by Terresa Monroe-Hamilton | Jul 6, 2015 | Barack Obama, Liberty, Socialism/Communism, Socialist Opinion Shapers
By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media
Hillary Clinton’s reputation is taking repeated blows as the drip, drip, drip of email productions from her private email server draw attention to her many lies. The Obama administration has admitted that she did not, in fact, turn over all the necessary emails from her private mail server to the government. It also has released nearly 3,000 pages of emails implicating members of the Obama administration in their own lies.
As Vice President Joe Biden appears to be preparing to jump in the race for the Democratic nomination later this summer, questions are also emerging as to whether or not the Obama administration is throwing Hillary under the bus through these emails.
Each new batch of these emails expose additional lies made by the Obama administration and Mrs. Clinton, despite MSNBC, Newsweek, and other news organizations maintaining that there is little to be found. This is the same treatment that the Benghazi scandal has regularly received.
“…I hear it all the time from your previous guest and others, is that seven or eight previous congressional committees looked into Benghazi,” said chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi Trey Gowdy (R-SC) on CBS’ Face the Nation on June 28. “Well, none of those other committees looked at a single one of her e-mails… So our committee has done things that none of those seven other committees were able to do.”
The Committee has also gained access to the documents from the Accountability Review Board investigation which failed to interview Secretary of State Clinton—documents which were not turned over to other members of Congress. It also recently received information related to Clinton aides Jake Sullivan and Cheryl Mills, as well as former United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice.
As Accuracy in Media (AIM) asked when the Clinton email scandal initially broke, the key question is what did President Obama and Secretary Clinton “know, and when did they know it?” A recent set of emails obtained by Judicial Watch confirms that the White House coordinated with the State Department on the night of the attack to make Mrs. Clinton’s statement blaming it on a YouTube video the official U.S. government line.
But for the media, it’s old news and hardly worth a mention. Their tactic is, whenever possible, to repeat assertions by various administration supporters that the Benghazi investigation is a partisan witch hunt.
When the first set of emails was produced, the media dismissed those emails as revealing no relationship between Mrs. Clinton and the security situation in Libya or an order to stand down. That’s not surprising, since reporters made similar claims before they actually saw the emails.
The excuses offered by the media are further attempts to throw sand in the eyes of the public. These emails were first stored on a private email server under Mrs. Clinton’s control, then vetted by her advisors, and then partially redacted by a State Department with a vested interest in ensuring that Mrs. Clinton’s reputation, and its own, are preserved.
In other words, the State Department emails were Hillary Clinton’s and the Obama administration’s attempt at self-exoneration.
The media now complain that the mission of the Select Committee on Benghazi has become overbroad, wasteful, and doesn’t focus on the attack. Yet many in the media focused on the cost of this investigation, and Democrat accusations that it is wasteful and duplicative, even when the Committee was narrowly focusing on the attack.
“She said that the public record was complete,” noted Rep. Gowdy on CBS. “You will remember in her single press conference she said that she had turned over everything related to work to the Department of State. We know that that is false.”
As for the emails from Sidney Blumenthal being unsolicited, “We know that that was false,” he said. “So, so far, she also said that she had a single device for convenience,” he continued.
“So every explanation she’s offered so far is demonstrably false.”
It’s even worse than that. As Kimberly Strassel reported for The Wall Street Journal, we now “know that the State Department has now upgraded at least 25 of Mrs. Clinton’s emails to ‘classified’ status. State is suggesting this is no big deal, noting that it is ‘routine’ to upgrade material during the public-disclosure process. But that’s beside the point. This isn’t about after-the-fact disclosure. It’s about security at the time—whether Mrs. Clinton was sending and storing sensitive government information on a hackable private email system. Turns out, she was. For the record, it is a federal crime to ‘knowingly’ house classified information at an ‘unauthorized location.’”
In addition, Strassel stated that “The real bombshell news was the State Department’s admission that, in at least six instances, the Clinton team altered the emails before handing them over. Sentences or entire paragraphs—which, by the way, were work-related—were removed. State was able to confirm this because it could double-check against Mr. Blumenthal’s documents.” Strassel wonders, “But how many more of the 30,000 emails Mrs. Clinton provided have also been edited?”
Apparently Blumenthal, long time hatchet man for the Clintons, was not prepared to withhold documents from the Select Committee, and risk a contempt citation. Instead he chose, in effect, to throw Mrs. Clinton under the bus.
