Tag Archives: Susan Rice

Susan E. Rice Speaks On ‘Human Rights and Advancing American Interests and Values’

susan_rice_1

It’s quite ironic that Susan Rice, the woman who continually lied to the American people about the details of the Benghazi terrorist attack where four American’s lost their lives, would ever find it possible to speak about “human rights and advancing American interests and values”.  What could someone like her know about American Values OR human rights? All she knows how to do is lie and spew the liberal agenda!

 

white_house

From The White House:

Remarks by National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice at the Human Rights First Annual Summit
Washington, DC
Wednesday, December 4, 2013

“Human Rights:  Advancing American Interests and Values”

Good afternoon, everyone.  And thank you so much Elisa for your incredibly kind introduction, but even more I want to thank you for your long career fighting the good fight, and for your dedicated leadership of Human Rights First.  For more than three decades, this group has been a clarion voice in defense of human dignity and the rights and freedom of people everywhere.  And it really is my deep honor to be with you today.

Sixty-five years ago this month, representatives to the United Nations General Assembly came together to adopt the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—a worldwide recognition that all members of our human family are born possessing certain equal and inalienable rights.  These same rights are reflected in the founding documents of the United States, and we cherish them as part of our national character.  But, as President Obama has said, just because some truths are self-evident doesn’t mean they are self-executing.  We have to work relentlessly to make them real.  We must constantly question and challenge ourselves to be on the right side of history—to do our part so that more and more of our fellow human beings can enjoy the rights and freedoms, which are the birthright of all mankind.

Our history is filled with champions who have fought to bring us closer to our ideals—from Dr. King and the thousands who marched on Washington 50 years ago to “Battling” Bella Abzug, from Cesar Chavez to Harvey Milk and countless others.  I know everyone in this room believes, as I do, that continuing their work at home and expanding it around the globe is our great commission as the inheritors of their legacy.

For me, the struggle for equal human rights is deeply personal.  It’s essential to who I am as an American.  I can never forget that I am the daughter of proud citizens who suffered the indignities of Jim Crow.  Nor can I forget that, in 1964, the year of my birth, in many parts of this great country, people who looked like me could not vote or marry someone who looks like my husband.  The unfinished battle for equality and human dignity is not only what drives me as a public servant, it is my central duty as the mother of my two children to make sure they never encounter any limitations on their dreams because of who they are or what they look like.

No one understands this profound responsibility more keenly than President Obama.  From his Nobel Prize acceptance speech to his remarks at the United Nations in September, he has been clear about the principles that guide us and to which we hold ourselves accountable, even as we navigate an increasingly complex world of competing and overlapping challenges.

Make no mistake:  advancing democracy and respect for human rights is central to our foreign policy.  It’s what our history and our values demand, but it’s also profoundly in our interests.  That is why the United States remains firmly committed to promoting freedom, opportunity and prosperity everywhere.  We stand proudly for the rights of women, the LGBT community and minorities.  We defend the freedom for all people to worship as they choose, and we champion open government and civil society, freedom of assembly and a free press.

We support these rights and freedoms with a wide range of tools, because history shows that nations that respect the rights of all their citizens are more just, more prosperous and more secure.  And while it’s neither effective nor desirable to advance human rights through the barrel of a gun, we have made clear that, in the face of imminent mass atrocities, there may be times when it is appropriate to use force to protect the innocent from the very worst crimes.  But, we cannot and we should not bear that burden alone.

Yet, obviously, advancing human rights is not and has never been our only interest.  Every U.S. president has a sworn duty to protect the lives and the fortunes of the American people against immediate threats.  That is President Obama’s first responsibility, and mine.  We must defend the United States, our citizens and our allies with every tool at our disposal, including, when necessary, with military force.  We must do all we can to counter weapons of mass destruction, aggression, terrorism, and catastrophic threats to the global economy, upon which our way of life depends.  Anything less would be a dereliction of duty.

As we seek to secure these core interests, we sometimes face painful dilemmas when the immediate need to defend our national security clashes with our fundamental commitment to democracy and human rights.  Let’s be honest: at times, as a result, we do business with governments that do not respect the rights we hold most dear.  We make tough choices.  When rights are violated, we continue to advocate for their protection.  But we cannot, and I will not pretend that some short-term tradeoffs do not exist.

Still, over time, we know that our core interests are inseparable from our core values, that our commitment to democracy and human rights roundly reinforces our national security. The greatest threats to our security often emerge from countries with the worst human rights records.  Witness Iran and North Korea, which have stoked tensions with the world, in part to prolong their repressive rule at home.  By contrast, when we are able to strengthen societies through our support for democracy and human rights, we plow the ground for greater cooperation among responsible nations on issues of mutual concern.  So, the fact is: American foreign policy must sometimes strike a difficult balance — not between our values and our interests, because these almost invariably converge with time, but more often between our short and long-term imperatives.

