Hillary Clinton

Is “Take Back Our Country!” Racist? ~ If You’re Republican

Published by Papa Giorgio

If saying “take back our country” is racism in disguise… what does this mean for the Democrats in the above video?

A slightly longer version can be found here. The first point I want to make, via NewsBusters, is that Democrats used (and use) the phrase “take our country back.” For instance:

“Taking Back America” Wasn’t Racist Until Liberals Stopped Saying It

…In declaring his run for the presidency, Howard Dean told a crowd in Burlington, Vermont, “You have the power to take our county back!” A little more than half a year later, when Dean was ousted from the Democratic primary, he said the same thing once again. Nine days later, he again said “I’ll be doing everything that I can to make sure that John Kerry and John Edwards take this country back.”

In fact, Howard Dean was such a fan of the phrase, he even wrote two books incorporating it into their titles: “You Have the Power: How to Take Back Our Country and Restore Democracy in America” and “Winning Back America“. From whom? He doesn’t say. But clearly he’s a racist.

As is Hillary Clinton. In a stunning show of racial bigotry, Clinton opened her 2008 run for president by declaring the she would “take our country back.”

Chuck Schumer: also a racist. After the 2006 midterms, he stated: “We really care about taking our country back… So far, sooo good.”

Prominent Democratic strategists James Carville and Paul Begala are also racists. They coauthored a book in the run-up to the last presidential election titled “Take It Back: A Battle Plan for Democratic Victory.”

And how about the racist Katrina vanden Hevuel, editor of the far-left, near-bankrupt magazine The Nation. She’s also a racist for penning a book titled “Taking Back America“.

Liberal talk show host Thom Hartmann also cannot restrain his racist views. The title of his book, “We the People: A Call to Take Back America” is clearly rooted in bigotry…

…read more…

Hard To Find Videos ~ Found

I have to say that Marooned in Marin did a bang up job in keeping these videos available, in one place!

So the question becomes, if it is racist for the T.E.A. Party… why is it not for Democrats? Breitbart points out the obvious (as did NewsBusters)… lying about racial incidents in our electronic age is getting harder-and-harder:

…Don’t forget that the big story occupying the news cycle the weekend of March 20, 2010 was that racist Tea Party protesters in Washington DC yelled the “N-Word” at civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis as he walked across the mall to the capitol building that sunny afternoon.  The story led all the cable shows, the Sunday shows and was the main lede in every print column about the historic events that weekend.  

The media repeated the lie without ever asking a single question of the dubious man who made the audacious claim, Rep., Andre Carson.  Only one man dared to question the bogus tale, Andrew Breitbart.  He offered $10,000 to the United Negro College Fund for any evidence of the slander. He upped it to $100,000. Nothing. 

The Congressional Black Caucus didn’t want to talk about it anymore.  They had done their job.  They had distracted the media. They had gotten their president’s signature piece of legislation passed. Nothing to see here, move along.  

Andrew didn’t let it go.  He found four individual videos that proved Carson’s tale was a lie. The media ignored it. They still do….

…read more…

The Requested Sandbags/Machine-Gun Wasn’t Aesthetically Appealing

Published by Papa Giorgio

Fox News reporting that a year before the Benghazi Massacre, consulate staff requested sandbags and a belt-fed machine gun to bolster security at the State Department facility. Those requests were denied, the Obama administration citing they would not be “aesthetically pleasing” and might “upset the neighbors.”

“We warned D.C. about the guys who moved in next door, but nobody knew what to do, and nothing was done.”

…read more at DW Ulsterman…

Another Piece To The Benghazi Puzzle — Phone Calls

Published by Papa Giorgio

Via Gateway Pundit:

Eric Stahl, a retired major in the U.S. Air Force, told Baier (see video below) that members of a CIA-trained Global Response Staff were confused by repeated references to a video as the driving force behind the attacks, because the administration “knew during the attack…who was doing the attacking.”

Stahl added:

“Right after they left the consulate in Benghazi and went to the [CIA] safehouse, they were getting reports that cell phones, consulate cell phones, were being used to make calls to the attackers’ higher ups.”

A second source confirmed these reports and stated that security teams on the ground were receiving intelligence about the terrorist phone calls in real time.

“Democrats Should Care” About Benghazi and What The FOIA Revealed

Published by Papa Giorgio

Emails through the “Freedom of Information Act” through the behest of reporters from the NYT’s, the Washington Post, CNN, and MSNBC…. joking, via Judicial Watch show that the White House/Obama/Hillary (and others) Lied. The honest Democrat should ask him or herself, “At this point, what difference does it make?”

