Uncommon Sense

politics and society are, unfortunately, much the same thing

Did the Obama admin discriminate for job positions based on race or religion?

original article: LEAKED: Obama Team Kept List of Muslims For Top Jobs, Excluded Non-Muslims
October 24, 2016 by Justin Caruso

The newest batch of John Podesta’s hacked emails released by Wikileaks shows Obama’s transition team kept lists of Muslim and Asian candidates for jobs in the administration.

According to an email chain from 2008, John Podesta received lists of exclusively Muslims and Asians to be considered for jobs in the Obama administration. The email chain revealed that in this process, Middle Eastern Christians were purposefully excluded, or set aside in a separate list, with an aide writing,

In the candidates for top jobs, I excluded those with some Arab American background but who are not Muslim (e.g., George Mitchell). Many Lebanese Americans, for example, are Christian. In the last list (of outside boards/commissions), most who are listed appear to be Muslim American, except that a handful (where noted) may be Arab American but of uncertain religion (esp. Christian).

Also notable, there was concern that some of the Muslims suggested would not survive media scrutiny, with one aide writing, “High-profile Muslim Americans tend to be the subject of a fair amount of blogger criticism, and so the individuals on this list would need to be ESPECIALLY carefully vetted.”

She continues, “I suspect some of the people I list would not survive such a vet — but I do personally know, at least in part, virtually all of the candidates in the 1st two categories (but I know very few of those listed for outside boards/commissions).”

Within the lists themselves, candidates were further broken down, with every candidate labeled by their nationality and sometimes race.

This follows a pattern of the Obama Administration using race and religion to determine hiring, with other leaked emails showing potential political appointees being labeled with an F for female, B for black, H for Hispanic, and M for Muslim.

Another Wikileaks release showed the Obama transition team keeping extensive lists of non-white candidates for administration posts.

bias, corruption, Democrats, discrimination, diversity, ethics, government, left wing, liberalism, political correctness, politics, progressive, public policy, racism, racist, religion, scandal, socialism

Filed under: bias, corruption, Democrats, discrimination, diversity, ethics, government, left wing, liberalism, political correctness, politics, progressive, public policy, racism, racist, religion, scandal, socialism

When the shoe is on the other foot in politics

original article: God Bless Harry Reid
February 2, 2017 by CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

Senate Democrats have Reid to thank for being powerless to block Gorsuch’s nomination.

There are many people to thank for the coming accession of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Donald Trump for winning the election. Hillary Clinton for losing it. Mitch McConnell for holding open the High Court seat through 2016, resolute and immovable against furious (and hypocritical) opposition from Democrats and media. And, of course, Harry Reid.

God bless Harry Reid. It’s because of him that Gorsuch is guaranteed elevation to the Court. In 2013, as then–Senate majority leader, Reid blew up the joint. He abolished the filibuster for federal appointments both executive (such as cabinet) and judicial, for all district- and circuit-court judgeships (excluding only the Supreme Court). Thus unencumbered, the Democratic-controlled Senate packed the lower courts with Obama nominees.

Reid was warned that the day would come when Republicans would be in the majority and would exploit the new rules to equal and opposite effect. That day is here. The result is striking.

Trump’s cabinet appointments are essentially unstoppable because Republicans need only 51 votes and they have 52. They have no need to reach 60, the number required to overcome a filibuster. Democrats are powerless to stop anyone on their own.

And equally powerless to stop Gorsuch. But isn’t the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees still standing? Yes, but if the Democrats dare try it, everyone knows that Majority Leader McConnell will do exactly what Reid did and invoke the nuclear option — filibuster abolition — for the Supreme Court, too.

Reid never fully appreciated the magnitude of his crime against the Senate. As I wrote at the time, the offense was not abolishing the filibuster — you can argue that issue either way — but that he did it by simple majority. In a serious body, a serious rule change requires a serious supermajority. (Amending the U.S. Constitution, for example, requires two-thirds of both houses plus three-quarters of all the states.) Otherwise you have rendered the place lawless. If in any given session you can summon up the day’s majority to change the institution’s fundamental rules, there are no rules.

McConnell can at any moment finish Reid’s work by extending filibuster abolition to the Supreme Court. But he hasn’t. He has neither invoked the nuclear option nor even threatened to. And he’s been asked often enough. His simple and unwavering response is that Gorsuch will be confirmed. Translation: If necessary, he will drop the big one.

