“I will tell you this, by witness testimony and a year and a half of interviewing everyone that was in the ground by the way, either by an FBI investigator or the committee: It was very clear to the individuals on the ground that this was an Al Qaeda-led event. And they had pretty fairly descriptive events early on that lead those folks on the ground, doing the fighting, to the conclusion that this was a pre-planned, organized terrorist event,” Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., told Fox News in a November interview.

“Not a video, that whole part was debunked time and time again,” Rogers added of the attack which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, Foreign Service officer Sean Smith and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, “which just leads to questions of why the administration hung with that narrative for so long when all the folks who participated on the ground saw something different.”

The comments challenged the findings of a New York Times “investigation” which pointed instead to local militias and claimed an anti-Islam video played a role in inciting the attackers.

Asked in November what might explain the initial narrative that an anti-Islam film triggered the attack, Rogers did not answer directly but said all evidence points to the State Department, whose leadership skirted the security requirements for the Benghazi mission. “We think we can fairly sense what was going on here and I will tell you, the answers, I think, are going to lie within the State Department and the decision-making in the State Department,” he said. “Lots of questions to be answered there.”

In the same interview,  Rogers also suggested there were attempts to connect between the assailants and the Al Qaeda senior leadership in Pakistan. “I can tell you we know the participants of the event were clearly Al Qaeda affiliates, had strong interest and desire to communicate with Al Qaeda core and others, in the process — we believe before and after the event.”

While there was no immediate response from the White House, State Department, National Security Council or Rogers to a New York Times investigation that “turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault,”  the Republican congressman who leads the House Intelligence Committee has consistently maintained, in on-the-record interviews, that the attack was premeditated terrorism and not linked to the anti-Islam film initially blamed by the Obama White House.

One day after the assault, on September 12, 2012, Rogers was among the first on Capitol Hill to describe the strike as a pre-planned attack. “I have no doubt it was a coordinated, military style commando-type raid that had both direct fire and indirect fire, military movements involved in it. This was a well-planned, well-targeted event. No doubt about it.”

Separately, an intelligence source on the ground in Libya told Fox News on September 17, 2012, one day after Susan Rice’s controversial claims on the Sunday talk shows that linked the attack to the video, that there was no demonstration outside the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi prior to the attack — challenging the Obama administration’s claims that the assault grew out of a “spontaneous” protest against the film.

“There was no protest and the attacks were not spontaneous,” the source said, adding the attack “was planned and had nothing to do with the movie.”

The source said the assault came with no warning at about 9:35 p.m. local time, and included fire from more than two locations. The assault included RPG’s and mortar fire, the source said, and consisted of two waves.

In subsequent on-the-record interviews, as more has been learned about the attack, Rogers laid out a timeline which further supported the initial assessment of pre-meditated terrorism. “I believe that they had an operational phase that lasted at least a couple of weeks, maybe even longer,” Rogers told Fox in an October 2013 interview. “Then an initiation phase that lasted a couple or three days prior to the event itself.”

“It is accurate that of the group being targeted by the bureau (FBI) at this point, there’s strong Al Qaeda ties,”  Rogers said. “You can still be considered to have strong ties because you are in the ring of operations of Al Qaeda core. … There are individuals that certainly fit that definition.”

Separately, Fox News was first to report, based on sources familiar with the investigation who were not authorized to discuss the case with the media,  that at least two of the key suspects in the Benghazi terror attack were at one point working with Al Qaeda senior leadership. Fox News was told that one suspect was believed to be a courier for the network, and the other a bodyguard in Afghanistan prior to the 2001 terror attacks.

The direct historic ties to Al Qaeda senior leadership appear to undercut early characterizations by the Obama administration that the attackers in Benghazi were isolated “extremists” with no organizational structure or affiliation. After the attack,  Faraj al-Chalabi — believed to be a former bodyguard for the network — traveled to Pakistan, where he was detained, returned to Libya and eventually released before the FBI was granted access.

A former Guantanamo detainee, Sufian bin Qumu, who is suspected of training some of the operatives who took part in the assault, was in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, according to a knowledgeable source.  Fox News was told last fall that the intelligence community was trying to determine whether he played any role directing the attack and whether he was physically on or near the consulate grounds.

While the New York Times investigation puts significant weight behind the video explanation, an independent analysis of social media traffic in Benghazi found that the first reference to the anti-Islam film was not detected until a day after the assault. The independent review of more than 4,000 postings was conducted by a leading social media monitoring firm in December 2012.

“From the data we have, it’s hard for us to reach the conclusion that the consulate attack was motivated by the movie. Nothing in the immediate picture – surrounding the attack in Libya — suggests that,” Jeff Chapman, chief executive with Agincourt Solutions told Fox News three months after the assault.

