Muslim immigrants in Sweden now total slightly more than 6 percent of the population, providing additional support for the maxim that a Muslim population of 5 percent is a tipping point for political turmoil. In other countries, Muslim immigrants at that point have begun to seek concessions, including, typically, the right to govern themselves by Shariah, or Islamic law.

In Sweden, the Muslim population has doubled in the last 14 years, with Muslims now accounting for over 41 percent of Sweden’s total population growth. The growth reflects not only increasing Islamic immigration but also a disproportionately high birth rate in a nation in which the native birth rate is trending toward zero-growth.

According to European Union statistics, an estimated 574,000 Muslims lived in Sweden in 2012, making up 6.05 percent of the population, compared to 1998, when there were 284,000 Muslims, or 3.21 percent of the total population.

The EU currently estimates that at current rates of growth, the Muslim population will reach 40 percent of the total population in Sweden by 2030.

While Sweden does not keep welfare statistics specifically for Muslims, experts estimate from available government welfare statistics on the foreign-born that somewhere between 70 and 80 percent of Sweden’s welfare payments go to Muslims, with the percentage on the rise.

In Stockholm, the rioting in recent days has centered on Husby, a low-income suburb of Stockholm with some 12,000 residents. Approximately 80 percent are first- or second-generation Muslim immigrants from Turkey, the Middle East and Somalia.

Swedish police estimated that about 200 Muslim youths were responsible for the violence last week that set hundreds of cars and several buildings on fire with Molotov cocktails, including a parking garage fire that forced the evacuation of residents of an adjacent apartment block.

After setting cars on fire, masked Muslim youths waited to pelt with rocks any police responding to calls.

Husby residents claimed the violence was in retaliation for the police shooting death May 13 of a 69-year-old man. The police claim they were acting in self-defense, shooting the man after he attacked police with a machete when they broke down the door to an apartment where the man had locked himself up with the woman.

Several YouTube videos by amateurs show graphically the violence in Husby beginning May 19.

Reports indicate Megafonen, a “youth activist group” funded by the city, planned the Husby riots. Police in riot gear scuffled with Muslim gangs roaming freely in Husby. Some 200 organized Muslim youth rioters armed with rocks and Molotov cocktails stood near the burning cars awaiting to pelt with rocks and Molotov cocktails police and fire departments responding.

The Muslim riots in the suburbs outside Stockholm bear a strong resemblance to the Muslim riots that began Oct. 27, 2005, in suburbs outside Paris.

Several common elements between the rioting in France in 2005, and again in 2012, with the rioting currently occurring in Stockholm:

• Unemployed Muslim youth immigrants from welfare families relocated from Africa to Europe begin the riot in early evening by tossing Molotov cocktails to set parked cars on fire;
• The violence is intensified and spread by mobs of Muslim gangs running wild through the suburb streets, spreading to the area in which cars and buildings are torched;
• When police and fire department units respond, the Muslim rioters lie in wait to pelt them with rocks, sticks and Molotov cocktails.

In February, the Economist reported that in Sweden, only 51 percent of non-Europeans have a job, compared with over 84 percent of native Swedes.

“The Nordic countries need to persuade their citizens that they are getting a good return on their taxes,” the Economist noted, “but mass immigration is creating a class of people who are permanently dependent upon the state.”

In Sweden, 26 percent of all prisoners and 50 percent of prisoners serving more than five years are foreigners, the Economist detailed.

Nor is the conflict limited to social-demographic characteristics and economics; it also extends to cultural differences.

“Nordics fervently believe in liberal values, especially sexual equality and freedom of speech, but many of the immigrants come from countries where men and women are segregated and criticizing the prophet Muhammad is a serious offense,” the Economist concluded.

Andrew Marcus, the writer and producer of the full-length documentary film “Hating Breitbart,” first met Andrew Breitbart when he was covering the tea party movement in 2010.

“Filming tea party events, I came across Andrew Breitbart and was captivated by his energy and his commitment,” Marcus told WND in an interview. “We approached Breitbart with the idea (of making a film) and Andrew loved it.”

Marcus explained Breitbart had to agree to be followed around for what turned out to be the larger part of two years, without having editorial control over the film.

“Andrew didn’t see the film until we were just about done,” Marcus explained. “He saw the final rough-cut, when we were in the last stages of post-production.”

How did Breitbart react to seeing the film the first time?

“He loved it,” Marcus said, “so much so that he came up with a brilliant idea of how to promote the film.”

‘Occupy Breitbart’

Marcus explained Breitbart’s promotional concept.

“In a flash of intuition, Breitbart came up with the idea of funding the Occupy movement to create and film an ‘Occupy Breitbart’ movement,” Marcus explained.

“The idea was to fund the Occupy movement with an anonymous grant, requiring only that the Occupy movement film every step of their ‘Occupy Breitbart’ production.”

Then, just as “Hating Breitbart” was about to be released, Breitbart planned to hold a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

“Breitbart would then come out on the stage at the National Press Club and announce that he was the ‘anonymous’ who had funded ‘Occupy Breitbart,’” Marcus continued, pointing out the idea was a lot like guerrilla warfare.

“It was a brilliant idea,” Marcus said. “Breitbart wanted to demonstrate the Occupy movement was nothing more than a ‘for-hire’ protest of anarchists with no real message. Breitbart believed that exposing ‘Occupy Breitbart’ as a fraud was the perfect launching pad for what he wanted to say in our ‘Hating Breitbart’ documentary.”

Marcus said what motivated Breitbart was a desire to expose the political left as a “hate machine.”

“Breitbart’s message was that if you don’t go along with the politically correct message of the radical left, then the leftist activists and media turn on you and try to destroy you,” Marcus said.

“Breitbart very much wanted to confront and expose that tactic for what it is – intolerant and hateful. His point was the radical left hates anyone who doesn’t agree with them. ‘Hating Breitbart’ was not only the title of the documentary, it was what Breitbart wanted to explain the radical left was all about.”

Capturing Breitbart

In his tracking of Breitbart for two years, Marcus captured undercover-video activist James O’Keefe strategizing with Breitbart on the release of O’Keefe’s famous “pimp and prostitute” exposure of ACORN.

Marcus documented the political left’s claim that O’Keefe’s and Breitbart’s goal was “not journalism,” but conservative activism.

The charge was about the best the radical left could do to defend itself against Breitbart’s relentless attacks exposing leftist hypocrisy.

Marcus creatively interweaves clips from Breitbart speeches and from television interviews, ranging from Keith Olbermann at MSNBC to Sean Hannity at Fox News, demonstrating Breitbart’s creative political debate skills in a variety of venues.

“If you keep portraying the tea party as homophobic and racist, instead of what they are – American patriots concerned about fiscal responsibility,” Breitbart challenged the media in one clip from a speech in New York City, “then I’m going to organize a tea party protest in downtown Manhattan, and these media liars won’t be able to get out to the Hamptons that weekend.”

Marcus also shows Breitbart’s sensitivity in clips with actor Orson Bean, Breitbart’s father-in-law. In one, Bean explains that when Breitbart first started dating his daughter, Breitbart was surprised to find out Bean was a conservative.

“He was surprised I had a book by Rush Limbaugh,” Bean explained, “but after he read the book, he called me up and said, ‘That’s really interesting.’ Andrew had been to college, and in those years he was a big lefty.”

‘I dodged a bullet’

Breitbart, a 1991 graduate of Tulane University, explains in scenes showing him returning to his college campus that it was probably better he did not take his college days too seriously.