At a press conference on Nov. 14, 2012 President Obama stated that his Administration has provided all information regarding “what happened in Benghazi.”

  • “We have provided every bit of information that we have, and we will continue to provide information…,” the President told reporters, adding, “we will provide all the information that is available about what happened on that day…” and “I will put forward every bit of information that we have.”

…NOT!

Democrat columnist and pundit scolded fellow Democrats today on “Outnumbered” ~ Kirsten Powers says the Democrats’ behavior at the Benghazi hearing were, “Appalling!”

A lot of this is via Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit, I suggest after getting a taste of the consolidation here one follow up there. White House Spokesman Jay Carney told reporters on September 15, 2012 (http://youtu.be/O7VSkdj5IsI), four days after terrorists stormed the consulate in Benghazi and killed US Ambassador Chris Stevens, that the attack was fueled by a video… EVEN THOUGH it has been revealed that every one in the intelligence community knew it was a terrorist attack.

Brigadier General Robert Lovell, U.S. Air Force (Retired) told the House Oversight Committee today, under oath, that the military knew immediately Benghazi was terrorist attack and not a “protest gone awry.” Brigadier General Robert W. Lovell served as Deputy Director for Intelligence and Knowledge Development Directorate, United States Africa Command in the discharge of all Intelligence and Counterintelligence responsibilities as assigned by the Unified Command Plan.

♛ “Nor did we completely understand what we had in front of us, be it kidnapping, rescue, recovery, protracted hostile engagement, or any or all the above. But, what we did know quite early on was that this was a hostile action. This was not demonstration gone terrible awry. To the point of what happened, the facts led to the conclusion of a terrorist attack. The Africom J2 was focused on attribution. The attacks became attributable VERY SOON after the event.” 

And House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) blasted the Obama administration Thursday on Benghazi. The Obama administration misled the American people on Benghazi massacre blaming the attack on a YouTube video rather than terrorism. The White House crafted talking points blaming the video despite having knowledge that this was a planned terrorist attack on the US consulate.

“….But it comes in a week in which the American people have learned that you cannot believe what the White House says. You cannot believe what the spokespeople say. You cannot believe what the president says….” (http://youtu.be/kEHVQ0l6cX0)

Remember, the mainstream media (legacy media) has stalled this and swept this under the carpet. Judicial Watch is doing what reporters should be. This is what Sharyl Attkisson said of her former employer of 21-years:

Attkisson added in her interview with CNN’s “Reliable Sources” host Brian Stelter that while she never was discouraged from hard-hitting reports on the George W. Bush administration, when it came to her critical coverage of the Obama White House, CBS regularly balked.

[….]

“There are very sophisticated efforts to manipulate the images and the information that you see every day, in ways that you won’t recognize,” she said. “And I think we can all be a little more savvy about that.”

[….]

As for the differences between how CBS News brass treated and covered the Bush compared to the Obama administration, Attkisson noted that she “didn’t sense any resistance to doing stories that were perceived to be negative to the Bush administration by anybody ever.” But as for the Obama White House, she said “I have done stories that were not received well because people thought they would reflect poorly upon this administration.”

Attkisson went further, noting a “fairly well-discussed” topic inside CBS News “that there are some managers recently who have been so ideologically entrenched that there is a feeling and discussion that some of them, certainly not all of them, have a difficult time viewing a story that may reflect negatively upon government or the administration as a story of value.”

“So you’re saying they are liberal or Democrats?” Stelter asked.

“I don’t know what their registered party is, I just know that the tendency on the part of some of these managers who have key influences has been they never mind the stories that seem to, for example — and I did plenty of them — go against the grain of the Republican Party, but they do often seem to feel defensive about, almost, personally defensive about stories that could make the government look bad. Even if it’s something as simple as a government waste story that doesn’t pinpoint anybody in particularly and it takes on both parties. It seems as though some of them were sensitive about any story that might appear as though it criticizes the government.”

Read more: https://religiopoliticaltalk.com/sharyl-attkisson-and-she-explains-the-media-bias-to-cnn/#ixzz30TWHVg00

The Legacy Media’s Shoe-Horn of a Double-Standard (Dub v. Hill)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Remember when President Bush had a show thrown at him by a “journalist” in the Middle East? The media covered that as “more bad news for Bush” and the unpopularity of the war on terrorism. CBS even compared Bush to Saddam Hussein.

