Dinesh D'Souza Indicted For Campaign Financing Fraud

     Known adulterer and noted documentarian Dinesh D'Souza has been charged with campaign finance fraud. If his name sounds familiar, it is probably from his immensely popular documentary 2016: Obama's America, which grossed over 33 million dollars in its box office run.

     Conservatives and Tea Partiers alike have been crying foul at this indictment. They continue to criticize the IRS and are accusing the FBI of this being another political targeting scheme from the Obama administration. Considering the fact that a major Tea Party principle is either lowering or eliminating taxes, investigating these groups further to make sure they are not already following anti-tax policies before they are even legal sort of makes sense. Nevertheless, Obama's opponents are still quite disgruntled. The new wave of alarmist calls citing totalitarian tactics on behalf of the Obama administration are misplaced. What Dinesh is accused of is quite plainly a crime - and enough evidence was gathered to proceed with the prosecution. In this case, the U.S. Attorney for Manhattan, Preet Bharara, was appointed by Obama. However, accusing the Obama administration of breaking rules in the name of cronyism, whilst absolving Dinesh by ignoring his connection to the former senatorial candidate, is a blatantly hypocritical double standard.

     In the (so far alleged) case of Mr. D'Souza, the investigation has a considerably more significant levels of justification. Here are the facts concerning the case and character of Dinesh D'Souza. He has been a staunch conservative, both religiously and politically. During the Reagan administration, Dinesh served as a policy advisor. An extremely vocal defender of traditional marriage, in October of 2012 he was exposed for having an extra-marital affair with a married woman. D'Souza tried to defend his actions, but regardless, they still eroded the sanctity of traditional marriage. In his defense, D'Souza did write an Op-Ed defending his actions, but ultimately the scandal cost him his job as President of The King's College in New York. D'Souza and the candidate in question, assumed to be Wendy Long, have a long history together. They both attended Dartmouth College and have been friends for a few decades now. Dinesh has been charged with (1) one count of causing false statements to be made and (1) one count of making illegal contributions in the names of others.

     Those charges stem from his alleged actions in Wendy Long's unsuccessful run to unseat Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. At that time, the maximum total for campaign donations, per private person, was $5,000. While actively campaigning on behalf of Wendy Long, D'Souza donated around $20,000 to the election efforts. He was able to bypass the $5,000 limitation by claiming other people were the source of the extra $15,000. If he simply was acting as an aggregator for campaign financing, there would be no issue - but that is simply not the case. What Dinesh allegedly ended up doing was reimbursing the donors with his own personal funds. He participated in fraud, essentially in the form of money laundering 101: obscuring the source of monies, especially when in circumvention of a law. Knowing that the limit was $5,000, he was able to overcome that obstacle by way of shell donors. Dinesh's lawyer released a statement claiming that there was not "any corrupt or criminal intent whatsoever ... at worst this was an act of misguided friendship by D'Souza." For a man that is so familiar with governmental policies and is often cited as a leading public intellectual, his alleged ignorance of the law has zero standing. Claiming innocence via ignorance once caught, in the case of marriage practices or campaign finance laws, illustrates a disturbing trend of willful disregard for the law.

DISCLAIMER: Since this is an ongoing case, these claims and accusations are predicated on the indictment and charges currently facing Mr. Dinesh D'Souza. As with all criminal cases, the accused are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. In the context of this article's verbiage, this contingency must be considered and incorporated in reading this article.

Moore Tornado: Pictures from the Weather War Zone

As I drove closer to the path the tornado had taken, it looked like I was driving into a blast zone. The shear and utter devastation of the EF-5 tornado reduced the town of Moore to rubble. The aftermath of the severe weather looked like an air strike had hit these neighborhoods. The path of the tornado scarred the land of Moore and created an instant war zone.

At numerous intersections, I encountered members of the Oklahoma National Guard. They asked me for my credentials and advised me on the best route for the news media staging area. The day before in Tulsa, I had loaded my pick-up truck with cases of water and powerade. When I would approach the National Guard road blocks and police officers, I would offer them the contents of my truck bed.

The I-35 highway that bisects Moore was backed up for the entire day, at its peak, moving only at a snail's pace. Thanks to an outstanding law force presence, the knocked out traffic lights did not impede traffic. I got to know the officers around the news media staging area, and they would kindly allow me to take short cuts through the road blocks.

