By: Lloyd Marcus
What do Herman Cain, Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, Tim Scott, Michele Bachmann, Condoleeza Rice, Allen West, Dr. Ben Carson and TW Shannon all have in common?
Calm down Joseph. I see your hand, but I want someone else to answer for a change. No takers? Ok Joseph.
You are correct. They are hated by liberals and Democrats. Tell us why? Correct again Joseph. They are women and minorities who honor God, family and country. They are self-reliant, extremely successful and do not view themselves as victims.
Liberals and Democrats will not tolerate such liberated independent thinking by women and minorities. It threatens the foundation of the Democratic Party which is built on insidious evil lies, class envy and victim-hood-ism.
Very good Joseph, please continue.
For decades, liberals and Democrats have been indoctrinating women and minorities; filling their heads with lies such as America is eternally racist and sexist. They claim the only way for women and minorities to succeed is through Democrat led government mandated lowered standards, entitlements and special concessions.
Women and minorities who succeed via education, right choices and hard work, without Democratic Party intervention, upset the Democrats’ applecart. These uppity women and minorities must be silenced at any and all cost.
But wait a minute Joseph. Are you saying that these self-proclaimed heroes of women and minorities would actually seek to punish and destroy them? Oh, I get it. You are saying their faux-compassion is nothing more than a PR campaign promoted by their buddies who dominate the mainstream media.
Liberals and Democrats do not give a hoot about women and minorities other than their usefulness in furthering the socialist/progressive agenda. Their mantra is continue your monolithic voting for us and we will continue upping the entitlements and keep rich white racist conservative Republicans at bay. Despicable.
Excellent points Joseph.
Because they thrive on perceived victimized voting blocs, that explains why liberals and Democrats will not seriously address epidemic levels of black out-of-wedlock births, school dropouts, unemployment, urban poverty, black on black crime and genocidal abortion rates. http://bit.ly/1ngNDtO
They became hysterically outraged when Bill O’Reilly http://bit.ly/1gTa5no and Republican Congressman Paul Ryan compassionately dared to address issues which are devastating the black community. http://bit.ly/1gN5EA3
National race relations and the lives of women and blacks are considered acceptable collateral damage in the liberal’s and Democrats’ implementation of their socialist/progressive agenda.
Joesph, please define “socialist/progressive agenda”.
Their agenda includes banning God from the public square to install a secular society, homosexual marriage, illegal immigration which means new Democrat voters, late term abortions and continuously increasing the size and overreach of government. Their goal is to have as many Americans as possible dependent on government (unprecedented 48 million on food stamps, over 90 million unemployed and Obamacare) which equals government having total power and control over every aspect of our lives.
Anyone, particularly women and minorities, who promote traditional family values and Christian faith is problematic for their PR campaign of indoctrinating the American people, particularly women and minorities.
This also explains liberal’s and Democrats’ high tech raping of Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Condoleeza Rice and others. Liberal celeb Cher called Sarah Palin a “dumb C-word”. http://bit.ly/1ngPsHd
Rabid liberal Bill Maher called Michele Bachmann a “bimbo”. He also called Sarah Palin the C-word and a “dumb twat” with no rebuke from the liberal infected mainstream media. http://bit.ly/OUjpR3 Can you imagine the media feeding frenzy had a conservative used the C-word to describe Hillary Clinton? Glaring hypocrisy.
Would anyone else like to chime in? Ok Joseph, the floor is yours.
Democrats claiming that Republicans have launched a “war on women” is a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black and a media supported PR game. Democrats are obsessed with women killing their babies via abortion which is the leading cause of death in America annually. http://bit.ly/1sR6u2F
CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) is attempting to silence the movie, “Honor Diaries” which exposes violence against women. http://bit.ly/1lTzAKH Only conservative leaning Fox News is the lone media outlet informing the public. Due to political correctness, liberals and Democrats remain mute.
But wait Joseph. Please forgive me for interrupting. It has been my understanding over the years that liberals and Democrats are the great saviors of women.
Say what? Ok, now I understand. Political correctness and furthering their fundamental transformation of America always trumps our God given freedom, liberty, human suffering and lives. This is cruel, evil and glaring shameless hypocrisy.
Well done Joseph. Very well done.
Unlike liberal teachers, I will not give every student a gold star simply for showing up. I am giving you Joseph a gold star because you earned it. You did the work. Congratulations!