It’s obvious that he prefers not to. No one wants to again devalue and destabilize the Senate by changing a major norm by simple majority vote. But Reid set the precedent.

Note that the issue is not the filibuster itself. There’s nothing sacred about it. Its routine use is a modern development — with effects both contradictory and unpredictable. The need for 60 votes can contribute to moderation and compromise because to achieve a supermajority you need to get a buy-in from at least some of the opposition. On the other hand, in a hyper-partisan atmosphere (like today’s), a 60-vote threshold can ensure that everything gets stopped and nothing gets done.

Filibuster abolition is good for conservatives today. It will be good for liberals tomorrow when they have regained power. There’s no great principle at stake, though as a practical matter, in this era of widespread frustration with congressional gridlock, the new norm may be salutary.

What is not salutary is the Reid precedent of changing the old norm using something so transient and capricious as the majority of the day. As I argued in 2015, eventually the two parties will need to work out a permanent arrangement under which major rule changes will require a supermajority (say, of two-thirds) to ensure substantial bipartisan support.

There are conflicting schools of thought as to whether even such a grand bargain could not itself be overturned by some future Congress — by simple majority led by the next Harry Reid. Nonetheless, even a problematic entente is better than the free-for-all that governs today.

The operative word, however, is “eventually.” Such an agreement is for the future. Not yet, not today. Republicans are no fools. They are not about to forfeit the advantage bequeathed to them by Harry Reid’s shortsighted willfulness. They will zealously retain the nuclear option for Supreme Court nominees through the current Republican tenure of Congress and the presidency.

After which, they should be ready to parlay and press the reset button. But only then. As the young Augustine famously beseeched the Lord, “Give me chastity and continency, only not yet.”

congress, constitution, Democrats, government, ideology, legislature, politics, Republicans, unintended consequences

Filed under: congress, constitution, Democrats, government, ideology, legislature, politics, Republicans, unintended consequences

Does Pelosi think it’s okay to use religion as a guide for public policy?

original article: Pelosi: Democrats Do ‘the Lord’s Work,’ Republicans ‘Dishonor God’
January 24, 2017 by TYLER O’NEIL

In yet another example of moral narcissism and the liberal inability to understand conservative positions on faith, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi declared that her party, the Democratic Party, does the will of God while Republicans dishonor their Creator.

Of Republicans, the Democrat congresswoman from California declared, “They pray in church on Sunday and they prey on people the rest of the week. And while we’re doing the Lord’s work, ministering to the needs of God’s creation, they are ignoring those needs which is to dishonor the God who made them.”

Perhaps emboldened by Pope Francis’ encyclical on climate change, Pelosi thus equated the climate alarmism and draconian regulations pushed by her party with a godly care for the environment. In doing so, she failed to understand that there are good reasons to doubt the “scientific consensus” on man-made global warming. She also failed to note that God’s care for “the least of these” can justify cutting regulations, which will unleash economic growth which helps the poor as well as the rich.

This is why Pelosi’s declaration that Republicans “prey on people” was important. By falsely equating free market policies with the kind of crony capitalism that leads to monopoly, Democrats argue that the Republican agenda enables the rich to harm the poor.

read full article

christian, culture, Democrats, ethics, government, hypocrisy, ideology, liberalism, politics, public policy, religion

Filed under: christian, culture, Democrats, ethics, government, hypocrisy, ideology, liberalism, politics, public policy, religion

Democrats demand the status quo in education

original article: Public School Is Often The Most Destructive Institution In American Life
January 18, 2017 by David Harsanyi

There’s something perverse about an ideology that views the disposing of a child in the third trimester of pregnancy as an indisputable right but the desire of parents to choose a school for their kids as “zealotry.”  Watching Donald Trump’s pick for education secretary, Betsy DeVos, answer an array of frivolous questions was just another reminder of this warped worldview.

Many liberals, for instance, tell us that racism is one of the most pressing problems in America. And yet few things have hurt African Americans more over the past 40 years than the inner-city public school system. If President Obama is correct, and educational attainment is the key to breaking out of a lower economic strata, then no institution is driving inequality quite as effectively as public schools.

Actually, teachers unions are the only organizations in America that openly support segregated schools. In districts across the country — even ones in cities with some form of limited movement for kids — poor parents, most typically black or Hispanic, are forced to enroll their kids in underperforming schools when there are good ones nearby, sometimes just blocks away.

