Media Myths of the Homosexual-Transgender Agenda


Gay Agenda Demands

Accuracy in Media (AIM) sent an email explaining the real stats on homosexuality and transgenderism in America.

 

In America these alternate lifestyle morons can choose this ungodly immoral path. The U.S. Constitution guarantees these individual rights – even for the ungodly. HOWEVER, the Constitution does not guarantee or entitle the ungodly and immoral to force their views or lifestyles on other Americans – Christian or otherwise.

 

The height of bigotry is when America’s significant and huge non-LGBT majority is forced to comply to the designs and accommodations of the significant and tiny minority. I realize that is my opinion and I can hardly wait for the few homosexuals and Leftists that will barrage me with disparaging profanity.

 

God tells me to reject the lifestyle of the ungodly and that works for me:

 

22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. – Leviticus 18: 22 NKJV

 

+++

 

13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. – Leviticus 20: 13 NKJV

 

+++

 

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ,[a] for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.

 

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

 

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

 

24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

 

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

 

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;

 

32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. – (Bold Emphasis is mine) Romans 1: 16, 18, 20-22, 24-28, 32 NKJV

Would U Risk Soul for Gay Agenda

I am using the AIM email as an intro and/or summary to the report it is reporting which is by Peter LaBarbera. The LaBarbera Report looks at real stats and facts which Homosexual activists obfuscate or downright lie.

 

JRH 8/20/16

Please Support NCCR

****************

AIM Special Report: Media Myths of the Homosexual-Transgender Agenda

 

Sent by AIM

Sent: 8/19/2016 9:11 AM

 

The mainstream media have promoted a number of myths about homosexuality and transgenderism, including that being gay has a genetic component. A new AIM Special Report by Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth, explodes this and other myths that are harming American society by helping to promote the acceptance of sexual lifestyles that are both unsafe and immoral.

 

The LGBT media lobby is working overtime to convince Americans that gays are a major force in America, and that there are significant numbers of homosexuals and transgenders. In reality, these individuals account for about 3 percent of the population, yet have an oversized effect on popular culture and political correctness.

 

“Some researchers are coming forth with alternative theories linking the development of adult homosexual identity to childhood trauma, e.g., incest between twins or child molestation,” writes LaBarbera in the AIM Special Report. “Interestingly, two prominent openly homosexual TV personalities—CNN’s Don Lemon and MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts—were sexually assaulted as boys by homosexual adult predators.”

 

In this report you will learn that:

 

  • The assertion that 10 percent of the population are LGBT is an unsupported myth.

 

  • Transsexual “sex reassignment surgeries” often do not produce happiness, and many of these individuals consider suicide post-operation.

 

  • LGBT activists are pushing radical “transgender” ideology on children, even to the point of encouraging underage kids to get body-destroying surgeries.

 

  • Children who are raised in homosexual and transsexual households are suffering.

 

Instead of the media promoting this “alternative lifestyle,” Americans desperately need the press to educate society about its inherent risks.

 

For more information, or to arrange an interview with Peter LaBarbera, contact Spencer Irvine at 202-364-4401, ext. 103, or preferably by email at spencer.irvine@aim.org.

 

***********

Media Myths of the Homosexual-Transgender Agenda

 

By Peter LaBarbera

August 19, 2016

Accuracy in Media

 

Warning: This report contains some offensive descriptions

 

The purpose of this report is to expose and refute some of the longstanding statistical lies and propagandistic myths of the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) activist movement. With media support, homosexual and leftist activists now openly campaign to banish dissenting conservative voices. This dangerous dynamic gives the homosexual-transgender lobby nearly full rein to advance its agenda, which now includes:

 

  • Levying large fines to punish Christians and traditionalists who do not want to participate with their small business in homosexual “weddings”;

 

  • Criminalizing pro-heterosexual change therapy for sexually confused minors;

 

  • Using the government to force schools and businesses to allow “transgenders”—e.g., men who think they are women—to use public female (opposite-sex) restrooms and locker rooms;

