US Post Offices Reportedly Refusing Mail to Israel
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has written to complain to the US Postmaster General, after receiving widespread reports that US post offices around America have been refusing to accept mail to Israel.In the last several days ADL reports that it has received complaints from Massachusetts, Michigan and New Jersey, revealing postal customers were incorrectly told that the US Postal Service is not accepting mail for Israel due to Operation Protective Edge in Gaza.
"The postal employees have told these individuals that current USPS policy says that mail to Israel cannot be accepted because of the current crisis,” said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director.
Foxman added that "only once employees sought clarification from supervisors in Washington did these post offices accept packages and letters to Israel."
Writing to US Postmaster General Patrick R. Donahoe, ADL stated that the phenomenon presumably stems from a misunderstanding by postal workers, who apparently thought the temporary suspension of service to Israel during a 36-hour period in July was a permanent policy change.
That suspension came after the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) banned flights to Israel, following a Hamas rocket landing near Ben Gurion International Airport. The ban was later lifted, but not before Hamas declared it a "great victory."
The issue of mail to Israel being denied comes as Wall Street Journal reports on Wednesday night revealed that US President Barack Obama's administration blocked a weapons transfer to Israel during the operation, and further ordered closer scrutiny of future Israeli weapons requests.
Obamacare Enrollment is “Shrinking”… It Could Be Doomed
When Obamacare was first pitched to the American people, it promised the world, but since it’s implementation it has failed to deliver.Liberals touted this supposed deeply needed healthcare reform bill as the cure-all for all what ails the current system, as politicians made all kinds of promises, but gave no details on how the legislation would work. You had to pass the bill to find out, sort of like buying a box of Cracker Jacks to get the prize.
As Obamacare rolled out, the system was plagued with technical problems, thousands lost their insurance coverage, and those that managed to jump over the other two hurdles soon discovered their medical expenses actually increased.
Millions of Americans have finally woken up to the truth about Obamacare, and have since joined the fight to bring about its demise. Fortunately, it looks like the end of this awful socialist experiment could actually be in sight.
Click here to read about two lawsuits that could destroy Obamacare for good
According to Investors.Com, Obamacare enrollment is rapidly shrinking, and it looks to continue the downward spiral through the end of 2014.
Statistics show that America’s third largest insurer had 720,000 people sign up for insurance in May, but by the end of June only had 600,000 actual paying clients.
Insurance giant, Aetna, predicted they will see that number drop even lower to just over 500,000 by year’s end.
Companies across the industry are seeing similar results, which raises the question of whether or not enough new members will sign up to offset attrition rates, but the evidence isn’t too promising.
Good. If insurance companies continue to lose money and not make a profit, they will surely revolt against Obamacare, and having strong opposition against this travesty is always welcomed.
Everyone knows that in reality, Obamacare wasn’t about improving health care, as much as it was about gaining more control over the governed, without needing their consent.
Having control over health care gives the government incredible power to squash those who resist it’s agenda, not to mention the taxes and fines levied at business owners would damage an already fragile economy.
Reporter Asks Federal Snitch Al Sharpton Brazen Question To His Face
As it’s come to light over the past few months, Al Sharpton was nothing more than your average criminal turned federal snitch during his younger days. As graffiti was painted on wall amongst the riots in Missouri reading “snitches get stitches,” one reporter brazenly asked Sharpton if he feared for his life.
According to Infowars, “Sharpton was converted into a snitch for the FBI in 1983 after he was caught on tape negotiating a cocaine deal.”
Al Sharpton made his very public arrival in Missouri as he further seeks to stuff his pockets by fueling racial tensions and was met with a barrage of reporters immediately after stepping out from his car. As the majority of reporters were there to stroke Sharpton’s ego and snap a few photos, one reporter was chomping at the bit with quite the question.
Clinton Foundation, Hamas Share Major Donor
Qatari government gave millions to Clinton group and terror group
The Clinton Foundation and the
terror group Hamas share a key donor: The government of Qatar, a leading
backer of terror groups that has emerged in recent years as Hamas’
chief financial lifeline.
Qatar, which has been designated by the State Department as a “significant terrorist financing risk,” has pledged more than $400 million to Hamas since 2012 and has long harbored one of the terror group’s senior leaders, Khaled Mashaal.
At the same time, Qatar has sought to curry favor with elite Westerners, donating between $1 million and $5 million through 2013 to the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.
The foundation has been dogged by ethical questions over its willingness to accept money from questionable sources, including authoritarian regimes such as Kuwait and Oman.
