to leaders on the House and Senate Foreign Relations committees asking them to compel the administration to explain the "taking points."
In the letter first obtained by Fox News, the senators cite the recent testimony of former CIA acting and deputy director Michael Morell before the House Intelligence Committee, where he said it was Rice, not the CIA, who connected the obscure Internet video to the deadly Sept. 11, 2012 attack. 
"How could former Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, during the five Sunday talk shows on Sept. 16, 2012, claim that the attacks on our compounds were caused by a hateful video when Mr. Morell testified that the CIA never mentioned the video as a casual factor and made no reference to the video in any of the multiple versions of the talking points?" the senators wrote.
Given the CIA was not the source of the video explanation, according to Morell, lawmakers want to know whether State Department or White House personnel were involved in the Rice briefings in advance of the 2012 talk shows. 
Rice is now the president's national security adviser. Some lawmakers believe it would be difficult for Rice to now assert executive privilege because her previous job as U.N. ambassador required Senate confirmation.
In the letter, the lawmakers also questioned Rice's statements about security at the Benghazi compound that were "clearly misrepresentations of the facts."
"Ambassador Rice also falsely asserted that Al Qaeda was decimated. Who briefed her about Al Qaeda's activities in Libya?" the lawmakers wrote. 
"If we are to avoid future terrorist attacks like the one in Benghazi, we must answer these and many other unanswered questions," the senators added. 
Fox News' Catherine Herridge contributed to this report.