“Had I been going to college at 8 a.m. in a shiny, happy way with a cup of coffee and filled my notes up, I guarantee you I wouldn’t be fighting the left the way that I am,” Breitbart confesses on a New Orleans street outside the Tulane campus. “I probably would have embraced that mindset. So I kind of realize I dodged a bullet.”

One of the best sequences in the documentary shows Breitbart confronting blogger Max Blumenthal, the former senior writer of the Daily Beast, over whether or not Blumenthal called Breitbart a “racist” in print.

Breitbart fearlessly gets in Blumenthal’s face and challenges him to retract what he wrote.

“I have two modes,” Breitbart explains to an audience from the podium. “Mode One is jocularity and Mode Two is righteous indignation.”

Marcus explained to WND he wanted to show the audience that Breitbart lived to confront the radical left with its lies.

From the podium, Breitbart proves Marcus’ point.

“I love confrontation, and by the way, and so should you,” Breitbart tells the audience. “It’s the only way we’re going to win. We have to confront these people. We have to videotape them. We have to put it on the Internet. We have to shove it in the mainstream media’s face saying, ‘No, they’re the racists, they’re the intimidators, they’re ones who are caught on tape being violent.”

Marcus began the documentary with a Breitbart soliloquy that Breitbart ends by carefully articulating a single word with emphasis and meaning. “War!” Breitbart says, summing up much of his journalistic career.

“We have an obligation to confront them,” Breitbart concluded his speech to appreciative applause. “This is a once-in-a-lifetime obligation to take on the institutional left. Please join the fight.”

Controversial even in death

Marcus told WND he had no reason to disbelieve the family’s story that what killed Breitbart was a heart ailment that he did not fully realize he had until a year before his death.

“You have to understand that Breitbart never slept,” Marcus explained. “He would give a speech and then spend hours afterwards with his fans and supporters, only to realize it was morning and he had to rush off to catch an airplane for the next event.”

In May 2012, WND reported Los Angeles private investigator Paul Huebl interviewed Christopher Lasseter, 26, the eyewitness who was walking his dog outside the Brentwood Restaurant when he saw Breitbart leave the restaurant, cross the street and drop dead as he reached the curb.

Lasseter said he did not initially notice anything unusual about how Breitbart looked. When Breitbart reached the curb across the street, Lasseter said he observed, “Breitbart took one step up onto the curb and dropped like a sack of bricks.”

Lasseter said he knew Breitbart was dead as soon as he walked up and looked; he shook off any suggestion he suspected foul play in Breitbart’s death.

WND was never able to locate other witnesses who reportedly claimed that in the days leading up to his death, Breitbart was particularly paranoid that he was being followed.

Movie critics still hate Breitbart

Even in death, Breitbart’s critics on the left continue to hate him.

Evidence of this is the on movie website RottenTomatoes.com, where the “TomatoMeter” shows a grand total of six movie critics give the “Hating Breitbart” documentary a “zero” rating, displayed side-by-side with an audience rating in which 415 viewers rate the documentary “94″ out of a total of “100.”

“Hating Breitbart” is currently being shown in select theaters in some 15 different markets in the United States, as listed on the movie’s official website.

It is available on Amazon.com both as a DVD and for viewing as an Amazon Instant Video. Currently, “Hating Breitbart” is listed in the top 20 documentaries on Amazon.com.

The documentary is also available for viewing on Netflix.com.

The ACLJ represents 27 conservative organizations from 17 states that it claims the IRS targeted.

“The White House continues to pursue a narrative that doesn’t square with the facts,” Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ, told WND in an email.

“The assertion that this targeted abuse ended in May 2012 is simply not the case,” he said.

Get Jerome Corsi’s scorching new exposé of the American Civil Liberties Union, “Bad Samaritans: The ACLU’s Relentless Campaign to Erase Faith From the Public Square”

Sekulow said “intrusive and unlawful questioning continued after May 2012 with 18 of our clients receiving 26 questionnaires from the IRS from May 2012 through May 2013.”

“Even more troubling is the fact that the IRS sent a letter to one of our clients dated May 6, just four days before the IRS admitted to launching this targeting scheme,” he said.

On May 20, White House press secretary Jay Carney in his daily press briefing claimed IRS targeting of conservative groups had ended in May 2012.

Two days later, Carney changed his story, adding a year to the timeline.

On May 22, Carney told the press President Obama had acted immediately after the release of the inspector general audit of the IRS, taking steps to make sure the agency practice of targeting conservative groups had come to an end: “Let me say that, as you heard from the president immediately after the release of the independent inspector general’s audit, he is absolutely committed to finding out everything that happened here, finding out who’s responsible for the failures, holding them accountable and ensuring that the IRS take steps so that this will never happen again.”

The Treasury Department inspector general for tax administration released its audit in early May. On May 10, Lois Lerner, then director of the IRS Exempt Organizations Division, told reporters the targeting of conservative groups was “absolutely inappropriate,” suggesting the actions were undertaken by “front-line people” working in Cincinnati who singled out groups with “tea party,” “patriot” or “9/12”in their names.

In filing a federal lawsuit against the IRS, the ACLJ has concluded the White House is covering up continuing abuse, implying that Carney’s statement of President Obama’s orders to the IRS has no basis in fact.

“The intrusive and unconstitutional conduct continues – with the IRS demanding donor lists and even requesting lists of what reading materials that organizations used,” Sekulow charged.

“It’s our belief that the only way to stop this ongoing abuse is to take the federal government to court. We are planning to file a federal lawsuit next week in Washington, D.C., on behalf of numerous organizations. This abusive conduct by the IRS must be stopped.”

26 IRS letters

The ACLJ has documented that since May 2012, the date the White House initially said the targeting stopped, the ACLJ received 26 IRS questionnaires sent to 18 clients.

The 26 IRS letters posed further intrusive and intimidating questions, including demanding donor lists and requesting lists of what reading materials the organizations used, with the latest inquiry coming just days before the IRS revealed its targeting scheme.

None of the IRS questionnaires received by the ACLJ in the 26 IRS letters have been rescinded by the IRS, made inoperative or been revised since the release of the inspector general’s audit earlier this month – the second date the White House said Obama had order the abusive and possibly illegal practice to end.

The ACLJ rejects the IRS contention the abuse was limited to a few low-level employees in Cincinnati.

“While letters were sent from that office, our clients received letters sent from other IRS offices around the country – including two in California and from the main office in Washington D.C.,” he said. “There is no question that the IRS scheme emanated from beyond the IRS office in Cincinnati.”

To prove its point, the ACLJ linked to letters the IRS sent ACLJ clients from the IRS offices in Laguna Nigel, Calif.; El Monte, Calif.; Cincinnati; and Washington, D.C.

Acting IRS commissioner also lying?

Attorney Cleta Mitchell, a partner in the Washington-based law firm Foley & Lardner extends the ACLJ accusations to claim acting IRS Commissioner Steven T. Miller made serious misstatements and misrepresentations in his testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee earlier May 17.

Foley & Lardner has more than 40 years of experience in law, politics and public policy, including providing legal advice to non-profit and issue organizations.

Specifically, Mitchell objected to Miller’s claim that “foolish mistakes were made by people [in the IRS] who were trying to be more efficient in their workload selection.”

In a legal memo to “Interested Parties,” dated May 20, 2013, Mitchell pointed out the inconsistency of claiming IRS employees were trying to be more efficient, when the questionnaires submitted to conservative groups were typically multi-paged “dragnet” type questions probing into every aspect of the applying organizations, including the content of prayers by leaders of the groups.