  • “Sock and awe. How the Iraqi shoe-thrower is now being hailed as a hero and drawing thousands of supporters….It’s being referred to as the ‘toss heard around the world.’ In fact, many Iraqis are showering accolades on the journalist who threw his shoes at President Bush.”  — CBS’s Harry Smith on The Early Show, December 16, 2008.
  • “In the Middle East, there’s no bigger insult than hitting someone with a shoe, a dirty object worn on the lowest part of the body. By showing the kind of contempt formerly reserved for Saddam Hussein to President Bush, [Muntathar] al-Zaidi’s become an instant hero….Al-Zaidi should do jail time, said the Iraqi bloggers – because he missed.” — CBS’s Elizabeth Palmer on the December 15, 2008 Evening News.

(NewsBusters)

(Kyle Drennen, via FoxNation) On Friday, all three network morning shows fretted over a woman throwing a shoe at Hillary Clinton during a speaking event in Las Vegas. NBC Today co-host Tamron Hall was particularly melodramatic: “I mean, but how scary is that?…Had it hit her, that would have been awful. It would have been awful.” Weatherman Al Roker added: “Jeez, that’s frightening.” Hall declared: “It’s hard for me to watch, actually.”

The shoe was on the other foot in 2008, when an Iraqi journalist threw two shoes at then-President George W. Bush during a Baghdad press conference. At that time, ABC and CBS referred to the shoe-thrower as a “celebrity” and “folk hero” who “thrilled the Arab world.” In 2009, then-MSNBC host David Shuster actually cheered the release of the footwear assailant from prison. Tamron Hall happened to be on the show at the time and observed that people would have been “more outraged” if someone threw a shoe at President Obama. Here are some reactions to the shoe throw at Hillary:

  • On CBS This Morning, co-host Charlie Rose observed that Clinton “handled that quite well” before noting that the thrower was “facing federal charges.” Fellow co-host Norah O’Donnell gushed: “You know, it was amazing to see how calm she [Hillary Clinton] was….she didn’t really react much at all and had a great retort, you know?” Rose agreed: “It was amazing.” O’Donnell concluded: “Incredible, indeed.”
  • By contrast, on Friday’s ABC Good Morning America, White House correspondent Jon Karl reported: “Hillary Clinton took that with good humor. But it was a scary moment.” Co-host George Stephanopoulos remarked: “Yeah, Hillary Clinton, quick with the quip. But that was a scary moment there for a second.”
  • On CBS This Morning, co-host Charlie Rose observed that Clinton “handled that quite well” before noting that the thrower was “facing federal charges.” Fellow co-host Norah O’Donnell gushed: “You know, it was amazing to see how calm she [Hillary Clinton] was….she didn’t really react much at all and had a great retort, you know?” Rose agreed: “It was amazing.” O’Donnell concluded: “Incredible, indeed.”

(NewsBusters)

Here is CNN covering Bush’s “Shoe Debacle,” take note of the public dislike of Bush in this report… from mentioning “disliking” him, to marveling that Bush would try and turn this into a positive:

  • “You may not like President [George W.] Bush‘s politics, but one thing you can say for sure is that the man has great reflexes,” then-CNN anchor Alina Cho told foreign correspondent Michael Ware in the wake of the December, 2008 incident in Iraq.
  • Ware marveled at the fact that Bush joked about the situation and attempted to “turn the incident to his advantage,” as opposed to dwelling ruefully on his shoe-administered repudiation.
  • “Bare in mind that, in Iraqi culture, throwing a shoe is close to the ultimate insult,” Ware noted. Unlike in the United States, where shoe-throwing is a traditional feature of weddings and christenings.
  • “This may become the press conference of the Iraq War that everyone will remember,” Ware later reported. He noted that this insult is “reserved only for the most hated.”

(Media’ite)

This blatant double-standard should be embarrassing to the legacy media. Alas, it is probably a badge of honor to them – unfortunately. Sad.

Mozilla Co-Founder Brendan Eich Out for Marriage Views (UPDATED)

Published by Papa Giorgio
...Tammy Bruce Lays Down the Law!

“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.” ~ Last Line, Animal Farm, George Orwell. (h/t, GayPatriot)

More at Twitchy!

Breitbart posts the AP story on Brendan Eich that should familiarize those with the story:

Mozilla co-founder Brendan Eich is stepping down as CEO after protests of his support of a gay marriage ban in California.

The Mountain View-based nonprofit maker of the Firefox browser had promoted him last week.

At issue was Eich’s $1,000 donation in 2008 to the campaign to pass California’s Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment that outlawed same-sex marriages. The ban was overturned when the U.S. Supreme Court last year left in place a lower-court ruling striking down the ballot measure.