The National Education Association spent $23 million last cycle alone working to elect politicians to keep low-income Americans right where they are. Public service unions use tax dollars to fund politicians who then turn around and vote for more funding. The worse the schools perform, the more money they demand. In the real world we call this racketeering.

Yet according to Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, it is people like DeVos who are “a grave threat” to the public schools “that made America great.”

Well, for starters, studies consistently show that minority groups in America’s largest cities are lagging in proficiency in reading and math. Most of them are at the bottom 5 percent of schools in their own state. There is only so much an education secretary can accomplish, but being accused of being a “grave threat” to this system is a magnificent endorsement.

And what were Democrats on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee most concerned with? Preserving the status quo. Sen. Elizabeth Warren forced DeVos to admit that she has never led an organization quite like the Education Department (with its nearly $70 billion budget, who has?). For some reason, Warren also made DeVos, a billionaire, admit that she’d never filled out financial aid forms. The Daily Caller News Foundation found that six of the 10 Democrats on the committee had attended private or parochial schools, or have children and grandchildren who do. So what?

Sen. Patty Murray, who has absolutely no understanding or regard for the constitutional limitation on the education department, pushed DeVos to promise that she would not personally defund public schools. Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, a tireless adversary of the first five amendments of the Constitution (at least), asked DeVos if she thought firearms had any place in or around schools. “I think that’s best left to locales and states to decide,” she replied, before offering a specific concern of a local rural district that Sen. Mike Enzi had moments ago mentioned. Cue: mocking left punditry.

In case you were unaware, Democrats on the committee stressed that DeVos was a Republican appointed by a Republican president who had given money to Republican organizations. They further pointed out that DeVos was a Christian who had given money to Christian organizations (often referred to as “antigay groups”) that didn’t meet with their moral approval.

Mostly though, the liberals on the committee attacked DeVos because she has a history of contributing her own money to help private and Christian schools expand their reach. She also supported school vouchers proponents and public charter schools that open doors to poor kids. Those dollars have likely done more to help minority students than all the committee members’ efforts combined.

As many Americans surely know, rich and middle-class Americans already have school choice. In most places, the whiter the neighborhood the better the school system, and the better the school system the higher the prices of homes, making it impossible for those who aren’t wealthy to escape substandard schools (rural school also often suffer.) This is the status quo Warren, Murphy, and Murray hope to preserve.

Yes, school reform is complicated and challenges vary from place to place. Many have shown improvement. But teachers unions and their allies opposed magnets, charters, home schooling, religious schooling, and virtual schools long before data about the effectiveness of these choices was in, and now long after quality research is indicating their improvement on the union-preferred system.

You can visit heavily Hispanic areas in Denver and watch mothers cry when their kids’ numbers don’t come up in a charter-school lottery. Or you can listen to technocrats in editorial board meetings, whose kids live in prosperous districts or attend private schools, telling you why too many of those parents have a choice.

By the parameters we often judge these sort of things, public schools are racist institutions — even if that’s unintentional. They have an even more destructive effect on communities than all the dumb words and racist (real and imagined) comments that upset the public on a regular basis. It’s not surprising that poll after poll shows minority parents support educational choice. Unfortunately, partisanship allows Democrats to take voters for granted and ignore the issue.

bureaucracy, children, culture, Democrats, diversity, education, elitism, government, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, progressive, public policy, reform, tragedy

Filed under: bureaucracy, children, culture, Democrats, diversity, education, elitism, government, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, progressive, public policy, reform, tragedy

Who gets absolute moral authority?

original article: Malkin: Who gets absolute moral authority?
July 20, 2016 by Michelle Malkin

My 12-year-old son couldn’t remember the phrase “take a walk down memory lane” last week, instead describing a stroll through “nostalgia road.” I knew it would come in handy.

Put on your hiking boots and join me for an educational trip down good ol’ nostalgia road.

It seems like yesterday when Champion of Wimmin Maureen Dowd, bemoaning the lack of sympathy for anti-war mom Cindy Sheehan, declared in The New York Times that “the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute.”

No ifs, ands or other hedging qualifiers. Absolutely absolute.

And it was just a blink of an eye ago that the same New York Times spilled barrels of adulatory ink on the 9/11 widows known as the Jersey Girls. Remember them? The quartet of Democratic women parlayed their post-terror attack plight into powerful roles as Bush-bashing citizen lobbyists.

Their story, the lib narrative-shaping paper of record reported, was a “tale of a political education, and a sisterhood born of grief.”

