Institutions of Higher Stupidity. Secret Service Unable To Ban Obama From His Temporary Home! Gave Up Being A Lemming 70 Years Ago. Hillary And The Waffle House!

Institutions of higher stupidity!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sad commentary when someone has to petition institutions of higher "stupidity" by reminding them how they can restore free speech.  What the hell has this nation come to since Obama became our dirty launderer, dishwasher and golfing president?  (See 1 below.)
===
Obama will leave an unmitigated disaster domestically , foreign policywise and even a deserter's Court Martial for the next president. (See 2 below.)

Obama is a very anti-septic president and nothing resembling a mess and/or distraction will be allowed to occur on his watch or to disturb his golfing events.  Even if one occurs others will be blamed and sent to attend and/or explain.  To him, the presidency has been an opportunity to live a luxurious life , preside over horrendous dislocations and deaths of hundreds of thousands while he spent his time burnishing his legacy and destroying a two hundred year old republic..

 In fact the White House had a shooting episode before I left and our Wizard was out playing golf.

One would have hoped the Secret Service could have locked him out of his temporary home but that was not within their authority.
===
Judge orders Obama's Justice Department lawyers to take ethics classes. They were just doing what their boss wants them to do - lie. (See 3 below.)
===
More stench regarding the Iran Deal. (See 4 and 4a  below.)

Hillary tells us her strong suit it foreign policy. In fact,she was the dumbest Sec. of State in nearly a decade. He accomplishments were:

a) Four dead Americans in Benghazi followed by a lie as to the cause and then a repeat of the lie to the families of the victims.  As to the entire episode she told us "what difference does it make."

b) A reset button with Russia using the wrong interpretation in Russian

c) The total loss of Libya based on her advice to get rid of Qaddafi

d) She conducted Foundation business of a personal, nature using her Federal Office, to obtain funds for their Foundation and to sell 20% of our uranium to Russia.

e) She destroyed phone messages, used a non secure server over which classified and top secret documents were sent and received.

f) She lied about being under attack when her plane touched down on one of her trips to the region

g) She read the riot act, on orders from Obama, to Netanyahu because Netanyahu was defending his nation from the scurrilous Iran Deal

Oh yeah, she is very accomplished at lying and screwing up and that's for sure!

As noted in previous memos this Administration is expert at making statements which the press and media never challenge and are, in many instances, the exact opposite of what happened.

It is as if a doctor operates, never closes the wound and leaves the room as every one applauds.  What tripe.
===
I got the following response from a dear liberal friend and fellow memo reader regarding "Choose Your Poisons:" poisons: "I hope you will come to your senses before November! H-----."

My response to his: "I and millions of Demwits like me have decided we do not like the taste of cyanide so that is why Bernie continues to drive Hillarious nuts.

When all else fails lower your standards and Obama accomplished his goal.  He lowered the bar even further for those seeking the Oval Office.  It began with our own Peanut, followed by Billious and then Obama. Three Demwits who had failed presidencies and each time, like moths, they took bites out of The Oval Office Rug.

Lamentably, America will never be the same because when you no longer care about someone who will lie to you with a straight face you become immune.  Hillarious is a liar and unworthy.  She may win, if the FBI does not recommend she and those who have served her be indicted, and it will not make much difference because America has basically peaked.  It was a  great ride while it lasted and I doubt Trump can make America great again because only Americans can do that and the majority of Americans no longer have what it takes to accomplish that.  Far too many are dependent upon the vacuum cleaner called government and government is corrupt and inefficient. They are for self and no longer for country.

Our adversaries are on the rise and though we will continue to be a big and powerful nation Obama has seen to it we can never be what we were.  Owe too much money, have a crippled military and have become a nation no longer willing to enforce laws because PC'ism dictates our ever move.  I came to my senses over seven years ago when I held my nose one more time and cast another against vote as I will in November.

I hope and pray I am wrong but fear not.

