Of course, it was first far-Left liar Al Gore who dissed Black ancestry and everyone who has a slave in their family history by comparing faux global warming to slavery about a year ago. But since white liberals have done a great job brainwashing black Americans into voting Democratic (and hence their unGodly agenda that does nothing to benefit blacks) and accepting victimhood for decades now, the silence you hear is that of no prominent member of the black, race-baiting crowd speaking out against a prick like Hayes:
MSNBC’s host of Up, Chris Hayes, joined the NOW panel on Friday where he noted that there has been a conspicuous lack of interest in the issue of climate change this election cycle. Hayes said that, while there is a sense among politicians that there is a limited political benefit in putting forward a plan to address climate change, opposition to addressing that problem among fossil fuel producers cannot be discounted. He compared the fossil fuel industry to the antebellum South and the potential wealth represented by untapped oil and gas reserves to pre-Civil War slaves. In a discussion about the lack of interest by both parties this election cycle about the issue of climate change, BuzzFeed editor Ben Smith noted that the poor recovery has created antipathy to addressing climate change among Democrats who represent districts with a significant coal mining industry. Hayes agreed, and said that politicians were only part of the reason why climate change has slipped off the political radar this cycle. The fossil fuel industry represents the other side of that coin. “The only historical analog for the amount of money that’s on the line – in terms of the fossil fuel industry – is the sum total value that the slaves represented in the civil war,” said Hayes. “That is the analogy you have to go back to when you think of the current present value of the fossil fuel reserves that are on the books of the current fossil fuel companies. The last time that that much wealth was at stake was when the South fought the civil war.”
Across 166 pages of internal State Department documents -- released
Friday by a pair of Republican congressmen pressing the Obama
administration for more answers on the Benghazi terrorist attack --
slain U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and the security officers
assigned to protect him repeatedly sounded alarms to their superiors in
Washington about the intensifying lawlessness and violence in Eastern
Libya, where Stevens ultimately died. On Sept. 11 -- the day
Stevens and three other Americans were killed -- the ambassador signed a
three-page cable, labeled "sensitive," in which he noted "growing
problems with security" in Benghazi and "growing frustration" on the
part of local residents with Libyan police and security forces. These
forces the ambassador characterized as "too weak to keep the country
secure." In the document, Stevens also cited a meeting he had
held two days earlier with local militia commanders. These men boasted
to Stevens of exercising "control" over the Libyan Armed Forces, and
threatened that if the U.S.-backed candidate for prime minister were to
prevail in Libya's internal political jockeying, "they would not
continue to guarantee security in Benghazi." ' Roughly a month
earlier, Stevens had signed a two-page cable, also labeled "sensitive,"
that he entitled "The Guns of August: Security in Eastern Libya."
Writing on Aug. 8, the ambassador noted that in just a few months' time,
"Benghazi has moved from trepidation to euphoria and back as a series
of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape." He added,
"The individual incidents have been organized," a function of "the
security vacuum that a diverse group of independent actors are
exploiting for their own purposes." "Islamist extremists are able
to attack the Red Cross with relative impunity," Stevens cabled. "What
we have seen are not random crimes of opportunity, but rather targeted
and discriminate attacks." His final comment on the two-page document
was: "Attackers are unlikely to be deterred until authorities are at
least as capable." By Sept. 4, Stevens' aides were reporting back to Washington on the "strong Revolutionary and Islamist sentiment" in the city. Scarcely
more than two months had passed since Stevens had notified the
Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and other
agencies about a "recent increase in violent incidents," including
"attacks against western interests." "Until the GOL (Government of
Libya) is able to effectively deal with these key issues," Stevens wrote
on June 25, "the violence is likely to continue and worsen." After
the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi had been damaged by an improvised
explosive device, earlier that month, Stevens had reported to his
superiors that an Islamist group had claimed credit for the attack, and
in so doing, had "described the attack as targeting the Christians
supervising the management of the consulate."
Earlier this week, I criticized one of my musical heroesBruce Springsteen for re-endorsing President Barack Obama
despite the fact that the president has continued nearly all of the
“un-American” civil liberties policies that The Boss rightfully
lambasted under George W. Bush‘s presidency.
I argued that Springsteen should have at least given a qualified
endorsement, making clear that he is disappointed in the president’s
failures but believing that perhaps he is still better than the “greater
of two evils” in GOP candidate Mitt Romney (I’m
inclined to believe evil is evil, and neither are worth my vote).
Or
perhaps he should have endorsed a third-party candidate who is more
aligned with his professed views.