A Clinton Foundation spokesperson did not respond to a Washington Free Beacon request seeking comment and greater details about Qatar’s donations to the charity.
The Qatari government’s support for Hamas has greatly buoyed the financially troubled group, enabling it to build its terror infrastructure in the Gaza Strip and wage war against Israel, which has been struck by more than 400 Hamas rockets in the past week.
In the midst of Hamas’ latest rocket attacks on Israel, questions are being raised again about the political and ethical implications of the Clinton Foundation’s willingness—and by dint that of likely presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton—to partner with a government that directly funds Hamas.
“The Clinton Foundation should donate the money it has received from Qatar to an Israeli charity that helps victims of terrorism—many of whom wouldn’t be victims in the first place if Qatar wasn’t funding Hamas,” said Noah Pollak, executive director of the Emergency Committee for Israel, a pro-Israel group.
The Clinton Foundation thanked its donors in a statement on its website, writing: “Their generosity makes our work possible and we thank them.”
In addition to Qatar, the Clinton Foundation has accepted money from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Brunei, which in May adopted Sharia Law, an extremist Islamic legal system that condones flogging and stoning by death.
“The Clinton Foundation was, from the start, a trap door for ethics. Now it seems it is also a mirror into Clinton ethics, judgment, and hypocrisy,” said former Pentagon official Michael Rubin, who studies global terrorism networks.
“A basic rule of thumb if you’re talking about philanthropy you want to have at least four or five degrees of separation from a country that finances terror, not just one,” Rubin said.
Qatar’s emir has publicly courted Hamas for years, and was the first head of state to visit the Gaza Strip after Hamas assumed control.
Mashaal, the head of Hamas’ politburo, was pictured Wednesday evening in Doha at a state dinner with leading Qatari officials, who pledged an additional $5 million to the terror group in May.
The group of Muslims of America (MOA) are documented to have a connection to terrorism with training inside the United States. There was a 2002 unsolved murder at one of these compounds in Texas. When the Clarion Project obtained the 2007 FBI document detailing the Texas Enclave of MOA, what they found was deeply disturbing.
Texas Governor Rick Perry called up 1000 troops to work with the Texas Department of Public Safety as a "force multiplier" after the Border Patrol struggled to cope with an influx of unaccompanied children from Central America.
"The notion is the National Guard is some sort of back up or force multiplier for DPS, that really only works if they can track people and also detain them and hold them for DPS," said Josiah Heyman director of the Center for Inter-American and Border Studies.
"It raises the question of whether the National Guard is adequately trained to summon up the reasonable suspicion," said Heyman. "Do they know the allowable facts? Will they act on racial profiling?"
Governor Perry could give Texas National Guard members arrest powers but so far has not done so. During the announcement of the deployment in mid-July he said troops would help DPS with law enforcement on the border.
"These additional resources will combat the brutal, Mexican cartels that are preying on our citizens," said Perry.
During the same press conference Adjutant General John Nichols gave a general description of the troops' role.
"We're planning on referring and deterring — so deterring them with physical presence and referring any people that we see that we think are illegal immigrants to DPS," said Nichols.
"You can't see somebody's immigration status stamped on their forehead," said Heyman. "You can't tell if somebody is an innocent person, just a kid with baggy pants or somebody who's a young member of a criminal organization," said Heyman.
Some with experience working with the National Guard on the border during past deployments were originally pleased with the return of troops.
"I was hopeful when I heard about the National Guardsmen that they would be put in places to relieve the Border Patrol from doing transportation duties, watching children in detention centers, and actually put those agents out in the field to do their duties," said Victor Manjarrez Jr., director of the National Center for Border Security and Immigration at the University of Texas El Paso.
Manjarrez, a former Border Patrol Station Chief, helped coordinate the National Guard on the Border in 2006 when President Bush deployed troops in a support role while the Border Patrol hired and trained thousands of new agents.
Among their duties: working at stables for horses used by mounted border agents, building vehicle barriers on the border, and surveillance that helped Border Patrol agents apprehend smugglers in the field.
But he questions the effectiveness of using military troops to deal with an influx of unaccompanied kids and families from Central America.
"To have additional surveillance capabilities on a group of people that are surrendering to begin with doesn't look like it's the best choice," said Manjarrez.
Qatar, which has been designated by the State Department as a “significant terrorist financing risk,” has pledged more than $400 million to Hamas since 2012 and has long harbored one of the terror group’s senior leaders, Khaled Mashaal.