The Obama administration has now asserted executive privilege to withhold a “small number” of documents from the Select Committee, reports Byron York. The plot thickens.
“He sent me unsolicited emails, which I passed on in some instances, and I see that that’s just part of the give-and-take,” Mrs. Clinton told the press in May.
“I’m going to Paris tomorrow night and will meet w TNC [Transitional National Council] leaders so this additional info useful,” wrote Clinton to Blumenthal on August 30, 2011. “Let me know if you receive this,” she writes.
“This strains credulity based on what I know,” writes Clinton in another email. “Any other info about it?”
That particular April 2012 email exchange, in which Blumenthal says he will “seek more intel,” does not appear in the State Department’s documents. But an exchange between close Clinton aide Jacob Sullivan and Christopher Stevens using that same Blumenthal information does. Sullivan forwarded Stevens’ response to Hillary Clinton within 15 minutes.
Stevens was appointed Ambassador to Libya in late May of 2012. On July 6, 2012 the State Department’s Charlene Lamb told Regional Security Officer at Embassy Tripoli Eric Nordstrom “NO, I do not [I repeat] not want them to ask for the MSD [security] team to stay!”
That same day, Blumenthal sent Clinton another memo regarding the Libyan election. “Greetings from Kabul! And thanks for keeping this stuff coming!” she replied the next morning, on July 7. Within a couple of hours her aide, Sullivan, had again sent the memo to Ambassador Stevens, and Stevens provided his impressions of Blumenthal’s information promptly. Sullivan again sent Stevens’ communication on to Mrs. Clinton in under 20 minutes.
If these lines of communication were open through her aides, how much did Mrs. Clinton actually know about the security situation in Libya, and when did she know it?
Blumenthal received $10,000 a month from the Clinton Foundation at the same time that he provided his assistance to the Secretary of State, also serving as “an on-and-off paid consultant for Media Matters.”
One of his 2011 emails released by the State Department warns that al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb might be inspired by the death of Osama bin Laden to conduct attacks on American and western targets using weapons they had diverted from the Libyan rebels.
Clinton forwarded the May 2, 2011 email from Blumenthal regarding al Qaeda to Sullivan with the words, “disturbing, if true.”
AQIM participated in the Benghazi attacks, according to the Senate. A Defense Intelligence Agency message dated September 12, 2012 indicates that the Benghazi attacks were planned ten or more days in advance by al Qaeda elements partially in revenge for a U.S. killing in Pakistan. As Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton received that message, yet continued to blame the YouTube video, as did others in the Obama administration.
As we have repeatedly argued, America already knows enough to demonstrate that there is, and continues to be, a widespread cover-up of the many aspects of the Benghazi scandal.
“The public record has already established that President Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, AFRICOM’s Carter Ham, and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey were all told that the assault in Benghazi was a terrorist attack almost immediately after they began,” we reported in May. “Yet the President and his administration still continued to blame a YouTube video titled ‘The Innocence of Muslims.’”
Also, we reported, “the former Secretary of State’s aides became aware that this was a terrorist attack about a half an hour after the initial attack began on the Special Mission Compound…”
Any additional information the Select Committee finds on Benghazi, Blumenthal, or Clinton’s role in the scandal can only confirm the breadth and depth of the dereliction of duty that took place. Yet the media argue that this has somehow become a political circus because the Committee is exploring the background of someone informing Clinton’s Libya policy.
AIM’s articles, along with the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi, have exposed how the administration blindly pushed for an intervention in Libya, switched sides in the War on Terror, and passed over an opportunity for a truce with Muammar Qaddafi. It defies reason to continue to report that broader administration actions had little to no influence on creating the climate and circumstances which led to the death of four Americans in Benghazi.
by Terresa Monroe-Hamilton | Jul 4, 2015 | Barack Obama, Liberty, North America, Socialism/Communism, Socialist Opinion Shapers
By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton
NoisyRoom.net
Over the years I have seen many idiotic pieces of what pass for journalistic regurgitation and moronic self-indulgence… the piece over at Vox entitled: 3 reasons the American Revolution was a mistake, by Dylan Matthews, is in a class all by its lonesome. It begs for a brutal fisking and on this Independence Day in 2015, far from the revolutionary battlefield (but perhaps getting closer by the day and hour), I will oblige this vapid moonbat in honor of our Independence. Hard won for us all, benefiting even the likes of this troll.
