Benghazi conspiracy? Hell yes!

May 12, 2014

By Victor Volsky

 

 The Ben Rhodes e-mail has demolished the Obama administration's defense that the White House had nothing to do with the infamous talking points ascribing the Benghazi tragedy to a spontaneous protest over an American-made anti-Muslim video.  Even some of the White House correspondents accustomed to carrying water for the Obama administration clashed with White House spokesman Jay Carney, who shamelessly tried to sell them this bill of goods.  Nobody likes being played for a sucker.

Now it is crystal-clear that the administration, right from the start, was intimately involved in a deceptive scheme aimed at deflecting the blame for the death of four Americans killed in the terrorist assault in Benghazi.  But rather than clarify the situation, the Rhodes e-mail has only deepened the mystery.

What is the reason for the frantic, concerted effort to cover up the truth about Benghazi?  Considering that it’s the cover-up rather than the deed itself that does all the damage, wouldn’t it have been safer to acknowledge the fact of a terrorist attack and disclose all relevant information, putting an end to the controversy?  And yet the White House and its allies are fighting tooth and nail to prevent the American people from knowing what happened on that fateful day.  Why?

As reported by Kenneth Timmerman, top military brass at AFRICOM headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany watched live video feed from a Predator drone over Benghazi, which clearly showed no protests.  The CIA station chief in Tripoli, in his report to Langley, not just indicated, but emphasized that there were no protests.  Former AFRICOM’s Deputy Intelligence Chief Brigadier General (Ret.) Robert Lovell testified under oath to the same effect, and so did even Mike Morell, the smarmy ex-CIA deputy director.

Former CBS news reporter Sharyl Attkisson has uncovered an e-mail sent by Acting Assistant Secretary of State for the Near East Beth Jones describing her conversation with Libya’s Ambassador at 9:45 am on Sept. 12, 2012.  Atkisson reported, “When [the Libyan Ambassador] said his government suspected that former Qaddafi regime elements carried out the attack, I told him the group that conducted the attacks – Ansar al-Sharia – is affiliated with Islamic extremists.”

The classic cover-up question – “What did they know, and when did they know it?” – does not apply in this case.  We know that the White House and the State Department were fully informed about the events in Benghazi practically from the get-go.

Why did Hillary Clinton’s State Department resolutely turn down the many pleas for enhancing security at the Benghazi compound with which Ambassador Stevens bombarded his superiors, warning about the growing extremist threat?

Why didn’t the administration prepare for likely terrorist attacks on the anniversary of 9/11?  Didn’t they know the Islamists’ propensity to time their attacks to mark important anniversaries, above all that of their “glorious victory over the Great Satan”?  The Bush administration knew it and always prepared for such attacks, but Obama’s White House ignored the danger.  Why?

Why was nothing done to rescue the besieged Americans in Benghazi?  The Pentagon insists that there were no resources available to mount a rescue expedition.  But many military experts insist it’s not true: much could have been done to relieve the pressure on the Special Mission Compound and the Annex.

Furthermore, according to Kenneth Timmerman (ibid.), orders were issued, then recalled, to deploy a 50-man Special Forces unit from Croatia that could have reached Benghazi within hours.  Who ordered that unit to stand down, and why?

What accounts for the stonewalling on the part of the administration?  Why has it strenuously refused to comply with the House subpoenas for its Benghazi-related internal communications?  Why have none of the Benghazi survivors been allowed to testify to Congress about their first-hand experiences? And why has the FBI refused to divulge the records of its interrogations?  Is the White House afraid of what those records might tell?

President Obama solemnly promised to track down and bring to justice the perpetrators who harmed Americans in Benghazi.  A year and a half later, he has yet to start fulfilling his promise.  It’s not that the perps are in hiding. They live openly in Benghazi, their addresses are well-known, and reporters have no problem getting in touch with them.  It’s only the FBI that just can’t find them.  Again, is the White House leery of what might transpire if the terrorists are allowed to talk?

Finally, the infamous video.  Why, early on September 11, did the U.S. Embassy in Cairo suddenly, without provocation, apologize to the Muslim world for an obscure American-made video critical of Prophet Mohammed, as if inviting the faithful to give vent to their indignation?  And four hours later, the Arab street obliged.  Why did the White House and its allies continue to spread the video canard, knowing full well that it was a lie?