SKY News' live point was right next to FOX New's staging area, which led to some interesting encounters. While talking to my British crew, I learned that SKY News is affiliated with FOX News. Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin, a very conservative republican, was on site and there to survey the damage. After she did her interview with FOX News, she did a quick interview with us and I was able to get a picture with her.

After the morning news block we had some free time, and I walked the streets of ground zero. The scenes were unfathomable. People's entire lives were shattered by the tornado and those broken pieces littered their yards. The contrast was quite stark. There would be a house that looked like it only suffered from wind damage and minor cosmetic issues, while across the street, the only thing left was a foundation with a heap of wood and twisted metal.


The area hit near the highway was a shopping center. The Warren Moore was hit fairly bad, but the bowling alley only a few yards away was completely leveled. There were bowling balls in the wreckage and they also peppered the parking lot in a few places as well.

The parking lot was littered with cars. If there was every any question about why you should leave your vehicle for a safer location during a tornado, the scene here was clear evidence. Yes, these vehicles are crash tested for their road worthy purposes, but during a tornado, they serve as nothing else but a steel coffin.


In fact, the amount of cars present provided some interesting opportunities for some good photos.



One of the greatest highlights of the day was seeing numerous media personalities and getting to meet with a few of them. I was part journalist part journalist fan-boy.


On the Left side, we have Wolf Blitzer and John King from CNN and on the Right side, we have Jonathon Hunt and Shepard Smith‎ from FOX News. I probably watch FOX News more than FOX News viewers watch FOX News (I am actually watching it right now as I write this too). So being able to see these guys up close and in person was quite the thrill. I do have to say that the FOX News crew was laid back and really approachable. I got to talk with Jonathon and Shep over the course of the afternoon.
Lastly, this is my favorite picture I took just at day break. In the photo you can see the numerous satellite vans, a police car, and to the left, a storm tracker truck. It is quite poetic and illustrative of the larger scene on Wednesday.


Much like the new dawn I captured in my photo, the city of Moore will persevere and continue in to another day. the recovery efforts I saw were inspiring. Trucks were driving around town with refreshments in their beds and would offer water and sports drinks to the cops working vigilantly.

After a tough day's work, I went home and passed out on my bed, sleeping for about a solid 12 hours. I am out there again today and will get new photos if and when they open up new areas. Phone coverage in the area has been spotty, but follow me on Twitter @TheNolanK - I will try to live tweet about my second day.

Additionally, check out my earlier blog entry 'Moore Tornado: What Happened? And How the Sooner State Plans to Move Forward' to get the full background on the Moore tornado and learn how you can help with the relief efforts.

Gun Control Debate: My Thoughts Regarding Systemic Issues

Today I wrote an article for PolicyMic on the topic of shooting rampages in schools verses stabbing rampages. It was met with highly divisive opinions from both sides, hailed as an attempt at satire or something blatantly obvious. Yes, my matter-of-fact outline of why knives do not stack up against a gun in terms of an effective weapon is pseudo-Colbert, but my intent with writing the article was well intended. This is not an apology, nor is it back pedaling. It is just an explanation of my perspective as I see the world. Please read the article on PolicyMic and check out some of the comments, so that the context of my response below can be properly framed. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well obviously knives are not as deadly as guns. This is not supposed to be some major revelation. A gun is not just like any other weapon - firearms are something extraordinary. The Founding Fathers recognized this, hell, they gave firearms its own amendment - right after speech, religion, and press.

So when the media makes comparisons in terms of mass rampages, sure common features can be analyzed. But to jump and say rampages with knives are just as bad as rampages with a firearm; and therefore common sense measures in regards to gun control, like keeping guns away from the mentally unstable and to require universal background checks, are useless because knife attacks would still happen in lieu of mass shootings, well that is just BS. And this is a common claim from firearms advocates and detractors of gun control.

I have made numerous posts regarding gun control - on Facebook and here on my blog. I have done my research. But I've never really given insight as to my true feelings in regards to the issue of gun control. There's ignorance on both the right and the left, liberals and conservatives alike. I don't think that average Joe Public with no prior experience with firearms should be able to buy a Mk 48 LMG with no questions asked, just by virtue of being American. On the same note, a high capacity magazine is not a one time use item, nor is an "under-barrel rocket launcher" a real thing. I've consistently applied disclaimers to my gun control related posts, but they go ignored - perhaps in favor of vitriolic rhetoric, or a simple reaction from the headline.

