An Epidemic of Erasures, Redactions, Omissions, and Perjuries

by Victor Davis Hanson:

Imagine the following: The IRS sends you, John Q. Citizen, a letter alleging you have not complied with U.S. tax law. In the next paragraph, the tax agency then informs you that it needs a series of personal and business documents. Indeed, it will be sending agents out to discuss your dilemma and collect the necessary records.

But when the IRS agents arrive, you explain to them that you cannot find about 50 percent of the documents requested, and have no idea whether they even exist. You sigh that both hard copies of pertinent information have unfortunately disappeared and hard drives were mysteriously lost.

You nonchalantly add that you smashed your phone, tablet, and computer with a hammer. You volunteer that, of those documents you do have, you had to cut out, blacken or render unreadable about 30 percent of the contents. After all, you have judged that the redacted material either pertains to superfluous and personal matters such as weddings and yoga, or is of such a sensitive nature that its release would endanger your company or business or perhaps even the country at large.

You also keep silent that you have a number of pertinent documents locked up in a safe hidden in your attic unknown to the IRS. Let them find it, you muse. And when the agents question your unilateral decisions over hours of interrogatories, you remark to them on 245 occasions that you have no memory of your acts—or you simply do not have an answer for them.

In some instances, you state things that are not true, cannot be true by any stretch of the imagination, and contradict things you have said in the past—and you make it clear that you don’t think much of such inconsistencies. When pressed with contradictory evidence, you nonchalantly reply that you gave the “least untruthful” answer.

What would happen to you, a typical American citizen, should you follow this current Washington model of erasing, redacting, omitting, forgetting, and lying? Read the rest of this article at

Gina Haspel is a great pick for CIA

Why are Democrats playing politics with our national security?

By Bryan Dean Wright

When I worked as a CIA officer, playing politics wasn’t part of the job – not for me, not for any of my colleagues. But after watching Democratic senators play to the cameras at the confirmation hearing Tuesday on Gina Haspel’s nomination to become CIA director, I was disappointed to see politics was their major focus.

Haspel is a brilliant intelligence officer with 33 years at the CIA. She has devoted most of her adult life to protecting our nation and won awards for her outstanding performance. Like all of us at the CIA, she’s never carried out her responsibilities as a Democrat or a Republican – but as an American patriot.

But if viewers were hoping for an adult discussion at Haspel’s televised confirmation hearing about how to best protect our nation from terrorists and hostile foreign nations, they got something quite different.

Americans watching the hearing were treated to over two hours of bumbling, partisan attacks that left listeners with one clear takeaway: Democrats were focused on the sins of the past, not of the threats of the future. Moreover, they showed no interest in helping fix what is clearly a broken CIA.

Americans watching the Haspel hearing were treated to over two hours of bumbling, partisan attacks that left listeners with one clear takeaway: Democrats were focused on the sins of the past, not of the threats of the future.

In other words, the Democratic senators on the Intelligence Committee who fancy themselves as progressive thinkers ended up looking like a bunch of circus clowns who missed the train ride home. Their inane questions and partisan motivations ended up embarrassing not just themselves but the party and the nation. Continue reading and watch video at

13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi

This Film Honors the Sacrifice of the Men on the Ground in Benghazi

13 hours

by Stephen L. Miller  *  January 6, 2016

“Things change fast in Benghazi,” we are told near the opening of Michael Bay’s 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi, and the dynamism with which the film presents the events of September 11, 2012, makes the quote ring true.

As the film starts, we land with former SEAL turned private-security-officer Jack Silva (The Office’s John Krasinski) in the middle of a post-Qaddafi Libyan hellscape. Benghazi is dominated by local security forces and militias indistinguishable from one another that can and will switch sides on the turn of a dime. We are reminded constantly that everyone is a bad guy “until they’re not.”

As anyone familiar with the Benghazi attack will know, a disaster is looming for the security contractors and their CIA liaisons on the ground. Only our own State Department remained seemingly unaware of the cauldron of tribal extremism that Benghazi had become — as the film shows, Foggy Bottom had all but abandoned or disavowed knowledge of the CIA outpost in the city. “We have no f***ing support,” one of the few U.S. security personnel on the ground declares as he attempts to talk his way past a militia roadblock. Continue reading this article at

I’m told that then Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, is not mentioned in the film because  “13 Hours doesn’t concern itself with the politics of Benghazi.” This is disappointing to me, but I will still see it.  Watch the official trailer HERE