Why did President Obama, in his speech at the U.N. General Assembly on September 25, two weeks after Benghazi, invoke the video seven (!) times?  Why, on September 14, did Hillary Clinton, at the coffin of Tyrone Woods, solemnly promise the grieving father to punish the man who she said was responsible for his son’s death – the author of the video?  Such monstrous cynicism is beneath even the lowly standards of that woman.

There is a plausible scenario that to my mind answers all these questions:

The 2012 presidential election is around the corner.  Polls predict a nail-biter.  Obama can’t run on his economic successes, for the economy is in sorry shape.  He certainly can’t run on his health care policy, as ObamaCare is more unpopular than ever.  The president’s advisers come to the conclusion that foreign and anti-terrorist policy is his ace in the hole.

They devise a catchy slogan: “Osama bin Laden is dead; al-Qaeda is on the run.”  President Obama and his minions mercilessly mock Mitt Romney as a hopelessly naive tyro who can’t hold a candle to the president, with his vast knowledge and experience.  Thus, it is vital to maintain the fiction of Obama’s victory in the fight against the terrorist threat.  Anything that would explode this myth could be disastrous to the president’s re-election chances.

The U.S. intelligence obtains advance knowledge that Ansar al-Sharia, al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Libya, is planning a major military-style attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi.  What’s to be done?  To send reinforcements to secure the facility would inevitably cast doubt on Obama’s boasts and, more damaging, attract attention to the U.S. operations in Libya’s second largest city.

What are the Americans doing there, and why hadn’t they left, like the Brits and others, in the face of numerous terrorist threats and provocations?  There is every reason to suspect that the “diplomatic” facility was in fact a CIA center supplying weapons to the Syrian rebels, including many al-Qaeda loyalists.  Without congressional approval, such a clandestine operation would be illegal (although Obama would certainly lose no sleep over such an all too familiar transgression).

But the terrible optics of Washington arming America’s mortal enemies would certainly be a major headache to the Victor over al-Qaeda.  Furthermore, news that Benghazi was a hotbed of terrorist activity would call into question the merits of Obama’s little victorious war to overthrow Gaddafi’s regime, destabilizing Libya in the process.

Clearly, the Benghazi terrorist attack had to be kept under wraps, no matter what, lest Obama’s campaign be blown out of the water.  Thus, a decision was made to do nothing so as not to attract attention to Benghazi – a decision inimical to the national interests, but logical from the political point of view.  Hence the White House’s refusal to mount a military rescue operation and its cold-hearted willingness to sacrifice Americans in Benghazi.

As a matter of fact, aside from the four Americans who were killed in Benghazi, there were another three dozen U.S. personnel who were abandoned by the Obama administration.  It was only thanks to CIA contractors Tyrone Woods and Glenn Doherty, the ex-Navy SEALs who ignored orders and led to safety the besieged Americans, that those people avoided the fate to which they had been consigned by their commander-in-chief.  But we have every right to speak of twoscore actual and would-be victims rather than just four dead heroes.

Finally, the infamous video.  Considering the apology offered to the world of Islam by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo ahead of any disturbance and the speed with which the administration scapegoated the video, it is hard not to suspect that it was a trump card prepared in advance and held by the administration up its sleeve to be thrown on the table as soon as the need arose.

To summarize: the White House came to the conclusion that disclosure of the truth about Benghazi would be a monumental PR disaster for Obama and a grave threat to his re-election hopes.  Consequently, it resolved to minimize and gloss over the tragedy at any cost.  And if a handful of Americans had to be sacrificed on the altar of Obama’s political ambition, tough. What are the lives of a handful of little people compared to the lofty goal of saving the Obama presidency?

So was there a White House conspiracy?  You bet there was.

American Thinker

Benghazi Hearings Committee Announcement Showcases Democrat Schizophrenia

May 11, 2014

By Marilyn Assenheim

It didn’t take long for the Democrat ruling class, infesting Washington’s power corridors, to become habituated to saying something and having it accepted as truth without question.  When anything happens to disrupt their sojourn amongst the unicorns of their fancy, however, Democrats have a tendency to resort to doubling down on dogmatic mythology to score points, relying on volume and repetition instead of sense.