Mozilla Chairwoman Mitchell Baker apologized for the company’s actions in an open letter online Thursday. She says Eich is stepping down for the company’s sake.

She says Mozilla believes in equality and freedom of speech. It is still discussing what is next for its leadership.

Gateway Pundit drives home the importance of this action that should imbolden those who care about freedom:

And, how did gay groups know Eich donated money to the Proposition 8 Campaign? Because the Obama IRS leaked this information to a gay-advocacy group in 2012. First Things reported, via The Tatler:

Amazingly enough, it is entirely due to the fact that Eich made a $1,000 donation to the campaign urging a ‘yes’ vote on California’s Proposition 8. When this fact first came to light in 2012, after the Internal Revenue Service leaked a copy of the National Organization for Marriage’s 2008 tax return to a gay-advocacy group, Eich, who was then CTO of Mozilla, published a post on his personal blog stating that his donation was not motivated by any sort of animosity towards gays or lesbians, and challenging those who did not believe this to cite any “incident where I displayed hatred, or ever treated someone less than respectfully because of group affinity or individual identity.”

Gay Patriot adds some key thoughts with a couple posts from Twitter (above and below):

The hounding of Brendan Eich has inspired Andrew Sullivan to direct some disapprobation toward some people who actually deserve it for a  change.

His flaw lies in assuming the progressive left wants a “tolerant and diverse society.” They don’t. Read the responses to his Tweet. Most of them are totally on-board with intolerance and witch-hunts.

The gay left is reveling in their power to ruin anyone whose opinion is not in line with what they consider acceptable. As I said before, they are only going to get more obnoxious….

UPDATE!

60% of Intel Employees Supported Prop 8

Uh oh: 60% of Intel employees who donated in Prop 8 debate supported banning gay marriage

….Political correctness begins on your own desktop, my friends.

The Los Angeles Times maintains a database of contributions for and against Proposition 8. The database includes the names of a donor’s employer, as is required by campaign finance law. I checked the records for some of the largest technology companies in Silicon Valley: specifically those that were in the Fortune 500 as of 2008. The list includes Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Cisco Systems, Apple, Google, Sun Microsystems, eBay, Oracle, Yahoo, Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) and Symantec. I limited the search to donors who listed California as their location.

In total between these 11 companies, 83 percent of employee donations were in opposition to Proposition 8. So Eich was in a 17 percent minority relative to the top companies in Silicon Valley…

However, there was quite a bit of variation from business to business. At Intel, 60 percent of employee donations were in support of Proposition 8. By contrast, at Apple, 94 percent of employee donations were made in opposition to Proposition 8. The opposition was even higher at Google, where 96 percent of employee donations were against it, including $100,000 from co-founder Sergey Brin.

Follow the link for Silver’s table with the numbers for each company. The only footnote to Intel being the sole outlier is that, at Hewlett-Packard, while there were more employees who donated against Prop 8 than for it (103/54), supporters ended up donating more actual money than opponents did ($40,990/$32,616). Sounds like someone, or ones, at HP is busting out big bucks to defeat equality. We should find them. “HP” does resemble “H8,” you know….

Hillary Clinton Blow: Money Bundler Jeffrey Thompson Pleads Guilty

Published by Papa Giorgio

OUCH! But in a good way. Libertarian Republican has this breaking story:

Just breaking… Jeffrey Thompson has pleaded guilty in a Washington D.C. courtroom to multiple counts of illegal campaign fundraising.

Backgound from the WashingtonTimes a few days ago, “Hillary Clinton campaign got illicit funds from D.C. scandal figure – Terry McAuliffe, now Va. governor, was Clinton campaign chairman at time”

Despite Hillary Rodham Clinton’s promise that she had scrubbed illegal cash contributions from her 2008 presidential campaign, prosecutors revealed Monday that the mastermind of Mayor Vincent C. Gray’s “shadow campaign” also funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to aid Mrs. Clinton’s bid for the White House.

Jeffrey E. Thompson’s scheme included diverting more than $608,000 in illicit funds to a New York marketing executive, Troy White, who organized “street teams” to raise Mrs. Clinton’s visibility in urban areas during her Democratic primary battle against Barack Obama.

Mr. White pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in the case. Prosecutors said that from February to May 2008, Thompson used two firms to disburse $608,750 in “excessive and unreported contributions to pay for campaign services in coordination with and in support of a federal political candidate for president of the United States and the federal and the candidate’s authorized committee.”

That candidate was Mrs. Clinton.

Read It All