“So the decision to change a system that (prior to 2010) might ask five to six short questions specifically about an application to one that consisted of dozens of questions, necessitating volumes of materials and documents to be filed with the IRS, was done in order to ‘be more efficient’?” Mitchell asked.

Mitchell noted Miller also spoke about IRS employees “taking shortcuts.”

“This was hardly a ‘shortcut’ when it lengthened the process substantially, as documented in the Treasury Inspector General Tax Audit report,” she said.

Michell also objected to Miller’s attempt to scapegoat two “rogue” employees in the Cincinnati IRS office as being responsible for “overly aggressive” handling of tea party requests for tax-exempt status over the past two years, echoing the claim made by Lerner.

“This is completely false,” Mitchell continued.

“In 2011, at least one of the Cincinnati IRS agents assigned to handle two clients’ applications advised me that the Washington, D.C., office was actively involved in the decisions and processing of my clients’ applications for exempt status. This was memorialized in a letter to the agent, Ron Bell, on November 8, 2011. When I called him in December 2011 for an update, he advised me that the applications had been transferred to a special task force in Washington, D.C., for further review.

Mitchell said the “effort by senior IRS officials to lay this scheme at the hands of a few low level’ IRS employees is despicable and must not be tolerated.”

This week, the DOJ mailed an internal two-page document, titled “LGBT Inclusion at Work: The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Manners,” to DOJ managers in advance of “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month,” LifeSiteNews.com reported.

Obama designated June as “pride” month in a presidential proclamation May 31, 2011.

The document, which was emailed to DOJ managers, was produced by DOJ Pride, an independent DOJ employee association.

Get Jerome Corsi’s scorching new exposé of the American Civil Liberties Union, “Bad Samaritans: The ACLU’s Relentless Campaign to Erase Faith From the Public Square”

WND can find no similar “sensitivity brochure” distributed by DOJ that emphasizes the First Amendment religious freedom rights of Christians employed by who object to LGBT lifestyles on the grounds of their religious beliefs.

The document poses a possible conflict of interest. The current president of DOJ Pride is an attorney employed in the DOJ office responsible for hiring and firing attorneys and adjudicating cases involving DOJ whistleblowers.

DOJ advances LGBT agenda

The document requires DOJ employees to express active support of alternative LGBT lifestyles in a series of “DO” and “DON’T” statements.

Among the admonitions are the following:

• “DON’T remain silent. Silence will be interpreted as disapproval.”
• DO use a transgender person’s chosen name and the pronoun that is consistent with that person’s self-identified gender.
• DON’T use words and phrases like “gay lifestyle,” “sexual preference” or “tranny” that are considered by many as offensive.
• DO deal with offensive jokes and comments forcefully and swiftly when presented with evidence that they have occurred in the workplace.
• DO speak to employees, including LGBT employees, about their experiences at work, and solicit their ideas for how to make the workplace more inclusive.
• DO consider coming out of the closet if you are LGBT and not out at work. The presence of visible LGBT managers communicates that your office is open and accepting.

Established in 1994, DOJ Pride is an association formally independent of the Department of Justice, with voting membership in DOJ Pride open to any DOJ employee, former employee, individual contractor or employee of a contractor “who is interested in the association’s interests and goals.”

A DOJ Pride brochure specifies, “DOJ Pride works to make the Department [of Justice] a model employer of LGBT individuals.”

The DOJ’s distribution to managers of the DOJ Pride document implies that those who fail to actively support LGBT lifestyles are in violation of DOJ employment policy, perhaps to the point of losing their jobs or promotion opportunities.

The DOJ Pride document makes no mention of God or of the possibility that DOJ managers or employees might have a personal objection to LGBT lifestyles that that is protected by the First Amendment rights to freedom of religion and expression.

In a WND commentary, Matt Barber wrote that the “lawless administration is now ordering federal employees – against their will – to affirm sexual behaviors that in every major religion, thousands of years of history and uncompromising human biology reject.”

Conflict of interest?

Computer experts have examined the metadata in the computer file for the DOJ Pride document and discovered the author was Marc Salans, the president of DOJ Pride.

Salans also serves as the assistant director in the DOJ Office of Attorney Recruitment and Management, or OARM, which is responsible for hiring all lawyers at Justice.

The DOJ website also identifies OARM as “the Department’s adjudicative office in FBI Whistleblower cases.”

This suggests Salans also is authorized to oversee the qualifications of lawyers hired by DOJ and adjudicate the cases of any whistleblower attempting to make public disclosure of alleged DOJ improprieties.

DOJ encourages LGBT hiring

On the DOJ website, a statement regarding “diversity policy” puts “gender identity” on a par with other discrimination criteria that have been identified by the Supreme Court as being applicable under the 14th Amendment.

The relevant paragraph of the DOJ diversity management policy statement reads:

We value diversity in our workforce and embrace the cultural and demographic dimensions of our country. We work diligently to attract and retain a workforce that represents the range of personal and professional backgrounds, and experiences and perspectives that arise from differences of culture and circumstances. This includes persons of varying age, ethnicity, gender, disability, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, national origin, political affiliation, socioeconomic and family status, and geographic region.

DOJ further interprets Executive Order 11478 as requiring an affirmative action policy that applies to the LGBT community.

DOJ has also established Special Emphasis Programs that includes an aim to hire and support “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender applicants and employees in various categories and occupations and in all organizational components through the department.” The Special Emphasis Program clearly states: “DOJ enhances diversity to Include Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) individuals.”

The DOJ website also includes a page in the “photo gallery” to report on the LGBT Pride Month Program conducted by DOJ on June 6, 2012. The website also features the text of a speech Attorney General Eric Holder gave at the event.

The near-panic selling set off in global markets by a mere suggestion the Fed might quit pumping hundreds of billions of dollars of liquidity into world financial markets should be a warning sign to retirement investors with IRAs, 401(k)s or other funds invested in stocks.

Is now the time for retirement investors to pull out of stock market investments in anticipation of what increasingly appears to be a massive downward stock market adjustment should the Fed significantly ease off buying U.S. government debt?

This may be a difficult decision for many retirement investors to make, especially after the historic gains registered over the past two years in most IRA and 401(k) funds invested in stocks and bonds.

Should the Fed end or significantly reduce QE3, as is widely anticipated for no later than March 2014, interest rates can be expected to rise in the United States, with the likely consequence of setting off a round of losses not only in the U.S. stock market, but also in the U.S. bond market.

Savers and investors in or approaching their retirement years are advised to be cautious, given the limited time remaining in typical life cycle expectations in which to recover losses suffered in investment markets.

Rough waters for retirement savings

For cautious retirement investors who cannot afford to take a loss, the question is not necessarily whether the 15,000 mark is the high point of the Dow Jones Industrial Average in the current investment cycle, but whether QE 3 must come to an end, perhaps sooner rather than later.

The safest calculation of cautious retirement investors may be to examine the possibility the current stock market historic highs have been fueled predominately by the massive liquidity pumped into world markets by the Fed since 2009, as opposed to traditional bull markets in which stock market rises have been fueled by gains in economic fundamentals as reflected in strong corporate earnings derived from genuinely strong market demand.

When the Fed pulls out of QE3, panic selling will benefit only those who get out first, most likely the institutional fund managers and professional financial analysts, not typically the individual retirement funds investor.

A long-standing rule of investing is that those who stay in markets to achieve the last possible gains are the ones who may risk taking substantial losses. Individual retirement savings investors holding IRAs, 401(k) plans and other tax-favored retirement instruments, including variable annuities, may be well advised to pull money out of stock and bond investments at this time.