It is safe to say that so far my ventures into the gun control debate are experimental and sociological in scope. I have approached it from a precarious perspective, but not from the position of policy prescription. Ultimately would I like the world and America to be a place where no one has the need to use a firearm against a fellow human being? Yes. Is that anywhere near the reality that we live in? No. Do statistics show that the proliferation of gun ownership contribute to a drop in violent crime? Yes. But do I think that the NRA pressures and holds hostage those in public office who want to try and implement positive reforms? Absolutely.

Simply claiming to enforce the laws on the books rings a bit hollow, because the apparatuses to enforce such laws are either ineffective or simply lack a confirmed director. (Yes, I am looking at you ATF). Access to mental health resources needs to be expanded. The underpinning issues of why people feel compelled to commit armed robbery or harm another human being have to be addressed as a matter of public health. Yes, this does mean the war on drugs does need to be reexamined with intense scrutiny. But to then say these types of reforms and new approaches should not also be applied or investigated when it comes to the issue of gun control is disingenuous. It is true that monocausal answers always fall because they fail to incorporate numerous important factors and variables. Likewise, excluding a major part of the issue also dooms progress when it comes to reducing gun violence and the proliferation of firearms into the arms of criminals. What we are doing now is not working. Something has to be done.

Thanks,
N.K.

What Happened in Benghazi: The U.S. Response & Reactions

I want to discuss the armed assault of the U.S. consulate on the 11th of September 2012 in Benghazi, Libya. Not necessarily because I want to, but because I feel compelled to in light of the hyper-politicization by Republicans and FOX News. Even in light of all we now know, their continued perpetuation of false narratives and misconceptions have frustrated me and now I just want to finally clear up this non-issue. Now as a general disclaimer, I am NOT saying that there should be no concern in the media over Libya, I am NOT trying to minimize the tragedy that led to four brave Americans losing their lives, and I am NOT saying that there should not be an investigation or Congressional hearings. Now, let's begin.

To be clear on what I am arguing against, I will outline my concessions. Yes, the compound was not as secure as it should have been, but it was not a full scale embassy. The U.S. is still in the midst of fiscal turmoil, and as a result of austere fiscal policies, everything suffers - here it was the quality of security for the foreign consulates. And for a general outline and background for the events that transpired, here is the official time line of events that unfolded at the Benghazi consulate. [Links Here and Here] The myths that have entered the dialogue that can be addressed and thusly refuted by the timeline will not be mentioned here. 

1. Before the assault in Benghazi even began, the Republican leadership in Congress was trying to defund security resources in Libya. [Links Here and Here] While admittedly this is a fleeting assumption, it shows a continued trend of politicizing the events in Libya as well as Republican opposition to Obama's foreign policy. Perhaps if the mission had been able to fully operate to the extent it needed to, the threat of these armed militias could have been curbed during NATO's Operation Unified Protector.

2. The real-time intelligence being relayed to American military assets was murky. U.S. secretary of Defense Leon Panetta even said that the U.S. military lacked "real-time information." He went on to say, "You don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on, (We) felt we could not put forces at risk in that situation." [Link Here] This is a clear no brainer. If there is indeed chaos, you don't throw assets at the conflict without knowing what is going on. This impulsive inclination leads to naive consequences. Even when the U.S. military is readily prepared in a region and in an active war zone, sending reinforcement assets can have devastating consequences even when there is a fairly clear picture of what is unfolding. [In reference to the 2011 downing of a Chinook Helicopter in Afghanistan, which killed 30 U.S. Special Forces Operators - Link Here]

3. Critics of the actual response have been throwing out 'what ifs' and 'Should have, Could have, Would haves' after the fact, failing to account that hindsight's 20/20. The claim that the U.S. government failed to act quickly to help the Americans under attack is reprehensible. Most notably, the likes of John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and other Republicans have been saying that the U.S. should have responded immediately with U.S. fighter jets stationed in southern Italy - or with other regional air assets like Armed UAV Drones or AC-130 Gunships. This would have had little to no efficacy due to the urbanized nature of the consulate's location and the extremely high risk for collateral damage and civilian fatalities. In direct response, U.S. secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said "these aircraft were not stationed near Benghazi and they were not an effective option." [Links Here and Here] 

