The former Secretary of State has pushed a liberal agenda in Washington for over twenty years. She promoted a healthcare plan identical to Obamacare and supports expanding the federal government. From Benghazi to Boko Haram, she was a key player in the White House’s failed leadership on foreign policy and has a record of avoiding transparency. Hillary Clinton repeatedly denies responsibility, distorts the facts and deceives Americans about the truth. Republicans believe that America will be worse off with another Clinton in the White House. (GOP.com)
I guess the Republican Party is just too cozy with the Democrats to use plain language – and plain truth – when it comes to the Clintons.
Bill Clinton, as the video proves, is still a serial liar, and his greedy, power-hungry wife is a serial liar. Americans know that, and it’s damned well time we quit being nice about these two arrogant jackasses.
Wouldn’t it be refreshing to hear Ted Cruz stand up and say, “Hillary Clinton is a serial liar”?
Is anyone surprised that the media is attacking Ms. Geller and not the Texas gunmen who tried to kill her – and anyone else attending her “Draw Muhammed” event?
This is one of the most important interviews dealing with our surrender of our First Amendment right to speak freely I’ve seen in years. Watch the entire video if you want to understand how to stand up to our hostile progressive presstitutes.
“We are abridging our freedoms so as not to offend savages. The very idea that if something offends me or I’m insulted by something, I’ll kill you, and that way I can get my way is okay with the members of the elite media and academia is outrageous…”
“Hours after a shooting at a Muhammed cartoon event Garland, Texas that left three dead, including the gunmen, the event’s sponsor and American Freedom Defense Initiative president Pamela Geller battled CNN’s Alisyn Camerota over whether the incendiary event had provoked violence.” (Keep reading…)
May 9, 2015: The Untold Story of Garland Texas and Media Tolerance of Gender Violence
Bethany Blankley’s recent TownHall article addressed press coverage of two Garland events, noting that protestors at the first one (“Stand with the Prophet”), were denegrated as “anti-Islam,” as was the American Freedom Defense Initiative’s (AFDI) entire “Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest.”
I had not considered the impact on women the media’s negative spin implied. In fact, I chuckled a bit when I read Blankley’s title. I quit laughing as I read the article, and her point hit home:
[…] Despite Charlie Hebdo’s and AFDI’s efforts to expose Shari’a law, reporters and public figures criticized and blamed AFDI, and its founder Pamela Geller, for the Islamic gunmen’s acts. I can’t recall these same news organizations and public figures blaming Charlie Hebdo satirists for their own murders.
Coverage of the January 17th event focused on “Islamaphobic” protesters “picketing an Islamic conference.” Yet most reporters never mentioned the speakers who have publicly affirmed “killing as an essential element of Islam” and have known ties to terrorism.
To be “anti-Islam” and “anti-Shari’a” is to reject submission to Allah and to the legislation outlined in the Qur’an. There is nothing bigoted, racist, or personal in rejecting a political ideology that opposes the U.S. Constitution. Even the European Court on Human Rights has ruled more than once that Sharia law is “incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy.”
By labeling people “anti-Islam” are reporters supporting Islamic ideology, Shari’a law, which legalizes wife-abuse, child marriage, FGM, and honor killings, and Jew-hatred?
Are there any other feminists and human rights advocates like Geller who are demanding that women and girls in America be protected from Shari’a law? Why is there silence about Shari’a, which legalizes:
Fathers killing their daughters/or forcing them into child marriage,
Imams marrying girls – even for one hour– to men, which American criminal laws define as sex trafficking, prostitution, and pedophilia,
Husbands beating and raping their wives,
A woman’s legal right to equate to only half of a man’s legal right,
Discrimination, punishment, and death based on sexual and religious orientation.
By ignoring these facts and blaming Geller the media enables, permits—even ensures—that hate crimes will increasingly occur and victims’ voices remain silent. (Read the full article…)
May 8, 2015: Yes and But In the Wrong Order
H/T Erick Erickson:
[SNIPS] Amazingly, the American media and much of the American left spent vastly more time attacking Pamela Geller than the jihadists who tried to kill her. Echoing Islamic radicals, members of the press whose careers depend on the First Amendment now insist there be restrictions on the First Amendment.
More specifically, when Catholics protested a satanic black mass in Massachusetts, the Boston Globe’s editorialists wrote that the Catholics just needed to get over it and not let themselves be trolled. When Rudy Giuliani attempted to shut down an art exhibit of the Virgin Mary painted in dung, the New York Times extolled the virtues of free speech and creativity. Now, while advertising tickets to the “Book of Mormon” play, the New York Times is running editorials attacking Pamela Geller and demanding respect for Islam.