Market gains that individual retirement investors take at this time can be placed in bank CDs or money market funds to preserve gains and wait for a more stable investment environment in which to go back into stock and bond markets.

This is a time when individual retirement savers should seek the advice and counsel of appropriately licensed professional investment advisors with an established track record of success, even in volatile market environments.

Global stock markets plunge

Global markets took Bernanke’s seemingly innocuous comments as a signal the Fed was serious about ending its third round of buying billions of dollars monthly of U.S. government debt, including Treasury bonds and housing bonds. The program that is currently designated Quantitative Easing 3, or QE 3, indicating the current debt buying round is the third such effort the Fed has taken since the DJIA hit a new 12-year low of 6,547.05 on March 9, 2009.

The most severe stock market decline occurred in Japan as a “flash crash” caused the Nikkei index to plunge 7.3 percent.

Japanese Stock Market Decline, May 23, 2013 (Source: ZeroHedge.com)

Overnight in the U.S., stock markets in Frankfurt, London, Paris and Milan slumped more than 2 percent.

On the market open in the U.S., the DJIA plunged 127 points, before bullish analysts, including some government officials representing the Obama administration, quietly advised institutional investors the Fed had no immediate plans of ending or significantly backing off QE3.

Obama balloons Fed’s holdings of debt

Under Barack Obama, the Federal Reserve has become the world’s largest holder of U.S. government debt.

In January 2013, the Federal Reserve revealed that its holdings of U.S. government debt had increased to an all-time record high of nearly $1.7 trillion.

By comparison, when Obama was inaugurated in 2009, the Fed owned a mere $475 billion in U.S. government debt. Since then, the Fed’s holdings of U.S. government debt have increased by 257 percent.

The Fed’s use of quantitative easing demonstrates it is out of monetary tools, having keep interest rates at or near zero in an attempt to stimulate economic growth for nearly three years.

Market expectations until recently have been that the Fed will attempt to stop before $2 trillion of Treasury debt has been purchased and added to the Fed’s balance sheet.

The U.S. Treasury reports that as of this month, total U.S. public debt outstanding is approximately $16.7 trillion; by comparison, total U.S. public debt outstanding at the end of the presidency of George W. Bush was approximately $10 trillion.

According to official estimates by the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis, on Sept. 11, 2012, total U.S. debt exceeded U.S. gross domestic product, or GDP, for the first time since the end of World War II, with U.S. GDP 2012 estimated at $15.6061 trillion, about $440.5 billion less than the $16.0466 in debt that the federal government had accumulated as of that day.

Coincidentally, Sept. 11, 2012, was the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, as well as the day on the U.S. facility in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked by terrorists, resulting in the murder of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

Novel approach

The use of quantitative easing as a tool of the Fed to stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment is a novel and untested approach to monetary policy.

QE3 was announced Sept. 13, 2012, in an 11-to-1 vote of the Federal Reserve Board. The Fed decided to launch a $40 billion per month, open-ended purchasing of U.S. Treasury debt instruments and U.S. agency-generated mortgage-backed securities.

On Dec. 12, 2012, the Fed decided to increase the open-ended purchasing of U.S. debt from $40 billion per month to the current level of $85 billion a month.

“We have suspicion that the IRS delayed our application for nearly 13 months due to the selective targeting of Ohio conservative groups that Congress is now investigating in both the House and Senate,” stated Chris Long, president of the Ohio Christian Alliance, told WND.

Long said his group’s original application made it clear that the new organization would go into Christian congregations with a non-partisan effort to register voters in the battleground state of Ohio during the 2012 presidential election.

“The IRS knew we would be registering conservative church-goers and weighing in on the 2012 presidential election,” he said.

Nothing tells the story of the tea-party movement better than the “Tea Party” movie. The inspiring and powerful story gets to the heart of why “We the People” are taking America back!

Long pointed out that the non-partisan Ohio Christian Alliance Educational Fund, operating as a 501(c)3 organization, would have registered both Democrats and Republicans.

The group has operated as a 501(c)4 since 2004, but only 501(c)3 groups can accept tax-deductable contributions.

The ACLU has both a 501(c)3 and a 501(c)4 organization. The 501(c)3 group pursues legal cases, and the 501(c)4 advocacy group engages in legislative efforts.

Long suspects the IRS was attempting to block the Ohio Christian Alliance, or OCA, from forming a 501(c)3 organization because it didn’t want the organization to counter the ACLU in court.

He noted that at the time of OCA’s application, the Obama administration was pushing forward the Obamacare mandate that would require even Christian organizations to pay for abortion and contraceptive services in employee health care plans.

“My suspicion is the IRS knew the Ohio Christian Alliance would appear in court to oppose the ACLU and the HHS mandate,” he said.

“It did cause us to wonder after these reports surfaced if there may have been some motive behind the additional questions to our application and the delay in its processing.”

Long said it’s now up to Congress to further investigate what the motives of the IRS officials might have been.

In a formal letter, Long and OCA have asked the House Ways and Means Committee to investigate how the IRS handled their request to form the Education Fund as a 501(c)3 organization.

The group wants the House panel to find out how the applications of other organizations with missions similar to the Education Fund were processed last year.

Sarah Swinehart, a House Ways and Means Committee staff member, was shown a copy of OCA’s letter to the committee and said she had not seen it. She promised to pass it on to appropriate staff.

The committee has established a page on its website titled “The IRS Political Discrimination Investigation: Share Your Story,” inviting organizations that alleged discrimination by the IRS for political reasons to tell their story and file a complaint with the committee.

IRS timeline

The Ohio Christian Alliance provided WND with documentation, including copies of IRS correspondence, that establishes the following timetable:

• OCA filed a Form 1023 application with the IRS on Feb. 8, 2011, to create the Ohio Christian Alliance Education Fund as a 501(c)3 tax-exempt group in which contributions would be tax-deductible;
• On March 17, 2011, the IRS responded to OCA, saying within 90-days it should receive a response from the IRS;
• Months went by with OCA receiving no response from the IRS, despite repeated efforts by the group’s lawyers to determine the status of the application;
• Then, on Dec. 12, 2011, OCA received what amounted to a two-page demand letter from the IRS, dated Dec. 8, 2011;
• The IRS demand letter required OCA to file “additional information” to a detailed series of questions by no later than Dec. 30, 2011, 18 days after the receipt of the IRS demand letter, or the IRS would conclude OCA no longer wanted to pursue the application;
• The IRS informed OCA that if it did not respond by the deadline, the IRS planned to treat the Ohio Christian Education Fund as a taxable entity.

“The IRS gave us only 18 days during the holiday season in December to respond to a long list of intrusive questions when the it knew it would be difficult for us to get the time required from our lawyers,” Long said.

He believes the IRS’s motivation was political.

“I believe the IRS wanted to block the Ohio Christian Alliance from being effective registering Christians to vote in the 2012 election, especially because Ohio was considered such an important battleground state,” he said.

Long’s lawyers were available in mid-December 2011, and OCA was able to expeditiously answer the IRS.

Finally, on Feb. 21, 2012, OCA received a determination letter approving 501(c)3 status for the Ohio Christian Alliance Education Fund, nearly 13 months after the original filing.

Long explained to WND that OCA lost several substantial donations from contributors who wanted to make tax-deductible contributions.

“Each month the application was delayed put the Ohio Christian Alliance Education Fund at a distinct disadvantage in fundraising capability,” he noted. “Most grant dispersements to organizations with missions similar to that of the OCA Ed Fund were distributed in November and December 2011 and January 2012. By the time we got our determination letter, that money from the large contributors had already left the barn.”