 

  • Using LGBT “nondiscrimination” laws to mandate that public schools and businesses punish anyone who does not adhere to politically-correct transgender-inclusive language—such as using “zir” instead of “her.” New York City now demands “respect” for 31 “gender identities,” including “genderqueer,” “third sex” and “pangender”;

 

  • Taxpayer-funding for horrifying, body-disfiguring “sex reassignment surgeries,” e.g., a woman having her healthy breasts surgically removed to look like a flat-chested “man,” or a man having his penis surgically destroyed to craft a makeshift “vagina”;

 

  • Allowing transsexuals into the U.S. military, and paying for their destructive, gender-bending “surgeries” in the name of “health care”;

 

 

  • Teaching very young children—even kindergartners—to accept homosexuality and the radical “transgender” idea that they can choose a “gender identity” that does not match their biological sex.

 

o awash is the public in pro-homosexual propaganda that a 2011 Gallup poll found the average American “guesstimated” that a whopping 25 percent of the population is “gay.” (Women and people under 30 put the number even higher, at around 30 percent.) The actual percentage of homosexual men, lesbians and bisexuals in the U.S. population is just 2.3 percent (see below).

 

The 10 Percent Myth

 

The “10 percent” myth is one of the most enduring propaganda claims of the homosexual activist movement. Concocted in the late 1970s by Bruce Voeller, founder of the National Gay Task Force (predecessor of today’s National LGBTQ Task Force), it was accompanied by the slogan, “We Are Everywhere.”

 

Thus, just as “gay” militants pressured and bullied America’s mental health professionals to remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders in 1973, they greatly exaggerated the homosexual population to expand their political power in subsequent years. And the media duly cooperated by promoting the statistical sham. For decades American reporters treated the 10 percent claim—a misreading of deviant, pioneering “sexologist” Alfred Kinsey’s discredited research—as fact, using it to “report” huge numbers of alleged homosexuals in society.

 

The 10 percent myth served its purpose of projecting enormous “gay” political strength when the movement was still weak. But study after study came up with estimates of the homosexual-bisexual population under 5 percent. A massive 2014 survey of 35,557 Americans by the federal National Center for Health Statistics dealt a death blow to the Ten Percent claim. It found that only 1.6 percent of those polled identified as “gay or lesbian,” while 0.7 percent said they were “bisexual.” In 2011 the pro-LGBT Williams Institute at UCLA estimated that 0.3 percent identified as transgender. Thus a combined estimate for homosexuals, bisexuals and transgenders in America is around 3 percent.

 

Born Gay?—No Way

 

Another popular “gay” activist myth is the notion that homosexuals are “born that way.” This convenient narrative—stoked for many years by LGBT advocates—takes morality out of the homosexual debate by suggesting that homosexuals are not responsible for their sexual behaviors because “being gay” is a genetic part of “who they are.”

 

From a scientific perspective, however, the “born gay” myth—like its bogus “10 Percent Gay” counterpart—has fallen on hard times. In the 1990s, talk of a “gay gene” was all the rage after then-closeted homosexual researcher Dean Hamer published a media-ballyhooed 1993 study in the journal Science purporting to find a “genetic marker” for male homosexual “orientation.” But Science could not replicate its own study, and other attempts failed as well. Now genetic homosexuality is no longer in vogue, although the possibility of a “gay gene” still excites reporters.

 

The most serious blow to the “gay gene” theory has come from identical twin studies. Once used to promote the idea of inborn homosexuality, they are now widely seen as demonstrating the opposite. Dr. Neil Whitehead, one of the world’s leading conservative researchers on the issue states:

 

“From six studies (2000-2011): if an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances that the co-twin has it too, are only about 11% for men and 14% for women.”

 

“Because they have identical DNA [concordance on sexual orientation it] ought to be 100 percent” Dr. Whitehead told OrthodoxNet.com.