At the same time, Qatar has sought to curry favor with elite Westerners, donating between $1 million and $5 million through 2013 to the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.
The foundation has been dogged by ethical questions over its willingness to accept money from questionable sources, including authoritarian regimes such as Kuwait and Oman.
A Clinton Foundation spokesperson did not respond to a Washington Free Beacon request seeking comment and greater details about Qatar’s donations to the charity.
The Qatari government’s support for Hamas has greatly buoyed the financially troubled group, enabling it to build its terror infrastructure in the Gaza Strip and wage war against Israel, which has been struck by more than 400 Hamas rockets in the past week.
In the midst of Hamas’ latest rocket attacks on Israel, questions are being raised again about the political and ethical implications of the Clinton Foundation’s willingness—and by dint that of likely presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton—to partner with a government that directly funds Hamas.
“The Clinton Foundation should donate the money it has received from Qatar to an Israeli charity that helps victims of terrorism—many of whom wouldn’t be victims in the first place if Qatar wasn’t funding Hamas,” said Noah Pollak, executive director of the Emergency Committee for Israel, a pro-Israel group.
The Clinton Foundation thanked its donors in a statement on its website, writing: “Their generosity makes our work possible and we thank them.”
In addition to Qatar, the Clinton Foundation has accepted money from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Brunei, which in May adopted Sharia Law, an extremist Islamic legal system that condones flogging and stoning by death.
“The Clinton Foundation was, from the start, a trap door for ethics. Now it seems it is also a mirror into Clinton ethics, judgment, and hypocrisy,” said former Pentagon official Michael Rubin, who studies global terrorism networks.
“A basic rule of thumb if you’re talking about philanthropy you want to have at least four or five degrees of separation from a country that finances terror, not just one,” Rubin said.
Qatar’s emir has publicly courted Hamas for years, and was the first head of state to visit the Gaza Strip after Hamas assumed control.
Mashaal, the head of Hamas’ politburo, was pictured Wednesday evening in Doha at a state dinner with leading Qatari officials, who pledged an additional $5 million to the terror group in May.
22 JIHAD TRAINING CAMPS IN USA- FBI REFUSES TO TAKE ACTION!
There are over 22 confirmed terrorist Jihad camps in the United States belonging to Jamaat ul-Fuqra, a Pakastan Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda related branch. Now a combined media effort, we find police officers working to double as the compound militia. To top it off, the FBI states that their hands are tied in monitoring their activities despite a training video that is years old, possible murders, and proof of illegal activities.
The fact is these training camps are not a
new item that have popped up on the Homeland Security radar. These
training camps are being operated by an extremely militant group of
international terrorists, an organization called Jamaat ul-Fuqra. In
order to live in these camps, you must pledge to support a Pakastani
Cleric on the International Wanted list. As early as 2012, the media
confirmed 19 Jihad camps on United States soil.
The group of Muslims of America (MOA) are documented to have a connection to terrorism with training inside the United States. There was a 2002 unsolved murder at one of these compounds in Texas. When the Clarion Project obtained the 2007 FBI document detailing the Texas Enclave of MOA, what they found was deeply disturbing.
The organization says it has a network of 22 “villages” around the U.S., with Islamberg as its main headquarters in New York. TheClarion Project obtained secret MOA footage showing female members receiving paramilitary training at Islamberg. It was featured on the Kelly File on FOX News Channel in October. A second MOA tape released by Clarion shows its spokesman declaring the U.S. to be a Muslim-majority country.It got even worse when they tried to find out why the FBI, in a time where we are supposed to be at one of the highest levels of national security, has done nothing about it for years. After all, the Clarion Project found out that the compound had been raided in 1991 in connection to a foiled bomb plot in Toronto. Several of the members had been filmed training as militants. This was not a new situation. This should have been something DHS jumped quickly on.
A 2007 FBI record states that MOA members have been involved in at least 10 murders, one disappearance, three firebombings, one attempted firebombing, two explosive bombings and one attempted bombing. It states:
“The documented propensity for violence by this organization supports the belief the leadership of the MOA extols membership to pursue a policy of jihad or holy war against individuals or groups it considers enemies of Islam, which includes the U.S. Government. Members of the MOA are encouraged to travel to Pakistan to receive religious and military/terrorist training from Sheikh Gilani.”
The document also says that, “The MOA is now an autonomous organization which possesses an infrastructure capable of planning and mounting terrorist campaigns overseas and within the U.S.” ~Clarion Project
1,000 National Guard members head to Texas-Mexico border
EL PASO, Texas -- One thousand Texas National Guard members are about to assume their duties on the border but critics question whether their role is either too limited or broad.Texas Governor Rick Perry called up 1000 troops to work with the Texas Department of Public Safety as a "force multiplier" after the Border Patrol struggled to cope with an influx of unaccompanied children from Central America.