IRS questions ‘opposing anti-Christian bigotry’

The questions submitted in the IRS demand letter of Dec. 8, 2011, caused OCA to wonder about the IRS’s motivation, Long said.

“The IRS narrative suggested that somehow it was objectionable to oppose anti-Christian bigotry and defend the rights of Christians.”

The IRS letter read:

“The narrative [of the Ohio Christian Educational Fund] indicates the organization ‘ … opposes anti-Christian bigotry and defends the rights of Christians.” Please describe how the organization achieves this purpose. For example, will the organization engage in legal action against activity the organization interprets as Christian bigotry, or are the actions of the anti-Christian organization against anti-Christian bigotry more accurately classified as educational in nature.”

Long instructed his attorneys to inform the IRS that the Ohio Christian Educational Fund did intend to file legal actions in court.

“The ACLU is a 501(c)3 organization and they file legal suits in court all the live-long day,” Long countered. “We are opposed to the positions the ACLU holds, we are at the opposite end of the spectrum. But why would we not have access to the courts to defend the First Amendment rights of churches, Christians, and institutions that hold with religious beliefs?”

The IRS also asked OCA to supply a complete description of all activities planned for the Ohio Christian Alliance Education Fund for the next 12 months.

“Remember, we had already filed with the IRS a detailed and comprehensive application in which we went through the entire narrative of what the Education Fund would be about, as well as the details of how it would be organized, how it would be structured and what activities the 501(c)3 would be conducting,” he said.

Long said his organization’s lawyers found the IRS’s handling of the application very unusual, expecting the application to be accepted in five or six months, at the most.

“We had already answered all those questions in the original application,” he said. “Our lawyers have had some three decades of experience filing tax-exempt applications with the IRS, and they were surprised.”

Victoria Toensing and Gregory Hicks during the May 8 hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on the Benghazi attack

The State Department has been leaking to reporters false information to discredit Benghazi whistleblower Gregory Hicks, charged his legal counsel, Victoria Toensing, in an interview with WND.

Hicks, who testified May 8 before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, is the former State Department deputy chief of mission who was in Libya at the time of the Benghazi attack.

Toensing told WND the State Department has been telling reporters that U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens could not reach Hicks by telephone on the night he was killed in the terrorist attack, Sept. 11, 2012, because Hicks was relaxing, watching television, and did not have his telephone with him.

“This is a total fabrication,” Toensing charged. “Telephone reception in Libya is notoriously unreliable. Sometimes you just don’t get your calls. And besides, the record will show Hicks reached Stevens by telephone within five or 10 minutes at the most after Stevens first telephoned him.”

Toensing said several reporters, whom she declined to identify, have called her to ask if the story about Hicks being AWOL at the time of the Benghazi attack was true.

“I have reason to believe the reporters calling me got their information from sources within the State Department,” Toensing added.

At WND’s urging, Toensing identified one reporter she believed had been leaking false information about her client.

“The State Department correspondent from CBS, Margaret Brennan, called me and asked if it was true my client had a history of ‘yelling at people’ within the State Department,” Toensing explained.

“Mr. Hicks is so mild-mannered I cannot imagine him yelling at anyone,” Toensing said she explained to Manning, adding that any such information the reporter obtained from State Department insiders speaking off the record should be disregarded.

After leaving voice mail messages, WND was unable to contact Brennan for comment.

Toensing told WND she believes the State Department’s motivation for spreading false information about her client is not only to discredit him but to deter others.

“The State Department is spreading this malicious information not only because they want to ruin my client’s career, but also because they want to make to make Mr. Hicks an example so no one else comes forward,” she said.

“The State Department goal is to show what they can do to people, how easy it is to ruin their careers by spreading false information.”

‘Hicks responded promptly’

According to the testimony Hicks gave the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, he was in his villa relaxing, watching a television show, at 9:45 p.m. local time on Sept. 11, 2012, but he had his telephone with him.

He noted the time because Regional Security Officer John Martinec came into his villa yelling that the consulate was under attack.

“And I stood up and reached for my phone because I had an inkling or thought that perhaps the ambassador had tried to call me to relay the same message,” Hicks testified. “And I found two missed calls on the phone, one from the ambassador’s phone and one from a phone number I didn’t recognize.”

Hicks told the House committee that he punched the phone number he did not recognize and immediately got the ambassador on the other end. That is when Hicks testified Ambassador Stevens told him, “Greg we’re under attack.”

Toensing told WND Hicks reached Stevens by phone at approximately 9:50 p.m. local time, less than 10 minutes after he missed the call from Stevens.

Hicks continued his testimony to note that after reaching Stevens by phone, he walked to the Tactical Operations Center, where he tried both of the numbers, the unknown number and the ambassador’s number, only to get no response.

That’s when John Martinec was on the phone in Benghazi with Alec Henderson, the regional security officer at the Benghazi compound.

Hicks said Martinec explained the unknown number belonged to Scott Wickland, Stevens’ personal escort for the night.

At approximately 10 p.m., Hicks called the operations center at the State Department in Washington, D.C., to report the attack, according to his testimony to the House committee.

According to the State Department background briefing on the Benghazi attack issued Oct. 9, 2012, the first indication the U.S. personnel at the Benghazi compound had that they were under attack was at 9:40 p.m. local time, when the agent in the Tactical Operations Center and the agents in Building C of the Benghazi compound heard loud noises from the front gate, as well as gunfire and an explosion.

The State Department timeline indicates that there was only 15 minutes between the start of the Benghazi attack at 9:45 p.m. local time and the time Hicks called the State Department in Washington, to inform the D.C. staff that the Benghazi compound was under attack.

The timeline is consistent with Toensing’s insistence that, at most, five to 10 minutes passed between the phone call from Stevens that Hicks missed and the phone call Hicks made to Stevens, connecting with the ambassador when Hicks left his villa and went to the Tactical Operation Center at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli.

Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Ambassador Christopher Stevens was in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, the day he died in a terrorist attack, because Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ordered him there, according to an exclusive statement given to WND by the attorney representing Gregory Hicks, the former State Department deputy chief of mission and chargé d’affairs who was in Libya at the time of the attack.

Victoria Toensing, legal counsel to Hicks, told WND that Hillary Clinton had given Stevens direct instructions to prepare the CIA compound in Benghazi to be upgraded to the status of a U.S. diplomatic mission and Stevens, in complying with Clinton’s wishes, was in Benghazi the first time he had the opportunity to do so, cognizant of the need to visit the site before the end of the fiscal year, on Sept. 30, 2012.

“Stevens was in Benghazi because Clinton told him to go there,” Toensing explained.

Hicks’ attorney also charged the Accountability Review Board, or ARB, headed by Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Admiral Michael Mullen, was a cover-up designed to contain blame for the Benghazi terror attack at a level below Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the State Department.

On page 34 of its unclassified final report, the ARB stated: “The Ambassador chose to travel to Benghazi that week, independent of Washington, as per standard practice.”

This, Toensing charged, is a complete misrepresentation of the truth despite the attempt of her client, Gregory Hicks, to explain in his testimony to the ARB that Stevens went to Benghazi on Clinton’s specific and go to Benghazi before Sept. 30, 2012, to establish Benghazi as a permanent State Department facility.

Why was Stevens in Benghazi?

The sworn testimony Hicks gave the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on May 8, 2012, supports Toensing’s contention that Stevens was in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, because Clinton had ordered him to go there and he was running out of time to comply with her request.

Under questioning from Rep. Lankford, R-Okla., Hicks explained: “According to [Ambassador] Chris [Stevens], Secretary Clinton wanted Benghazi converted into a permanent constituent post. Timing for this decision was important. Chris needed to report before Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year, on the physical and the political and security environment in Benghazi to support an action memo to convert Benghazi from a temporary facility to a permanent facility.”