 

Childhood Trauma and “Gayness”

 

Finally, some researchers are coming forth with alternative theories linking the development of adult homosexual identity to childhood trauma, e.g., incest between twins or child molestation. (Interestingly, two prominent openly homosexual TV personalities—CNN’s Don Lemon and MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts—were sexually assaulted as boys by homosexual adult predators.)

 

A 2015 study led by Keith Beard and published in the journal Cogent Psychology found that, “Same-sex sibling incest also significantly increased the likelihood that participants would self-identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or questioning (rather than homosexual).”

 

Notably, the authors of the study took pains to issue a gay-affirming disclaimer: “Our results were consistent with the idea that the sexual orientation of adults cannot be changed.”

 

Is it not cruel to tell a man who was raped as a boy by an adult pervert—or seduced into incestuous sex by an older brother—that he is now destined to be stuck with a deviant and immoral sexual identity for the rest of his life? With so many ex-“gays” like Dennis Jernigan proclaiming freedom from past homosexuality, how can anyone—journalist, gay activist or scholar—claim that adults cannot change their “sexual orientation?”

 

The “Born Gay” Myth Is Still Popular

 

Tragically, despite growing evidence to the contrary, about half of Americans surveyed still believe that homosexuals are “born that way,” according to a 2015 Gallup poll. Gallup has polled on this and other homosexual issues every year since 1977. In that initial year, only 13 percent of Americans believed people were “born with” homosexuality while 56 percent cited a person’s “upbringing and environment” as the main causative factors. By 2013, those findings were reversed, and a record 51 percent of respondents believed homosexuals were born with that inclination while a record low of 30 percent cited environmental factors.

 

Such data shows the tremendous, suffocating power of the media to drive the “gay” debate. Now the same media are working overtime to mainstream transgenderism, which is also said to be an innate condition.

 

Homosexuals Can Change

 

There is no truth despised by homosexual activists more than the simple reality that people who once lived as “gay” or lesbian (or “transgender”) can change and live honorably according to the natural, created purpose of their bodies before God. Homosexual activists continue to assert that people cannot change their “sexual orientation”—ignoring the many testimonies of people like Stephen Black and Dr. Rosaria Butterfield who have overcome the pull of homosexuality in their lives. See this Mastering Life Ministries website for video testimonials of ex-homosexuals. Notably, ex-“gays” rarely get serious treatment in the media—rewarding the lobby efforts of powerful LGBT media pressure groups like GLAAD.

 

Now the pro-homosexual lobby, including leftist allied groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center—mislabeled as a “civil rights group” by news organizations—have taken it up a notch by pushing for state and national laws to ban pro-heterosexual change therapy for minors. Such anti-freedom laws now exist in California, Oregon, New Jersey, Illinois, Vermont and the District of Columbia. President Obama has endorsed a federal bill designed to ban so-called “conversion” (change) therapy for minors. This highly dangerous legislation would curtail the freedom of parents and children—including those victimized by homosexual predators—to pursue the healthy change they desire.

 

Dangerous “Sex Reassignment” Surgeries

 

Walt Heyer is a former transsexual who went through “male-to-female” “sex reassignment surgery” to become his female alter ego (“Laura”). Heyer was not “born transgender” but instead the childhood victim of some tragic circumstances—including a grandmother who dressed him up in fancy dress when he was a little boy. Now he has regained his natural male identity and urges gender-confused men not to go through the radical operations and hormone therapy to pursue a fantasy. See Heyer’s website, SexChangeRegret.com.

 

Heyer cites the testimony of Dr. Paul McHugh, the Distinguished Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, who shut down the university’s “sex reassignment surgery” program after studying the outcomes of men who went through the “sex change” operations compared to those who did not. Wrote McHugh in 2014:

 

“Most of the surgically treated patients described themselves as ‘satisfied’ by the results, but their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn’t have the surgery. And so at Hopkins we stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a ‘satisfied’ but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs.”