During the past five years, we’ve employed a variety of means to spur governments to respect the universal rights of their people—and to hold them accountable when they do not.

Wherever President Obama goes, he speaks both publicly and privately to highlight human rights abuses and to help nations see that protecting the rights of their people is ultimately in their self-interest.  We use the unmatched strength of our economy to apply financial pressure, including sanctions, on those that violate human rights.  We leverage our military aid and other forms of bilateral support to encourage countries to live up to their international commitments.  We allocate significant resources to assistance programs that foster human rights, the rule of law and good governance.  Our senior leaders engage directly with civil society, both to show our support and to hear what is really happening on the ground.  And, we work closely with multilateral institutions to marshal a coordinated international response to human rights violations.

Under President Obama, we joined the United Nations Human Rights Council in the face of domestic opposition.  And, for all its continuing flaws, we’ve succeeded in making it a more effective institution that has shed light on abuses in Qadhafi’s Libya, Sri Lanka, Syria, Sudan, North Korea and Iran.  And I want to salute my friend and colleague Eileen Donahoe who is a good reason and a major reason for that success in Geneva.  Thank you so much Eileen. We’ve worked cooperatively with the International Criminal Court to foster accountability for the worst crimes.  Together with our international partners, we helped to midwife the peaceful emergence of an independent South Sudan.  In Cote D’Ivoire, we worked through the United Nations to arrest spiraling violence and enable the duly-elected leader of Cote d’Ivoire to take office after a despot stubbornly refused to cede power.  Just recently, we backed regional diplomacy and a robust UN force to help usher the M23 militia off the battlefield in eastern Congo, yielding the promise of progress for the first time in many years.

In Burma, after long and effective pressure, including tough sanctions and persistent calls to end Aung San Suu Kyi’s house arrest and release political prisoners, we are now working to help Burma take steps towards inclusive democracy and national reconciliation.  In the Western Hemisphere, we joined in beating back efforts to limit the autonomy of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and its special rapporteur for freedom of expression.  And, backed by a UN Security Council mandate, we led, with our partners in NATO and the Arab League, an unprecedented international intervention to prevent mass atrocities in Libya.

Around the world, we call to account the world’s worst abusers, from Iran to Syria, from Eritrea to Zimbabwe, from North Korea to Sudan.  These governments crush the rights of their people and use the tyrant’s toolkit of repression to retain power.  Some have systematically slaughtered their own citizens, as in the genocide in Darfur.

In Syria, even as we provide humanitarian assistance and make rapid progress toward eliminating the threat of chemical weapons, our work continues to end the violence that has claimed more than 100,000 lives and to see the perpetrators of atrocities held accountable.   In Iran, as we test the potential for a diplomatic resolution to the nuclear issue, we are mindful that another key test is whether we begin to see progress on human rights.  We call on the government to allow the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Iran to visit the country.  Our sanctions on Iran’s human rights abusers will continue and so will our support for the fundamental rights of all Iranians.  The Iranian people deserve the same right to express themselves online and through social media as their leaders enjoy.

Closer to home, we note modest steps toward economic reform in Cuba, but we condemn continued arrests of human rights activists and other government critics.  As we mark the fourth year of his imprisonment, we call on the Cuban government to release our innocent, jailed compatriot, Alan Gross.  Ultimately, it will be the Cuban people who drive economic and political reforms. And that’s why President Obama has increased the flow of resources and information to ordinary citizens.  The Cuban people deserve the full support of the United States and of an entire region that has committed to promote and defend democracy through the Inter American Democratic Charter.

These extreme examples are in many ways the most clear-cut.  They are egregious cases, where the weight of our concern and the tenor of our relationship make it easier to chart a clear policy course.  In other countries, it is more difficult to disentangle our competing interests and to give full primacy to our values.  So, let me talk a bit more about these tougher cases.

In this new century, there are few relationships more complex or important than the one between the United States and China.  Building a constructive relationship with China is crucial to the future security and prosperity of the world as a whole.  We value China’s cooperation on certain pressing security challenges, from North Korea to Iran.  Our trade relationship, one of the largest in the world, supports countless American jobs.  And that’s precisely why we have a stake in what kind of power China will become, and that is why human rights are integral to our engagement with China.

So the United States speaks clearly and consistently about our human rights concerns with the Chinese government at every level, including at this year’s summit between President Obama and President Xi at Sunnylands.  U.S. officials engage their Chinese counterparts directly on specific cases of concern—like that of Liu Xiaobo and Xu Zhiyong—as well as about broader patterns of restrictive behavior.  And we voice our condemnation publicly when violations occur.