An F-16 from the Aviano Air Base

4. Furthermore, even if F-16's were sent from Aviano Air Base, the nearest U.S. air base in Italy, it actually had the potential to be devastating. Here two separate premises that are true must be expanded upon: 1) That the real time conditions on the ground were murky and 2) That the attacking faction was heavily armed. The militants obviously wanted to inflict as much damage as they could on American assets. Sending an F-16 would have fed in perfectly to their plan, due to a long forgotten post-Gaddafi development - the proliferation of nearly 20,000 MANPADs in Libya. [Links Here and Here] MANPADS are Man-portable air-defense systems, which are basically shoulder fired anti-aircraft munitions like the FIM-92 Stinger. So if these heavily armed militants had gotten their hands on an anti-aircraft missile, and F-16 flyover would have resulted in a tragic addition of loss. Not only would the consulate's security personnel have been lost, but the reinforcements would have been walking into an ambush. Again, this demonstrates the need for prudence and explains why hastily sending reinforcements into this murky situation could not be justified.

Now, to address the recent reactions, I will deconstruct the criticisms of Susan Rice and examine John McCain's hyper-politicization of this issue. First and foremost, Susan Rice is a brilliant intellectual and academic. From the State Department website: "Ambassador Rice received her M.Phil (Master’s degree) and D.Phil. (Ph.D) in International Relations from New College, Oxford University, England, where she was a Rhodes Scholar. She was awarded the Chatham House-British International Studies Association Prize for the most distinguished doctoral dissertation in the United Kingdom in the field of International Relations. Ambassador Rice received her B.A. in History with honors from Stanford University, where she graduated junior Phi Beta Kappa and was a Truman Scholar." [Link Here] But the attacks hurled at her since are quite laughable.

1. The talking points given to Susan Rice by the Intelligence Community are as follows: [Link Here]

UN Ambassador Susan Rice

- "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations."

- "This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated."

- "The investigation is on-going, and the US Government is working with Libyan authorities to bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of US citizens."

In this context, she was just a mouth piece. It was a failure of intelligence that led to her making the remarks that she did. And as popularized in the 2012 presidential debates, President Obama did refer to the assault on the Benghazi consulate as a terrorist attack. Just like Condoleezza Rice and, especially, Colin Powell - their erroneous remarks concerning Iraq and WMD's were due to bad intelligence.

2. Susan Rice was not responsible for the creation of the talking points, nor did she alter them. Sources cited by CBS News and others said the Director of National Intelligence's office made statements to the effect that "the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) cut specific references to "al Qaeda" and "terrorism" from the unclassified talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice on the Benghazi consulate attack - with the agreement of the CIA and FBI. The White House or State Department did not make those changes." [Link Here] Even after this was confirmed by testimony made by General David Petraeus, the Republican narrative still apportioned blame to Susan Rice. Quite rightly, this led Adam Schiff, Democratic Representative from California, to say, "Gen. Petraeus made it clear that that change was made to protect classified sources of information, not to spin it, not to politicize it and it wasn't done at the direction of the white house. That really ought to be the end of it, but it isn't. So we have to continue to go around this merry go round, but at a certain point when all the facts point in a certain direction, we're going to have to accept them as they are and move on." [Link Here]

3. John McCain has repeatedly highlighted the lack of information being released about the Benghazi assault. This is hilariously ironic in light of the fact that he purposely absent from an official classified briefing about the details of the investigation into Benghazi. Perhaps if McCain had attended the briefing instead of spending his time in a hyper-partisan fashion by politicizing the attack, he would have answers to the assertions he keeps blindly hurling at the Obama administration. [Link Here] In fact, when McCain was questioned by CNN about this issue, he responded by saying, "I have no comment about my schedule and I'm not going to comment on how I spend my time to the media," McCain said. Asked why he wouldn't comment, McCain grew agitated: "Because I have the right as a senator to have no comment and who the hell are you to tell me I can or not?” [Link Here] I think this just demonstrates the declining integrity of John McCain and the withering of a long political career. He should have taken the loss in 2008 as a nod to go ahead and retire.

The investigation into what truly happened in Libya and how the Obama administration responded is  currently ongoing. But the fact that the investigation has already been launched is the important takeaway. As the revelations emerge, the picture will be more clearly formed. But until then, the defamation of Susan Rice and the criminal accusations being hurled at the Obama administration are based on ignorance, partisanship, and imprudence.

I don't claim to be an outright expert on all things State Department or Classified Intelligence, but I am quite the authority on post-Arab Spring Libya. Check out my NATO Project Page to see some of the research I have done on this subject. Please share this so the uninformed can become informed and we can finally stop hearing about this hyper-politicization. Because amidst the partisan narrative, the real issue has become lost in the fog of politics.