Hat Tip: BB
Hat Tip: BB
Has the Obama administration switched sides in the War on Terror, providing arms and aid to militants linked to al Qa’eda? This conclusion was strongly hinted at during the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi (CCB) conference held last September to uncover the truth behind the Benghazi, Libya attacks of 2012. “Here’s the sentence, here’s the headline, that the Obama administration does not want broadcast anywhere or printed anywhere: ‘Obama Administration Arms Al Qaeda,’” said Judicial Watch’s Chris Farrell at the time. Farrell’s words would prove prescient.
In its new Interim Report, the product of months of interviews with sources knowledgeable about what was happening in Libya, the CCB uncovers that, indeed, arms were going to al Qa’eda. “The U.S. facilitated the delivery of weapons and military support to al Qa’eda-linked rebels in Libya,” states one of the key findings of the report. The report also includes a summary of the 85 Freedom of Information Act requests submitted by Accuracy in Media (AIM) and the CCB.
There are also Additional Documents, including relevant articles, that support and clarify points made in the Interim Report.
Accuracy in Media and the CCB held a press briefing on Tuesday, April 22nd at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. to release and discuss the Interim Report. Attendees included CNN, The Daily Mail, Fox News, The Washington Free Beacon, World Magazine, WorldNetDaily, and The Daily Caller.
The key findings in the report include that
- Muammar Qaddafi expressed his willingness to abdicate shortly after the beginning of the 2011 Libyan revolt, but the U.S. ignored his calls for a truce, which led to extensive loss of life (including four Americans), chaos, and detrimental outcomes for U.S. national security objectives across the region.
- The U.S. facilitated the delivery of weapons and military support to al Qa’eda-linked rebels in Libya.
- On the day of the attacks in Benghazi, whether or not there was an official order to stand down, the result was the same. There were military assets, for example, at the U.S. base in Sigonella, in Sicily, Italy that could have been brought to bear, and perhaps could have saved the lives of the two men killed at the CIA Annex, the scene of the second attack that night. The failure to attempt to rescue these Americans amounts to a dereliction of duty.
- Previous investigations have been ineffective as the cover-up of Benghazi continues at all levels of government, prompting the need for a Select Committee with the power of subpoena to investigate this tragedy and compel testimony under oath outside the five-minute rule imposed on Congressional members by the current investigative structure.
- America needs Congress to form a Select Committee to uncover the facts about Benghazi that remain unavailable to the public, and are obscured by the five-minute rule imposed upon Members of Congress.
Accuracy in Media is pleased to see that some of the news media are choosing to cover this important breaking story. Fox News reported on the press conference, and The Drudge Report linked to The Daily Mail story. A variety of news outlets and alternative media have published articles on the press briefing and the Interim Report, with more to come. Notably absent, though invited, were news organizations such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, NBC, CBS and ABC. Here are some of the websites with links to the articles:
In addition, in the next day or two, the full video of the nearly two-hour press conference will be posted on the CCB website, along with an analysis of the press coverage and, in some instances, corrections. We appreciate your continuing interest in this vitally important story, and your support for the work of AIM and the CCB.
Houses of Parliament – London, UK.
Today ICLA attended an event at the House of Lords at which a new and important organisation, Sharia Watch UK, was launched. The new organisation will campaign for recognition of the dangers posed by sharia law in the UK, particularly in relation to women’s rights. ICLA has been highlighting similar issues as part of its Victims of Sharia Action Network (VOSAN) initiative and welcomes the creation of the new organisation.
Sharia Watch UK was introduced by Anne-Marie Waters at the House of Lords event who emphasized several times that she was only interested in telling the truth. The event was hosted by Baroness Caroline Cox who has campaigned against the use of sharia law in tribunals and councils across the UK. Lady Cox has argued that sharia law “undermines the most fundamental principles of equality enshrined in British law” in respect of its treatment of women.
The new Sharia Watch UK web resource aims to highlight the impact of Islamism in Britain, and the often hidden face of is proponents. Sharia tribunals and councils currently operate a system of family law in the UK which denies women unilateral divorce rights – even in cases of domestic violence. Sharia family law also denies child custody to women and treats their testimony as worth less than that of their husbands.