If you believe voting for Hillarious means coming to your senses then have at it.  I started thinking independently when I gave up being a lemming and that began when I went to military school at age 13. That was 70  years ago.  

Instead of The White House Hillarious would be better employed as a waitress in The Waffle House.  Also, if she wanted to show she believed in what she preaches, - elimination of guns -  then she should have unarmed service men protecting her.

+++
Just returned from Litchfield beachAND WEDDING IN aTLANTA.
===

Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)  A Plan to Restore Free Speech on Campus
By Stanley Kurtz 

The slowly metastasizing assault on free speech that has played out on American college campuses since the 1960s has reached a crisis point. What’s needed is a concrete plan to restore liberty of thought and discussion to the American academy — a plan capable of focusing the support of sympathetic students, faculty, parents, alumni, administrators, trustees, and citizens, and their elected representatives. I offer here the outlines of such a program.

The greatest difficulty faced by those who support the ideal of intellectual freedom is locating levers for change on campuses where the greater part of the faculty and administrators have either abandoned classic liberal ideals or forsaken their defense. The actual mechanics of restoring freedom of speech are not mysterious. Campuses need to forthrightly identify liberty of thought and discussion as their central value, educate students in this principle, and energetically guard against its violation. But how can we restore freedom of speech when so many of those charged with its defense on campus have either turned against it or subordinated it to other ideals?

While it is true that a great many faculty members have rejected classic liberal values, other faculty — and especially many students — have not. To a considerable extent, a willful faction of students and allied faculty has succeeded in intimidating the larger number of students who continue to adhere to classic liberalism. Our goal must be to marshal support from the broader public for this weakened and wavering yet potentially powerful majority of students. We need a program that can simultaneously energize a movement of students on campus and marshal concrete support from the broader public.

The greatest advantage enjoyed by supporters of free speech is that the public outside of the universities — liberals and conservatives alike — continues to uphold the ideal of intellectual freedom. The most powerful way to activate that support is by way of state university systems. State legislatures have the ability to establish and reinforce the core values of their respective university systems, and any such initiatives would have consequences far beyond public institutions.

Many of the proposals listed below can be mandated for public universities by state legislatures. These proposals can also galvanize student activism on campuses across the country, as well as activism by faculty, parents, alumni, administrators, trustees, and citizens. Alumni can press their alma maters to adopt these proposals, on pain of losing donations. Citizens can press their state legislators to adopt these proposals, on pain of losing votes. Here is the program:

First: Colleges and universities ought to adopt a policy on freedom of expression modeled on Yale’s Woodward Report of 1974, which identifies ensuring intellectual freedom in the pursuit of knowledge as the primary obligation of a university. While the Woodward Report forthrightly acknowledges the importance of solidarity, harmony, civility, and mutual respect to campus life, it unmistakably marks these values as subordinate in priority to freedom of expression. In accordance with this, the Woodward Report rejects the proposition that members of an academic community are entitled to suppress speech they regard as offensive.

Of course, within a university, the need for intellectual freedom is in the service of the pursuit of knowledge. Freedom of expression is a critical consideration, yet does not in itself fully resolve issues like the structure of the college curriculum. That said, the Woodward Report can and should serve as a model for statements on free expression at our colleges and universities. Once adopted, new statements on freedom of expression would supersede and replace any pre-existing speech codes.

Second: Colleges and universities need to systematically educate members of their community in the principles of free expression. The central theme of freshman orientation, for example, ought to turn around the primacy of free speech. Many colleges and universities now assign incoming freshman a “common reading” to complete over the summer before entering school. During freshman year, colleges organize seminars and guest-lectures around that reading. The National Association of Scholars has reported on the thin and tendentious nature of many common reading selections, and I have commented on their politicization. As an antidote to such problems, colleges should consider assigning John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty as a common reading for entering freshmen.