"The notion is the National Guard is some sort of back up or force multiplier for DPS, that really only works if they can track people and also detain them and hold them for DPS," said Josiah Heyman director of the Center for Inter-American and Border Studies.
"It raises the question of whether the National Guard is adequately trained to summon up the reasonable suspicion," said Heyman. "Do they know the allowable facts? Will they act on racial profiling?"
Governor Perry could give Texas National Guard members arrest powers but so far has not done so. During the announcement of the deployment in mid-July he said troops would help DPS with law enforcement on the border.
"These additional resources will combat the brutal, Mexican cartels that are preying on our citizens," said Perry.
During the same press conference Adjutant General John Nichols gave a general description of the troops' role.
"We're planning on referring and deterring — so deterring them with physical presence and referring any people that we see that we think are illegal immigrants to DPS," said Nichols.
"You can't see somebody's immigration status stamped on their forehead," said Heyman. "You can't tell if somebody is an innocent person, just a kid with baggy pants or somebody who's a young member of a criminal organization," said Heyman.
Some with experience working with the National Guard on the border during past deployments were originally pleased with the return of troops.
"I was hopeful when I heard about the National Guardsmen that they would be put in places to relieve the Border Patrol from doing transportation duties, watching children in detention centers, and actually put those agents out in the field to do their duties," said Victor Manjarrez Jr., director of the National Center for Border Security and Immigration at the University of Texas El Paso.
Manjarrez, a former Border Patrol Station Chief, helped coordinate the National Guard on the Border in 2006 when President Bush deployed troops in a support role while the Border Patrol hired and trained thousands of new agents.
Among their duties: working at stables for horses used by mounted border agents, building vehicle barriers on the border, and surveillance that helped Border Patrol agents apprehend smugglers in the field.
But he questions the effectiveness of using military troops to deal with an influx of unaccompanied kids and families from Central America.
"To have additional surveillance capabilities on a group of people that are surrendering to begin with doesn't look like it's the best choice," said Manjarrez.
UN Appoints Anti-Israel Lecturer to Investigate Israeli War Crimes in Gaza
Ambassador Ron Prosor was protesting the appointment of William Schabas, a Canadian jurist and lecturer on international law, to the post.
In a letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Prosor said: “In light of his hate-fueled rants, one doesn’t need to be a fortune teller to predict the outcome of any inquiry led by Mr. Schabas.”
In a tape shown on Israel’s Channel Two last night, Schabas is heard telling colleagues last year that the person he would most like to see tried by the International Court of Justice in the Hague was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He also suggested that then Israeli President Shimon Peres be tried.
Interviewed by Channel Two, Schabas said his reference to Netanyahu was in the context of a discussion of the Goldstone Report on alleged Israeli war crimes during an incursion into Gaza in 2009, Operation Cast Lead. “I didn’t prejudge him and I didn’t say he was guilty,” said Schabas. Israeli critics, however, were quick to point out that Netanyahu was not prime minister during that operation.
In the tape, Schabas also asks why former Israeli President Shimon Peres was not tried in the Hague. “Why are we going after the president of Sudan for Darfur and not the president of Israel for Gaza?” he asked.
Peres has long been one of Israel’s most outspoken advocates for peace and had no decision making role in the incursion into Gaza.
Schabas was appointed to head the commission by the UN’s Human Rights Council (UNHRC), which also appointed the commission headed by Richard Goldstone five years ago to investigate Operation Cast Lead. That commission found Israel and the Palestinians both guilty of war crimes but Goldstone himself later recanted and said that Israel had not deliberately targeted Palestinian civilians as it had originally been accused of.
The UNHRC has long been accused by critics of being virulently anti-Israel. Asked in the Israeli television interview why the UN body repeatedly ignored nations involved in massive abuses while focusing instead on Israel, Schabas acknowledged that “there’s a lot of double standards in the United Nations” because of the influence of world powers. Israel had also profited from this double standard, he suggested, when it was protected on the Security Council by the U.S.
Schabas declined to comment on whether Hamas was a terrorist organization. He said it had not yet been decided whether alleged Hamas war crimes, such as the firing of rockets at Israeli cities, fell within the commission’s mandate. “Our mandate determines we investigate violations of international law and war crimes committed only within the the occupied territories during the fighting,” he said.