Moms and widows deserved special consideration in the public square, the argument went a decade ago. Their experience and their testimony warranted respect, deference and the national spotlight.

But then, as now, only a special class of victims is entitled to cash in the Absolute Moral Authority card. Not all parents and spouses who have lost loved ones can join the Club of the Unquestioned and Unassailable.

On Monday night at the Republican National Convention, Pat Smith shared her own tale of a political education born of grief after her diplomat son, Sean Smith, died in the Benghazi terrorist attack. Hillary Clinton, she passionately insisted, “deserves to be in stripes!”

GQ sports writer Nathaniel Friedman showed his compassion for Smith’s loss and pain by tweeting, “I don’t care how many children Pat Smith lost I would like to beat her to death.”

MSNBC host Chris Matthews, who had helped make Cindy Sheehan a media star and urged her to run for Congress based on her status as a grieving war mom, fumed that Pat Smith had “ruined” the entire convention with her heartfelt testimony. The smug Democratic political operative turned TV bloviator, who had also elevated the Jersey Girls’ celebrity status with multiple bookings on his show, couldn’t bear to speak Smith’s name:

“I don’t care what that woman up there, the mother, has felt. Her emotions are her own, but for the country in choosing a leader, it’s wrong to have someone get up there and tell a lie about Hillary Clinton.”

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., chimed in on the same network that he was disgusted with how the GOP convention was using Smith to “exploit a tragedy.”

GOP-bashers heaped similar derision on father Jamiel Shaw Sr. and mothers Sabine Durden and Mary Ann Mendoza, who all spoke at the convention about losing children to criminals who had slipped illegally through open borders and revolving deportation doors. “Progressives” sneered at Shaw as an “Uncle Tom” for pointing out that Latino gangbangers targeted his black son because of his race. The intolerant tolerance mob also accused Durden of being “fooled” and Durden and Mendoza of being “exploited for apocalyptic theater.”

Will these horrified hang-wringers be as outspokenly offended next week when the Democratic National Convention dedicates an entire evening to the so-called Mothers of the Movement?

Among the sainted moms of the Black Lives Matter movement who will speak on Hillary Clinton’s behalf are Gwen Carr, mother of Eric Garner; Sybrina Fulton, mother of Trayvon Martin; Maria Hamilton, mother of Dontre Hamilton; Lucia McBath, mother of Jordan Davis; Lesley McSpadden, mother of Michael Brown; Cleopatra Pendleton-Cowley, mother of Hadiya Pendleton; and Geneva Reed-Veal, mother of Sandra Bland.

Each of these cases lumped under supposedly unjustified gun violence and systemic racism is complicated and distinct. For starters, Bland hanged herself when her friends and family wouldn’t bail her out of jail after she had kicked a police officer. Two of the “children” involved in police shootings (Brown and Hamilton) had assaulted cops during their fatal encounters.

But drop all questions and doubts. “These mothers have worked tirelessly to raise awareness around the issues that surround their children’s deaths,” the liberal Huffington Post reports.

Because these women endorse race-baiting, gun-grabbing narratives and left-wing candidates, no one working in the mainstream media will ever challenge their parental prerogative to participate in politics on behalf of their loved ones.

Moms who have lost their children to Democratic incompetence, corruption and open-borders treachery are out of luck. The dealers of Absolute Moral Authority play with a loaded deck.

anti-war, bias, campaign, corruption, culture, Democrats, elections, elitism, fraud, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, liberalism, lies, pandering, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, scandal, tragedy, troops, victimization

Filed under: anti-war, bias, campaign, corruption, culture, Democrats, elections, elitism, fraud, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, liberalism, lies, pandering, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, scandal, tragedy, troops, victimization

Hiding from a story is not the same as discrediting it

original article: Andrea Mitchell Dismisses Clinton Rape Accusation as ‘Discredited’
May 19, 2016 by Kyle Drennen

On Thursday’s NBC Today, correspondent Andrea Mitchell was so deep in the tank for Hillary Clinton that the veteran reporter claimed a major scoop from her own network about Bill Clinton being accused of rape was a “discredited” story.