Now, granted… this wannabe hipster is no brain trust. In fact, he looks stoned and addled:
Dylan Matthews of Vox
Dylan Matthews has been writing since the age of 14 in 2004. He went to Harvard as well. Then he went on to write for the Washington Post. He also writes for Salon and The New Republic. In other words, he’s a radical Leftist and a Marxist. Duh. Dylan Matthews was an identified member of JournoList – an email group of approximately 400 “Progressive” and socialist journalists, academics and “new media” activists. The group was shut down in 2010 after being exposed from within. Yep, no bias there. Right.
Our young Marxist starts off his diatribe with a picture of George Washington, where he wittily captions it: George Washington crosses the Delaware, makes the world a worse place in the process. Only if you detest freedom and living in the greatest nation to ever grace the planet, which of course he does.
After besmirching our first and greatest president and someone that Matthews will NEVER be, a man of courage and character, he goes on to opine that on this July 4th, he is flying to the UK. The symbolism of it all is not lost on this raving moonbat. Matthews then proclaims that “American independence in 1776 was a monumental mistake” (never mind the years from 1776 to 1783 when Independence was actually attained) and that we should be grieving that we left the Brits instead of staying indentured to the British Empire. Does this guy even read history? Evidently not, because he knows nothing of the American Revolution or the Independence our forebears fought, bled and died for, all so we could be free. Free to practice our religion as we see fit… free to speak out without fear of persecution… free from crushing taxes and free to craft our own laws and conduct business as a free nation would. The pseudo-intellectuality of this cretin is nauseating.
His first premise is that abolition would have come faster without Independence:
Abolition in most of the British Empire occurred in 1834, following the passage of the Slavery Abolition Act. That left out India, but slavery was banned there too in 1843. In England itself, slavery was illegal at least going back to 1772. That’s decades earlier than the United States.
This alone is enough to make the case against the revolution. Decades less slavery is a massive humanitarian gain that almost certainly dominates whatever gains came to the colonists from independence.
There’s a gaping fallacy in the above and unless Matthews is just stone stupid (which could well be the case), it is dishonest. In 1772, the US colonies were still under British rule. He claims that slavery was illegal for the Brits dating back to that year, but it didn’t end slavery here in the US. That was under the control of the British. And the infamous British slave trade was not ended until 1807. It’s also a fact that in the West Indies, where slaves were freed in 1834, they were forced to continue working for their former masters for four to six years without compensation after they were set ‘free.’ Chattel slavery was replaced by serfdom. When they were freed, they did not own the houses they lived in, their livestock or their farms. They had to start paying rent. They were still forced to work for the very masters who set them free and follow their orders or starve. So, claiming that slavery was eradicated by the Brits long before the US did is somewhat specious. Saying that slavery ended at that time was akin to saying what ‘is’ is. Very little changed in the beginning.
Contrary to his gender-studies/racism-fusion rant, the revolution did not give more power to the “white male minority” as its primary motive. He purports that from the very beginning the whole country was about repression. We were fleeing repression. The people who settled this country, for the most part, came here to escape religious and political persecution in England and Europe. His argument has no foundation and is entirely speculative, written as though to answer an academic “how does the American Revolution make you feel?” question. Do you honestly believe that women, Indians and blacks would have been any better off under British rule in the colonies? Not a chance. The British didn’t care about women’s rights or the plight of the Indians or the civil rights of African Americans. They were for power for the King, the nobility and whatever benefited the monarchy. Their “rights” were granted at the whim of the monarch, not from God nor even seen as natural human rights. The British nobility reveled in servants and to this day they still do… they’re just paid a wage now and appear to be free. His arguments on emancipation are even more ridiculous.
As for Matthews claiming that the majority of African Americans fought for the Crown, once again, history is a bitch. Prior to the revolution, many free African Americans supported the anti-British cause, most famously Crispus Attucks, believed to be the first person killed at the Boston Massacre. At the time of the American Revolution, some blacks had already been enlisted as Minutemen. Both free and enslaved Africans had served in local militias, especially in the North, defending their villages against attacks by Native Americans. In March of 1775, the Continental Congress assigned units of the Massachusetts militia as Minutemen. They were under orders to become activated if the British troops in Boston took the offensive.
In April of 1775, at Lexington and Concord, blacks responded to the call and fought with Patriot forces. The Battle of Bunker Hill also had African-American soldiers fighting along with white Patriots. Many African Americans, both enslaved and free, wanted to join with the Patriots. They believed that they would either achieve freedom or expand their civil rights. In addition to the role of soldier, blacks also served as guides, messengers and spies.