The Chinese people are facing increasing restrictions on their freedoms of expression, assembly and association.  This is short-sighted.  When people in China cannot hold public officials to account for corruption, environmental abuses, worker and consumer safety, or public health crises, problems that affect China as well as the world go unaddressed.  When courts imprison political dissidents who merely urge respect for China’s own laws, no one in China, including Americans doing business there, can feel secure.  When ethnic and religious minorities—such as Tibetans and Uighurs—are denied their fundamental freedoms, the trust that holds diverse societies together is undermined.  Such abuses diminish China’s potential from the inside.

The same is true of Russia.  We often can cooperate with Russia on nonproliferation, arms control, counterterrorism and other vital interests.  But, as we meet these mutual challenges, we don’t remain silent about the Russian government’s systematic efforts to curtail the actions of Russian civil society, to stigmatize the LGBT community, to coerce neighbors like Ukraine who seek closer integration with Europe, or to stifle human rights in the North Caucasus.  We deplore selective justice and the prosecution of those who protest the corruption and cronyism that is sapping Russia’s economic future and limiting its potential to play its full role on the world stage.

In the Middle East and North Africa, we are navigating the security challenges of the Arab Spring and helping partners lay the foundations for a future rooted in greater peace, opportunity, democracy and respect for human rights.  In Egypt, we said we could not conduct business as usual with the interim government after it used large-scale violence against civilians and detained opposition leaders earlier this year.  So, we withheld the delivery of some major weapons systems pending progress towards democratic reforms and inclusive governance.  We have a stake in promoting inclusive politics in Egypt to avoid driving government opponents into the arms of extremist groups and condemning the country to further instability.  We have spoken out about the deleterious impact the new demonstrations law and its heavy-handed enforcement is having on freedom of assembly in Egypt, and we will continue to urge non-violence and progress on Egypt’s roadmap towards an inclusive and stable democracy.

Bahrain is a long standing partner in the region.  As home to our Fifth Fleet, a stable Bahrain is of great strategic importance to the United States.  So we serve both our principles and our security by pressing for national reconciliation between the government and the opposition.  We are discouraging actions on both sides that sharpen religious divisions or escalate violence.  And, through concrete actions, including withholding portions of our military assistance, we are urging the government to lift restrictions on civil society, to treat members of the opposition in accordance with the rule of law, and to engage in a deliberate reform process.

Our commitment to Israel’s security is unprecedented and enduring.   Thus, in the West Bank, we condemn incitement and violence against Israelis.  At the same time, we reject settler violence against Palestinians.  The daily humiliations of administrative detentions, land confiscations, and home demolitions must end for a culture of peace to take root.

Even as we address such pressing national challenges, the United States continues to lead in promoting a global human rights agenda for the 21st century.  This starts with our intensive efforts to protect and empower women and girls.  No society can reach its full potential when half its people are held back.  That’s why, through the Equal Futures Partnership, we’re working with countries around the world to fulfill specific commitments that elevate the status of women, such as developing constitutional protections for gender equality or extending benefits for women-owned businesses.

A full third of women—one in three—experience either sexual or physical violence in their lifetimes.  Gender-based violence is an affront to human dignity, but it also threatens public health, economic stability, and the security of nations.  So, as part of our commitment to end this scourge, we’re helping equip first responders to protect women and girls from rape as soon as conflicts or disasters occur, and we’re launching a cabinet-level task force to raise awareness and coordinate our efforts to combat violence against women and girls.

No one–no one–should face discrimination because of who they are or whom they love.  So, we are working to lead internationally, as we have domestically, on LGBT issues.  This summer, President Obama championed equal treatment for LGBT persons while standing next to the President of Senegal, a country that is making progress on democratic reforms, but like too many nations, still places criminal restrictions on homosexuality.  President Obama met with LGBT and other civil society activists in St. Petersburg, Russia to discuss the restrictions they face in Russia.  At the UN Human Rights Council and in regional organizations, such as the Organization of American States and the Pan American Health Organization, the United States has fought for and won support for resolutions that recognize the rights and protect the safety and dignity of LGBT persons.  We created the Global Equality Fund to protect LGBT rights and those who defend them.

To support embattled civil society, which is the engine that drives greater transparency and accountability everywhere, including here in the United States we founded and are working through the Open Government Partnership to develop and share best practices.  We’re coordinating with the Community of Democracies to pressure repressive regimes.  The State Department led the creation of the Lifeline partnership, which provides emergency assistance to civil society organizations.  We are reaching out directly to all of you in the NGO community to learn about how we can best support and train your sister organizations around the world.  And, our support for young leaders across Africa focuses, in part, on empowering those who are committed to working for an Africa that is buttressed, as President Obama said, by “strong institutions” rather than by “strongmen.”

This isn’t an exhaustive summary of our efforts.  From Rakhine State in Burma to Jonglei State in South Sudan, we are working to protect vulnerable civilians, especially minorities, to heal rifts in communities, and to press for accountability so that the worst forms of violence do not go unpunished.  The modern-day slavery of human trafficking remains a stain on our collective conscience, and President Obama has redoubled our efforts to end human trafficking in all its forms.