Mitchell was aghast that Donald Trump mentioned rape allegations against the former president during aWednesday night interview: “…last night, Trump fired a shot squarely at Clinton’s husband….using that word unprompted during an interview last night with Fox News’s Sean Hannity, bringing up a discredited and long-denied accusation against former President Bill Clinton…”

A soundbite played of Trump saying the word “rape,” but Mitchell couldn’t bring herself to utter the term. Co-hosts Matt Lauer and Savannah Guthrie were similarly cryptic when teasing the segment. Earlier in the 7:30 a.m. ET hour, Lauer declared: “Up next, a word used by Donald Trump while talking about former President Bill Clinton that has him under fire this morning.” Minutes later, Guthrie noted: “Hillary Clinton’s camp going hard after Donald Trump…for a word that Trump used in an interview…”

NBC displayed the same squeamishness back on February 25, 1999, the day after then-investigative correspondentLisa Myers interviewed Juanita Broaddrick, who accused Clinton of raping her in 1978, during his first campaign for governor of Arkansas. At the time, Myers had to address concerns that the network initially forced her to sit on the story before “finally” allowing it on air.

Despite such a bombshell report coming on the heels of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Broaddrick’s claims received short shrift on the network news. A 2015 Media Research Center study detailed how the story was ignored by the Big Three, including NBC:

Well, consider that when then-President Bill Clinton was accused of rape, those same newscasts aired just four stories mentioning those charges during a 12-month period from March 1998 through March 1999.

The four: On March 28, 1998, the NBC Nightly News ran a full story on how Clinton, then the Attorney General of Arkansas, allegedly raped Juanita Broaddrick in a hotel room in 1978. Nightly News provided no further coverage; when NBC’s Lisa Myers taped an exclusive on-camera interview with Broaddrick for Dateline, anchor Tom Brokaw would only mention it in a brief promo at the end of his February 24, 1999 newscast.

The CBS Evening News ran a single report on Broaddrick’s charges during their Saturday, February 20, 1999 newscast. ABC mentioned the case in passing during a March 7, 1999 World News Sunday report about an interview given by whistleblower Linda Tripp; twelve days later, World News Tonight viewers saw a brief clip of then-White House correspondent Sam Donaldson questioning Clinton about the case at a March 19, 1999 news conference: “Can you tell us what your relationship with Ms. Broaddrick was?”

According to Nexis, there’s been no additional discussion of Broaddrick’s charge since then on the evening newscasts — not during Bill Clinton’s book tour, Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, or even as a point of reference in discussions of other scandals.

Even when Broaddrick herself took to social media early in 2016 to lament the Clintons once again being on the national stage during the presidential campaign, journalists like Mitchell made sure to censor the news. During a Wednesday interview with World Net Daily, Broaddrick recounted a brief phone call she had with Mitchell:

Juanita created a social media firestorm earlier this year by tweeting that she had been “dreading seeing my abuser on TV campaign trail for enabler wife … but his physical appearance reflects ghosts of past are catching up.” One of the many media figures who called her after this tweet was Andrea Mitchell of NBC. Because she’d had a positive experience with Lisa Myers with NBC back in 1999, Andrea Mitchell was one of the few calls Juanita returned in the aftermath of her trending tweets. Andrea Mitchell asked her just one question, listened to her answer, and told Juanita condescendingly, “We’re not going to air anything with you because you have nothing new to add.” Juanita felt bewildered by Andrea Mitchell’s dismissive attitude.

On Thursday, after Trump resurrected the story, Mitchell immediately parroted Clinton campaign spin waving reporters off the scandal:

Late last night, the Clinton campaign responded in a statement that read, “Trump is doing what he does best, attacking when he feels wounded and dragging the American people through the mud for his own gain. If that’s the kind of campaign he wants to run, that’s his choice.” Also accusing him of trying to change the subject from his refusal to release his taxes.

Wrapping up the report, Mitchell proclaimed: “NBC News has reached out to the Trump campaign this morning to ask why he brought up that long-denied Bill Clinton allegation. So far, no response.”

ABC’s Good Morning America and CBS This Morning fretted over Trump “rehashing” the “old” accussstions.

Watch women of “The View” defending sexual abuse of women

More reporters ignoring Hillary’s defense of her husband’s abuse of women, but piling on Trump

bias, censorship, corruption, Democrats, elitism, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, liberalism, news media, pandering, politics, progressive, propaganda, relativism, scandal, sex

Filed under: bias, censorship, corruption, Democrats, elitism, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, liberalism, news media, pandering, politics, progressive, propaganda, relativism, scandal, sex

Do Democrats really realize how difficult it has been on working-class Americans to finance Obamacare?

original article: Watch: Mom Says The 15 Words No Democrat Wants To Hear Right To Hillary’s Face On Live TV
March 15, 2016 by Warner Todd Huston

One woman at CNN’s recent Democrat town hall seemed to sense the possible dangers of voting for a left-leaning candidate, and shocked Hillary with what she had to say about Obamacare.