CNN’s Chris Cuomo, who never misses an opportunity to show how dumb he is, took to Twitter to claim “hate speech” has no protections under the First Amendment. Cuomo, in addition to being Mario Cuomo’s son, which is his chief and only real claim to advancement in society, is a lawyer. Luckily for America, the United States Supreme Court disagrees with Cuomo. (Full article…)
May 7, 2015: Coverage of ‘Draw Muhammad’ contest reveals stupidity of liberal journalists
Progressive journalists often not only get the law wrong, but then have the audacity to smugly talk down to people who attempt to correct them. A classic example was CNN anchor Chris Cuomo’s statement, in the context of a “Draw Muhammad” contest in Garland, Texas, that “hate speech is excluded from protection. Don’t just say you love the constitution … read it.”
Cuomo has seemingly never read the Constitution himself, despite having once attended law school. The Constitution doesn’t even contain the word “hate,” much less mention “hate speech” in the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has made clear over and over again that hate speech in public settings is protected by the First Amendment. As Twitchy observed, “in 2011, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in Snyder v. Phelps stating the always awful Westboro Baptist Church” – which vociferously hates gay people – “had the right to protest at the funerals of slain military members. In other words, hate speech is protected speech.” This is not a new legal principle. The Supreme Court invalidated a hate-speech ordinance in R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992). Moreover, it has also ruled that a racist group couldn’t be charged more fees based on its racist message (Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement), and that a racist Klan speech was protected speech (Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).
When this was pointed out to Cuomo, he justified his erroneous statement by citing the legally irrelevant “Chaplinsky case,” a case that said nothing about hate speech, but rather involved the judicially-created “fighting words” exception to the First Amendment. The “fighting words” exception seldom applies to hate speech, and requires face-to-face insults, not depictions of the prophet Muhammad, however inflammatory such depictions might be. As the Supreme Court explained in its Texas v. Johnson decision, which struck down attempts to ban flag burning, the fighting words exception doesn’t reach apply to even extremely inflammatory speech unless it involves a “direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs.” In response to a Jewish reader who attempted to correct his error, he argued that it wouldn’t cover speech in which someone would “call you something ugly for being Jewish.” But calling somebody something ugly, even in-person, is typically protected speech under the Supreme Court’s decisions in Gooding v. Wilson and Lewis v. City of New Orleans, which limited the reach of the fighting words doctrine to cover almost no speech. (Full story…)
May 7, 2015: Free Speech, No Compromise
H/T to Nicole Gelinas [Big snip]:
This is what passes for rational debate when, in fact, there should be no debate here. Geller has the right to free speech. She has the right to put on an exhibit showcasing Muhammad drawings. Likewise, we all have the right to attend it, to boycott it, to ignore it, or to march around it with protest signs. To answer Stasi’s question: drawing a Jewish God or drawing Jesus’s genitals is also free speech, much as it might offend many of us. The world is complicated, but this issue isn’t. The right to free speech means, too, that Mayor Bill de Blasio as well as most anti-cop demonstrators don’t have “blood on [their] hands” when a terrorist or a criminal shoots a cop. Unless they are directly inciting violence—telling someone to go out and shoot a cop or a cartoonist—Americans can say what they like.
Speech is speech, and shooting people is shooting people. Everyone who lives in a Western society should understand the distinction. (Full story…)
May 7, 2015: Pamela Geller Hung Out to Dry
H/T to Moonbattery…
Putting her life on the line to rally Americans against the ongoing Islamoliberal assault on our indispensable freedom of speech makes Pamela Geller as much a hero as soldiers who died fighting tyranny abroad. If the federal government still represented America, she would be up for a Congressional Medal of Honor. But since it represents America’s enemies, she has been hung out to dry.
The modus operandi of Islam going back to the early days of Mohammad’s nascent cult was to assassinate anyone who criticized or made fun of him. This practice continues today, so it will surprise no one that Geller has been marked for death for holding the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest.
Given the treasonous vileness of the people in control of the media going back at least to Walter Cronkite’s time, it was disgusting but not all that surprising that when Moslem terrorists attacked the conference, the MSM portrayed them as victims forced into action by Geller’s provocation.
But even the most cynical might be shocked to learn that the federal government’s apparent policy regarding the danger Geller finds herself in for upholding American values can be summed up as: let her die. (Keep reading…)
May 7, 2015: Pamela Geller, Charlie Hebdo and the assassin’s veto
H/T to Harry Siegel, New York Daily News.