Responding to threats to intellectual freedom at Princeton, a student group, the Princeton Open Campus Coalition, recently called for bringing more representatives of seldom-heard viewpoints to campus. Inviting outside speakers to address John Stuart Mill’s argument for liberty of thought and discussion during freshman orientation would be an easy way to draw unconventional voices to campus. At every level of the university, efforts should be made to invite both outsiders and insiders to study, discuss, and debate the scope and meaning of free speech.

Political philosopher Peter Berkowitz recently floated the idea of establishing university centers for the study and practice of free speech. These centers would “foster an understanding of free speech and its indissoluble connection with liberal education.” The founding of such centers on our campuses should become a priority.

Third: “A university administration’s responsibility for assuring free expression imposes further obligations: it must act firmly when a speech is disrupted or when disruption is attempted; it must undertake to identify disruptors, and it must make known its intentions to do so beforehand.”

The above passage is from Yale’s Woodward Report. Although the Woodward Report is official university policy at Yale, some of its central recommendations are apparently not being taken Consider the recent controversy over freedom of speech at Yale, where a student had to be dragged out of a lecture hall by a police officer after disrupting the William F. Buckley, Jr. Program’s conference on free speech (video here). 

The conduct of this student would appear to be a violation of Yale’s Undergraduate Regulations on “peaceful dissent, protests, and demonstrations” (derived from the Woodward Report), which bar any member of the University community from preventing “the orderly conduct of a University function or activity, such as a lecture, meeting…or other public event,” on pain of potential suspension or expulsion.

If Yale’s regulations were being properly enforced, this student would have faced a disciplinary hearing. Ultimately, if the facts turned out to be as they appear from the video and published reports, some sort of discipline would result — at minimum, a warning that any further such actions would bring certain suspension or expulsion.

To all appearances, no such discipline has taken place. And appearances are important, because a core recommendation of the Woodward Report is that in order to serve as effective deterrents to further violations, sanctions for disruption of speech must be publicized. (I have submitted a series of questions to Yale’s administration on disciplinary proceedings related to the disruption at the Buckley Program conference on free speech, and will report when I receive a reply.)

We take it for granted nowadays that conduct like this student’s disruption of the Yale free-speech conference — and conduct far worse — entails no consequences for students. If we are to restore free speech to our campuses, that needs to change. In the absence of a deeper understanding of the principles of free expression, discipline alone will not be effective. Yet in combination with broader education in the principles of intellectual freedom, discipline for interference with campus speech can be very effective indeed. We will not see freedom of speech on our campuses until disruptors face discipline for silencing, or attempting to silence, others.

Fourth: College and university trustees must monitor administrators to ensure that they promote and defend freedom of expression. Thomas D. Klingenstein, chairman of the board of the Claremont Institute, recently suggested that college and university trustees establish a board-level standing committee on free expression (COFE), and provide that committee with staff and considerable independence. A university COFE could act as a check on the reluctance of college administrators to court student displeasure by enforcing rules against disruption of speech. For public universities, state legislatures could receive and act on reports from a system-wide COFE. The public should also take an interest in COFE reports.

Fifth: Colleges and universities ought to adopt policies on institutional political neutrality based on the University of Chicago’s Kalven Committee Report of 1967. The Kalven Report explains that the ability of a university to foster political dissent and criticism by faculty and students actually depends upon the political neutrality of the institution itself. The principles of academic freedom and institutional neutrality embodied in the Kalven Report are the surest antidote to demands that universities divest themselves of stock in fossil-fuel providers, Israeli companies, and other political targets. Advocates who attempt to inject universities into the political process by means of their endowments substantially inhibit the intellectual freedom of faculty and students who wish to explore contrary points of view. The National Association of Scholars’ recent reports on campussustainability and fossil-fuel divestment detail the illiberal implications of these movements. The American Council of Trustees and Alumni includes the text of the Kalven Report and an excellent commentary by civil libertarian attorney Harvey Silverglate in its guide to academic freedom. Trustees should take note.