During the CNN televised town hall Teresa O’Donnell of Powell, Ohio, stood to ask a question of the former Secretary of State, first explaining how Obamacare has seriously hurt her and her family due to the exorbitant costs it has inflicted upon them.

“I would like to vote Democratic,” O’Donnell said, “but it has cost me a lot of money.”

She went on saying, “And I’m just wondering if Democrats really realize how difficult it has been on working-class Americans to finance Obamacare.”

O’Donnell told the audience that since the President’s signature Affordable Care Act went into effect the monthly premium for her family healthcare costs has “skyrocketed.” She says her costs have soared from $490 a month to $1,080.

The woman did note she hadn’t purchased her insurance through an Obamacare exchange so, in an effort to rescue Obamacare from the bad publicity, Hillary said the woman should check out the exchange avenue for her insurance.

This Ohio woman isn’t alone in her distaste over Obamacare. As Independent Journal noted, a recent Rasmussen poll found that 54 percent of respondents do not like Obamacare.

Hillary, though, has made Obamacare a major plank in her campaign noting she was for “Obamacare” before it even existed since she tried to get universal healthcare put in place when she was First Lady during her husband Bill’s presidency in the mid 1990s.

“What we have to do, I think, is defend the Affordable Care Act and fix it,” Hillary said in a recent campaign video. Late last year Clinton said, “I’m not going to let them tear up that law, kick 16 million off their health coverage and force the country to start the healthcare debate all over again.”

She has also attacked insurance companies for “predatory pricing” and said that they are “gouging” Americans with their rates.

Her Democrat opponent, self-avowed socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, wants to go even farther by proclaiming healthcare a “right.”

“My view is simple,” Sanders says on his website, “health care is a right, not a privilege.”

campaign, Democrats, economics, government, health care, nanny state, progressive, public policy, reform, tragedy, video

Filed under: campaign, Democrats, economics, government, health care, nanny state, progressive, public policy, reform, tragedy, video

The Clintons are a war on women

Possibly the most famous sexual predator not in prison is named Bill. No, not Cosby, his name is Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton is a war on women. Any widely accepted definition of abuse of women should include the former philandering president. So how do we square Hillary’s recent comments on hearing, believing, and supporting abused women with Hillary’s own efforts to utterly destroy any woman who accuses her husband of sexual predation? Watch The Run Down address the particulars of the question.

buse, campaign, civil rights, corruption, cover up, criminal, culture, Democrats, elections, elitism, ethics, feminism, fraud, government, hypocrisy, ideology, pandering, politics, propaganda, relativism, scandal, sex, tragedy, victimization, video

Filed under: abuse, campaign, civil rights, corruption, cover up, criminal, culture, Democrats, elections, elitism, ethics, feminism, fraud, government, hypocrisy, ideology, pandering, politics, propaganda, relativism, scandal, sex, tragedy, victimization, video

PBS Anchor: ‘Why Does It Matter’ Hillary Lied About a YouTube Video on Benghazi?

original article: PBS Anchor: ‘Why Does It Matter’ Hillary Lied About a YouTube Video on Benghazi?
October 23, 2015 by Tim Graham

PBS NewsHour anchor Judy Woodruff came to bury the Benghazi committee on Thursday night’s program. “What difference does it make” seemed to be her Hillary-echoing mantra. Or in her case, it was “Why does it matter?” Lies? Coverups? Who cares about that?

She brought on Anne Gearan of The Washington Post, a routine defender of Hillary’s, and Yochi Dreazen, formerly with The Wall Street Journal news pages and now with Foreign Policy magazine, owned by….The Washington Post Company. Get a load of this exchange:

JUDY WOODRUFF: But, Yochi Dreazen, did we learn anything more about how she made — how those decisions were made and her role in what finally happened?

YOCHI DREAZEN: I think the most interesting moment by far was when Congressman Jim Jordan was saying to her, in some detail, that you, Secretary Clinton, told your family in one e-mail that this was an attack linked by al-Qaida, that you said in a phone call with an Egyptian leader that this was not something tied to an anti-Muslim video, and then saying, but the talking points coming out of the White House at the time were, this wasn’t al-Qaida and this was linked to this video.