For years, despite the best/worst efforts of the Democrat party to subvert the cause and meaning behind the Benghazi attack, the people have remained outraged and have refused to be shielded from a Democrat political agenda that has yet to be laid bare.  When e-mails, previously redacted and withheld from Congress, were unearthed by Judicial Watch’s successful lawsuit against The White House, John Boehner reversed his previous stance on launching investigative hearings on Benghazi.  It appeared that not only had there been a deliberately fabricated tale, instructing Obama's minions on what to say and how to say it, but the e-mail specifically stated that the tale was designed to serve the president’s agenda – to make him look good and deny that Benghazi had anything to do with faulty presidential policies.

The White House immediately began to try to defuse the bomb they’d launched.  Jay Carney denied that he’d ever lied then denied that the e-mails, written in plain English, really were about Benghazi at all.  But it was too late.

The story had exploded, and the demand for House hearings could no longer be dodged, even by Boehner.  An undisguised antagonist of the conservative base, Boehner nevertheless appointed Congressman Trey Gowdy, R-SC, a hard-line conservative, to chair the committee.  Gowdy’s appointment as chairman made matters worse for Democrats.  Cue Democrat panic.

Depending on who is being quoted, Democrat strategy for containing the fallout is all over the map. 

  Responses in the last couple of days range from muddled vehemence to sanctimonious pity to attempts to convince America that the committee is nothing but a political gambit.  FOX News quoted Nancy Pelosi. 

 Her comments appeared to display equal parts projection and Dissociative Identity Disorder: “What we've asked for is as much bipartisanship as possible,” but also, “[t]he fact is this is a stunt. This is a political stunt; that's what this is. We've been there, done this, over and over again.”

Then there is CNN’s report, citing Steny Hoyer, number-two Democrat in the House.  Hoyer seems to share the afflictions.  He called for meaningful bipartisanship: “If they [Republicans] want to have a substantive effort, it ought to be an equally balanced committee so this is not an exercise in partisanship.”  He urged a Democrat boycott in the next breath: “Hoyer said he would urge all fellow Democrats to vote against the bill creating the [committee].”  Just to be certain that he’d covered all of the bases, Hoyer’s parting shot attempted to sell the idea that a House investigation proves that Republicans believe that Darrell Issa is incompetent: “Either they [the House] think Mr. Issa is a competent chairman and is pursuing a competent investigation or they don't[.]”  Darrell Issa, who doesn’t think he is incompetent, supports the House hearing and is a huge advocate for Trey Gowdy serving as chair.

The back-benchers contribute to the Democrat spin cycle.  Charles Rangel, D-NY, shares his own Sybil-wannabe moment.  CNSnews.com provided a platform:

• Ennui: "I don't think people, Americans, Democratic or Republicans, are going to lose sleep over Benghazi.
• Pity: “I think it's tragic that the Republican Party would destroy itself in 2016 by not having one issue that the American people believe should be a priority…”
• Deflection: Issa's Oversight Committee “has had all of these hours and days and weeks and months investigating this, that now you're saying you have no confidence in him, so you have to bring in a new member to head up a new committee to find the answers?”

Democrats resurrect bipartisanship only when they are at a disadvantage.  Remember when they lost the House in 2010?  After losing over 60 seats, Democrats insisted that their meager numbers be seated among the Republicans, who vastly outnumbered them, during the State of the Union speech.  That had never been done before.  It had nothing to do with “bipartisanship”; they didn’t want to look bad in front of a television audience.  Strangely enough, the issue of bipartisanship didn’t trouble Democrats when they literally locked Republicans out of House Oversight and Government Reform Committee meetings in 2009.

 Even The Daily Beast, a longtime supporter of POTUS, came out against the disgraceful behavior of Democrat subterfuge from the top down.  A column, written by Ron Christie, despite negative comments about the president, cannot be attributable to racism.  Mr. Christie, too, is black.

I read with interest my Daily Beast colleague Michael Tomasky’s column Wednesday, in which he asserted that the establishment of a Special Select Committee to investigate Benghazi is nothing more than bulls**t…I’m troubled by the motivation of many on the left, who have sought to demonize anyone who questions the narrative the Obama administration has spun…I’ll tell you what’s BS, Mr. Tomasky: The Obama administration has misled, dissembled, and otherwise given the finger to the families of those who lost their lives that night in service to their country…We need a Special Select Committee on Benghazi to…ensure that such a disaster never occurs again. We need truth, not bullsh*t, from the president and his administration, but so far, that’s all they’ve been shoveling.

One can only hope that Democrats, in their misguided arrogance, will elect to boycott the House Benghazi hearings.  Unlike ObamaCare, IRS and NSA misdealing, and a rogue Justice Department, this is an issue with persistent “legs.”  Americans remain infuriated at the ham-handed, derisive, and insultingly incompetent arguments Democrats have thrown against the wall, hoping that something – anything – will stick.