American states had to meet quotas of troops for the new Continental Army and New England regiments recruited black slaves by promising freedom to those who served in the Continental Army. During the course of the war, about one fifth of the northern army was black. At the Siege of Yorktown in 1781, Baron Closen, a German officer in the French Royal Deux-Ponts Regiment, estimated the American army to be about one quarter black.
You cannot secure freedom for a minority of any kind if there is no freedom to be had for anyone. The patriots of the American Revolution knew this and fought to the death for it.
However, in the spirit of identifying actual causes of oppression, since that seems to be his “hot button” issue, let’s remember that, indeed, there was a faction in this country that labored long and hard to preserve the subservience of the blacks long after their official emancipation. That faction was the Democrat party and its adjuncts, such as the KKK. The Democrats hated that the Republican party — expressly founded to secure the rights and equality of blacks — was beginning to gain traction, to the point that they mounted a massive subterfuge to blame the plight of blacks on the very people who had worked to free them, culminating in the infamous words of Lyndon B. Johnson: “I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” So, Dylan, if you wonder why the Black Man is still struggling in America, check your Dem privilege, you simpering fop.
The Revolutionary War was fought over the right to bear arms and against taxes and tariffs, plus a long list of grievances. Please see below – the Declaration of Independence gives lie to his ill-informed assertions:
…But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
Next, Matthews claims that independence was bad for Native Americans:
Starting with the Proclamation of 1763, the British colonial government placed firm limits on westward settlement in the United States. It wasn’t motivated by an altruistic desire to keep American Indians from being subjugated or anything; it just wanted to avoid border conflicts.
But all the same, the policy enraged American settlers, who were appalled that the British would seem to side with Indians over white men. “The British government remained willing to conceive of Native Americans as subjects of the crown, similar to colonists,” Ethan Schmidt writes in Native Americans in the American Revolution. “American colonists … refused to see Indians as fellow subjects. Instead, they viewed them as obstacles in the way of their dreams of land ownership and trading wealth.” This view is reflected in the Declaration of Independence, which attacks King George III for backing “merciless Indian Savages.”
Nice skewed version of history you’ve got there son. I know you’ll be shocked, but he gets it wrong yet again. The Proclamation of 1763 does not mean what he is claiming it does. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 was issued October 7th, 1763, by King George III, following Great Britain’s acquisition of French territory in North America after the end of the French and Indian War/Seven Years’ War, which forbade all settlement past a line drawn along the Appalachian Mountains. The Royal Proclamation continues to be of legal importance to First Nations in Canada and is significant for the variation of indigenous status in the United States. It eventually ensured that British culture and laws were applied in Upper Canada after 1791, which was done to attract British settlers to the province. Last time I looked, we were not Canada. This was the Brits’ way of trying to manage North America and had nothing to do with Native Americans. The colonists objected to being slaughtered by the Indians, I’m sure. Racism did exist, but it would have been no less under British rule, I assure you. Border conflicts and battles would still have been the norm until the Brits had had enough and quelled them.
And lastly, Matthews claims America would have a better system of government if we’d stuck with Britain.
I’ve heard this argument many times… that any government is better than our Constitutional Republic – especially the parliamentary system. That’s an ill conceived joke. I’m sure whatever history that Matthews was taught was biased and left huge holes in reality and how things truly unfolded here in the States. Matthews is a big government guy – an outspoken Progressive. The people don’t know what is best for them and never have according to him – you know, as in a dictatorship. They would be far better off, in his warped view, if our elite betters simply decided everything for us. This is how we have gotten to where we are today, via Obama. In fact, Matthews during his brief adult life, at the tender age of 25, has never known anything else than an Obama Administration. He’s in for quite a culture shock when a true conservative, such as Ted Cruz, is elected.
RedState points out that Ben Domenech, in The Transom, points out the best critique of this nonsense comes from Mark Twain, who did not graduate from Harvard and would rip Matthews to shreds:
“For in a republic, who is “the Country”? Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant — merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them. Who, then, is “the country?” Is it the newspaper? Is it the pulpit? Is it the school-superintendent? Why, these are mere parts of the country, not the whole of it; they have not command, they have only their little share in the command. They are but one in the thousand; it is in the thousand that command is lodged; they must determine what is right and what is wrong; they must decide who is a patriot and who isn’t.”