At the launch a new report, ‘Sharia Law – Britain’s Blind Spot’, was published. The report analyses the beliefs of apparently “mainstream” Muslim organisations and argues that such beliefs represent an extremist view and should be regarded as such. Some of the senior figures involved in these groups advocate not only sharia law, but “jihad” against non-Muslims. Furthermore, they express a desire for a full Islamic state – including barbaric punishments – in Britain. Such groups have been represented as “moderate” and endorsed by the legacy media and mainstream public figures.
Sharia Watch UK will show the public, and our political leaders, the extent of the threat that sharia and Islamic extremism pose to the rights and freedoms of women, freedom of speech, and democratic principles.
ICLA’s representative at the event did notice that journalists from The Times and the Daily Telegraph present at the event. It will be interesting to see whether those news outlets actually report anything about the event or whether the event will be conveniently ignored by the legacy media altogether or relegated to parts of their website where the fewest people will get to read them.
The following are some articles that have already been written online about the event:
Launch of “Sharia Watch UK” – House of Lords (Lawyers’ Secular Society)
Death threats issued as Sharia Watch launches in London (Voice of Russia UK)
Sharia Watch UK and Sharia Law; Britain’s Blind Spot (AnneMarieWaters.org)
By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton
Wild Horses on BLM Land in Montana
Yes, I heard about the New York Times’ allegations of racism against Cliven Bundy. First, may I just point out who is making the allegations and that the comments were ‘overheard’ by a single journalist. I find believing anything the New York Times has to say suspect. However, having said that, if it is true that Bundy made racist remarks and that they were not taken out of context, that is inexcusable.
But this was never about Bundy. It is about the overreach of the BLM, EPA and federal government. It is about the states getting their lands back out West. It is about the militarization of federal agencies. Each of us should be thinking: what if that were my land, my home, my family? I don’t think there is a one of us out there that can’t be smeared over something in our past and the Left is quite willing to keep digging until they find just the right sordid morsel to discredit you. It’s what they do.
There was one reporter and one photographer at the press briefing and this is what the NYT said Bundy put forth:
He said he would continue holding a daily news conference; on Saturday, it drew one reporter and one photographer, so Mr. Bundy used the time to officiate at what was in effect a town meeting with supporters, discussing, in a long, loping discourse, the prevalence of abortion, the abuses of welfare and his views on race.
“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.
“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”
A spokesman for Mr. Paul, informed of Mr. Bundy’s remarks, said the senator was not available for immediate comment. Chandler Smith, a spokesman for Mr. Heller, said that the senator “completely disagrees with Mr. Bundy’s appalling and racist statements, and condemns them in the most strenuous way.”
If this is an accurate quote (and I mean ‘if’), then it is cringe worthy. But it in no way takes from what we are all fighting for here. It will be used against Conservatives and the movement for freedom, but you know what? It won’t stop us.
Allen West had this to say on arming federal agencies:
The rate at which this administration is arming federal agencies is quite alarming. Case in point–the recent standoff against Cliven Bundy in Nevada. In recent years, armed federal government agents have stormed against citizens in Ruby Ridge, Miami (the Elian Gonzalez case), and Waco, Texas (the Branch Davidians). Each of these assaults occurred under a Democrat presidential administration. Enabled by lies and deceit, could it be that liberal progressive socialism only works by fear, intimidation, and coercion? Or is Obama more afraid of the American people than our enemies abroad?
I find it humorous that liberal progressives accuse their opponents of being fascists, but the liberals are actually the most intolerant and oppressive when it comes to free speech, expression, and petition of redress of grievances by the American citizenry.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) now have armed agents. The Department of Justice is heavily partisan — and that assertion has nothing to do with racism. I support our law enforcement agencies having the proper resources and equipment to fulfill their mission of keeping us safe from criminals and enemies who have penetrated our sovereign borders. However, we do not need to become a “police state” where our government agencies start to resemble special operation strike troops of the U.S. mlitary.
West is absolutely right here – this police state crap needs to end. Are you kidding me? 200 armed to the teeth federal agents swoop in on one elderly rancher to make an example of him. But because the Left says they can label him a racist, that makes it okay and vindicates the BLM. What horse crap.