 

Transgenderism Harms Children

 

Dr. McHugh saves his most devastating critique for those adults who would foist radical transsexual surgeries and hormone treatments on the very young and gender-confused teenagers (emphasis added):

 

“Another subgroup consists of young men and women susceptible to suggestion from “everything is normal” sex education, amplified by Internet chat groups. These are the transgender subjects most like anorexia nervosa patients: They become persuaded that seeking a drastic physical change will banish their psycho-social problems. “Diversity” counselors in their schools, rather like cult leaders, may encourage these young people to distance themselves from their families and offer advice on rebutting arguments against having transgender surgery. Treatments here must begin with removing the young person from the suggestive environment and offering a counter-message in family therapy.

 

“Then there is the subgroup of very young, often prepubescent children who notice distinct sex roles in the culture and, exploring how they fit in, begin imitating the opposite sex. Misguided doctors at medical centers including Boston’s Children’s Hospital have begun trying to treat this behavior by administering puberty-delaying hormones to render later sex-change surgeries less onerous—even though the drugs stunt the children’s growth and risk causing sterility. Given that close to 80 percent of such children would abandon their confusion and grow naturally into adult life if untreated, these medical interventions come close to child abuse. A better way to help these children: with devoted parenting.”

 

To echo Dr. McHugh’s warning, the American College of Pediatricians, a pro-family alternative to the reliably pro-homosexual American Academy of Pediatricians, recently put out an outstanding statement, “Gender Ideology Harms Children,” which includes among its points:

 

  • Puberty is not a disease and puberty-blocking hormones can be dangerous…

 

  • According to the DSM-V [the APA’s diagnostic manual for mental disorders] as many as 98 percent of gender confused boys and 88 percent of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty.

 

  • Children who use puberty blockers to impersonate the opposite sex will require cross-sex hormones in late adolescence. Cross-sex hormones (testosterone and estrogen) are associated with dangerous health risks including but not limited to high blood pressure, blood clots, stroke and cancer.

 

  • Rates of suicide are 20 times greater among adults who use cross-sex hormones and undergo sex reassignment surgery, even in Sweden which is among the most LGBTQ—affirming countries.

 

  • Conditioning children into believing that a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthy is child abuse.

 

Children of Homosexuals and Transgenders Suffer

 

Homosexual activists rely on “gay”-authored research with sloppy methodology to claim that there is “no difference” between homosexual and normal, mom-and-dad households—and sometimes assert that “gay”-led parenting is superior to the traditional variety. But again, the facts suggest otherwise.

 

Writes Jamie Bryan Hall, citing the work of Catholic University sociology professor Dr. Paul Sullins, who analyzed data from the federal National Health Interview Survey from 1997 to 2013:

 

“Controlling for child sex, age, and race and parents’ education and income, Dr. Sullins finds that children of parents in same-sex relationships fare significantly worse than those of opposite-sex parents on nine of 12 measures of emotional or developmental problems and their use of mental health treatment. In general, children of parents in same-sex relationships are about two to three times more likely to experience such problems.

 

In his most extensive statistical analysis, in which he also takes into account relationship stability, stigmatization, and parents’ psychological distress, Sullins finds the prevalence of emotional problems among children living with same-sex parents to be 4.5 times as high as among children living with their married biological parents, three times as high as children living with a married stepparent, 2.5 times as high as those with cohabiting parents, and three times as high as children with a single parent.”

 

There are now many moving firsthand testimonies available from men and women who grew up in homes with homosexual or transsexual parents. See Dawn Stefanowicz’s testimony of life with her promiscuous “gay” dad, and Denise Shick’s story of living with a selfish, cross-dressing father.

 

Homosexuals and Health Problems

 

In every area of life, “gay” activists apply their egalitarian formula to posit a moral equivalence between homosexuality and normalcy (heterosexuality). But what Dr. Sullins wrote in 2004 remains true today:

 

“Like abortion, homosexuality is associated with increased problems of mental health and distress. Though rarely acknowledged in popular media or discourse, emerging epidemiological evidence in the past decade has clearly established a link between homosexuality and mental illness or emotional problems.”