Hicks explained the directive came from the State Department Office of Near Eastern Affairs, headed by Acting Assistant Secretary Beth Jones, that funds were available to be transferred to Benghazi from a State Department fund set aside for Iraq available, provided the funds transfer had been obligated by September 30.

He further testified that in May 2012, during his exit with Secretary Clinton following his being sworn in as U.S. Ambassador for Libya, Stevens promised he would give a priority to making sure the U.S. facility at Benghazi was transformed into a permanent constituent post.

Under further questioning directed by Rep. Tony Cardenas, D-Calif., Hicks explained Stevens further delayed his trip to Benghazi because of security concerns expressed by State Department Regional Security Officer John Martinek.

“The two planning meetings we had with the ambassador about his trip to Benghazi, the RSO John Martinek raised serious concerns about his travel,” Hicks explained. “Because of those concerns, the ambassador adjusted his plans for that trip.”

Hicks detailed in response to Martinek’s concerns, Stevens mad three modifications to his plan to visit Benghazi in September 2012.

“First, he agreed he would go in a low-profile way and his trip would not be announced in advance,” Hicks continued. “We would not do any planning of meetings until right before he went. And second, he eventually decided to shorten his trip. He had initially planned to go on October 8, he went on the 10th instead to narrow the time frame he would be in Benghazi. The third step he took was the one public event that he planned would take place at the very end of his trip, just before he left.”

Hicks also explained Stevens wanted to make a symbolic gesture to the people of Benghazi that the United States “stood behind their dream of establishing a new democracy.”

Additionally, he wanted to have the Benghazi complex upgraded to a permanent constituent post, so Secretary Clinton could make this announcement in her planned visit to Libya before the end of 2012.

Hicks told the committee Stevens did listen to advice, but he was very determined and committed to doing his job.

“He went there [to Benghazi] to do his job,” Hicks testified. “He felt he had a political imperative to go to Benghazi to represent the United States there in order to move the project to make the Benghazi consulate a permanent constituent post.”

Toward the end of the hearing, the chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., asked Hicks to summarize his testimony on why Stevens went to Benghazi.

“At least one of the reasons Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi was to further the Secretary’s wish that that post become a permanent constituent post and that he was also there because we understood the Secretary intended to visit Tripoli later in the year,” Hicks reiterated. “We hoped that she would be able to announce to the Libyan people the establishment of a permanent constituent post in Benghazi at that time.”

Hicks emphasized that the State Department was aware of increased risks posed by Islamic extremists in eastern Libya and that Stevens was aware the Benghazi compound did not meet State Department security requirements.

Still, despite the security risk, Stevens was determined to comply with Clinton’s wishes to visit Benghazi prior to her planned visit to Libya.

The ARB report a ‘cover-up,’ attorney charges

The unclassified ARB final report on page 18 states: “Ambassador Stevens was scheduled to remain in Benghazi until September 14, and his visit was timed in part to fill the staffing gaps between TDY [Temporary Duty Assignment] principal officers as well as to open an American Corner at a local school and to reconnect with local contacts.”

Hicks testified to the House oversight committee that in direct contrast to this ARB claim, the State Department in Washington was fully aware of the plans Stevens made to go to Benghazi, the reasons he was going there, and his planned activity while there.

“The ARB unclassified final report was incomplete in that the reason for Stevens being in Benghazi was known to Hicks, but the ARB ignored the testimony Hicks gave on this point,” Toensing further explained to WND.

Hicks elaborated on this point by commenting to the House oversight committee that when he told the ARB the reason Stevens went to Benghazi, Ambassador Pickering looked visibly upset and asked, “Does the 7th Floor [where the office of Secretary of State Clinton is located] know about this?”

Toensing also explained to WND no stenographer was present at the ARB to record the testimony of witnesses, so no verbatim transcript could be made of each witness testimony; instead, the ARB took merely took notes of witness testimony.

She further objected the ARB never permitted Hicks to review the notes regarding his testimony so he could suggest corrections and point out any omissions; nor did the ARB allow Hicks to review the notes taken of his testimony and sign off on their accuracy.

“Everybody is missing that the ARB is a big story here,” Toensing said, explaining she was turned down or canceled on more than one network television interview, including ABC and CNN, when producers learned she wanted to expose ARB deficiencies. “The ARB not only omitted the reason Stevens went to Benghazi, when my client had explained to the ARB the reasons, the ARB actually put in a false statement regarding why Stevens was there the night of the attack.”

Toward the conclusion of the House hearing on May 8, Hicks and Eric Nordsrtom, the State Department regional security officer in Libya during the attack, both argued the ARB had assigned blame for the Benghazi tragedy to lower-level State Department officers when they realized Secretary Clinton was fully involved in the decision to send Stevens to Benghazi despite the security concerns.

“The most obvious deficiency in the ARB report was Secretary Clinton was never interviewed for the investigation,” Toensing said.

In an editorial Toensing wrote that was published by the Weekly Standard on May 12, she elaborated on this point:  “She [Clinton] is mentioned only once in the [ARB] report, as the person who convened the Board.  If, as Clinton herself has said, she took full responsibility for what happened in Benghazi, her decisions and decision-making process are materially relevant for investigating what happened before and during the night of September 11, 2012, and preventing what went wrong from ever happening again.”

WND previously reported director Joel Gilbert was concerned a journalist investigating his documentary used information that could only have been obtained by hacking into his company’s bank account.

Gilbert now believes the confidential information supplied to the journalist could have come from a continuing IRS audit initiated in early 2012, possibly in retaliation for Gilbert’s documentary arguing Frank Marshall Davis is the president’s biological father, not the Kenyan Barack Obama.

Gilbert says the IRS in Los Angeles may have provided confidential information on his corporate financing to Seth Rosenfeld, a San Francisco-based reporter affiliated with the Soros-funded Center for Investigative Reporting. Rosenfeld, in turn, used the guise of writing a story as an excuse to telephone and confront Gilbert’s financial backers with details of their financial transactions recorded in Gilbert’s corporate bank accounts.

In an email to WND, Rosenfeld denied the IRS was the source of his information identifying Gilbert’s customers and investors and providing specification of their financial transactions as recorded in Gilbert’s corporate bank account.

In responding to questions posed by WND, Rosenfeld declined to disclose how he came to possess the detailed financial information he exhibited when telephoning Gilbert and various Gilbert customers and investors claiming he was researching a story.

Gilbert told WND he is meeting with legal counsel Monday to determine if he has a cause of civil or criminal legal action against the IRS and/or Rosenfeld.

IRS audit

In early 2012, the IRS reopened Gilbert’s 2009 tax return and denied all of his business expenses, even though they were well documented.

To resolve the issue, Gilbert’s accountant met the IRS auditor in Los Angeles.

“To our shock, the IRS agent who met with my accountant had a printout of the home page of the “Dreams from My Real Father” official film website on her desk,” Gilbert told WND.

Despite Gilbert resubmitting the 2009 expenses, the IRS has still not closed the case, with the next meeting between Gilbert’s account and the IRS set for next week.

The IRS spokesman in Los Angeles did not respond to a WND request for comment.

How did journalist know?

Gilbert began to suspect the IRS had distributed his information to left-leaning journalists when Rosenfeld telephoned him Oct. 26, 2012, near the end of the presidential campaign, and began citing specific deposits from Gilbert’s corporate bank account, asking Gilbert to explain the purpose of the deposits.