We are promoting internet freedom while still guarding against threats from those who would use the connective power of new technologies to harm us.  And, as part of our comprehensive strategy to help prevent genocide and mass atrocities, we’re developing the tools and partnerships that can warn us before violence ignites and strengthen our capacity to respond.  For example, to take on the deteriorating situation and increasing violence in the Central African Republic, we’re working this week at the UN to support African Union forces protecting civilians, to provide humanitarian assistance, and to investigate human rights abuses so the perpetrators can be held accountable.

Finally, our commitment to human rights means we must live our values at home.  And, here too, our work is not nearly complete.  If we are not walking the talk, we undermine the United States’ ability to lead internationally.   President Obama has an extremely strong record of promoting human rights domestically — from the first bill he signed into law as President, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, to his support for voter protection, and his commitment to full equality for our LGBT brothers and sisters and for repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.  This Administration is deeply committed to ensuring that all men and women are treated equally.

In 2009, as UN Ambassador, I was proud to sign, on behalf of the United States, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.  But, almost five years later, as you know, we are still urging the Senate to approve this convention.  I am very glad you’ll be hearing tomorrow from the great former Senator Bob Dole, who has been a relentless advocate for this cause.  We need Congress to join with us to show that America doesn’t just press other nations to abide by international treaties and norms while we stand on the sidelines.  Rather we must lead by example.

That is why too President Obama remains deeply determined to close the detention facility at Guantanamo. We have new envoys at the Departments of State and Defense dedicated to this cause.  In August, we completed the first successful detainee transfers under the onerous restrictions that Congress enacted in 2011, and we expect to announce more transfers in the near future.  We continue to urge Congress to remove these restrictions, which have severely hampered our efforts to close the Guantanamo detention facility.  And I want to thank Human Rights First and your coalition for your energetic support for closing Guantanamo.

More broadly, after over a decade of war, we continue to transition from a perpetual war footing while robustly protecting America’s interests and security around the world.  Earlier this year, President Obama announced new guidelines governing the use of lethal force in our counterterrorism operations outside areas of active hostilities, including the use of drones.  Congress is briefed on every strike taken, and we are committed to sharing as much information as possible with the American people about our efforts.  Over time, continued progress against al Qaeda and associated terrorist groups should reduce the need for such actions.

More recently, President Obama directed a review of our signals intelligence collection.  Intelligence saves lives—American lives and those of our allies and partners.  We are committed to continuing to collect such information to meet our critical security needs.  At the same time, we recognize that, in many countries, surveillance is an instrument of repression, which is why we must use the unprecedented power that technology affords us responsibly, while respecting the values of privacy, government transparency, and accountability that all people share.

In closing, I want to stress that our nation, and we in the Obama Administration, benefit enormously from groups like Human Rights First.  Your analyses, your perspectives — and, yes, your criticisms—help shape and improve our decision making.  It may be decades before we see how all the challenges and choices of today play out.  But, the promise we make to you is this:  The United States will keep working every day to uphold the rights and freedoms that belong to all the people of this earth.

Over the last 20 years, I’ve seen up close the evil that humans can perpetrate against one another—from churchyards in Rwanda to dirt camps in Darfur, from war-torn Sarajevo to burned-out death traps in Tripoli.  More recently, I chaired meetings in the Situation Room after the Assad regime unleashed the world’s largest chemical weapons attack in 25 years.  I’ve seen the worst of man’s inhumanity.  But I also know the bewildering resilience of the human spirit.  In so many unlikely places, I’ve seen the hope that pushes its way to the surface, unbidden, in the most dire circumstances.

I often think of the little boy, just 3 or 4 years old, whom I met in 1994 while visiting an IDP camp in war-torn rural Angola.  I didn’t get his name.  He was just one in a group of curious kids who came out to greet our delegation.  He had short legs, a distended belly, and only a torn, dirty t-shirt to cover his little body.  Looking around at his hellish surroundings was enough to sap the hope out of the most optimistic person.  But that little boy defied logic.  He just glowed — with a smile so innocent and infectious I will carry it to my grave.  As I moved toward him, drawn almost involuntarily, I suddenly realized I had nothing of worth to offer him, except perhaps the well-worn baseball hat on my head.  When I took it off and set it on his unsuspecting head, he just beamed, radiating nothing but joy.  The poet Emily Dickinson tells us that, “Hope is the thing with feathers that perches in the soul.”  So, for me, hope will always be that young boy’s smile.