The other two jurists named to the commission were British-Lebanese rights lawyer Amal Alamuddin and Doudou Diène of Senegal. However, Ms. Alamuddin, best known as the fiancée of actor George Clooney, declined her appointment and a replacement has not yet been announced.
Mitch McConnell Demands Reid Hold Votes on Anti-Executive Amnesty Bills
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is calling on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to allow the U.S. Senate to vote on the two House-passed border crisis bills that would block President Barack Obama from continuing or expanding his executive amnesty via the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.
“The President seems to have forgotten that he does not possess the authority to re-write our immigration laws and that, on the contrary, the Constitution requires that he take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” McConnell said in a statement provided exclusively to Breitbart News. “The House has passed two bills to address the humanitarian crisis on our southern border, and the Senate should vote on them. That’s why I began the process of putting them on the Senate’s legislative calendar shortly before the current recess, and I urge Majority Leader Reid to schedule a vote on these bills as soon as the Senate returns.”
McConnell’s statement comes as Senate Budget Committee ranking member Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) is calling on Americans to melt the U.S. Senate’s phone lines and ask their senators, both Democrat and Republican, to demand a vote in the U.S. senate on the House-passed bills.
“Recent developments suggest the President’s planned executive amnesty could be increasingly imminent and broad in scope,” Sessions said in his Tuesday evening statement to Breitbart News, citing how House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has called on the President to give the “broadest possible” executive amnesty to perhaps as many as ten million illegal aliens.
NY Post Confirms That Obama is TRAINING Up to 87,000 Taliban In Afghanistan
President Obama’s foreign policy blunders have led many to question exactly where his loyalties lie, or if he just doesn’t care.We have seen the absolute mess that Iraq has turned into, after Obama prematurely withdrew all US forces, before the Iraqi Army was capable of standing on their own, leading to the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
Now it appears that the exact same thing is about to happen in Afghanistan, as Obama is pushing for the complete withdrawal of US forces from the country by the end of this year.
According to the New York Post, it has been revealed that approximately a quarter of the Afghan National Security Forces are Taliban or Al-Qaeda operatives or sympathizers, numbering more than 87,000 troops total.
Under pressure from the Obama administration, and with the clock ticking down to the deadline, the Pentagon has relaxed normal rules and regulations regarding vetting and background checks for new recruits to the Afghan forces. The result is that known Taliban and Al-Qaeda operatives are enrolling in the Afghan military, and getting training and pay courtesy of the US taxpayer.
Years ago, during the rash of insider attacks against US and allied forces by Taliban infiltrators, US forces ramped up their vetting process, in an attempt to weed out the infiltrators, or prevent their joining the military altogether.
But now with the rush to leave Afghanistan, that process has been all but abandoned, and the Afghans have been put in charge of recruiting to fill out their security forces. The Afghans have been paying Taliban members to join their forces, and have even been releasing Taliban prisoners, who are then prompted to join the security forces as well.
This has resulted in an Afghan force that contains an army within an army. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda operatives routinely take advantage of opportunities to attack US forces, using the disguise of Afghan army uniforms. The rest are patiently waiting for US troops to leave, so they can take the country back over, using the weapons and training that we have bestowed upon them.
This is just plain idiotic. What was once a winnable war, albeit a dozen years ago, has turned into a morass of quicksand that we can’t leave quick enough, and that will never fully let us go. Our brave men and women who are serving in Afghanistan are now in more danger than they have ever been in before, as none can ever be fully sure of the loyalties or motives of their Afghan counterparts.
Editor who rejected book to protect Obama sacked
Publisher insists dismissal unrelated to proposal by Bergdahl's mates
NEW YORK – An editor who wrote a
controversial email explaining she rejected a proposal to publish a book
by the platoon mates of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl on political grounds has
been dismissed, according to her company.
But Paul Olsewski, vice president for publicity for Atria Books, an imprint of Simon and Schuster, insisted to WND that Durand was not fired because of the email.
“Sarah Durand was part of a planned editorial downsizing that took place on Monday,” he wrote in response to a WND query. “To say otherwise or connect is categorically wrong.”
In the email to veteran Hollywood movie producer Bettina Viviano, who is handling the book’s movie rights, Durand said she feared the account of Bergdahl’s exploits might serve the interests of conservatives opposed to President Obama.
Bergdahl is the U.S. Army sergeant freed earlier this year after spending close to five years in Afghanistan as a Taliban captive. He was let go in exchange for the release of five top Taliban terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay.