[Big snips] This time, the cartoons are more amateurish, and in line with that portrayal of Islam. The provocateur isn’t a journalist, but semi-pro Islamophobe Pamela Geller, who hosted a “draw Muhammad” event Monday in Texas, where she, cartoonists and other attendees were met by two surprise guests, in body armor and with automatic weapons. Thankfully, the pair was cut down by one of the many security guards the venue required Geller to provide.
Now ISIS, which claimed credit for that botched attack, has apparently put a bounty on Geller, and anyone willing to be near her.
She is an obsessed and all-but-willing martyr, caught up in the same hallucination of some apocalyptic war between Islam and the West as her would-be murderers.
But the assassin’s veto, as historian Timothy Garton Ash termed “the use of violence to impose your taboos,” is pointed at her neck. The nastiness of her words, about “the savages” trying to impose Sharia law here, is no longer the issue.
The threat to Geller’s life for speaking is. (Full story…)
May 6, 2015: Hannity and Pamela Geller Battle Anjem Choudary Who Says Geller Should Be Put to Death
The Religion of Peace speaks through Choudary:
May 5, 2015: Americans Have a Right to Insult Islam
[snips] That horrifying prospect didn’t stop CNN from interrogating Geller the morning after the attack about her views of Islam and her decision to have as the keynote speaker for her event the anti-Islam Dutch politician Geert Wilders (who has to live under 24-hour protection). The implicit assumption was that Geller and her cohorts were as much of a problem as the fanatics who planned to censor them at the barrel of a gun.
Geller refers to her meeting as a free-speech event while her critics prefer to call it an anti-Islam event. They are really one and the same. In today’s circumstances, criticism of Islam is at the vanguard of the fight for free speech, since it is susceptible to attack and intimidation by jihadists and calls for self-censorship by the politically correct. “Yes, but . . . ” defenses of Geller don’t cut it. She had a perfect right to do what she did, and it’s a condemnation of her enemies — and confirmation of her basic point about radical Islam — that the act of drawing and talking elicited a violent response. If cartoons of Mohammed may seem a low, petty form of speech, they are only the fault line in a deeper clash of civilizations. A swath of the Muslim world doesn’t just want to ban depictions of Mohammed, but any speech critical of Islam. (Full story…)
May 5, 2015: Pamela Geller • Mainstream Media Rewarding Jihad Terror • Hannity •
May 5, 2015: Pamela Geller shoots back at mainstream media critics in the aftermath of the terror plot in Garland, Texas say that “they are rewarding jihad terror”. Geller spoke with Fox News host Sean Hannity:
“We came out of the White House not only dead broke but in debt… You know, rich people, God bless us!”
2008: Hillary’s List of Lies (Compiled by former Clinton aide Dick Morris during the 2008 presidential campaign.)
The USA Today-Gallup survey clearly explains why Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., is losing. Asked whether the candidates were “honest and trustworthy,” Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., won with 67 percent, with Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., right behind him at 63. Hillary scored only 44 percent, the lowest rating for any candidate for any attribute in the poll.
Hillary simply cannot tell the truth. Here’s her scorecard:
— Chelsea was jogging around the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. (She was in bed watching it on TV.)
— Hillary was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. (She admitted she was wrong. He climbed Mt. Everest five years after her birth.)
— She was under sniper fire in Bosnia. (A girl presented her with flowers at the foot of the ramp.)
— She learned in The Wall Street Journal how to make a killing in the futures market. (It didn’t cover the market back then.)
Whoppers She Won’t Confess To
— She didn’t know about the pardons of members of the violent Puerto Rico nationalist group FALN.
— She didn’t know that her brothers were being paid to get pardons that Clinton granted.
— Taking the White House gifts was a clerical error.
— She didn’t know that her staff would fire the travel office staff after she told them to do so.
— She didn’t know that the Peter Paul fund-raiser in Hollywood in 2000 cost $700,000 more than she reported it had.
— She opposed NAFTA at the time.
— She was instrumental in the Irish peace process.
— She urged Bill to intervene in Rwanda.
— She played a role in the ’90s economic recovery.
— The Rose Law Firm billing records showed up on their own.
— She thought Bill was innocent when the Monica scandal broke.
— She was always a Yankees fan.
— She had nothing to do with the New Square Hasidic pardons (after they voted for her 1,400 to 12 and she attended a meeting at the White House about the pardons).
— She negotiated for the release of refugees in Macedonia (who were released the day before she got there).
With a record like that, is it any wonder that we suspect her of being less than honest and straightforward? (Keep reading, there’s more…)
Steven Crowder has some fun exposing the hypocrisy of homo-fascist “activists” while visiting Muslim bakeries…many of which flat refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay marriage.