Chapman said his analysts reviewed postings in Libya, including those from Benghazi, over a three-day period beginning on September 11. After identifying a geographic area and isolating a time frame, analysts “vacuumed” up the social media postings, which were then analyzed and translated.

“We have seen no traffic in Benghazi – in the immediate lead up to the attack – related to the anti-Islam film,” Chapman said. “There is a single source reporting on the evening of 9/11 that roads leading to the U.S. consulate in Benghazi were blocked. We also believe we have identified at least one individual who may have been involved – based on our analysis – that he posted a picture of himself attacking the consulate with an RPG.”

The first reference to the anti-Islam film, initially blamed by the Obama administration for provoking the violent attack in Benghazi, appears to be a retweet of a Russia Today story that was not posted until September 12 at 9:12 a.m. local time. The translation reads, “U.S. ambassador killed in Libya during his his country’s consulate in Benghazi – Russia today http://t.co/SvAV0o7T response to the film abuser.”

While the New York Times investigation found “Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests” a State Department classified cable directly conflicts with the claim. A review of an August 2012 classified cable, by Fox News, shows Al Qaeda was active in Benghazi and the fact was known to the CIA and the State department on the ground.

The U.S. Mission in Benghazi convened an “emergency meeting” less than a month before the assault that concluded Al Qaeda had training camps in Benghazi and the consulate could not defend against a “coordinated attack.”

The authenticity of the classified cable, addressed to the office of then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, has never been challenged. And while then Defense Secretary Leon Panettta, and the chairman of the joint chiefs, Martin Dempsey told lawmakers during congressional hearings on Benghazi that they were briefed on the cable, Mrs. Clinton claimed it was not brought to her attention.

The cable marked “SECRET” summarized an August 15, 2012 emergency meeting convened by the U.S. Mission in Benghazi. It states that the State Department’s senior security officer, also known as the RSO, did not believe the consulate could be protected.

“RSO (Regional Security Officer) expressed concerns with the ability to defend Post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support, and the overall size of the compound,” the cable said.

According to a review of the cable, the Emergency Action Committee was also briefed “on the location of approximately ten Islamist militias and AQ training camps within Benghazi … these groups ran the spectrum from Islamist militias, such as the QRF Brigade and Ansar al-Sharia, to ‘Takfirist thugs.'” Each U.S. mission has a so-called Emergency Action Committee that is responsible for security measures and emergency planning.

In addition to describing the security situation in Benghazi as “trending negatively,” the cable said explicitly that the mission would ask for more help. “In light of the uncertain security environment, US Mission Benghazi will submit specific requests to US Embassy Tripoli for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs by separate cover.” The details in the cable seemed to foreshadow the deadly September 11 attack on the U.S. compound.

While the administration’s public statements have suggested that the attack came without warning, the August 16 cable undercuts those claims. It was a direct warning to the State Department that the Benghazi consulate was vulnerable to attack, that it could not be defended and that the presence of anti-U.S. militias and Al Qaeda was well-known to the U.S. intelligence community.

The New York Times investigation also makes passing reference to the second wave of the attack on the CIA base, which included mortar fire, as “improvised that night.”  The second wave of the assault killed former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty who were defending the CIA annex from its roof top.

CIA personnel who testified on Capitol Hill in early December provided first hand accounts of the attack’s premeditation, according to the Republican lawmaker who is leading the subcommittee investigation.

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga., told Fox News in an on-the-record interview, after the closed, classified session that all of the witnesses (eight total witnesses have now testified) were on the same page about the nature of the mortar attack.

“These were trained people and … it was an attack. It wasn’t over any type of film or propaganda,” Westmoreland emphasized, referring to the administration’s initial claims that an anti-Islam film triggered protests that led to the attack. “We don’t know why the administration would have ever thought any differently,” Westmoreland said. “Other than that them and the State Department were trying to make sure that they were covered because of the unpreparedness they were in.”

The witnesses also testified that the mortar fire was accurate, professional and likely the work of a trained mortar team, which they believed included a spotter. Sources familiar with the testimony said the first mortar was about 25 meters short of the target, the second was closer and the next three were direct hits.

This is consistent with previous testimony that five mortars were fired in quick succession;previous witnesses testified those mortars were fired in under a minute. The New York Times investigation describes “people lingering in a nearby pasture, stirring fears that they were plotting coordinates for launching a mortar attack.”