*********

Designing a program to restore free speech to our campuses is not difficult. The steps outlined above — most of them drawn from widely respected reports issued by major universities — would go a long way toward solving the problem. The difficulty is finding the political will and the levers of influence to take these steps when faculty and administrators have forgotten, abandoned, or turned against liberal ideals. Widespread public support for the proposals above, matched by action in state legislatures and an active movement of students on campus, represents the best hope of overcoming these obstacles.

But where are the students — conservative, liberal, and libertarian — who still believe in free speech? At Brown University, they have been forced to conceal themselves in a secret Facebook group. At Princeton University, they are afraid to publicly state their opinions “for fear of being vilified, slandered, and subjected to hatred, either by fellow students or faculty.”

And yet at Princeton, students have come out into the open to make this very complaint. Free speech is perhaps the most unifying theme around which to gather a student counter-movement to the illiberal forces on campus. The program presented above might be embraced by such a movement.

State legislatures can take significant steps to help enact nearly every one of the action items listed above for their public universities. An attempt by even a single state legislature to do so has the potential to kick off a national debate on this program to restore free speech.

With the public beginning to sense the profound danger the campus censorship movement poses to American political life, the time for a restoration of campus free speech may finally have arrived.

— Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He can be reached at comments.kurtz@nationalreview.com.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) The Army Won’t Try Bergdahl on Obama’s Watch

By Jonathan F. Keiler

On Tuesday an Army judge postponed the trial of Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl from August 2016 to February 2017. For those keeping track, this means that Bergdahl’s trial for desertion and misbehavior before the enemy will conveniently take place after Barack Obama leaves office. This will save Obama the embarrassment of seeing Bergdahl court martialed while commander-in-chief, after having traded five powerful and notorious terrorists for the soldier, while his functionaries described Bergdahl has having served “honorably.” And if you think this is just vagaries of the military legal system playing out, I’ve got a nice bridge to sell.  

When the Army announced in December last year that Bergdahl would be tried by a General Courts Martial, many observers cheered the news believing this meant the old Army was stepping up and not being politically cowed. I disagreed at the time, and still do. The decision by General Robert Abrams, the convening authority in the case, came just four days after Bergdahl went public with his story in "Serial", the popular PBS podcast series. Prior to Bergdahl’s appearance on Serial and Abrams’ action, many close observers of the case assumed that the two sides were attempting to work out a plea deal, based on the fact that two Army investigating officers had recommended some degree of leniency in the case. Most probably talks broke down over the nature of discharge Bergdahl would receive in return for some kind of guilty plea, and the soldier then went public with his story to pressure the Army and to pollute the potential jury pool. The Army reacted in kind, throwing the book at Bergdahl, though it seemed until then that this was the last thing it wanted to do.

The reason for the Army’s reluctance was obvious. From the start Obama improperly and repeatedly expressed support for Bergdahl through his feting of Bergdahl’s parents in the Rose Garden after his release, and his defense of the deal with the Taliban that freed the soldier. Omitted by Obama in all this was the fact that Bergdahl fell into the Taliban’s hands by deserting his unit from a combat outpost, putting himself and his fellow soldiers in danger, and possibly causing the death and injury of soldiers and airmen sent out to find or rescue him.  

As commander-in-chief of the military, Obama is not supposed to interpose himself into military justice considerations. But either out of ignorance or political calculation (and most likely both) he did just that. And Army commanders paid attention. They’ve slow walked what is really a pretty simple case. Only after a long delay did the Army conduct and complete a preliminary investigation, which resulted in the first recommendation of leniency. After another long delay the Army conducted a perfunctory Article 32 hearing before a different investigating officer, which resulted in second recommendation of leniency. Then came the likely breakdown in plea negotiations, Bergdahl’s podcast appearances, and Abrams referral to General Courts Martial.