If Democrats in the House take their ball and go home, it will provide final evidence to anyone watching that they are craven hypocrites rather than persecuted victims of Republican injustice.

American Thinker

Global Cooling Underway

May 7, 2014

By Sierra Rayne

With global temperature data now available for the first three months of 2014, an interesting trend has clearly emerged: global cooling.

No longer is it just a hypothesis.  For the first quarter of each calendar year since 2002, it is effectively a fact at reasonably strong statistical significance.  Here is the data.

That downward trend since 2002 has a p-value of 0.097 (r=-0.48), which is below the p=0.10 (90%) threshold used in many climate science studies for statistical significance, and very close to the standard p=0.05 (95%) threshold generally employed across the physical and biological sciences.  The same level of statistical significance is obtained regardless of whether parametric or non-parametric trend analysis methods are employed.

Some readers may be looking at this plot and thinking that the global climate data since 1880 looks a lot like a cycle, with a stable period (of neither warming nor cooling) of, say, 140 years in length between the approximately 70-year long alternating cool and warm periods.  It certainly has that appearance.  If such is the case, we would expect a return to "normal" January-March global temperatures by 2050, give or take a decade or two.

In the United States, the January-March 2014 temperature was well below the 20^th-century average.  There has been no statistically significant trend in January-March temperatures in the contiguous USA since 1980.

None, for 35 years and counting.  The same lack of trend applies for the December-February temperatures.  Depending on how you define winter, either – or both – of these timeframes is considered the wintertime period.

So there has been absolutely no change in wintertime temperatures in the United States since before Reagan was president, and yet the The Guardian is reporting that the latest National Climate Assessment finds climate change to be a "clear and present danger" and that "Americans are noticing changes all around them ... Winters are generally shorter and warmer."

There is no trend – I repeat: no trend – in wintertime temperatures in the United States since 1980.

On an annual basis ending in March, there has been no change in the contiguous U.S. temperature since 1986 (actually, probably since 1985, but we'll give the alarmists the benefit on this).  You get the same result on a calendar-year basis.  That's right: there has been no change in annual temperatures for the United States since Bon Jovi had a number-one hit with "You Give Love a Bad Name," the Bangles were telling us to "Walk Like an Egyptian," Madonna was asking her papa not to preach, and Robert Palmer was "Addicted to Love."

According to Virginia Burkett, the chief scientist for global change at the U.S. Geological Survey, "all areas are getting hotter."  All of them?  So bold, yet so inaccurate.  The entire Ohio Valley climate division has not seen any significant warming on an annual basis since 1896.  The entire U.S. South climate division hasn't warmed since 1907.  Neither has the entire Southeast climate division since 1896.

The National Climate Assessment claims that "summers are longer and hotter."  Hotter summers?  There is no trend in the average June-August temperature (aka summer) in the USA since 1930.  Same lack of trend for July and August average temperatures.

On an annual basis ending in March (allowing us to use the most complete dataset possible), global warming stopped cold in statistical terms during 1997.  And since 2002, the correlation coefficient has – in fact – turned slightly negative.  Very weak evidence for global cooling, but on the balance of probabilities, since 2002, there is more statistical evidence for global cooling than there is for global warming.  Scientists such as Don Easterbrook, a professor emeritus of geology at Western Washington University, have been making similar predictions for global temperatures.

In the Southern Hemisphere, where climate scientists are now apparently warning that the "Antarctic Ice Shelf [is] on [the] brink of unstoppable melt that could raise sea levels for 10,000 years," the annual cooling trend since 2003 is even more probable (r=-0.22, p-value as low as 0.34 using non-parametric approaches).

The poor-quality science reporting on climate change is ubiquitous.  Over at the Daily Kos, we find a plot of "Global Temperature (meteorological stations)."  Given that oceans cover 71 percent of the planet's surface, what possible meaning could a "global temperature" derived only from "meteorological stations" have?  The answer is none.  Any talk of a global temperature must include both land and sea data, and be properly weighted according to station type and location.  And this assumes that the data itself is correct.  Various climate skeptic websites have repeatedly shown that we need to doubt the data itself, not just the analyses.