“In a monarchy, the king and his family are the country; in a republic it is the common voice of the people. Each of you, for himself, by himself and on his own responsibility, must speak. And it is a solemn and weighty responsibility, and not lightly to be flung aside at the bullying of pulpit, press, government, or the empty catch-phrases of politicians. Each must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, and which course is patriotic and which isn’t. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide it against your convictions is to be an unqualified and inexcusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country, let men label you as they may. If you alone of all the nation shall decide one way, and that way be the right way according to your convictions of the right, you have done your duty by yourself and by your country — hold up your head! You have nothing to be ashamed of.”
When drafting the Constitution, the founders ensured that the executive, judicial and legislative branches had co-equal power, with checks and balances to ensure that neither branch produced a dictatorship. I’m sure that is much to Matthews’ dismay. I wonder in Matthews’ lack of study, if he ever considered the history of 20th-century parliamentary systems, especially one in particular — the Weimar Republic. Matthews supports a parliamentary system in opposition to our Republic, claiming it is a bulwark against a dictatorship. Seriously? And this is because he likes unchecked big government power. You can’t make this stuff up:
In the US, activists wanting to put a price on carbon emissions spent years trying to put together a coalition to make it happen, mobilizing sympathetic businesses and philanthropists and attempting to make bipartisan coalition — and they still failed to pass cap and trade, after millions of dollars and man hours. In the UK, the Conservative government decided it wanted a carbon tax. So there was a carbon tax. Just like that. Passing big, necessary legislation — in this case, legislation that’s literally necessary to save the planet — is a whole lot easier with parliaments than presidential systems.
Yeah, screw that whole ‘freedom’ thing. Big government gets it done faster and eliminates the riffraff factor. This guy is the very definition of a useful idiot.
Krystal Heath had this to say about the greatness of America over at Louder with Crowder – 15 reasons why the American Revolution was the best thing that ever happened to the world:
1. It established a haven for religious freedom. Oppressed men, women, and children from all around the globe flocked to our shores to worship the god they pleased in the manner they desired to… and no one was going to stop them, kill them, or force them to convert.
2. It created a democratic republic. For the first time in modern history, the average citizen had a voice in his own government. And it’s worked out pretty well for us.
3. It recognized that mankind is endowed with certain unalienable rights by their Creator. Government doesn’t give us our rights, our very existence does. Yes, America, we were the ones who put that in writing and created a standard for human rights unparalleled by any other governmental system.
4. It ended tyranny. No more would a people be governed by a single man, woman, or family. Three separate yet equal branches of government were established to ensure justice and domestic tranquility.
5. It brought with it a Bill of Rights. America today is the most free nation on earth because we have the right to say what we will, assemble where we will, defend ourselves as we will, and so on – these liberties are often threatened, yet they remain our own.
6. It gave us some of the greatest governing charters in the world. From the Mayflower Compact to the Declaration of Independence, the United States from its inception created a blueprint which other nations have aspired to duplicate.
7. It gave mankind a haven for pursuing happiness. Life in America is good. The US has more self-made millionaires and billionaires proportionally than anywhere else in the world. And by global standards, America’s middle class is really, really rich. Our standard of living is second to none. Period.
8. It created a land of opportunity. Success or failure in America is dependent on an individual’s own work ethic. We rise and fall on our own. If you can dream it, you can do it.
9. It birthed a land of virtue and ideals. Like it or not, the United States was founded on Biblical principles. Those principles embedded in our framework a standard of decency and decorum rarely found elsewhere.
10. It brought unparalleled innovation and technology to the world. Who built the first automobile? Who invented the airplane? Who put a man on the moon? Who created your iPhone? ‘Merica.
11. It gave the world the best in entertainment. Maybe Pride and Prejudice and British soap operas are your thing. But in case you haven’t noticed, all the best shows are Made in the USA.
12. It brought baseball and football to mankind. Our basketball and hockey teams are pretty epic, too.
13. It set the standard for modern, civilized societies. Travel the world. You’ll find America has the best cities, the best stores, and the greatest communities on the globe.
14. It made cultural diversity a reality. “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…” Unlike any other country on the planet, the USA is a nation of immigrants. People from all backgrounds and faiths live here together, united.
15. It’s about freedom. America is synonymous with liberty. And without the Revolution, that wouldn’t have been possible.