Everything I’ve seen and done in my career since then has only left me more convinced of the common yearnings that stir in all of us.  I have no idea what happened to that little boy in Cuito, Angola, but there are millions more just like him all over the Earth—each  deserving of the same rights, the same security, and the same hope that our own children enjoy.  Their future is bound up with our own.  It is for their sake, and ours, that we stand fast for human rights.  For their sake, and ours, we hold resolutely to our founding principles in this complicated and often dangerous world.  And, it is for the sake of our common humanity and our shared future, that, even if imperfectly, we keep striving each day to build a world that is more just, more equal, more safe, and more free.

Thank you all very much.

What Is It About ‘Stereotype’ that the Tea Party Doesn’t Understand?

runaways-tpcToo bad Tea party types are such ingrates. Now that the mainstream media (MSM) is finally starting to cover the IRS political scandal, you’d think the Tea party would go out of its way to reward the media for emerging from its Obama–induced coma.

Consider what would have happened if there had been four deaths in connection with the IRS attacks, as happened in Benghazi. Result: It happened a long time ago and what difference does it make?

Repaying the MSM would not have been difficult. For example, at the recent Tea Party–dominated Republican convention in Virginia, conservatives could’ve done something simple like book a minstrel show for entertainment, sing ‘Dixie’ before the National Anthem or burn a cross for illumination. Stereotypes would have been confirmed and MSM self–satisfaction could continue unchallenged.

But no, out of seven candidates running for Lt. Governor the overwhelmingly white, middle–aged Tea Party Republicans had to go and pick the only black guy in the bunch! Even worse. E. W. Jackson had raised the least money of any of the candidates and instead had to base his hope for victory on an impassioned speech before the assembled delegates.

A black guy that can make a speech and impress Republicans? Who’d a thunk it?

In fact the WaPost complained, “it’s almost inconceivable that (Jackson) could have won an open party primary.” Which is true, since a primary would have been dominated by something WaPost leftists claim to hate even more than conservative blacks and that’s money in politics.

Bottom line? Media leftists prefer capitalist money influencing elections to blacks escaping the Democrat plantation. (But on the plus side, Rev. Jackson is one candidate you can legitimately ask about the content of his prayers.)

Instead Jackson, who in addition to being a minister is a graduate of Harvard Law School and a Marine veteran, won through personal contact and the force of his personality. And what a personality it is! No mottled shades of gray here.

Media leftists consider conservative minority politicians to be deeply embarrassing and something a decent person would want to keep private and within the family; like a son who wanted to marry a man. Besides being guilty of thought crimes, a black Republican that opposes the Democrat platform of amnesty, abortion and alternative lifestyle is called an Uncle Tom.

This is another example of leftist revisionism. Back when Democrats were leaning on the Supreme Court for legitimacy and dominated politics and culture while being on the wrong side of slavery; a black who supported ‘massa and claimed to be happy with his lot, was called an Uncle Tom for kneeling before power. Frederick Douglass was a hero for fighting against injustice and going against prevailing legal and cultural norms. (Dang, wasn’t Douglass a Republican, too?)

Today Democrats again lean on the Supreme Court for legitimacy, dominate politics along with culture and are on the wrong side of abortion. The legal system is cluttered with “hate crime” legislation, homosexuals qualify for special rights, Christians are to be kept in the closet and any attempt to regulate abortion is called a “war on women.” Yet a black that supports conservatives is instantly branded an Uncle Tom, when the reverse is actually true. This means Utah’s Mia Love is Fredericka Douglass on a courageous crusade for truth and Susan Rice is Aunt Jemima.

And make no mistake the WaPost is in a snit regarding Jackson. Columnist Robert McCartney did everything but call him “macca” in a column this week. McCartney says that Jackson on the ticket will reflect poorly on gubernatorial nominee Ken Cuccinelli. This is because fiery black ministers only cause problems when they are linked for a few months to a white candidate, while sitting in the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church for 20 years is just a coincidence for Barack Obama.

McCartney quotes Jackson as saying gays have “perverted” minds and are “very sick people psychologically and mentally and emotionally.” And he adds Jackson has described President Obama as “an evil presence” and liberal abortion policy as “infanticide.”

So I think VA Republicans are just going to have to resign themselves to losing Megan McCain’s vote this year.

Another red flag for McCartney came when Jackson said Planned Parenthood has been more lethal to blacks than the Ku Klux Klan. I will admit the only politician with the moral stature necessary to make modern–day slavery comparisons is Joe Biden. But that being said, Jackson does have the facts on his side — as if that makes any difference to the left.

The number of blacks killed by lynching in the US between 1864 and 1968 was 4,946. You can add to that beatings and intimidation by both the Klan and freelance bigots who didn’t want to be bogged down with a formal commitment to an organization.

Compare that with 18,778,000 black babies killed by an abortionist between only 1973 and 2013. Nathan Bedford Forest doesn’t begin to compare with your local Planned Parenthood facility manager when it comes to eliminating young blacks.

The WaPost was also appalled at VA Republicans for having a convention in the first place. In their view being committed enough to give up your Saturday and attend a largely boring convention disqualifies one for participation in the decision–making process.