As the countdown to the proposed climate agreement in 2015 ticks along, expect more of this hysterical nonsense not founded in the underlying data, as well as more concerted and emphatic denials of the global cooling phase we may be entering.  One can only hope that the moderately conservative leaders in Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom will not fall prey to the hysteria, but instead take a principled scientific stand in 2015 and lead the charge to reject any international climate agreements.

Unfortunately, many crony capitalists – including a number in the fossil fuels industry itself – are starting to see greater financial benefits for themselves by going along with the hysteria, rather than fighting for reality.

Perilous times indeed.  The next couple years may not only see the end of America's economic domination on the world stage, passing the torch instead to communist China, but also witness the final death throes of rigorous, objective science in the public interest.

American Thinker

The Long History of BLM's Aggressive Cattle Seizures

by Kerry Picket  
30 Apr 2014

 Every month, Raymond Yowell, the 84-year-old former chief of the Shoshone Indian Tribe in northeastern Nevada, has almost $200 garnished from his $1,150 Social Security check, and it all dates back to a 5:00am phone call on a Friday morning in 2002.

That morning, a government official from the Bureau of Land Management told him to come down to a seizure site where the 132 cattle he owned were about to be impounded.

When he arrived, men brandishing handguns told him he couldn't get any closer than 250 yards from his cattle. He watched from a distance as the government loaded the livestock onto stock trailers.

Within a week, the cattle had been sold at a private auction – for what Yowell estimated to be a quarter of their market price. The proceeds belonged to BLM, officials told him, paying a portion of the grazing fees he suddenly owed. It wasn't enough to cover the full debt, and BLM sent Yowell a bill for $180,000.

Yowell has been fighting the BLM in court ever since, but while the case moves its way through the system, his Social Security check takes a hit every month.

The story, ranchers in Nevada say, is far from unique. Beginning in the late 1980s, BLM adopted aggressive tactics in the West, leading to large-scale cattle seizures and a disruption of life for ranchers that had utilized public lands for decades prior.

While the press has showered attention on Cliven Bundy, a polarizing man who prompted a tense standoff between Bundy's well-armed militia supporters and federal police, the struggle between ranchers and the BLM is much broader.

In 1994, Clinton Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt rushed through a total overhaul of cattle and sheep grazing regulations on over 260 million acres of land that was managed by the BLM and Agriculture Department's U.S. Forest Service, The Washington Post reported.

The 1994 “Rangeland Reform” regulations included doubling the current fees charged to ranchers for public forage and further environmental rules to prevent “overgrazing.” Opponents noted that in the runup to the new regulations, the National Academy of Scientists – a preeminent scientific authority on which federal agencies rely for expert analysis – had issued a report concluding so little was known about the condition of U.S. range lands that the new standards were essentially a shot in the dark. But Babbit forged ahead anyway.

At the time, former-Sen. Pete Domenici ripped the plan, a version of which he had defeated in Congress when it was a legislative proposal the year before. "The last thing we should do is hurry decisions that have far-reaching effects on western states," he said.

Underlying the move to raise fees was BLM's view that the fees on public lands were too low – much lower than fees to graze on private land, for example.

But as Heather Smith Thomas, an Idaho rancher, noted in a 1994 article in Rangelands, a peer-reviewed academic journal, the private grazing fees were artificially high because the government owns so much land in the West.

“What many people do not understand is that the ‘low’ fee is just one small portion of the rancher's many costs in using public land. The total costs amount to much more than renting private pasture, yet the rancher is locked into this situation, totally dependent on the public range. He can't just walk away if the fee gets too high, and rent pasture elsewhere; there is not sufficient private pasture available,” Thomas wrote.

The new fees imposed upon ranchers in the 90’s were skewed, according to Thomas, because the fee was based on private land lease rates, but private lease rates were high due to the scarce availability of private land and the lack of regulations on private land compared to federally owned land.

Thomas noted the“BLM states that "land treatment solely oriented toward meeting livestock forage requirements will be discontinued". Additionally the reforms have less emphasis on grazing, “yet the BLM wants to charge the rancher more for something that is being made much more difficult to use.”

Before the Babbit rule, fees were based on a formula that reflected annual changes in the costs of production.

“All the legislative history involving FS and BLM fees show that grazing fees were intended to be based on the rancher's ability to pay, not on some arbitrary value of forage or budget needs of the administrative bureau,” Thomas said of the 1978 legislation.

Ranchers found themselves in court for years fighting the BLM immediately following 1994 regulations.