When the CIA personnel were asked for their reaction to the administration’s initial explanation that an anti-Islam video and a demonstration gone awry were to blame for the attack, Fox News is told they were seething with anger because everything on the ground — from their perspective — showed it was a premeditated attack.

Some counterterrorism analysts concur with the assessment, describing the mortars used to strike the CIA annex in the second wave of the attack as potentially “smoking gun” evidence — as mortars require skill and training to fire, and typically must be pre-positioned during daylight hours to ensure accuracy.  If the mortar attack in the early morning hours of September 12th was spontaneous, the plates would have been set without a direct line of sight to the target because of the night sky; a scenario described as unlikely by military sources who have worked with mortars.

The opposing analysis is that the mortars were successfully set, and the assailants did not bring significant equipment with them to suggest pre-planning.

Catherine Herridge is an award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC) based in Washington, D.C. She covers intelligence, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Herridge joined FNC in 1996 as a London-based correspondent.

In yet another openly hostile, in-your-face act of intimidation against anyone who dares to disagree with the “Religion of Peace,” 57 Muslim countries around the world are now coming together to pressure Western countries into silencing and prosecuting any and all criticism of Islam as a “hate crime.”

As Investor’s Business Daily explains, it is all happening under the banner of a Saudi-based group called the “Organization of Islamic Cooperation,” which released its 94-page document on “Islamophobia” (noticing Islamic violence is fear-based bigotry) in recent weeks.

If this calculated attempt to obliterate all dissent has its way, it will officially become a felony in the U.S. and Europe for citizens to even suggest “that Muslims are inclined to violence” or that “Islam is an inherently expansionist religion.”

Never mind the fact that huge portions of Muslims in countries all around the world admittedly believe  that homosexuals, adulterers and non-believers should be put to death, support suicide bombing civilians, and endorse honor killings.

Or that these are the same people who routinely stone women to death for being raped, who erupt into murderous worldwide riots over cartoons, and who danced in the streets on 9/11.

Or that Islam was founded at the tip of a sword. Or that its Koran openly teaches violent jihad against all non-believers. Or that Islam has remained entrenched in self-initiated carnage in every corner of the world since its bloody inception.

Islam revolves around violent expansion and conquest. Every last thing that in any way indicates something about a religion confirms this–its history, its founder, its teachings, its followers…everything.

But noticing this or objecting in any way is to be condemned and persecuted as “hate speech.” Instead, we are to believe that approximately one abortion clinic bombing per decade makes Christians the dangerous extremists here…while Islam is just a misunderstood “religion of peace.”

Incidentally, it is also worth noting that the “pro-tolerance,” “pro-diversity” liberals who defend Islam as it murders, mutilates and enslaves women across the globe are the very same champions of civility who vindictively smear anyone who objects to limitless taxpayer-funded abortions and contraceptives as being “at war with women.”

By Kevin Hall

When Rob Taylor rolled down his car window on Christmas Eve and handed money to an apparently down on his luck man, the state representative from West Des Moines, Iowa had no idea it was he who was about to receive a wondrous gift.

The man was dressed in shabby clothes and holding a sign indicating he was homeless. The temperature was below 15 degrees, but the man’s spirits seemed warm. He was cheerfully saying “Merry Christmas” to passersby.

Taylor felt moved to help this obviously destitute man. He grabbed the cash in his wallet and handed it over. The man responded with a gift for Taylor. Later that night, Rep. Taylor called it the most beautiful & thoughtful Christmas present one could ever wish for.

Taylor’s gift was an envelope, containing the letter below and $10.

Rep. Taylor was deeply moved by the man’s actions. He immediately shared the letter and story on social media. The gift has spurred the Taylor family to increase their charitable donations. A day letter, Rob Taylor was still awestruck by his dealings with “Jonnie”.

“His action was one of the kindest and most Christian thing that I’ve ever witnessed,” Taylor told TheIowaRepublican.com. “I left Jonnie a voicemail yesterday that Christi and I intend on donating to an unnamed Christian charity because of his letter and the $10 he gave to me. What he did yesterday brought tears to my eyes. The world needs more Jonnies!”

Jonnie Wright was the man portraying a homeless panhandler. Wright is a customer relations consultant. He spent a total of four hours posing as a homeless man on Christmas Eve, in Des Moines and Ames. It was something he has spent a long time thinking about, as a way to give back to the community.

Wright says he has spent many years struggling to do the right thing. He burned through jobs and relationships. He was always looking for something better, never realizing the change needed to come from within.

Wright says he eventually “blew myself up” in order to rebuild from rock bottom. Along the way, he prayed for guidance from the Lord. Now, a changed man, Jonnie Wright is following through on his promise to God. He will give back, for the greater good.