Britain kept their monarchy, how’s that working for them? They have one of the world’s highest violent crime rates. They’re overrun with Islamists and terrorists. Their violent crime has gotten so bad, in spite of their having banned guns decades ago, now they are looking at banning knives. And tell me how their people are anything but indentured servants with the failed economy they have? How does having a ruling family, who is answerable to just about no one, trump a Constitutional Republic? Even if you’ve only watched “The Patriot” with Mel Gibson, you are light years more enlightened than this moron. This liberal writer at Vox is an over-educated, biased asshat, in addition to being stupid and ignorant. If he likes Britain so much, why, by all means, go… please. I’ll take up a collection to buy you a ticket. Just don’t come back.
by Terresa Monroe-Hamilton | Jul 3, 2015 | Liberty, North America, Social Movements, Socialism/Communism, Socialist Opinion Shapers
By: John Hawkins
RightWingNews
Scott Walker’s campaign caught flack for hiring Liz Mair earlier this year. Liz, whom I know and respect despite the fact she’s well to the left of me on a number of issues, made the mistake of slamming Iowa’s position in the primary system. Most conservatives don’t like Iowa having so much sway in the GOP primaries, but most conservatives also aren’t working for a candidate who’s running in those primaries either. After Walker caught flack from Iowans over Mair’s remarks, she ended up resigning. That’s too bad because Liz is an excellent digital media strategist, but once her comments became a big enough issue to actually hurt Walker in the primary, it put him in a very difficult position.
Today, he’s in a much worse position because Scott Walker’s Unintimidated PAC has hired Brad Dayspring.
Some people might excuse Scott Walker for this hire because he currently can’t coordinate with the PAC. However, people in the know realize that’s a cop-out. The PAC is run by former high-level Scott Walker staffers who would NEVER deliberately do anything he doesn’t agree with. Furthermore, you can be sure that there was PLENTY of coordination between Walker and his staffers right up until the moment he was legally unable to continue to do so. Is it possible that he personally approved the hiring of someone like Dayspring beforehand? Absolutely, but a big part of the value of PACs like this one is that they create a degree of separation between the candidate and the PAC. The PACs can run dirty ads and they can hire dirtbags who will undermine grassroots conservatives at every opportunity and supposedly, the candidate can’t be blamed.
Well, not this time.
Walker shouldn’t get a pass if his PAC keeps Dayspring on staff — and this is no small matter. If Walker becomes our nominee and wins the election, many of the staffers on his campaign and his PAC will end up working in the White House. The people holding those positions will have a tremendous impact on the sort of policies we’ll see. For example, one of the reasons that Ted Cruz has been such a champion of conservatives is that he ended up bringing in a number of staffers from Jim DeMint’s office. When a politician surrounds himself with those sort of staffers, it’s no surprise when he ends up fighting the good fight. On the other hand, when a politician is surrounded by people like Brad Dayspring, you can be sure he’ll end up fighting conservatives. Want an example? Brad Dayspring used to work for Eric Cantor. Was any grassroots conservative sorry when Cantor was beaten by Dave Brat?
Please.
Now, maybe the PAC just didn’t do its due diligence on Brad Dayspring. For example, maybe the PAC didn’t realize that he has a teen porn problem. Do the staffers who run Scott Walker’s PAC approve of that? People should ask them.
Here’s a little excerpt from Breitbart that will give you an introduction to one of the most loathsome people in the Republican Party and someone no grassroots conservative should ever trust.
There’s perhaps no Republican operative from the establishment side of the party, however, who’s been more effective in eliminating conservatives nationwide throughout the movement in recent years—and Team Walker’s decision to bring Dayspring aboard just a few months after the similarly problematic Liz Mair was let go could backfire in a significant way. The 2016 GOP presidential primary is shaking out to mirror the larger fight inside the Republican Party—the conservative grassroots is hungry for a Washington outsider, while the establishment side of the party is more interested in attempting yet again to win a general election without the GOP base.
“Brad Dayspring is well known as a despicable establishment operative who specializes in slander and character assassination against conservative candidates,” Mississippi state Sen. Chris McDaniel—one such conservative Dayspring personally frequently attacked—told Breitbart News exclusively on Wednesday. “He is the perfect example of why conservatives no longer trust the GOP. He’s little more than a paid attack dog, without principle and honor, the personification of everything wrong with our present political system.”
McDaniel added:
“Scott Walker appears to be a good man with solid conservative instincts. But his hiring of the unstable Dayspring is an insult to honorable political discourse. If Dayspring is aligned with Walker, then conservatives should be warned to look elsewhere for leadership.”