Idaho Republican Congresswoman Helen Chenoweth-Hage and her husband Wayne Hage, lost their grazing permit on their Nevada ranch property for federal lands in 1991, when the federal government refused to renew it. This incident started a 20-year battle with the BLM. The government also denied access to the Hage family’s water rights, which pre-dated the implementation of the 1934 Taylor Act’s grazing permit requirement, by not allowing access to streams and wells. Eventually, the agency built fences around any water source, so the cattle could not drink. The BLM seized Hage’s cattle and filed a civil trespass action against Hage.

A little over twenty years later, however, seven years after Hage and his wife died, Hage’s children, Wayne Jr. and Ramona Morrison Hage won a victory for the family in court.

Last May, U.S. District Court Judge Robert C. Jones ruled that “the government and the agents of the government in that locale, sometime in the ’70s and ’80s, entered into a conspiracy, a literal, intentional conspiracy, to deprive the Hages of not only their permit grazing rights, for whatever reason, but also to deprive them of their vested property rights under the takings clause, and I find that that’s a sufficient basis to hold that there is irreparable harm if I don’t … restrain the government from continuing in that conduct.”

Judge Jones found the government’s demand for trespass fines and damages from innocent ranchers to be “abhorrent to the Court and I express on the record my offense of my own conscience in that conduct. 

That’s not just simply following the law and pursuing your management right, it evidences an actual intent to destroy their water rights, to get them off the public lands.”

Jones went further and accused federal government personnel of racketeering under the federal RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations) statute, and accused them of extortion, mail fraud, and fraud, in an attempt “to kill the business of Mr. Hage.”

Morrison Hage, a member of the Nevada Agriculture Board, told Breitbart News that “In the west our governors almost conduct themselves as if they’re a colonial governor and as if they’re only governor over the private land, adding “They take their hands off the steering wheel even though all state power emerge from the state. They take their hands off the steering whenever there’s anything to do with federal land management.”

Harvey Frank Robbins became a Wyoming dude ranch owner in 1994, after buying a piece of land in the state, but Robbins troubles began soon after his purchase. He told Live Stock Weekly, "The government — the Forest Service, the BLM and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department — were trying to buy the ranch," he explains. "They had these plans of grandeur of having this sanctuary of elk and trout fishing and all the things they could do. Then this guy from Alabama comes in at the last minute, not knowing any of this, and buys this ranch."

Robbins accused BLM employees of trying to force him to renew an easement to the point of almost putting him out of business. When Robbins refused to do so, according to his lawyer, Karen Budd Falen, BLM employees broke into his house and demanded to be allowed on to his property without a court order, among other things. While Robbins won victories in lower courts, a RICO case against the BLM employees eventually went before the Supreme Court in 2006, where the majority ruled the BLM agents were not liable for the alleged actions against Robbins.

Justice David Souter wrote opinion for the majority, stating, “Souter wrote that "we think [that] any damages remedy for actions by Government employees who push too hard for the Government's benefit may come better, if at all, through legislation."

Legislative changes could very well happen in the near future. New legislation to reform how much land the government does own could be headed to Capitol Hill. The meeting of western lawmakers in Utah last week signaled such a plan. Additionally, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott announced the Lone State’s plan to defend its own land from BLM seizures. 

Big Government

• Sarah Palin • NRA Stand and Fight Rally • 4/26/14 •

This Black Does Not Think Bundy is Racist

April 26, 2014

By Lloyd Marcus 

 Pick a card, any card.  Racist.  Sexist.  Homophobic.

We all knew it was only a matter of time before Democrats/liberals played one or more of their Big Three Cards to silence, intimidate, and crush opposition to their latest power-grab/tyrannical attack on our freedom.

With a majority of Americans taking rancher Cliven Bundy's side against Obama's BLM thugs, Democrat Harry Reid concluded that it was time to play the old tried-and-true race card.  As Gomer Pyle use to say, “surprise, surprise.”  We knew it was coming.

This is how the left rolls.  When America rallied around Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson after being targeted for destruction by the left, the left played a twofer on Robertson, accusing him of being homophobic and a racist.

Thank God it did not work.  Coming to Robertson's defense, conservatives played their ultimate trump card, which overruled all the left's lies, distortions, and evil intent.  Our ultimate weapon is the Truth & Righteousness Card.  I believe that boldly and confidently standing up for truth and righteousness always defeats evil.  And make no mistake about it: the Democrat, liberal, progressive, and socialist agenda is evil.