“I thought about this all weekend, and basically, I’m not sure we can publish this book without the Right using it to their ends,” she said.
“I can understand that—I’m a Progressive and still feel that something’s fishy here. Releasing those 5 terrorists just doesn’t smell right to me.”
In an interview with WND, Viviano said she was “floored” by what Durant put into writing.
“I’ve been in this industry for 30 years,” Viviano said, “and I never thought any serious book editor would ever be so unprofessional. Here we have an important story for Americans to hear, and it might not reach the public because of someone’s personal political feelings for Obama. It blew my mind. I looked at the email and said, ‘Are you kidding?’”
Durand also referred to “Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry,” a book co-authored in 2004 by the author of this news report and published by Regnery during the 2004 presidential campaign.
Her email continues:
“We happened to get on the phone with Sarah Durand, and she just heard the verbal pitch from these six guys who were literally in the trenches with Bergdahl,” Viviano explained.
“What they had to say was breathtaking enough, and there’s so much new material that has been held back from the media to release in the book. On the phone, Sarah was saying, ‘Oh, that’s amazing,’ and, ‘Thank you so much for your service to our country,’ and, ‘It was an honor speaking with you,’ and I thought she was being very receptive.”
Viviano explained the phone conversation with Durand occurred just prior to the July 4 weekend.
“Then on that Monday morning, Durand sent an email, and why she put it in writing, I don’t know. It’s so unbelievable, but she put into writing that she was going to pass because she did not want to ‘Swift Boat’ Obama.”
An astonished Viviano said she expects “a certain amount of bias in the media, but I never thought that a credible editor would allow personal politics to prevent a publishing house of national repute from being published a story that has to do with the public’s right to know the truth about Bergdahl.”
“I was apoplectic when I saw her email. I never saw this coming,” she said.
Viviano explained that very few publishers have heard in detail about the project, and the book proposal is still in the process of being drafted.
“We’ve taken the position with this project that it isn’t about politics,” Viviano said. “For all I know, the six soldiers telling their story about Bergdahl might be Democrats. The story they have to tell is huge, and it deserves to be in the public. For the film, it’s a story of ‘Lone Survivor’ meets ‘Saving Private Ryan,’ and it’s an action adventure story.”
The literary agent on the book project is well-known, Joel Gotler, and Richard Grenell at Capitol Media Partners is handling the public relations for the project. Grenell is a former Bush administration official who served briefly as a national security spokesman for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney during his 2012 presidential campaign.
WND Books has independently expressed an interest in seeing the book proposal and possibly making an offer to publish the book.
But Paul Olsewski, vice president for publicity for Atria Books, an imprint of Simon and Schuster, insisted to WND that Durand was not fired because of the email.
“Sarah Durand was part of a planned editorial downsizing that took place on Monday,” he wrote in response to a WND query. “To say otherwise or connect is categorically wrong.”
In the email to veteran Hollywood movie producer Bettina Viviano, who is handling the book’s movie rights, Durand said she feared the account of Bergdahl’s exploits might serve the interests of conservatives opposed to President Obama.
Bergdahl is the U.S. Army sergeant freed earlier this year after spending close to five years in Afghanistan as a Taliban captive. He was let go in exchange for the release of five top Taliban terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay.
“I thought about this all weekend, and basically, I’m not sure we can publish this book without the Right using it to their ends,” she said.
“I can understand that—I’m a Progressive and still feel that something’s fishy here. Releasing those 5 terrorists just doesn’t smell right to me.”
In an interview with WND, Viviano said she was “floored” by what Durant put into writing.
“I’ve been in this industry for 30 years,” Viviano said, “and I never thought any serious book editor would ever be so unprofessional. Here we have an important story for Americans to hear, and it might not reach the public because of someone’s personal political feelings for Obama. It blew my mind. I looked at the email and said, ‘Are you kidding?’”
Durand also referred to “Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry,” a book co-authored in 2004 by the author of this news report and published by Regnery during the 2004 presidential campaign.
Her email continues:
But the Conservatives are all over Bergdahl and using it against Obama, and my concern is that this book will have to become a kind of “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” book—or at least it’s best published by an imprint who will handle that side delicately. I understand that these guys want the book to be about being on the ground looking for Bergdahl…but there’s that frustration, that resentment, etc, that the Right wants to see in a book. Do the 6 guys acknowledge that that element is inherently part of a book? I’m just not sure how to get around it.Viviano said Atria had not yet been shown a formal written book proposal.