Although I’ve heard numerous pundits and talking heads today who were quick to distance themselves from Bundy, label him a racist and tap dance on the fact that patriots who were there to support him made an error in judgement, I haven’t heard anyone out there screaming the obvious except for Dana Loesche. She has been right on this from the beginning:
A few things. First, to take the quote at face value it’s odd and sounds offensive. You’re talking about government overreach and you go into this story? Secondly, I hope no one is surprised that an old man rancher isn’t media trained to express himself perfectly. He seems to be decrying what big government has done to the black family — which big government has negatively affected not just the black family, but all families regardless of ethnicity — so perhaps he included that in his remarks against big government? I’m just trying to figure out how he even got to the point of discussing it and yes, it’s justified to have a healthy suspicion of the New York Times. I’d be more inclined to believe that the left’s outrage is genuine had it been consistent (to say nothing of Harry Reid). Notice how the NYT immediately went to the politicians involved. If Bundy is a racist, that is awful, but what exactly does that have to do with the BLM? I’ve been saying for weeks that this isn’t about one rancher. It’s about government overreach. It’s about a paramilitarized bureaucratic entity responding to collect a bill in dispute due to arguments over state ownership and open range laws. It’s about a bureaucratic entity bypassing state and local laws — which I discussed with Judge Andrew Napolitano on my program — in court procedures and law enforcement.
Does Cliven Bundy’s remark make Tommy Henderson, Raymond Yowell, Kenni Patton, and other ranchers in Nevada and north Texas racists then because they also have issues with the BLM? So dissent with the BLM is racist like dissent with Obamacare is racist? Again, this isn’t about one person, but the left would love for it to be so. It’s easier to kill a spider by cutting off the head.
Don’t you see what is happening here? If the Left can discredit Bundy, then it makes it okay to go in and do what they want with the land — violence and all. And if the Feds do it there, they will keep on doing it, until eventually each of us will feel their boots on our necks. It will be personal and it will be brutish. They’ve just seized a ranch in New Mexico, taken a home from a couple in Colorado, demanded a pond be removed on private land in Wyoming and the BLM/EPA monster has in its sites 90,000 acres along the Red River on the border of Texas and Oklahoma. Just where does it all end? Instead of fleeing the Bundy situation, Conservatives better double down against the BLM and their fascist Agenda 21 mandate.
Stop letting the Progressive Left dictate the narrative out there. Stop believing them every time they yell ‘racist!’ or some other smear that is handy and kitsch. Stop falling for their Alinsky-style tactics. Just stop it already – Americans have a Constitutional right to their property and their freedoms. None of this has ever been about one man — it’s about one Constitution.
Here is the video – he did say those comments, but I’ll let you decide the context for yourselves. His comments kick in at about the 17 minute mark and are brief. Listen in particular to his comments just before the ones in question. I believe it is a smear. I don’t agree with everything he believes, but I think it is reprehensible that the NYT would twist his words this way:
Or lack thereof.
Before I get to the more current news, I want to back-track just a bit. Stay with me: see where I am going.
As you may recall, at the end of March, we were expected to release a last group of terrorists, as per original arrangements to bring Abbas to the table. But the voices raised in opposition to this here in Israel were strong. And there was a very serious issue with regard to releasing Arabs who were Israeli citizens – the PA having been under the impression that we would because this is what Kerry told them, although Israel had not agreed.
Our government assessed the situation. There were no direct negotiations going on. And Abbas had let it be known that once he had those prisoners, he was going to walk out. And so, Netanyahu, seeing no gain in such a move, cancelled that prisoner release, thereby eliciting rage from the Palestinian Arabs.
Enter the US, which attempted to “salvage” the situation. Rumors abounded about a deal in which we would release all of the last group of prisoners, and another 400 to boot, and the US would release Jonathan Pollard. Whatever its precise parameters, there was some sort of deal on the cusp of being completed. And then Abbas signed all of those applications for membership in international organizations and conventions, thereby quite deliberately scotching the deal.
At that point, Netanyahu declared that no prisoners would be released unless the applications to international agencies were voided. And that is my point here.
The applications were not voided and have in fact been accepted. According to what Netanyahu had said, we might have thought that the issue of releasing prisoners was dead.
Ah, but then we would not have reckoned sufficiently with Kerry’s determination to keep going at all costs, or with Netanyahu’s readiness, under duress, to help him achieve that goal.
Last Friday, Gil Hoffman, political analyst for the JPost, wrote an article about how Netanyahu had lost his majority in the cabinet for approving a deal that would see those prisoners released (apparently including the Israeli Arabs – who would have been banished from Israel), if Pollard were to be released, and the PA would stay at the table for an extended period of time.
The majority (of one) was lost because after the terror attack: Public Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch (Yisrael Beitenu) said he could not longer vote for a prisoner release since Abbas had not condemned it.