The left's vision for America is counter to the Will of God and the human spirit.  Their anti-God agenda places man on the throne as the ultimate power, able to fix everything – the environment, income inequality, equal outcomes, and everything under the sun via legislation.  The Bible says, “The fool says in his heart that there is no God.”

...Not to wander too far off-topic.  Back to the left's nonsensical allegation that Bundy is a racist.

Any decent, fair-minded human being would understand that Bundy was condemning the slavery of government dependency in his comments regarding negros.  The elderly gentleman is a rancher who is not media-savvy, nor is he schooled in the nuances of political correctness.

The left are not decent human beings.  Their bully minions went on high alert, viciously in pursuit of a “gotcha” comment to squelch Bundy's proven leadership and ability to inspire millions to push back against the Obama regime.

Prominent conservatives running for the tall grass to get away from or running to microphones to denounce Bundy is testimony to their fear of the left's high-tech lynching machine.  It truly sickens me.

I hate allowing jive-turkey leftist bullies to push us around.  Rather than conservatives fighting back, far too many cower in fear and allow the left to proclaim what is considered racist.  It reminds me of the schoolyard when I was a kid.  The only way to defeat bullies, or at least gain their respect, was to punch them in the face.

Before a leftist hack accuses me of advocating violence, I am talking about “politically” delivering a hard left hook to the left's jaw by standing up for Bundy.

Mr. Bundy spoke the truth about cradle-to-grave government dependency wreaking havoc in the black community.  We all know this.  But any white person who dares to acknowledge the huge elephant in the black community's living room is vilified and branded a racist – Bill O'Reilly, Congressman Paul Ryan, and now Cliven Bundy.  Meanwhile, black families continue to suffer and vote monolithically for Democrats who vow to fix their problems but never do.

Black relatives of mine (several died young) lived wasted lives because they were addicted to government dependency.  They were Democratic Party slaves, enslaved with chains far more powerful than steel.  They suffered mental and emotional slavery.  My relatives were robbed of the self-esteem, pride, and joy of individual achievement and earning one's way.

Democrats and liberal media, I trump your race card against Bundy with my Truth & Righteousness card. 

 You lose!  Go peddle your despicable, divisive, and evil crap elsewhere.

I am a black conservative whose admiration and respect for Cliven Bundy remains unwavering.  Mr. Bundy, 

I along with millions of good, decent Americans have your back.  Hang in there, my patriot brother.  God bless.

American Thinker

Eye-opening black Marine letter makes powerful case for why Bundy is not a racist

April 26, 2014
by Michael Dorstewitz

Charlie Delta with Bundy

 Now that the dust has cleared over Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s “Blacks would be better off as slaves” remark, how does the conservative black community feel?

Kevin Jackson, editor of The Black Sphere, published this eye-opening letter from a black Marine using the name Charlie Delta, which when distilled to its essentials, says Bundy is no racist. It reads:

The media distorts information to the point of social division. This is a photo of myself and the resilient, often charismatic, and maybe not so tactful Cliven Bundy. He’s a cowboy and a helluva family man, not an orator.

One thing he definitely isn’t – a racist. I found his comments to not only be NOT racist, but his own view of his experiences. Who the heck are we to determine another man’s perspective on the world around him?! Just because Picasso’s view of the world was abstract, does it negate the fact that his art was genuine?

Furthermore, if you take the time to do your own research, you’ll find that his statements about some black Americans actually hold weight. He posed a hypothetical question. He said, “I wonder IF” … Hell, I’m black and I often wonder about the same about the decline of the black family.

Bottom line is that we are all slaves in this waning republic, no matter our skin color. Mr. Bundy could have used any racial demographic as an example: Native Americans on reservations, whites in trailer parks, etc. He noticed the crippling effects of receiving government “assistance” and the long term result of accepting handouts.

It’s not progress at all. I challenge Sean Hannity, Rand Paul, and others to read my comment and reconsider their position in this matter. Individual liberties are at stake here, yours and mine. THAT is the issue.

Don’t let the liberal media and ignoramuses like Glenn Beck and that weasel Harry Reid make you lose sight of the real issue here: The federal government is a burgeoning behemoth and a bully on a once constitutional playground.I sincerely hope you real patriots out there who can see through the smoke.

Semper Fidelis

Bundy isn’t exactly a man of letters, nor of tact. But he’s become a symbol of liberty against a tyrannical government.

Bizpac