However, on his official website Wednesday evening, Springsteen posted a 600-word explanation
for his endorsement of the president. And the letter conveniently (and
unsurprisingly) glosses over the exact civil liberties hypocrisy pointed
out here.
In the letter, Springsteen acknowledged that the 2012 Obama is much
different than the 2008 Obama: “Last time around, [Obama] carried with
him a tremendous amount of hope and expectations. Unfortunately…” Did he address the administration’s unfortunate back-turning on its
civil liberties promises? The continuation of illegal wiretapping?
Rendition? Executive overreach?
Nope. Springsteen went the predictable partisan route: “…due to the
economic chaos the previous administration left him with, and the
extraordinary intensity of the opposition, it turned into a really rough
ride. But through grit, determination, and focus, the President has
been able to do a great many things that many of us deeply support.”
Springsteen then cites several domestic “successes” like “guaranteed
health care” (which, in reality, is tantamount to corporate welfare for
large insurers… but whatever) and professed support for gay rights,
among other examples. The ending of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the
president’s declaration of support for same-sex marriage (despite it
being a cynical political move) were, indeed, good things.
But what about foreign affairs? What of the civil liberties issues
listed above? You know, the ones Springsteen spent hundreds of nights
ranting about while on tour for his Magic album during the Bush administration.
“In foreign affairs, that record includes following through on the
removal of troops from the misguided and deceptive war in Iraq, and
vigorously pursuing our real foreign enemies, especially the killing of
Osama Bin Laden.”
Well, it would’ve been hard for Obama to not follow through on the troop removal from Iraq, given that his predecessor had signed a “status of forces agreement”
in late 2008 that said we’d remove our troops by a 2011 deadline.
Interesting that Springsteen ignores the fact that “the president
ultimately had no choice but to stick to candidate Obama’s plan —
thanks, of all things, to an agreement signed by George W. Bush.” But
ultimately, yes, let’s praise the demise of that detestable war —
regardless of who is in charge.
But wait a minute. Let’s not get distracted. Did Springsteen address
the continuation of wiretapping? Rendition? Drone strikes? Indefinite
detention? Anything?
No.
Instead, he continued on to blast Republicans for their “voter
suppression” efforts in various states. And then he offered praise for
the “sterling” Democratic Senate candidates in Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren.
Given the theme of his recent Wrecking Ball album,
Springsteen then railed against income inequality. The rich are getting
richer and the poor are getting poorer, lamented Mr. Boss Man, and so
“President Obama is our best choice to begin to reverse this harmful
development.”
He then waxed poetic about equality for all citizens, regardless of
color or creed. Again… nice touch, but still conveniently ignoring some
of the gaping flaws at hand.
So no… in the end, not a single mention of the very civil liberties
abuses Springsteen railed against during the Bush years. Not even a nod.
Not even a subtle lamentation that this president has utterly failed to
end those practices.
Again — I get it. Springsteen likely sees this as a choice between
the “lesser of two evils,” but of course he won’t say that aloud. But he
could at least acknowledge the failures, instead of giving the usual
partisan spiel about how Republicans are awful and if only Obama had
accomplished more! His silence on civil liberties is hypocritical, given how outspoken and “principled” he was during the Bush administration.
But whatever. I’ll just keep my fingers crossed for a release of those Electric Nebraska tapes.
Revealing Politics went to the Ohio University campus to an Obama event
on October 17th to find out what the President's supporters thought
about the September 11 Benghazi attacks. Turns out they didn't think
much, as most of the event attendees we interviewed had never even heard
of it.
I can’t resist this delicious piece of video from an Obama rally at a Ohio university from our friends at Revealing Politics.
The way Kelly Maher tells it, this endeavor started innocently as a
project to determine whether rank-and-file Obama supporters had bought
the line about Benghazi being caused by a YouTube video. As you’ll see,
none of them is even capable of buying a line. They don’t even know
where their wallets are.
Amazing and dismaying, this inadvertent Jaywalking. As Kelly points out,
this is a self-selected group of politically involved college students
you’d assume would know more than the average college student. Yikes. What it looks like is a group of college students not even willing to watch The Daily Show
to get their news. And, this is what makes me uncertain that a
foreign-policy debate can change the dynamic of the race at this point, although more experienced pundits than I disagree.
The truth on Tuesdays second debate that you won't from the liberal, mainstream media:
We’ve reached a watershed here, where
we either live in our own heads affirming reality, regardless of
spurious inputs from demagoguery or sentiment, or we give up on reality
and let demagoguery and sentiment take over at the decision table. Did
the president pull off a performance last night, in terms of
sounding passionate and full of conviction? To some extent, yes. Does
that mean he won the debate, or even achieved a draw with Romney? No.