My point here is simple: Netanyahu, who said there would be no prisoner release if Abbas did not void international memberships, was prepared to waive that stipulation and go ahead anyway.
Not for a second do I make light of the enormous pressure that Kerry brings to bear. And yet, and yet… A leader must stand on principle, adhere to his word. Or else, where are we? Floundering, is where.
A note about Jonathan Pollard, who has been pulled around like a marionette on a string – he’ll be released, he won’t, he will, he won’t. What the Americans have done in this regard is despicable and beneath contempt.
With it all, however, perhaps something that will benefit him has been accomplished. It had been argued in certain quarters that he couldn’t be released because he represented a security risk. Patent nonsense after all these years, even if it might have been true in the beginning. But now it is demonstrably nonsense. If it was OK to release him in the context of Israeli-PA relations, then, clearly, it is OK to release him.
I urge that efforts to release Pollard be intensified.
As to quickly changing events on the scene:
Last night, I wrote about meetings on unity between the PA (Fatah) and Hamas, indicating that Abbas’s approach to Hamas was one more ploy. There was ample reason to think this. But it appears that this was not the case after all:
According to Al Jazeera, a Fatah delegation headed by Azzam al-Ahmad met Hamas leaders, including Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh (pictured below) and senior official Musa Abu Marzouk, in Gaza yesterday. At the end of the meeting it was announced that a unity government would be established within five weeks.
Said Haniyeh, “the possibility for further separation between the two movements is no longer possible given the current circumstances.”
From the Hamas perspective, anything that pulls Abbas away from Kerry’s incessant pressure to “negotiate” and into the “jihad” sphere is a good thing. From the Fatah, perspective, Abbas is thumbing his nose at the West and removing himself from a no-win situation.
The deal includes the following:
- A government (I believe of technocrats) to be established within five week.
Elections for the presidency and legislature within six months.
- Hamas and Islamic Jihad join the PLO.
- The matter of Hamas joining the PLO has huge significance. This is something that Hamas has sought for a long time, for it confers power. Technically, Israel negotiates with the PLO, not the PA. Consider the implications.
A few comments here:
The fact that the unity agreement was announced does not guarantee genuine success. There have been multiple unity agreements that have fallen apart at one stage or another. Whether motivation is truly different now, because the situation is different, is something we’ll have to watch.
But, as much as there are inherent tensions between the two movements, there is also considerable affinity. Their ideologies are not so different – as both Fatah and Hamas want Israel gone; only the methodologies vary.
As much as Abbas has been intransigent in dealings with Israel, so is Hamas intransigent in its demands of Fatah. What I have observed over the years is that Fatah contact with Hamas further radicalizes Fatah. Do not for a fraction of a second be taken in by left-wing arguments that claim Fatah will “moderate” Hamas and bring it to the table for peace.
For the time being, this truly does seem to be the kiss of death for the “peace negotiations.” When news of the meeting first surfaced, Netanyahu declared that Abbas could choose peace or Hamas but could not have both. And, he added, rather pointlessly, even though Fatah had not chosen peace until now he hoped at this point it would.
After the formalization of the unity agreement was announced, Netanyahu observed that Abbas had chosen Hamas and not peace.
Here is a perfect case in point for what I discussed above. We must be able to count on it – that this is Israel’s red line and that there will be no further negotiations if Fatah is in a unity arrangement with Hamas. “Does he want peace with Hamas or peace with Israel? You can have one but not the other.” (Emphasis added)
It would seem to be a no-brainer. But there is always that slight unease, that Kerry’s presence will again be felt, and a loophole will be found that permits Israeli talks with the “Fatah branch” of the new unity government – or some such double talk.
At any rate, talks scheduled for today were cancelled by Israel. While Abbas is playing the “good partner,” acting as if he can do a reconciliation with Hamas and continue to pursue negotiations with Israel. His people will be meeting with US representatives.
The official statement from Abbas’s office:
“There is no incompatibility between reconciliation and negotiations, especially as we are committed to a just peace based on a two-state solution in accordance with resolutions of international law.
“In the interest of the Palestinian people, it is necessary to preserve the unity of land and people…This approach, supported on the Arab and international levels, strengthen[s] the capacity of Palestinian negotiators to achieve the two-state solution.”
Does Kerry – who spoke about Abbas’s dedication to pursuing peace – feel the complete fool yet?
Hat Tip: BB