“I am compelled to not only give back but also to help inspire others to perhaps do the same,” Wright told TheIowaRepublican.com. “There were people along my journey who helped inspire me to work through my pain and darkness, to find my way out of my self-created abyss and it is for them and for those who continue to struggle and suffer that I do what I do, for the greater glory of God. I am incredibly humbled by the response to this.”

Those who know Jonnie Wright find him to be one of the most creative people they have ever met. Fittingly, Wright found a very imaginative way to give back. On Christmas Eve, Wright made 50 copies of the letter he gave to Rob Taylor. He attached varying amounts of money to each and stuffed them in 50 envelopes.

Wright donned some ragged clothes that were less than suitable for the freezing temperatures and he spent hours giving back to those who generously helped someone they believed was less fortunate than them. Each time someone stopped to donate, Wright handed that person an envelope.

“Thinking I was homeless, people stopped and gave me cash,” Wright said. “They searched through wallets and purses for paper money and change. They scurried to round up change in their cars. Some drove to ATM’s and returned with cash.”

The response was better than Jonnie Wright could have imagined. Here is one of the many touching stories he shared on Facebook:

“Maria was the first to stop and donate in Des Moines. Her envelope contained $100. She left a voice message on my cell phone and, in tears, said, “I only had $16 but I saw you and wanted to help so I bought some donuts and gave them to you along with a dollar. I have a Christmas get-together with my family tonight and I didn’t know how I was going to get gifts for everybody. Now I can.”

Many people Jonnie Wright interacted with on Christmas Eve called him later that night or the next day. Not only were they thankful for the gift, they were joyous for the unique way their brief meeting helped encapsulate the spirit of the Christmas season.

“The ironic connections and incredible moments of fate over the past 24 hours are, to me, the living breathing proof that there is no coincidence, there is no fate, there is God, and that those who do not believe in him really aren’t paying attention,” Wright said.

Altogether, to aid this seemingly homeless man on Christmas Eve, people donated $363.02, three pepperoni sandwiches, two donuts, a pack of M&M’s, an apple and a pair of gloves. On Christmas Day, Jonnie Wright gave food, the gloves and $1,000 to the Bethel Mission, a men’s emergency shelter that serves Des Moines’ inner city.

Jonnie Wright’s unique experiment of giving back for the greater good touched many lives in ways he could not have imagined. On a day where millions of people around the world celebrated the spirit of giving, Jonnie Wright captured the essence of that feeling and shared it with a few fortunate Iowa souls.

“I have no adequate words,” Wright said. “I have cried like a baby over and over these last two days, at once humbled, at once broken, at once euphoric. I can’t spread my arms wide enough to show how full of love and joy my heart is. I am a customer service trainer but today I have been humbled by how little I know or understand about the power of human kindness.”

Looking back on his interaction with Jonnie Wright, the Christmas Spirit stirred in Rob Taylor in ways that it never had before.

“It brought tears to my eyes and made me so grateful to be a Believer,” Taylor said.

About the Author;

Kevin Hall brings almost two decades of journalistic experience to TheIowaRepublican. Starting in college as a radio broadcaster, Hall eventually became a television anchor/reporter for stations in North Carolina, Missouri, and Iowa. During the 2007 caucus cycle, Hall changed careers and joined the political realm. He was the northwest Iowa field director for Fred Thompson’s presidential campaign. Hall helped Terry Branstad return to the governor’s office by organizing southwest Iowa for Branstad’s 2010 campaign. Hall serves as a reporter/columnist for TheIowaRepublican.com.

LANSING – Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette today announced the U.S. Supreme Court granted review of a pair of cases dealing with religious liberty and First Amendment freedoms. The two cases are Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius. Michigan wrote the multi-state amici brief in support of the Conestoga case on behalf of Michigan, Ohio, and sixteen other states. Arguments before the court are expected to be held March 2014. Under the mandate promulgated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), employers would have to provide insurance coverage that includes abortion-inducing drugs, regardless of whether it violates their religious beliefs.

“Religious liberty is America’s first freedom. I am pleased our nation’s highest court will hear arguments to defend the First Amendment for all, not just a few dictated by the federal government,” said Schuette. 

“Any rule, regulation or law that forces private job-creators to violate their free exercise of religion is a flat-out violation of the Constitution.”

Several Michigan-based businesses have filed their own challenges to the HHS mandate, including Autocam Corp, Domino’s Farms, Weingartz Supply Company, Eden Foods, and Mersino Management, all which Schuette supports.