 

The Obama administration’s successful campaign to allow male homosexuals to donate blood has exposed how the LGBT lobby is more concerned about scoring another “gay rights” win than protecting our nation’s blood supply. It is as if the many thousands of stories over the last few decades including those about the AIDS crisis—showing the high correlation between “Men who have Sex with Men” (MSM) and various diseases—had never been published. Consider these facts from the Centers for Disease Control CDC (emphasis added):

 

 

 

  • Hepatitis—“New research shows that gay men who are HIV-positive and have multiple sex partners may increase their risk for Hepatitis C.”

 

  • Shigellosis—“Anyone can get shigellosis but it is recognized more often in young children. Those who may be at greater risk include children in daycare centers, foreign travelers to certain countries, institutionalized people and people exposed to human feces through sexual contact.

 

 

More than 25 years ago, Americans were shocked as “gay” activists and educators introduced children’s picture books like Daddy’s Roommate and Heather Has Two Mommies to indoctrinate children into accepting homosexual behavior and “gay families” as natural and harmless. Now a new generation of very young children is growing up with picture books like My Princess Boy (available at Walmart.com) that popularize and glamorize extreme gender confusion.

 

Unless citizens demand an end to the media’s incessant promotion of the gay and transgender agenda, it will be too late to return America to a state of sexual sanity, in which the health and well-being of our children is protected, instead of being undermined.

 

Helpful Websites

 

American College of Pediatricians (ACOP)—A pro-family alternative to the pro-LGBT American Association of Pediatrics (AAP); Excellent resource: “Gender Ideology Harms Children”

 

SexChangeRegret.com—A website by former transsexual Walt Heyer

 

MassResistance.org—A site that does excellent work exposing LGBTQ activism

 

FactsAboutYouth.com—Produced by the American College of Pediatricians (ACOP)

 

NARTH.com and the Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity—Websites that present scholarly research from opponents of “gay” advocates; provide evidence for pro-heterosexual change through therapy; defend right to treatment for people seeking to overcome unwanted same-sex attractions

 

Mastering Life Ministries—Features dozens of heart-warming ex-“gay” video testimonials and is founded by former homosexual David Kyle Foster; a Christian site that also contains resources on overcoming: sex and porn addiction, child sexual abuse and transgender confusion

 

CDC has a site on STDs and Gay & Bisexual Men—The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is strongly pro-homosexual, but its reports provide ample evidence on the relationship between homosexual/bisexual behavior and disease. Start here.

 

RobGagnon.net—A site by Prof. Robert Gagnon, a leading authority on the Bible and homosexuality

 

Help 4 Families—A transgender resource, a Christian ministry to families of transsexuals headed up by Denise Shick, whose own father desired to be a woman

 

mygenes.co.nz—Dr. Neil Whitehead’s “My Genes” website; a leading site presenting academic research debunking genetic homosexuality; Dr. Whitehead is the author of My Genes Made Me Do It: Homosexuality and the Scientific Evidence

 

Public Discourse—Witherspoon Institute site with excellent essays on homosexuality and gender issues

 

Heritage Foundation—Heritage Foundation discusses family and marriage issues; has excellent public policy research

 

AmericansForTruth.org – Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) reports on and confronts the homosexual/transgender agenda.

 

____________

Peter LaBarbera is president of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH.org), and a former reporter for the Washington Times. He can be reached by email: americansfortruth@gmail.com

 

©2016 by Accuracy in Media. All Right Reserved.

 

Donate to AIM

 

 

Email Dumps Continue To Undermine Clinton Candidacy


More disconcerting lies are exposed on Hillary’s emails and Obama collusion in Benghazigate cover-up. AND yet the Mainstream Media Left leaners are still making excuses for Hillary and Obama.

JRH 7/7/15

Please Support NCCR

**************************

Email Dumps Continue To Undermine Clinton Candidacy

Posted by TMH

By Roger Aronoff

July 6, 2015 8:48 am

Originally: Accuracy in Media

NoisyRoom.net

Hillary Clinton’s reputation is taking repeated blows as the drip, drip, drip of email productions from her private email server draw attention to her many lies. The Obama administration has admitted that she did not, in fact, turn over all the necessary emails from her private mail server to the government. It also has released nearly 3,000 pages of emails implicating members of the Obama administration in their own lies.