Here’s more from Brent Bozell.
“Gov. Walker should have known better than to hire Brad Dayspring, the worst GOP anti-conservative hit man in Washington,” said Brent Bozell, the conservative chairman of ForAmerica and president of the Media Research Center. “Brad Dayspring has a despicable record using character assassination to besmirch the reputations of conservative candidates and public policy leaders. He’s paid to do the ugly work of the Washington establishment. He is the personification of everything that’s wrong in politics today. Gov. Walker, people are policy. If you want conservatives’ support, you need to get rid of this cretin immediately.”
Here’s Mark Levin on Dayspring.
Mitch McConnell’s National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) hit man, some idiot named Brad Dayspring, does not intimidate me and will not silence me with his sleazy inside-the-beltway tactics. In fact, I am more fired up than ever.
…Now, let me be clear. I hold McConnell and the chairman of the NRSC – Jerry Moran of Kansas – personally and politically accountable for the sleazy intimidation tactics of their current and former staffers. My opposition to McConnell’s re-election is underscored by pathetic behavior like this. Conservatives should not give a dime to the NRSC, money which is used to pay the salaries of these hit men and empower McConnell, et al.
Here’s more from Redstate.
As we have documented here on RedState, Brad Dayspring was one of the loudest lying voices in the dishonest, dishonorable, and disreputable campaign the NRSC waged on behalf of the mildly profoundly senile, corrupt, and adulterous Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) 46%. In this campaign Dayspring was front and center in lying about challenger Chris McDaniel. In fact, the scorched earth campaign waged by Dayspring against McDaniel exceeded any campaign the NRSC has ever run against a Democrat. He was also instrumental in launching attacks on the challenger to Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) 70%, Dr. Milton Wolf….
…Though there is no monetary teat, or other appendage, Dayspring won’t pull to extract cash, he routinely accuses conservatives, like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) 100%, and conservative organizations like the Family Research Council of putting fund raising ahead of principle– which to Dayspring equates with whatever Establishment corruptocrat he’s being paid to support. At a time when the best man for his wedding was under arrest for child pornography (and favoriting pornographic tweets) he accused Mark Levin and the Senate Conservative Fund of pay-to-play purchases of Levin’s book. This is simply another of the lies Dayspring has told, knowing them to be lies. And then he moves along to yet another lie.
….There is no way I will support Governor Walker so long as Dayspring is affiliated in any way, no matter how tangential, with his campaign. This hiring of a casual liar, of a man who sets about to destroy the reputations of anyone he is told to attack speaks ill of Governor Walker. If he keeps Dayspring, it also tells you that Governor Walker is no conservative. He has now become the designated establishment candidate. If Dayspring stays with the campaign, conservatives must oppose him no matter the cost.
I like Scott Walker a lot. He’s one of my favorite candidates in the race, but if Dayspring is allowed to continue on with his PAC, grassroots conservatives would be wise to be very cautious about rallying behind Walker. I would also strongly recommend that NO ONE give any money to Scott Walker’s PAC or his campaign as long as Dayspring is affiliated with it. If you’re a grassroots conservative, this guy is not your friend and no one who wants him in a key position is your friend either.
You can tell a lot about candidates by watching when they’re willing to stand and fight. The fact that Walker fought the UNIONS in WISCONSIN and WON three elections in four years going toe-to-toe with them speaks very highly of him. However, if his staffers are the sort of people who know what they’re getting with Dayspring and are willing to lose the support of a lot of grassroots conservatives to keep him on board, that tells you they’re planning to spend a lot of time FIGHTING CONSERVATIVES if Walker gets elected. We have too many people like that in Congress as it is and we certainly don’t need one in the White House.
So, if you’re concerned, tweet Scott Walker and the PAC’s digital media director, Brittany Cohan. You should also send an email to Unintimidated PAC. Be honest, but polite. If you’re a conservative fan of Walker who’s concerned, say so. If you don’t intend to give any money to the campaign or PAC as long as Dayspring is there, say so. Give them the benefit of the doubt — for now. But, if they hang onto Dayspring, it’s a neon warning sign about Walker that’s fifty feet high and conservatives should heed it.
by renee nal | Jul 3, 2015 | Socialism/Communism, Socialist Opinion Shapers
A protestor uses a lighter and an aerosol can to burn one of two American flags during a protest in the Chinatown area of Washington, Tuesday, Nov. 25, 2014. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
- Author Trevor Loudon predicts that Communist-driven violence is ‘imminent’
- New violent hashtag #WeWillShootBack glorified by Soros-funded ThinkProgress
- ThinkProgress announces “black-only” weapons training
- The Nation of Islam planning an October 10 rally in D.C. menacingly titled “Justice….or else!”