Rosenfeld is listed on the Center for Investigative Reporting website as a “correspondent,” suggesting he does not have a staff position with the organization.

The Center for Investigative Reporting did not respond to a WND request for comment.

“I was so shocked that Rosenfeld had my confidential bank information that I asked him to send me an email detailing his questions and hung up,” Gilbert said. “Not surprisingly, Rosenfeld never sent me the email I asked for.”

Next, Gilbert told WND, Rosenfeld called one of Gilbert’s corporation’s limited partners on his private telephone number, fraudulently introduced himself as being with the Romney campaign and asked for a campaign donation.

“When my business partner said he wasn’t interested, Rosenfeld admitted to being a reporter and began citing my partner’s confidential bank wiring history sending funds to my corporate account,” Gilbert explained. “My partner hung up on him.”

Next, Rosenfeld called the elderly mother of a Gilbert customer who had purchased a large number of “Dreams from My Real Father” DVDs and paid for them by check.

“Rosenfeld tricked the woman into giving out her son’s home phone number by pretending to be an old friend,” Gilbert continued. “When Rosenfeld called the customer, he cited the amount of the check and asked the customer about his political opinions. Not being satisfied at this, Rosenfeld asked if my customer could identify by name any others he knew had made similar large purchases of my DVD.”

Gilbert told WND he has documented that Rosenfeld contacted several of his customers on their private unlisted phone numbers, citing for them various payments or wire transfers to Gilbert’s corporate account. Rosenfeld asked the customers for their political opinions and whether or not the customers had made any campaign contributions to Republicans, including to presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

Joel Gilbert

Gilbert told WND he now believes an IRS leak was the likely source of Rosenfeld’s information.

He also believes Rosenfeld’s phone calls, armed with specific records regarding customer transactions in Gilbert’s corporate banking account, has damaged his business.

“My private banking information was used to intimidate investors and purchasers of ‘Dreams from My Real Father,’ Gilbert told WND. “I could no longer in good conscience seek out new investors knowing that their transactions could not be kept private. I will be meeting with my attorneys this week in Los Angeles to discuss legal options and recourse.”

Reporter responds

“It is true that as a freelance journalist I was researching a story about people who anonymously funded the distribution of the Joel Gilbert film that attacks President Obama, claims his election is a part of a vast communist conspiracy and displays pornographic photos of his mother,” Rosenfeld emailed WND in response to a request for comment.

Rosenfeld denied that he misrepresented himself or engaged in any improper or illegal conduct.

“I spoke with Gilbert twice on the phone and at his request sent him an email seeking his reply to my inquiry,” Rosenfeld continued. “He declined to comment in our phone conversations, did not call me back and did not respond to my email.”

Rosenfeld said he again sought comment from Gilbert by phone and email and never got a response.

Rosenfeld denied that he received any information concerning Gilbert’s corporate accounts from the IRS.

He also denied representing himself as being associated with the Romney campaign, and he denied asking any of Gilbert’s contacts for contributions to the Romney campaign.

Gilbert rejoined Rosenfeld’s charges, arguing that Rosenfeld’s negative characterization of “Dreams from My Real Father” raised the question of whether Rosenfeld had actually viewed the DVD.

“The response further reinforces my concern that Rosenfeld was recruited to do the dirty work, to intimidate me from continuing to market the firm, for political purposes on behalf of higher powers,” Gilbert said.

Gilbert told WND that he and the customers and investors Rosenfeld contacted have documented all phone calls and conversations for presentation in any legal proceedings that may occur.

“Rosenfeld and those who provided him with my private bank information should come clean now, because the story will only get bigger if they do not,” Gilbert threatened.

‘Political harassment’

Gilbert believes the IRS and Rosenfeld targeted him for political reasons.

“Why didn’t Rosenfeld publish anything from his investigations into my film and my investors?” Gilbert asked.

“I believe I was targeted because ‘Dreams from My Real Father’ exposes Obama as a pathological liar,” he said. “Obama intentionally obscured a deeply disturbing family background in order to hide a Marxist agenda, completely incompatible with American values. It was an unacceptable manipulation of the electorate and unquestionably the biggest scandal in American history.”

He also believes the IRS and Rosenfeld may have been working together to intimidate investors and discredit his film by identifying him as a Republican Party operative.

“The fact that the IRS targeted me and Rosenfeld subsequently made his phone calls suggests to me they were working in concert, both equally afraid of the information in my film becoming public knowledge,” Gilbert charged.

“President Obama is not the son of a Kenyan goat herder who stands above politics. I demonstrated in my documentary that Obama is the child of Communist Party USA member and Soviet Agent Frank Marshall Davis. I also presented compelling evidence that Davis indoctrinated Obama into his Marxist ideology during his formative years.”

Gilbert believes Rosenfeld was not being sincere in his representation that he was writing an article but that his true intent was intimidation.

“The use of the Internal Revenue Service to intimidate Americans is criminal,” Gilbert asserted. “A conspiracy to deny the First Amendment rights of free speech to Americans is criminal.”

Gilbert’s documentary “Dreams from My Real Father” has been available at the WND Superstore since it was produced and also on Amazon.com and Netflix.

During the presidential campaign, WND reported Gilbert mailed more than 3 million free copies of the documentary to voters in swing states.

Fox News reported in May 2012 that the Center for Investigative Journalism has received close to $1 million from the George Soros-funded Open Society Foundation.

Gilbert is also producer of the 2012 award winning documentary “Atomic Jihad: Ahmadinejad’s Coming War and Obama’s Politics of Defeat.”

Rosenfeld is the author of the 2012 book “Subversives: The FBI’s War on Student Radicals, and Reagan’s Rise to Power.” In the book, he objects to what he characterizes as Ronald Reagan’s involvement for political purposes in a covert war the FBI waged in the 1960s against anti-war student radicals.

WND reported Nov. 4, 2012, that the Benghazi terrorist attack was organized by Libyan terrorist groups in response to Zawahiri’s request to avenge the U.S. drone killing in Pakistan’s Waziristan tribal area on June 4, 2012, of Libyan al-Qaida leader Abu Yahya al-Libi.

The New York Times reported Libi had a $1 million bounty on his head and was “a virtual ambassador for global jihad” who used frequent video appearances to boast of his escape from a U.S. military detention center at Bagram Air Base outside Kabul, Afghanistan, in 2005.

Internationally, news sources noted that Libi was considered a global propaganda mastermind and that his death represented the greatest blow to al-Qaida since U.S. Navy SEALs killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan in May 2011.

In August 2011, a CIA drone strike killed Libi’s predecessor, Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, also a Libyan. At the time of his death, Rahman was acting as al-Qaida chief of operations.

Despite the video in which Zawahiri called for retaliatory attacks on U.S. facilities in the Middle East, the U.S. State Department and the CIA appear to have been caught flat-footed and unprepared for the Benghazi attack.

WND reported Monday the personal effects of Stevens are in the possession of an Islamic terrorist currently at large in Libya, according to WND’s Libyan exile sources.

‘The Lion of Knowledge and Jihad’

The Zawahiri video released to coincide with the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks was his 13th statement in 2012, titled “The Lion of Knowledge and Jihad: Martyrdom of al-Sheikh Abu Yaha al-Libi. The 42-minute video confirmed Libi was killed in a drone strike in Pakistan’s Waziristan tribal area on June 4, 2012, and called for revenge attacks, especially in Libya.

On Sept. 15, 2012, an Agence France-Presse report cited al-Qaida claims that the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was in revenge for the killing of Libi, according to monitoring by the Search for International Terrorist Entities (SITE) Intelligence Group.