That the Army still isn’t terribly interested in trying Bergdahl became apparent when following Abrams referral of charges in December 2015, it agreed to a trial date in August 2016. In February the case was put on further hold over a defense request for access to classified documents which the prosecution opposed and which was recently decided against the prosecution by the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals. The latest postponement evidently is the result of this ruling so that lawyers for both sides can rummage through 1.5 million pages of documents related to Bergdahl’s desertion, capture, and release. Don’t count on the February 2017 trial date holding firm.
The real question is why the defense needs Army classified documents in the first place? Presumably it relates to Bergdahl’s capture by the Taliban and the military’s efforts to find or free him. But why would any of that be necessary to prove or disprove that Bergdahl improperly left his post and intended not to return?

The Bergdahl case is not especially complex. The military processes thousands of AWOL cases and hundreds of desertion cases every year. And Bergdahl admits to leaving his post without authorization. To additionally prove desertion and misbehavior before the enemy only requires that a jury disbelieve Bergdahl’s excuses for his action -- assuming he testifies at all which is doubtful -- or that his attorneys can present a diminished capacity defense, which they have threatened. Still, even assuming that his attorneys’ can raise this latter defense, it need not have taken nine months for either side to prepare its case (as originally scheduled.) Nor are a million plus government documents about his capture and release obviously relevant to determining his guilt or innocence.

Bergdahl’s story is that he left his post because he believed his commanders were incompetent. He intended to walk to the nearest major outpost -- about 20 miles -- to seek the help of higher ranking officers, when he was captured. So his story is that he did not intend to permanently stay away, or go over to the enemy. Fine -- that is an affirmative defense that he and his attorneys are entitled to make, though it would require Bergdahl to take the stand, a significant risk.

On the other hand, the Army makes a prima facie case (that is a case sufficient to convict the soldier) simply by introducing Bergdahl’s admissions, the testimony of Bergdahl’s fellow soldiers who found his abandoned equipment and had the last conversations with him, and evidence that patrols were sent out in search and rescue missions, thus diverted from their regular missions and placing his fellow soldiers in unnecessary danger.
When I served as an Army JAG officer many years ago, the most important consideration of the command was processing cases quickly, even more important than winning or losing. That’s because in the military, justice delayed is not only justice denied, it is bad for good order and discipline. And since many soldiers are not confined while facing charges, they like Bergdahl, continue to serve in their units. The Bergdahl case turns this principle on its head. When Bergdahl is finally tried in February -- assuming that even happens -- he will have been back in uniform and on duty as a sergeant for nearly three years, more than twice as long as his time in active service before he left his post, and nearly as long as he was in Taliban custody. Not only is that a waste of taxpayer money, and a drain and strain on the unit he’s been assigned to, but his “honorable service” shuffling papers for the nearly three years since his return, will have to be taken into account by those trying him, and thus limit any punishment even if he is convicted -- in addition to any sympathy he earns for his Taliban captivity.   
I am afraid this is not the old Army reasserting itself, but rather the new Army under Obama, protecting Obama

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

3)

Federal Judge Orders 'Deceptive' DOJ Lawyers to Take Ethics Classes

BY DEBRA HEINE 

In a stunning rebuke to the Department of Justice Thursday, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen ordered annual ethics classes for the DOJ attorneys who were "intentionally deceptive" during the course of executive amnesty litigation. At issue was whether the DOJ intentionally misled the judge into believing that Obama's DACA amnesty program would be halted until he made a ruling on a lawsuit brought by 26 states.

From November of 2014 until February of 2015, while the judge was still deciding the case, the Department of Homeland Security gave more than 108,000 illegal immigrants three-year reprieves. They did this after DOJ lawyers led him to believe that they would halt the program during that period. The 26 states who filed a lawsuit were thus misled into "foregoing a request for a temporary restraining order," Hanen wrote in his blistering decision. "Such conduct is certainly not worthy of any department whose name includes the word 'Justice.'"

The facts of the deception are not in doubt, Hanen emphasized. "[DOJ] has now admitted making statements that clearly did not match the facts," he said in the May 19 opinion, first noted by the National Law Journal. "It has admitted that the lawyers who made these statements had knowledge of the truth when they made these misstatements ... This court would be remiss if it left such unseemly and unprofessional conduct unaddressed." 