As Vice President Joe Biden appears to be preparing to jump in the race for the Democratic nomination later this summer, questions are also emerging as to whether or not the Obama administration is throwing Hillary under the bus through these emails.

Each new batch of these emails expose additional lies made by the Obama administration and Mrs. Clinton, despite MSNBC, Newsweek, and other news organizations maintaining that there is little to be found. This is the same treatment that the Benghazi scandal has regularly received.

“…I hear it all the time from your previous guest and others, is that seven or eight previous congressional committees looked into Benghazi,” said chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi Trey Gowdy (R-SC) on CBS’ Face the Nation on June 28. “Well, none of those other committees looked at a single one of her e-mails… So our committee has done things that none of those seven other committees were able to do.”

The Committee has also gained access to the documents from the Accountability Review Board investigation which failed to interview Secretary of State Clinton—documents which were not turned over to other members of Congress. It also recently received information related to Clinton aides Jake Sullivan and Cheryl Mills, as well as former United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice.

As Accuracy in Media (AIM) asked when the Clinton email scandal initially broke, the key question is what did President Obama and Secretary Clinton “know, and when did they know it?” A recent set of emails obtained by Judicial Watch confirms that the White House coordinated with the State Department on the night of the attack to make Mrs. Clinton’s statement blaming it on a YouTube video the official U.S. government line.

But for the media, it’s old news and hardly worth a mention. Their tactic is, whenever possible, to repeat assertions by various administration supporters that the Benghazi investigation is a partisan witch hunt.

When the first set of emails was produced, the media dismissed those emails as revealing no relationship between Mrs. Clinton and the security situation in Libya or an order to stand down. That’s not surprising, since reporters made similar claims before they actually saw the emails.

The excuses offered by the media are further attempts to throw sand in the eyes of the public. These emails were first stored on a private email server under Mrs. Clinton’s control, then vetted by her advisors, and then partially redacted by a State Department with a vested interest in ensuring that Mrs. Clinton’s reputation, and its own, are preserved.

In other words, the State Department emails were Hillary Clinton’s and the Obama administration’s attempt at self-exoneration.

The media now complain that the mission of the Select Committee on Benghazi has become overbroad, wasteful, and doesn’t focus on the attack. Yet many in the media focused on the cost of this investigation, and Democrat accusations that it is wasteful and duplicative, even when the Committee was narrowly focusing on the attack.

“She said that the public record was complete,” noted Rep. Gowdy on CBS. “You will remember in her single press conference she said that she had turned over everything related to work to the Department of State. We know that that is false.”

As for the emails from Sidney Blumenthal being unsolicited, “We know that that was false,” he said. “So, so far, she also said that she had a single device for convenience,” he continued.

“So every explanation she’s offered so far is demonstrably false.”

It’s even worse than that. As Kimberly Strassel reported for The Wall Street Journal, we now “know that the State Department has now upgraded at least 25 of Mrs. Clinton’s emails to ‘classified’ status. State is suggesting this is no big deal, noting that it is ‘routine’ to upgrade material during the public-disclosure process. But that’s beside the point. This isn’t about after-the-fact disclosure. It’s about security at the time—whether Mrs. Clinton was sending and storing sensitive government information on a hackable private email system. Turns out, she was. For the record, it is a federal crime to ‘knowingly’ house classified information at an ‘unauthorized location.’”

In addition, Strassel stated that “The real bombshell news was the State Department’s admission that, in at least six instances, the Clinton team altered the emails before handing them over. Sentences or entire paragraphs—which, by the way, were work-related—were removed. State was able to confirm this because it could double-check against Mr. Blumenthal’s documents.” Strassel wonders, “But how many more of the 30,000 emails Mrs. Clinton provided have also been edited?”