The mandarins at the Post complain that the 8,000 delegates attending the Richmond convention were less than one percent of the people who claim to be Republicans in Virginia. Yet I don’t recall them complaining when only 5,556 delegates to the Democrat National Convention in 2012 approved a far left platform way out of the mainstream of American thought. (I hope the WaPost has not reverted to the practice of only counting 3/5ths of a Republican for apportionment purposes as Democrats did during slavery.)

Virginia conservatives have provided voters with a clear choice in November: A Republican ticket composed of social and government conservatives versus whatever opportunists the Democrats have handy.

The media will just have to cope with the fact that Jackson’s nomination has ruined what was to be the favorite headline this fall: VA Republicans – Whiter Than White; Righter Than Right.

Confederate Corner with George Neat May 21st – Scandalpalooza

confedcornercdnlogo

confedcornercdnlogo

When: Tuesday, May 21st, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Confederate Corner with George Neat on Blog Talk Radio

What: Yes there are Confederates north of the Mason-Dixon line, and George Neat is one of them. And we’re happy to bring his views to you in the “Confederate Corner” radio show.

For more information on George and his political views, please drop by the Confederate Corner at GoldwaterGal.com. (http://goldwatergal.com/goldwater-gal-media/confederate-corner/)

Tonight: George will be talking about Oklahoma City, the White House, Susan Rice, and James Rosen – so all the scandals are in play. Of course there will also be a Soldier Salute, and a “nearly-infamous” Crack Pipe Moment.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

Susan Rice Bows Out As Sec’y Of State Nominee; Benghazi Related?

Susan-Rice-007

Susan Rice has withdrawn her name for consideration as the next Secretary of State. The liberal pundits are out en mass, with Andrea Mitchell, playing the ‘ol race card, stating “A woman of color has been forced out”. (emphasis mine)

As reported by NBC news:

United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice has pulled her name out of consideration for nomination as the next secretary of state.

“If nominated, I am now convinced that the confirmation process would be lengthy, disruptive and costly – to you and to our most pressing national and international priorities,” Rice wrote in a letter to President Obama obtained by NBC News. ”That trade-off is simply not worth it to our country…Therefore, I respectfully request that you no longer consider my candidacy at this time.”

Rice has come under sustained criticism from Republicans both for her handling of questions about the attack on a U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi.

President Obama responded in a statement of his own, saying that he is “grateful” that Rice will continue to serve as ambassador to the United Nations and as a “key member” of his national security team.

This is no shock. As arrogant as Obama is, and his tendency to act like a Dictator, I admit it is a tad shocking that he didn’t attempt to ram her confirmation through–but then there is Benghazi. Did the cabal surrounding Obama make it clear that the Rice confirmation hearings would stir the pot called Benghazi? Seems stories on Benghazi are fading, and that is just how the Regime wants it. Reflecting on the Rice Sunday show debacle, its Hillary Clinton who seems to have been the savvy Politician. Clinton has traveled out of the Country and been silent mostly on the Benghazi issue—she sure KNEW not to be available for those Sunday shows.

Well, gang, it looks like John Kerry, that stellar liberal with the “Swift Boat” controversy will be the likely Secretary of State.

Exposing Benghazi Baloney

d54572b8913f22acfa8ef67d7c048c1b

After a Tuesday morning meeting with U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, Senators John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Kelly Ayotte said concerns they had about Rice’s misleading statements regarding the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya which resulted in the deaths of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans have grown, not diminished.

McCain said he might oppose Rice’s nomination to replace Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State because Rice should have known the statements she made in interviews just a few days after the Sept. 11 attack were false.

In those interviews, Rice repeated the Party line about the attack having emerged from a protest over an anti-Islamist video.  Rice apparently parroted that narrative in order to satisfy the needs of Obama’s re-election campaign.  The narrative, much of which had already been repeatedly trumpeted during the Democratic National Convention was, al Qaeda had been decimated and was losing ground, public sentiments in the Middle East toward the United States had improved, and the attack was in no way connected to Obama’s foreign policy.  It was later learned there the attack was a well-organized terror assault by an al Qaeda related group timed for the anniversary of 9/11.

David Petraeus, former director of the CIA, testified under oath before a congressional investigative committee that from the beginning the CIA had advised the White House that the Benghazi attack was an organized assault by al Qaeda linked terrorists.  Petraeus also testified that the approved CIA report was later changed to diminish terrorist involvement.

After meeting with Rice, Graham, R-SC, said: “The bottom line is that I’m more disturbed than I was before … about how four Americans died in Benghazi, Libya by Ambassador Rice does not to do justice to the reality at the time.”