“We happened to get on the phone with Sarah Durand, and she just heard the verbal pitch from these six guys who were literally in the trenches with Bergdahl,” Viviano explained.
“What they had to say was breathtaking enough, and there’s so much new material that has been held back from the media to release in the book. On the phone, Sarah was saying, ‘Oh, that’s amazing,’ and, ‘Thank you so much for your service to our country,’ and, ‘It was an honor speaking with you,’ and I thought she was being very receptive.”
Viviano explained the phone conversation with Durand occurred just prior to the July 4 weekend.
“Then on that Monday morning, Durand sent an email, and why she put it in writing, I don’t know. It’s so unbelievable, but she put into writing that she was going to pass because she did not want to ‘Swift Boat’ Obama.”
An astonished Viviano said she expects “a certain amount of bias in the media, but I never thought that a credible editor would allow personal politics to prevent a publishing house of national repute from being published a story that has to do with the public’s right to know the truth about Bergdahl.”
“I was apoplectic when I saw her email. I never saw this coming,” she said.
Viviano explained that very few publishers have heard in detail about the project, and the book proposal is still in the process of being drafted.
“We’ve taken the position with this project that it isn’t about politics,” Viviano said. “For all I know, the six soldiers telling their story about Bergdahl might be Democrats. The story they have to tell is huge, and it deserves to be in the public. For the film, it’s a story of ‘Lone Survivor’ meets ‘Saving Private Ryan,’ and it’s an action adventure story.”
The literary agent on the book project is well-known, Joel Gotler, and Richard Grenell at Capitol Media Partners is handling the public relations for the project. Grenell is a former Bush administration official who served briefly as a national security spokesman for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney during his 2012 presidential campaign.
WND Books has independently expressed an interest in seeing the book proposal and possibly making an offer to publish the book.
NEW YORK – An editor who wrote a
controversial email explaining she rejected a proposal to publish a book
by the platoon mates of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl on political grounds has
been dismissed, according to her company.
But Paul Olsewski, vice president for publicity for Atria Books, an imprint of Simon and Schuster, insisted to WND that Durand was not fired because of the email.
“Sarah Durand was part of a planned editorial downsizing that took place on Monday,” he wrote in response to a WND query. “To say otherwise or connect is categorically wrong.”
In the email to veteran Hollywood movie producer Bettina Viviano, who is handling the book’s movie rights, Durand said she feared the account of Bergdahl’s exploits might serve the interests of conservatives opposed to President Obama.
Bergdahl is the U.S. Army sergeant freed earlier this year after spending close to five years in Afghanistan as a Taliban captive. He was let go in exchange for the release of five top Taliban terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay.
“I thought about this all weekend, and basically, I’m not sure we can publish this book without the Right using it to their ends,” she said.
“I can understand that—I’m a Progressive and still feel that something’s fishy here. Releasing those 5 terrorists just doesn’t smell right to me.”
In an interview with WND, Viviano said she was “floored” by what Durant put into writing.
“I’ve been in this industry for 30 years,” Viviano said, “and I never thought any serious book editor would ever be so unprofessional. Here we have an important story for Americans to hear, and it might not reach the public because of someone’s personal political feelings for Obama. It blew my mind. I looked at the email and said, ‘Are you kidding?’”
Durand also referred to “Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry,” a book co-authored in 2004 by the author of this news report and published by Regnery during the 2004 presidential campaign.
Her email continues:
“We happened to get on the phone with Sarah Durand, and she just heard the verbal pitch from these six guys who were literally in the trenches with Bergdahl,” Viviano explained.
“What they had to say was breathtaking enough, and there’s so much new material that has been held back from the media to release in the book. On the phone, Sarah was saying, ‘Oh, that’s amazing,’ and, ‘Thank you so much for your service to our country,’ and, ‘It was an honor speaking with you,’ and I thought she was being very receptive.”
Viviano explained the phone conversation with Durand occurred just prior to the July 4 weekend.
“Then on that Monday morning, Durand sent an email, and why she put it in writing, I don’t know. It’s so unbelievable, but she put into writing that she was going to pass because she did not want to ‘Swift Boat’ Obama.”
An astonished Viviano said she expects “a certain amount of bias in the media, but I never thought that a credible editor would allow personal politics to prevent a publishing house of national repute from being published a story that has to do with the public’s right to know the truth about Bergdahl.”
“I was apoplectic when I saw her email. I never saw this coming,” she said.
Viviano explained that very few publishers have heard in detail about the project, and the book proposal is still in the process of being drafted.