The mainstream media immediately
launched a volley of positive soundbites about the president’s
performance, but frankly, they were going to do that anyway. As long as
Obama didn’t collapse on the stage, they were going to say he had his
mojo back.
The problem is that in order to sound
passionate and full of conviction, Obama had to belt out a remarkable
string of untruths. Besides repeating the same tired lies about
Romney’s policies that his campaign has been flogging for the last two
months, the president simply lied – there’s nothing else to call it –
about the trend of drilling permits under his administration (Romney is
right; permits have been slashed).
Obama insisted to Romney that he had called the Benghazi attack terrorism on day one, when in fact,he had not. He lied aboutthe Arizona immigration-enforcement law
repeating a lie the Democrats have persisted in since the law was being
debated in the Arizona statehouse. The law is carefully and explicitly
written to prohibit ethnic profiling stops by law-enforcement
officers. Immigration-status checks can only be done in connection with
a stop on another, unrelated basis, such as a traffic stop.
Obama did try to assume the moral high
ground on Libya with a riff on Americans’ safety and his responsibility,
but it was a cringe-worthy performance from the man who waited until after the
Benghazi attack to bring diplomatic-mission security up to a normal
standard, and who professes, 36 days after the attack, to still be
waiting to find out what happened. If he really doesn’t know, he’s the
only one who doesn’t. His position that we’re still waiting to assess
the attack isn’t judicious; it’s absurd. Mentally substitute George W.
Bush for Obama in this scenario, and try to imagine the MSM giving Bush
the benefit of the doubt for 36 days and counting.
I had my concerns about Romney’s
performance last night, if only a couple. Probably the biggest was that
he tended to put his most powerful material at the end of each
statement, and got cut off just as he was articulating it. The
response to the woman who asked about keeping jobs in the US was a case
in point: Romney made a rather convoluted case about China as a currency
manipulator, and only after dealing with that arcane topic mentioned
that if we want to keep America job-friendly, we have to stop regulating
ourselves into an economic coma. He got cut off saying it; that should
have been his opening point. The American people can do
something about that. And whether or not the point about regulation
resonated with that particular questioner, it would resonate far and
wide among other Americans.
Romney is typically succinct and direct
on the economy, and he should apply that style to everything he says in
a debate. He would have made the point about Obama’s own passive
investment in China much better by simply stating it outright, rather
than repeating the same question to the president – “Have you looked at
your pension lately?” – until it began sounding like a second-grader’s
taunt. Just make the assertion, already. “Mr. President, your pension is invested in China.” That simple – and, without the weird build-up, slyly devastating.
But rhetorical glitches aside, Romney
had substance last night. He whaled it out of the park on energy and
immigration, and came off as genial and presidential. Interestingly,
the
Frank Luntz panel
saw the same thing. The MSM’s assessment this morning that the
president staged a comeback in this debate is information about the MSM,
not about the candidates or the debate. It’s like they’re narrating
some invisible drama that no one else can see.
I don’t think Romney dominated last
night’s debate as he did the first one. But neither did I see the
debate as a draw. Only if it counts as successful communication to use
demagoguery to create itch-scratching images for your own base did
Obama’s performance equal Romney’s. Obama’s statements would have had
little appeal outside his own base. And indeed, so many of them were
simply false that, to my mind, it requires assuming that your fellow
Americans are fools, to think that his communications were probably more
effective with them than they were with you.
On Monday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said
she takes responsibility for the deadly attack that took place in
Benghazi, Libya. Not looking to point fingers, Clinton also ventured to
offset the criticism the administration has received for its handling of
the situation.
In an interview with CNN’s Elise Labott, Clinton said the buck stops with her. Clinton also said President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden
were not throwing the State Department under the bus.
Security
decisions are the State Department’s arena, she said. And she heads it.
“I want to avoid some kind of political gotcha,” Clinton said.
She further went on to note that she wants to wait for an
investigation before drawing any conclusions about intelligence
surrounding the attack.
Addressing the White House response to the situation — which has
received notable criticism for its changing narrative — Clinton said
there’s always “confusion” in such situations. The information since the
attack has changed, she added.
Student of Life, lover of God, Black, Democrat conservative, believer in self-responsibility, traditional values and morals, resident of Brooklyn, New York. Follow me on Twitter at @MrGreyGhost1.
Posts