As punishment, Justice Department attorneys who wish to appear in any state or federal court within the 26 states that brought the lawsuit have to undergo annual ethics training. "At a minimum, this course (or courses) shall total at least three hours of ethics training per year," he wrote.

 In another case, such "egregious conduct" would lead him to strike the government's pleadings, but Hanen decided not to take that step because the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case in April.

 "The national importance of the outcome of this litigation outweighs the benefits to be gained by implementing the ultimate sanction," Hanen wrote. "Striking the government's pleadings would not only be unfair to the litigants, but also unfair, and perhaps even disrespectful, to the Supreme Court as it would deprive that Court of the ability to thrash out the legal issues in this case."

 Hanen cited multiple instances in which Justice Department attorneys claimed that Department of Homeland Security directive announced in November of 2014 would not be implemented until February 18, 2015, even though they knew that DHS had begun implementing a portion of the order that pertained to the original "deferred action for childhood arrivals" policy announced in 2012.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4)Group that Helped Sell Iran Nuke Deal Also Funded Media

By Bradley Klapper

Associated Press

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7044e805a95a4b7da5533b1b9ab75cd2/group-helped-sell-iran-nuke-deal-also-funded-media

WASHINGTON (AP) — A group the White House recently identified as a key surrogate in selling the Iran nuclear deal gave National Public Radio $100,000 last year to help it report on the pact and related issues, according to the group's annual report. It also funded reporters and partnerships with other news outlets.

The Ploughshares Fund's mission is to "build a safe, secure world by developing and investing in initiatives to reduce and ultimately eliminate the world's nuclear stockpiles," one that dovetails with President Barack Obama's arms control efforts. But its behind-the-scenes role advocating for the Iran agreement got more attention this month after a candid profile of Ben Rhodes, one of the president's top foreign policy aides.

In The New York Times Magazine article, Rhodes explained how the administration worked with nongovernmental organizations, proliferation experts and even friendly reporters to build support for the seven-nation accord that curtailed Iran's nuclear activity and softened international financial penalties on Tehran.

"We created an echo chamber," said Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser, adding that "outside groups like Ploughshares" helped carry out the administration's message effectively.

The magazine piece revived Republican criticism of the Iran agreement as they suggested it was evidence of a White House spin machine misleading the American people. The administration accused opponents of trying to re-litigate the deal after failing to defeat it in congressional votes last year.

Outside groups of all stripes are increasingly giving money to news organizations for special projects or general news coverage. Most news organizations, including The Associated Press, have strict rules governing whom they can accept money from and how to protect journalistic independence.

Ploughshares' backing is more unusual, given its prominent role in the rancorous, partisan debate over the Iran deal.

The Ploughshares grant to NPR supported "national security reporting that emphasizes the themes of U.S. nuclear weapons policy and budgets, Iran's nuclear program, international nuclear security topics and U.S. policy toward nuclear security," according to Ploughshares' 2015 annual report, recently published online.

"It is common practice for foundations to fund media coverage of underreported stories," Ploughshares spokeswoman Jennifer Abrahamson said. Funding "does not influence the editorial content of their coverage in any way, nor would we want it to."

Ploughshares has funded NPR's coverage of national security since 2005, the radio network said. Ploughshares reports show at least $700,000 in funding over that time. All grant descriptions since 2010 specifically mention Iran.

"It's a valued partnership, without any conditions from Ploughshares on our specific reporting, beyond the broad issues of national and nuclear security, nuclear policy, and nonproliferation," NPR said in an emailed statement. "As with all support received, we have a rigorous editorial firewall process in place to ensure our coverage is independent and is not influenced by funders or special interests."

Republican lawmakers will have concerns nonetheless, especially as Congress supplies NPR with a small portion of its funding. Just this week, the GOP-controlled House Oversight Committee tried to summon Rhodes to a hearing entitled "White House Narratives on the Iran Nuclear Deal," but he refused.