Click here to read the brief filed by Schuette in support of Conestoga Wood: http://bit.ly/17R56n7

Schuette’s efforts to challenge the unconstitutional HHS mandate are the latest in a comprehensive effort to defend religious liberty for Michigan citizens:

• In 2011, Schuette filed an amicus brief on behalf of eight states in support of religious liberty in a significant case involving the right of religious organizations to manage their religious employees without government interference.  In January 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously (9-0) agreed with Schuette and upheld the right of religious organizations to manage their religious employees without government interference in the case Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission et al. 
• Schuette also filed an amicus brief in support of Julea Ward, a former Eastern Michigan University student who is suing the university in federal court for violating her constitutional rights after she was dismissed from a graduate counseling program due to her religious beliefs.  On January 27, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th District agreed with Schuette that Ward had a right to trial and reversed the lower court ruling dismissing her case.  In December 2012, the university settled the case with Ward for $75,000.

By Larry Kudlow

Did Paul Ryan’s budget deal save the Republican party from itself? I think it did.

Everyone acknowledges that Ryan-Murray is not a great deal. But the fact is, its passage will avoid a government shutdown. That’s crucial.

If the GOP wants to retake the Senate and hold the House in 2014, the key issues must be the catastrophic pitfalls of Obamacare and better economic growth. A shutdown would be a distraction. It would take the heat off Obama and Obamacare, and all the Democrats who falsely promised that if you like your insurance and doctor, you can keep them.

Obama’s “like it, keep it” promise was just named the lie of the year in the annual PolitiFact survey. Reminding voters of that lie is much more important than a government shutdown — which would be blamed on Republicans anyway. Millions more people will be uninsured over the next year than those who are newly insured. At the very least, hundreds of thousands of people who thought they enrolled in Obamacare via the website will find out they are not enrolled. Sick people will lose their doctors and probably their hospitals. Healthy younger people will by and large boycott Obamacare.

In economic terms, Obamacare taxes and regulations are holding back business investing and hiring. And I can add another 5,000 words on the flaws of this state-run health plan. But suffice it to say, those very flaws must be a key ingredient in a Republican takeover next November.

Sure, there are a lot of disappointments with Ryan-Murray. Even Ryan agrees. The worst is that only 70 percent of the sequester is left over the next two years. And although Ryan believes the caps will be restored to 90 percent, that’s probably a triumph of hope over experience. The budget caps of the last couple of years have brought down the level of spending and its share of GDP, thereby functioning as a pro-growth tax cut. Losing that discipline is my biggest problem with the deal. But if there’s a Republican Senate and House in 2015, chances of restoring a large measure of budget discipline are better than if the Republicans lose both houses.

The purest path for the budget talks would have been a clean bill keeping all the sequestration budget cuts. But the votes were never there in the House. Defense hawks and others would have left that bill short by 40 to 50 Republican votes. And Democrats would never have supported it. Hence the shutdown threat.

Ryan knew all this. So he went to work with Senator Patty Murray on a common-ground compromise that pleased no one fully but at least temporarily got the job done and took the shutdown off the table.

And in my view, the GOP got the better of this deal. The spending increases are tiny and there are no income-tax hikes. The sequester itself is not dead. And a costly extension of unemployment insurance never made it in the bill.

The Democrats wanted an end to sequestration and a big tax hike and got neither. And Ryan was able to get minor entitlement reforms with larger co-pays for federal employee retirements, and a small COLA reduction for younger military retirees who find second careers after leaving the armed forces. And the costs of the federal guarantee of private corporate pension benefits will be raised.

Yes, airport fees are going up. That’s a nuisance. But the overall numbers are palatable, with $63 billion in higher spending, $85 billion in so-called fees and other spending cuts, and possible a net deficit reduction of $25 billion.

It’s a political solution, not a fiscal one.

But Senate Republicans could be on the verge of a big political mistake. Senator Mitch McConnell is leading the charge to vote against this deal. He may have a lot of support. But with all due respect, this is a hypocritical position. It was McConnell and other GOP senators who trashed senators Cruz and Lee and House Republicans over the defunding shutdown last summer. Now Mr. McConnell wants a shutdown? Makes no sense.

Fortunately for Republicans, the Obamacare disaster erased the political downside of the shutdown. Paul Ryan understands this. And the really strong Ryan budget — which he put forth in recent years, and includes entitlement and pro-growth tax reform — would have a lot better chance if Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and then claimed the White House in 2016. A small watering down of budget caps seems like a small price to pay on the road to controlling Washington.

Ryan says he has the presidency in the back of his mind. Well, fine. But meanwhile, in the run-up to next year’s election, he may have saved the GOP from itself.

To find out more about Lawrence Kudlow and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

A Three-Step Republican Response