As Crowder points out, the Muslim bakeries should have the right to refuse jobs that violate their religious convictions… Christians, alas, no longer have such a right, thanks largely to gay intolerance of tolerance… I can’t wait for the Gay Gestapo to publish death threats targeting Muslim bakeries…
“If you were raised to despise the US military as a source or repression and injustice, and then, say, happened to get elected as its Commander-in-Chief — what would you do? As Bill Whittle shows in his latest FIREWALL, you don’t need to destroy the weapons and you don’t even need to fire the warriors. There’s another way…”
Hi everybody, I’m Bill Whittle and this is the Firewall.
Let’s just assume for a moment that you’re a radical, left-wing zealot, who was raised by actual communists, and who, naturally enough views the United States military as the tool of capitalist exploitation and colonial racism. Now, further assume that through a perfect storm of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, fate, money, power and media bias somehow conspired to make you Commander in Chief of those same armed forces.
What would you do?
You couldn’t very well scuttle 11 carrier strike groups. You can’t just destroy entire air wings, or armored divisions, or any of the rest – no matter how much you may want to. That would break the spell.
If you hate this country, and you especially hate the military, you simply cannot go around destroying the weapons – that’s too obvious. But you can do something much more subtle, and in the long run, even more disastrous, if your stated goal is to fundamentally change the country and the military that protects and defends it.
You don’t have to destroy the weapons. You don’t even have to destroy the warriors. All you have to do is create a set of conditions that are so incompatible with the warrior code that the warriors will remove themselves, because these are people who risk death and dismemberment, and whether at the tip or the end of the spear, generally live in appalling conditions, under great emotional hardship, for disgraceful levels of pay.
These people joined the military out of an inner calling, a sense of duty and of honor, and it is in fact possible to create an environment so toxic to these values that they not only will not stay – they simply cannot. And there is a lot of evidence that this is in fact happening, and quickly.
I’ve heard of Air Force Generals beaming with pride, not over their command’s combat readiness or training levels, but rather for having the greenest installation, or for having achieved the most severe personnel reductions.
I’ve talked to a Chief Petty Officer with 23 years in the Navy who simply said that the ancient, fundamental solace given to sailors in exchange for spending most of their lives in a steel hole in the water – shore leave, much more properly referred to as “liberty” – is nothing like liberty anymore: no longer a trip down the gangplank to do whatever you damn well wanted to, so long as you were back on time, but now rather a supervised, audited series of joyless stays in pre-approved venues, with check-ins and regimentation and more structure than a week at a diet resort.
I’m hearing stories like this all the time – all the time! – but one of them really stood out. It frankly made my blood run cold.
I was at a fundraiser in Colorado, and I struck up a conversation with a Major who was in command of a group of about 500 Special Forces personnel.
He told me that he was no longer able to train his men in how to do their jobs and come home afterwards, because these days his time had to be spent making sure that none of his soldiers had tattoos that might be considered offensive to women, gays, lesbian or transgendered personnel; that he had to scour the barracks of these young warriors who were prepared to fight and die for their country in order to make sure there were no Maxim magazines or any other images of naked women that might make the home of these deadly, aggressive, disciplined men into a hostile work environment. He had to do all of this nonsense, more and more of it each year, and spend less and less time doing what he, and his soldiers, had signed up to do in the first place: namely, train to go out there and kill the enemies of freedom.
Then one day, his commanding officer came to him with a new policy. He told this young Major that he was required to poll all of the people in his command and ascertain whether they, or anyone else in their household, owned their own weapons and if so how many and of what kind. And he calmly told me that he turned to his superior officer and said, “Sir, I will not obey that order.”
I have never, ever feared a military or political coup in this country – never. I have never feared that the day may come when the American military would open fire on law-abiding American civilians, because of the presence of men like this young major and the traditions and the code of personal integrity and honor that men and women like that maintain. As long as we have people like that in the military, we have nothing to fear.
Than man is no longer in the military.
Orders like the one he could not obey come down from the Commander-in-Chief, and his hand-picked generals who are promoted based on their ability to conform to these deplorable and dishonorable policies. That Commander-in-Chief does not need to be embarrassed by cashiering the real warriors – all he has to do is create policies and codes so disruptive, so ridiculous and dishonorable that they can simply no longer abide by them.
Money can buy weapons. But nothing but blood can buy experience. We have not only the most well-armed and well-trained forces in the world – they are, or were, battle-hardened in the furnace of actual combat, and that precious, irreplaceable, battlefield experience is being intentionally forced out of the military to be replaced with recruits who can’t do pull-ups and a gutless, compliant political class of admirals and generals whose careers mean more than the dignity, the morale,or even the safety of the men and women who have entrusted them with their lives.