Apparently Blumenthal, long time hatchet man for the Clintons, was not prepared to withhold documents from the Select Committee, and risk a contempt citation. Instead he chose, in effect, to throw Mrs. Clinton under the bus.

The Obama administration has now asserted executive privilege to withhold a “small number” of documents from the Select Committee, reports Byron York. The plot thickens.

“He sent me unsolicited emails, which I passed on in some instances, and I see that that’s just part of the give-and-take,” Mrs. Clinton told the press in May.

“I’m going to Paris tomorrow night and will meet w TNC [Transitional National Council] leaders so this additional info useful,” wrote Clinton to Blumenthal on August 30, 2011. “Let me know if you receive this,” she writes.

“This strains credulity based on what I know,” writes Clinton in another email. “Any other info about it?”

That particular April 2012 email exchange, in which Blumenthal says he will “seek more intel,” does not appear in the State Department’s documents. But an exchange between close Clinton aide Jacob Sullivan and Christopher Stevens using that same Blumenthal information does. Sullivan forwarded Stevens’ response to Hillary Clinton within 15 minutes.

Stevens was appointed Ambassador to Libya in late May of 2012. On July 6, 2012 the State Department’s Charlene Lamb told Regional Security Officer at Embassy Tripoli Eric Nordstrom “NO, I do not [I repeat] not want them to ask for the MSD [security] team to stay!”

That same day, Blumenthal sent Clinton another memo regarding the Libyan election. “Greetings from Kabul! And thanks for keeping this stuff coming!” she replied the next morning, on July 7. Within a couple of hours her aide, Sullivan, had again sent the memo to Ambassador Stevens, and Stevens provided his impressions of Blumenthal’s information promptly. Sullivan again sent Stevens’ communication on to Mrs. Clinton in under 20 minutes.

If these lines of communication were open through her aides, how much did Mrs. Clinton actually know about the security situation in Libya, and when did she know it?

Blumenthal received $10,000 a month from the Clinton Foundation at the same time that he provided his assistance to the Secretary of State, also serving as “an on-and-off paid consultant for Media Matters.”

One of his 2011 emails released by the State Department warns that al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb might be inspired by the death of Osama bin Laden to conduct attacks on American and western targets using weapons they had diverted from the Libyan rebels.

Clinton forwarded the May 2, 2011 email from Blumenthal regarding al Qaeda to Sullivan with the words, “disturbing, if true.”

AQIM participated in the Benghazi attacks, according to the Senate. A Defense Intelligence Agency message dated September 12, 2012 indicates that the Benghazi attacks were planned ten or more days in advance by al Qaeda elements partially in revenge for a U.S. killing in Pakistan. As Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton received that message, yet continued to blame the YouTube video, as did others in the Obama administration.

As we have repeatedly argued, America already knows enough to demonstrate that there is, and continues to be, a widespread cover-up of the many aspects of the Benghazi scandal.

“The public record has already established that President Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, AFRICOM’s Carter Ham, and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey were all told that the assault in Benghazi was a terrorist attack almost immediately after they began,” we reported in May. “Yet the President and his administration still continued to blame a YouTube video titled ‘The Innocence of Muslims.’”

Also, we reported, “the former Secretary of State’s aides became aware that this was a terrorist attack about a half an hour after the initial attack began on the Special Mission Compound…”

Any additional information the Select Committee finds on Benghazi, Blumenthal, or Clinton’s role in the scandal can only confirm the breadth and depth of the dereliction of duty that took place. Yet the media argue that this has somehow become a political circus because the Committee is exploring the background of someone informing Clinton’s Libya policy.

AIM’s articles, along with the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi, have exposed how the administration blindly pushed for an intervention in Libya, switched sides in the War on Terror, and passed over an opportunity for a truce with Muammar Qaddafi. It defies reason to continue to report that broader administration actions had little to no influence on creating the climate and circumstances which led to the death of four Americans in Benghazi.

________________________

© 2015 NoisyRoom.net