Ploughshares' links to media are "tremendously troubling," said Rep. Mike Pompeo of Kansas, an Iran-deal critic.

Pompeo told the AP he repeatedly asked NPR to be interviewed last year as a counterweight to a Democratic supporter of the agreement, Rep. Adam Schiff of California, who he said regularly appeared on the station. But NPR refused to put Pompeo on the air, he said. The station said it had no record of Pompeo's requests, and listed several prominent Republicans who were featured speaking about the deal or economic sanctions on Iran.

Another who appeared on NPR is Joseph Cirincione, Ploughshares' president. He spoke about the negotiations on air at least twice last year. The station identified Ploughshares as an NPR funder one of those times; the other time, it didn't.

Ploughshares boasts of helping to secure the deal. While success was "driven by the fearless leadership of the Obama administration and supporters in Congress," board chairwoman Mary Lloyd Estrin wrote in the annual report, "less known is the absolutely critical role that civil society played in tipping the scales towards this extraordinary policy victory."

The 33-page document lists the groups that Ploughshares funded last year to advance its nonproliferation agenda.

The Arms Control Association got $282,500; the Brookings Institution, $225,000; and the Atlantic Council, $182,500. They received money for Iran-related analysis, briefings and media outreach, and non-Iran nuclear work.

Other groups, less directly defined by their independent nuclear expertise, also secured grants.

J-Street, the liberal Jewish political action group, received $576,500 to advocate for the deal. More than $281,000 went to the National Iranian American Council.

Princeton University got $70,000 to support former Iranian ambassador and nuclear spokesman Seyed Hossein Mousavian's "analysis, publications and policymaker engagement on the range of elements involved with the negotiated settlement of Iran's nuclear program."

Ploughshares has set its sights on other media organizations, too.

In a "Cultural Strategy Report" on its website, the group outlined a broader objective of "ensuring regular and accurate coverage of nuclear issues in reputable and strategic media outlets" such as The Guardian, Salon, the Huffington Post or Pro Publica.

Previous efforts failed to generate enough coverage, it noted. These included "funding of reporters at The Nation and Mother Jones and a partnership with The Center for Public Integrity to create a national security desk." It suggested using "web videos, podcasts, photo-based stories" and other "attention-grabbing formats" for "creatively reframing the issue."

The Center for Public Integrity's CEO, Peter Bale, confirmed the grant.

"None of the funding received by Ploughshares was for coverage of the Iran deal," said Bale, whose company received $70,000. "In general, we avoided that subject because the topic did not lend itself to the type of investigative reporting the Center does."

Caitlin Graf, a spokeswoman at The Nation, said her outlet had no partnership with Ploughshares. She referred queries to The Nation Institute, a nonprofit associated with the magazine that seeks to strengthen the independent press and advance social justice. Taya Kitman, the institute's director, said Ploughshares' one-year grant supported reporting on U.S.-Iran policy, but strict editorial control was maintained.

Mother Jones' media department didn't respond to several messages seeking comment.

The AP has taken grants from nonpolitical groups and journalism foundations such as the Knight Foundation. As with all grants, "AP retains complete editorial control of the final news product, which must fully meet AP standards for independence and integrity," Standards Editor Thomas Kent said.

4a)

How the White 

House 

Smeared 

Benjamin 

Netanyahu to Sell 

the 

Iran Deal

Testifying before Congress, Michael Doran explains how the 

Obama administration worked to conceal its true intentions in 

making a deal with Iran, namely to realign the U.S. with the 

Islamic Republic and disengage from America’s historic allies 

in the region. The White House further obscured discussion of 

the deal’s merits by attempting to manipulate an all-too-pliant 

media; these efforts included what Doran terms a “venomous 

whisper campaign” to cast the Israeli prime minister “as the 

villain of the Middle East peace process, an arch-nationalist 

with unseemly ties to the Republican party who refuses to 

make the necessary compromises to bring about an historic 

reconciliation with the Palestinians.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++