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/11/27/exposing-benghazi-baloney/

Give the Gift of Courage

Graham: The American People Got Bad Information

graham

GOP Senators McCain (R-AZ), Graham (R-SC) and Ayotte (R-NH), met with Ambassador Susan Rice behind closed doors to learn her version predicating her appearance on national talk shows regarding events in Benghazi on September 11. Also in attendance was the interim director of the CIA.

Following the meeting Senator Graham continued to question Rice’s errant September 16 characterization of the attacks in Libya, which resulted in the deaths of four Americans.

“I’m more disturbed now than I was before that the 16 September explanation of how four Americans died in Benghazi, Libya by Ambassador Rice,” he told reporters. He argued that her comments, in which she erroneously suggested the violence may have resulted from spontaneous riots over an anti-Muslim video, were not only wrong in hindsight, but were also “disconnected from reality” based on information that was available at the time.

“If anybody had been looking at the threats coming out of Benghazi, Libya, it would  jump out at you this was  Al-Qaeda storm in the making,” he said. “I’m very disappointed in our intelligence community, they failed in many ways, but with a little bit of inquiry and curiosity I think it would be pretty clear that to explain this episode as related to a video that created a mob that turned into a riot was far afield.”

Graham suggested that Rice should have not made any statement on the September 16 shows.

“The American people got bad information.”

“If you don’t know what happened, just say you don’t know what happened,” Graham said. “If you can do nothing but give bad information, isn’t it better to give no information at all?”

Both Graham and Ayotte suggested that they still had too many questions to support Rice if Mr. Obama were to nominate her to the Secretary of State.

“Before anybody could make an intelligent decision about promoting someone involved in Benghazi, we need to do a lot more,” said Graham. “To this date we don’t have the FBI interviews of the survivors conducted one or two days after the attack.”

(Below the video clip is the statement from Susan Rice regarding the meeting.)

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Flashback: Do You Remember Those Racist Condi Rice Cartoons?

Screen Shot 2012-11-24 at 5.36.23 PM

As liberals continue to counter the criticism directed towards Ambassador Susan Rice with the race card, Eliana Johnson at National Review aptly noted how similar criticism was lobbied at Condoleezza Rice when she was nominated for Secretary of State.

In my previous post, “Deciphering Susan Rice without Being Racist” – Katrina Vanden Heuvel was exposed as using the terms “incompetent” and “liar” to describe Rice —  Condoleezza Rice. Vanden Heuvel is the editor and publisher of the far left magazine The Nation. Eliana Johnson detailed on November 21 how left-wing media outlets and members of Congress were hurling similar accusations of incompetence and politicking at Condoleezza Rice that are we seeing ahead of Susan Rice’s possible nomination for Secretary of State.

Johnson wrote that:

[Condoleezza] Rice’s nomination, noted the Washington Post, garnered “the most negative votes cast against a nominee for that post in 180 years.” As the Senate debated her nomination, Senator Barbara Boxer charged that Rice “frightened the American people” into supporting the Iraq War; Senator Jim Jeffords accused her of being part of an effort to “distort information” in the service of “political objectives”; and Senator Pat Leahy, who voted in her favor, endorsed her by saying that her tenure as national-security adviser lacked “strong leadership, openness, and sound judgment.”  

Hey, that’s racist.  But so is this cartoon by Ted Rall, who has the then-Secretary of State saying she was Bush’s ‘house nigga.”

 

Jeff Danziger, whose cartoons are syndicated in The New York Times, had a caricature of “a big-lipped, barely literate Condoleezza Rice, nursing the aluminum tubes cited by the White House as evidence of Iraq’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.”

Johnson is dead on in her assessment that there’s a difference when someone calls you a “house nigga,” and when someone calls you incompetent.  One is blatantly racist, while the other is isn’t.  It’s not that hard to comprehend.  Ambassador Rice misled the American people  – and we deserve answers.

Tonight on the Dark Side with Kira Davis

christmas

11/25/12 Finally, the Democrats bring race into Benghazi. Racists everywhere! And it’s that time of year again: the war on Christmas is in full swing. Also, should Republicans bend to Obama’s demands and let the country go off the fiscal cliff, or fight it? Tune in tonight at 10pm ET/7pm Pacific on the CDNews Network on Blogtalk Radio.

UPDATE: Listen to a replay of the show here, or follow the link to download.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on Blog Talk Radio

Deciphering Susan Rice Without Being Racist

Screen Shot 2012-11-20 at 11.07.44 AM

I’m almost at the mark! I’m so excited.  I just have one more jar of Ovaltine to drink before I’m able to send in my application for the James Clyburn Racial Code Word Decipher.  It’s going to be useful – as we all try to make sense of the various racial code wards that have been hurled at Ambassador Susan Rice for her incompetence less than adequate job performance.