Trevor Loudon, expert on socialist and radical movements from New Zealand, predicts that the same rabid pro-communist organizations that incited both the Ferguson and Baltimore riots are applying the pressure for a “black spring” which will further terrorize America in the coming months.
Loudon pointed to an “article” titled “‘We Will Shoot Back’: Meet The Black Activists Who Aren’t Ready To Forgive” published at the Soros-funded “news” outlet ThinkProgress on Saturday glorifying violent hashtag #WeWillShootBack.
The entirely irresponsible violence-inciting article from ThinkProgress confirms that the violent rhetoric is being ramped-up by groups such as the Nation of Islam, who are planning a rally menacingly titled “Justice….or else!” to be held on October 10, 2015 in Washington, D.C.
Some of the comments on a Facebook video featuring Minister Louis Farrakhan illustrate the intense emotions that Farrakhan inspires. One man was rewarded with 220 “likes” for declaring, “…this is the first time a Black leader is openly threatening the government to give us justice or else we’ll ‘clap back’. October 10, 2015 will not be for punks.” Another writes, “I was born for a moment like this…. We are all going to die anyway but if we must die…it must be for something….. THINK ABOUT IT…….” Still another declares passionately, “This time it is a ‘do or die’ situation. If you are not ready to die for justice for our people then stay home!!!!!!”
Ferguson protesters burn American Flag via Twitter
ThinkProgress also notes that Taurean “Sankofa” Brown, “a self-described revolutionary and proponent of militant self-defense” started the hashtag #WeWillShootBack and wants those who advocate for peace to remember that “black people have always had to take arms up against those who used violence to intimidate them and limit their progress in the United States.” Brown continued,
The point of this movement is to educate and let black people know that we too have the right to protect our families and communities by any means necessary.
The ThinkProgress article, written by Sam P.K. Collins, went on to state that “black trained firearms instructors” will be teaching “[B]lack people across the country” about “gun laws in their state and attend community trainings where instructors will show them how to use and clean their weapons as part of National Gun Registry Day, tentatively scheduled for early August.”
“There is no doubt that pro-communist organizations want to break down civil society in America,” the author of his latest book, “The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the U.S. Congress” told Broadside News.
Progressive Labor Party via YouTube
Back in January, Loudon wrote about Ferguson organizers joining with anti-Israel radicals in the Palestinian Authority and predicted:
Communists and their Islamic allies are looking to build on 2014’s Ferguson riots, to create major havoc in America this year.
In a must-read article published in January, Loudon explains that in addition to gathering in the Palestinian Authority, radical activists around the globe attended a conference in Moscow in part to address the “…ongoing uprising against racism and police brutality in the United States…”
Organizations such as CAIR, the Nation of Islam, the New Black Panther Party (NBPP), the Revolutionary Communist Party, Communist Party USA, the Progressive Labor Party and the Worker’s World Party have been actively inciting race hatred in order to spark riots across the country.
Communist Organization Worker’s World Party via Twitter
“They want to destabilize America,” Loudon continued.
“A polarized society sets up the conditions that radical elements need to convince citizens that all-powerful government is society’s only hope.”
As rabid anti-capitalists, pro-communist groups seek to control society by fundamentally dismantling America, ultimately spreading communism across the globe.
The ThinkProgress article also featured New Black Panther Party leader Hashim Nzinga, who previously hijacked a Ferguson press conference, as reported at Broadside News.
At the time, Nzinga ranted that President Obama is from Kenya, calling him a “Mau Mau” and further declared:
The Black male is being exterminated…The ones who are not being exterminated, they’re pushing them to be gay and fags so they won’t be productive on reproducing babies. This is about genocide.
‘We Will Shoot Back’: Meet The Black Activists Who Aren’t Ready To Forgive via ThinkProgress
The Soros-funded “news” outlet ThinkProgress laughingly claims to be “non-partisan;” but based on their promotion of radical black militants, this author recommends that the outlet update their “about” section to indicate that they are nothing more than a mouth-piece for the radical left.
This article was cross-posted at Broadside News.