I thought that was the most effective and sort of new moment in the entire line of questioning. And her answer back wasn’t terribly strong. Her answer back was, they were still sifting intelligence. We were trying to sort our way through it. But she couldn’t quite give the direct answer why she was saying in an e-mail something very different than what was being said publicly.

WOODRUFF: But, for the audience, why does it matter? Why did that — why does it matter whether she was saying one thing? Because she tried to say, well, I was trying to warn other countries. We didn’t want to see this thing happening anyplace else.

There you have it. A journalist asking “Why does it matter if she told the truth to her family and lies to the families of the victims at Andrews Air Force Base, or lied to the media about a YouTube video? Why does it matter Hillary skipped the Sunday shows so Susan Rice could be the poster child for lying about the YouTube video?” This is Woodruff rejecting Journalism 101, choosing politics over expecting the honesty of public officials. Dreazen’s answer:

DREAZEN: So, the Republican charges basically are two parts. One is, she ignored security, so, substantively, she could have done more to make the compound safer, and then much more damaging from their point of view is that the White House basically lied. They’re saying the White House knew one thing, for political reasons, they said something else, and there’s a cover-up, and she was a major part of that cover-up.

That’s basically what they have been trying to say now for three years, that she deliberately misstated what she knew to be the cause of the attack, and these e-mails were their best attempt today to try to make that point again.

Woodruff then changed the subject, asking Anne Gearan, “the Hillary Clinton campaign right now, they obviously had some worry going into this hearing. What was their strategy?”

Then she went back to how this committee would wrap it up:

WOODRUFF: So, Yochi Dreazen, what comes out of this? Where does this lead? I mean, after she has testified, the committee goes on. What do they do with this information?

DREAZEN: So, some of the numbers just on the hearings, it’s astounding. This is the 21st hearing on Benghazi. By comparison, there were 22 public hearings on 9/11. So, just to compare the two, 22 on 9/11, 21 on Benghazi. The investigations are thought to have cost about $5 million. This has been going on now 17 months. It’s not clear to me or I think to really any observer what is new that could still be found.

Dreazen said a similar thing at the segment’s very beginning: “And if you were watching the hearing today, you’re not hearing anything new. These questions have been asked again and again. The answers were given again and again. Basically, what you saw almost from the beginning were Democrats and Republicans literally yelling at each other. This wasn’t like an august hearing designed to try to get down to something we didn’t know. This was politics, pure and simple.”

“Politics, pure simple” is a good definition of how PBS managed this story.

bias, corruption, cover up, Democrats, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, liberalism, news media, pandering, politics, progressive, propaganda, relativism, scandal

Filed under: bias, corruption, cover up, Democrats, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, liberalism, news media, pandering, politics, progressive, propaganda, relativism, scandal

Sister of Benghazi Hero Glen Doherty Shares Hillary Clinton’s ‘Very Strange’ Message to Her Family

original article: After ‘Never’ Speaking About It for a Long Time, Sister of Benghazi Hero Glen Doherty Shares Hillary Clinton’s ‘Very Strange’ Message to Her Family
October 23, 2015 by Jason Howerton

The sister of slain Benghazi hero Glen Doherty, Kate Quigley, told CNN’s Anderson Cooper that she previously met with former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and, in retrospect, feels like the Democrat chose to “perpetuate what she knew was not true.”

Following the deadly Benghazi terror attacks, Quigley said Clinton told her family how “sad” they should feel for the Libyan people because they are “uneducated” and that “breeds fear, which breeds violence and leads to a protest.”

“I remember thinking at the time, ‘Wow, how selfish of me. I never really thought about the Libyan people, I’ve been consumed with my own grief, and loss, and concern,’” she recalled. “And when I think back now to that day and what she knew, it shows me a lot about her character that she would choose in that moment to basically perpetuate what she knew was untrue.”

Cooper said it seems “unusual” that Clinton would even make those comments while the victims’ families were grieving.

“It was very strange,” Quigley said. “I thought about it, and I never spoke about it for a long time.”

watch the video here

corruption, Democrats, foreign affairs, government, hypocrisy, lies, politics, scandal, terrorism, tragedy

Filed under: corruption, Democrats, foreign affairs, government, hypocrisy, lies, politics, scandal, terrorism, tragedy

Pages

Categories

February 2017
M T W T F S S
« Jan    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728