“The killing of Sheikh Abu Yahya only increased the enthusiasm and determination of the sons of (Libyan independence hero) Omar al-Mokhtar to take revenge upon those who attack our Prophet,” said Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula in a statement quoted by SITE.

The AFP report, published by the Tribune in Pakistan, quoted Mohammad al-Megaryef, the head of Libya’s national assembly, who said the attack on the U.S. facility in Benghazi was planned and “meticulously executed.”

Al-Qaida leader calls for revenge

On Sept. 11, 2012, the day of the Benghazi attack, Rob Crilly, reporting from Islamabad, Pakistan, for the Telegraph of London, published a clip from the 42-minute video Zawahiri video, which was released during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan to coincide with the 9/11 attacks.

“I proudly announce to the Muslim uuma and to the Mujahideen … the news of the martyrdom of the lion of Libya Sheik Hassan Mohammed Qaed,” Zawahiri said in the video, referring to Libi by his birth name, rather than his nom de guerre.

Reuters published another clip from the Zawahiri video, emphasizing in its report Zawahiri’s call for revenge for the killing of Libi.

The public record shows that after Zawahiri’s video was released calling for revenge, several attacks were on-going in the hours before the Benghazi attack, which began around 9:45 p.m. local time.

U.S. under attack

In his testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in Washington last week, Gregory Hicks, former deputy chief of mission to Libya, made clear he sent a text message to Ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi early in the day on Sept. 11, 2012, warning Stevens that the U.S. Embassy in Cairo was under attack.

“As I remember, Sept. 11, 2012, it was a routine day at our embassy, and until we saw the news about Cairo – and I remember sending a text message to Ambassador Stevens saying, ‘Chris, are you aware of what’s going on in Cairo?’ and he said ‘No,’” Hicks testified. “So I told him that the embassy – in another text – that the embassy had been stormed, and they were trying to tear down our flag. And he said, ‘Thanks very much.’ And, you know, then I went on with business.”

Hicks’ testimony suggests that the State Department had not made him aware of a possible connection between the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and the Zawahiri video calling for revenge.

Yet in the week of the attack, anti-U.S. demonstrations and riots broke out against in Tunisia outside the U.S. Embassy as well as in Yemen, Pakistan, Jordan and India.

‘The Innocence of Muslims’

On Sept. 13, 2012, the New York Times published a report datelined Sana, Yemen, that echoed the Obama administration narrative: “Deadly outrage in the Arab world over an American-made video insulting Islam’s founder spread to at least half a dozen places across the Middle East on Thursday and threatened to draw in Afghanistan, two days after assailants in Libya killed four American diplomatic personnel, including the ambassador, and caused a foreign policy clash in the United States.”

The film in question was a crudely produced 14-minute “trailer” called “The Innocence of Muslims,” made by Egyptian-born Coptic Christian Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a U.S. resident. The trailer was dubbed into Arabic and posted on YouTube in September 2012.

An article published in a New York Times online blog by Robert Mackay and Liam Stack on Sept. 11, 2012, hours before the Benghazi attack, with the title, “Obscure Film Mocking Muslim Prophet Sparks Anti-U.S. Protests in Egypt and Libya” featured the offensive film trailer.

The U.S. Embassy in Cairo tweeted a curious response to the Mackay/Stack piece, posted at 5:29 p.m., Sept. 11, 2012, also hours before the Benghazi attack curiously read: “Sorry, but neither breaches of our compound or angry messages will dissuade us from defending freedom of speech AND criticizing bigotry.”

The Wall Street Journal on Sept. 12, 2012, in an article authored by Matt Bradley and Dion Nissenbaum, entitled “U.S. Missions Stormed in Libya, Egypt,” advanced the Obama administration narrative in the wake of the Benghazi attack, with the article apparently written before the news fully broke that Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans had died in the attack

“In Benghazi, Libya, several gunmen from an Islamic group, Ansar al Sharia, attacked the consulate with rocket-propelled grenades to protest the film, a deputy interior minister for the Benghazi region told the Al-Jazeera network,” the Wall Street Journal article read. “A government brigade evacuated the consulate, after which militants set it on fire, said the minister, Wanees Sharef. One State Department officer was killed in the attack on Benghazi, Secretary of State Clinton said.”

A terrorist attack ‘from the get-go’

By Sept. 12, 2012, problems with the narrative blaming the Benghazi attack on the anti-Islamic movie began to surface once reporters learned video of the attack showed well-armed Islamic assailants besieging the CIA compound.

Hicks told the House panel last week that the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli immediately realized the attack in Benghazi was an organized terrorist attack, not a protest against the movie trailer.

Hicks testified the last words he heard Ambassador Stevens speak, via telephone, was: “Greg, we are under attack.”

In his pre-testimony interviews with the staff of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Hicks said everyone in the U.S. mission in Benghazi thought the attack was an act of terror “from the get-go.”.

Hicks was asked: “Did you ever have any indication that there was a protest, a popular protest, outside the mission in Benghazi?”

Hicks responded, “No.”

He added that for there “to have been a demonstration on Chris Stevens’ front door and him to not have reported it is unbelievable.”

Libyan al-Qaida led Benghazi attack

WND reported in October that Abdul Hakem Belhaj, the head of al-Qaida in Libya, led the Benghazi attack with the backing of Mohammad Abdullah Aqil, the wealthy owner of a Mercedes car dealership in Tripoli who is reputed to be a principal funder of al-Qaida in Libya.

Under Muammar Gadhafi’s rule, Aqil worked with Abdullah Sanusi of Gadhafi’s secret service, providing the financing to implement logistics that were aimed to carry out assassinations of anti-Gaddhafi Libyan expatriates living in France, Lebanon, Egypt and Greece.

After falling out of favor with Gadhafi, Aqil was put in prison for six months, during which time he turned against Gadhafi.

After Gadhafi was killed, Aqil began working closely in Libya with Abdul Hakem Belhaj, the chief al-Qaida operative that reliable Libyan expatriate sources have identified to WND as the person most responsible for organizing and directing the terrorist attack that killed Stevens.

In 1992, after the Mujahideen took Kabul, Belhaj traveled across the Middle East and Eastern Europe, before returning to Libya to form the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), which failed to overthrow Gadhafi in two decades of fighting.

When President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed support for the Libyan revolution and engaged with NATO in military action against Libyan military forces loyal to Gadhafi, Belhaj became the leader of the Misrata revolutionaries who ultimately captured Tripoli and ousted Gadhafi.

After Gadhafi was deposed and murdered, Aqil reportedly applied his wealth to assisting Belhaj in supplying vehicles and military equipment for Libyan revolutionaries and al-Qaida terrorists opposed to the regime imposed on Libya by the U.S. and NATO.

Ian Black, Middle East editor for the Guardian of London, in an article titled “The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group – from al-Qaida to the Arab Spring,” published a year before the Benghazi attack, named Belhaj as the “most prominent” person in the Benghazi-based Libyan rebel movement and the commander of the Tripoli military council that spearheaded an attack on the Gadhafi compound in October 2011.

“Belhaj, better known in the jihadi world as Abu Abdullah al-Sadiq, was released with 200 other LIFG leaders or suspected members from Tripoli’s notorious Abu Salim prison after the group collectively recanted and severed its ties with al-Qaida, saying that ‘indiscriminate bombings’ and the ‘targeting of civilians’ were not in accordance with its objectives,” Black wrote.

Black also noted that Belhaj’s radical past and his ties to al-Qaida had been the focus of British MI6 intelligence gathering efforts for the past 20 years.