“We’ve taken the position with this project that it isn’t about politics,” Viviano said. “For all I know, the six soldiers telling their story about Bergdahl might be Democrats. The story they have to tell is huge, and it deserves to be in the public. For the film, it’s a story of ‘Lone Survivor’ meets ‘Saving Private Ryan,’ and it’s an action adventure story.”
The literary agent on the book project is well-known, Joel Gotler, and Richard Grenell at Capitol Media Partners is handling the public relations for the project. Grenell is a former Bush administration official who served briefly as a national security spokesman for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney during his 2012 presidential campaign.
WND Books has independently expressed an interest in seeing the book proposal and possibly making an offer to publish the book.
But Paul Olsewski, vice president for publicity for Atria Books, an imprint of Simon and Schuster, insisted to WND that Durand was not fired because of the email.
“Sarah Durand was part of a planned editorial downsizing that took place on Monday,” he wrote in response to a WND query. “To say otherwise or connect is categorically wrong.”
In the email to veteran Hollywood movie producer Bettina Viviano, who is handling the book’s movie rights, Durand said she feared the account of Bergdahl’s exploits might serve the interests of conservatives opposed to President Obama.
Bergdahl is the U.S. Army sergeant freed earlier this year after spending close to five years in Afghanistan as a Taliban captive. He was let go in exchange for the release of five top Taliban terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay.
“I thought about this all weekend, and basically, I’m not sure we can publish this book without the Right using it to their ends,” she said.
“I can understand that—I’m a Progressive and still feel that something’s fishy here. Releasing those 5 terrorists just doesn’t smell right to me.”
In an interview with WND, Viviano said she was “floored” by what Durant put into writing.
“I’ve been in this industry for 30 years,” Viviano said, “and I never thought any serious book editor would ever be so unprofessional. Here we have an important story for Americans to hear, and it might not reach the public because of someone’s personal political feelings for Obama. It blew my mind. I looked at the email and said, ‘Are you kidding?’”
Durand also referred to “Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry,” a book co-authored in 2004 by the author of this news report and published by Regnery during the 2004 presidential campaign.
Her email continues:
But the Conservatives are all over Bergdahl and using it against Obama, and my concern is that this book will have to become a kind of “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” book—or at least it’s best published by an imprint who will handle that side delicately. I understand that these guys want the book to be about being on the ground looking for Bergdahl…but there’s that frustration, that resentment, etc, that the Right wants to see in a book. Do the 6 guys acknowledge that that element is inherently part of a book? I’m just not sure how to get around it.Viviano said Atria had not yet been shown a formal written book proposal.
“We happened to get on the phone with Sarah Durand, and she just heard the verbal pitch from these six guys who were literally in the trenches with Bergdahl,” Viviano explained.
“What they had to say was breathtaking enough, and there’s so much new material that has been held back from the media to release in the book. On the phone, Sarah was saying, ‘Oh, that’s amazing,’ and, ‘Thank you so much for your service to our country,’ and, ‘It was an honor speaking with you,’ and I thought she was being very receptive.”
Viviano explained the phone conversation with Durand occurred just prior to the July 4 weekend.
“Then on that Monday morning, Durand sent an email, and why she put it in writing, I don’t know. It’s so unbelievable, but she put into writing that she was going to pass because she did not want to ‘Swift Boat’ Obama.”
An astonished Viviano said she expects “a certain amount of bias in the media, but I never thought that a credible editor would allow personal politics to prevent a publishing house of national repute from being published a story that has to do with the public’s right to know the truth about Bergdahl.”
“I was apoplectic when I saw her email. I never saw this coming,” she said.
Viviano explained that very few publishers have heard in detail about the project, and the book proposal is still in the process of being drafted.
“We’ve taken the position with this project that it isn’t about politics,” Viviano said. “For all I know, the six soldiers telling their story about Bergdahl might be Democrats. The story they have to tell is huge, and it deserves to be in the public. For the film, it’s a story of ‘Lone Survivor’ meets ‘Saving Private Ryan,’ and it’s an action adventure story.”
The literary agent on the book project is well-known, Joel Gotler, and Richard Grenell at Capitol Media Partners is handling the public relations for the project. Grenell is a former Bush administration official who served briefly as a national security spokesman for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney during his 2012 presidential campaign.
WND Books has independently expressed an interest in seeing the book proposal and possibly making an offer to publish the book.
No comments:
Post a Comment
THE VOCR
Comments and opinions are always welcome.Email VOCR2012@Gmail.com with your input - Opinion - or news link - Intel
We look forward to the Interaction.