Racism is, and will always be, an effective tool employed by liberals.  Racism is anathema to American society.  So, when one person cries racial discrimination – Blacks, Whites, Asians, and Martians come out of the bushes, like perverted voyuers, to listen.  Additionally, the person who has been accused must explain how they aren’t racist to the public.  In politics, that’s perfect.  One candidate hammering away at the opposing side’s economic record, like in the case of Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, is inhibited from continuing to do so once the racism accusations start flying.

In the case of Ambassador Rice, she’s been accused of being ‘incompetent’ and ‘lazy’ from Republicans.  Democrats say that’s racist and sexist. However, no one dares think about the alternative situation where a Republican Ambassador to the UN would have been chastised heavily from Democrats – and rightfully so.  There’s no excuse to misled the American people on the Sunday morning talk shows.

Concerning Rep. Clyburn, this is how he frames the whole situation:

“You know, these are code words,” Clyburn said. “We heard them during the campaign. During this recent campaign, we heard Senator Sununu calling our president lazy, incompetent—these kinds of terms that those of us, especially those of us who were grown and raised in the South, we would hear these little words and phrases all of our lives, and we’d get insulted by them.”

The Washington Times’ Kerry Picket noted this as well.  In fact, she even went into the past, and dug up liberal accusations of incompetence that were thrown at then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.  Of course, you have to cite the worst of the worst, which is what Picket did quoting left-wing blowhard and editor of The Nation Katrina Vanden Heuvel – who wrote in November of 2004.

Last July, the Washington Post devoted much of its front-page to a well-reported story indicting National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice for her role in misleading Congress and the public in the run- up to the Iraq war. The bottom line: Rice was either incompetent or a liar.

Even sources described as “generally sympathetic” to the NSC adviser questioned her many shifting and contradictory statements regarding Iraq’s alleged uranium purchase and the WMD (non)threat. But Rice’s dogged loyalty to Bush served her well, and she stayed put.

Gasp! Ms. Vanden Heuvel – that’s racist!  However, this plays into the mindset of liberals, which is conservative women, especially those who are minorities, aren’t really people.  They’re the confused ‘others’ wondering through the woods, and looked down upon as semi-mentally retarded.  It’s how liberals view most people who aren’t of the liberal persuasion.  Hey, some people like to work hard, and pay taxes – I don’t blame them.

This perverse untermenschen category liberals have for conservative women extends to their affiliates in the D.C. non-profit and lobbying circle with groups like NARAL Pro-choice America and the National Organization of (some) Women.  As far as I’m concerned, conservatives should continue to hammer away at Ambassador Susan Rice, and do everything possible to block her nomination for Secretary of State.

Originally posted at The Young Cons.

Obama Effort to strip constitutional gun rights may start American Civil War

Obama’s move to sign a United Nations’ Gun Ban Treaty will escalate states’ efforts for seceding from the Union.

Are you ready to wake up in an America where your family is defenseless against enemies foreign or domestic? This reality is right around the corner. A day after his reelection, Barack Obama signaled the United Nations that he is ready to sign an Arms Treaty to strip you of your U.S. Second Amendment Constitutional right to bear arms.

This is not new. The United Nations made earlier attempts during the administration of former President George W. Bush. But, President Bush soundly rejected the measure. Now, President Obama, fresh off of this presidential win, feels emboldened to go forward with his design to unilaterally dismember the guaranteed constitutional protections citizens of this nation are entitled to.

Do you feel comfortable with the idea that the U.S. State Department under the control of either Ambassador Hillary Clinton will truly represent your interest? What about her possible replacement nominee, America’s United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice? This is the same Ambassador Rice’s who went on five television network shows to cover up the truth of what happened to four Americans murdered on 9/11 in Benghazi, Libya.

Where does that leave Americans?

The real question is what are you prepared to do in order to defend your right to defend your family? Will you wait to see what happens? Or will you take the necessary steps to make certain that you will not have to wait and see if United Nations gun control officials knock at your door, demanding, and “Gun license and registration, please!”

The right to control your guns is not open for debate or for negotiation. It is a sovereign right that no foreign organization, including the United Nations has the right or the authority to undertake, because a president gives the go ahead.

When any president decides to destroy the nation’s U.S. Constitutional rights afforded its citizens, which he has sworn to uphold, he no longer has the authority to represent the nation’s citizens. He must be impeached!

The U.S. Constitution says with great clarity in Article II, Section 4:
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Your signed petitions should be forwarded to John Boehner, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives.

The impeachment process begins in the House of Representatives according to Article I, Section 2: “The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”

You do not need the permission of the White House nor do you need the permission of the mainstream media to determine your course of action to demand the impeachment of  Barack Obama. Develop a list of particulars that petitioners in all fifty states will sign. The secessionist movement has already gotten the ball rolling.

Several hundred thousand petitioners representing all fifty states, including battleground state Ohio have signed to secede from the union. This is far more serious than a group of Hollywood actors and entertainers who threatened to vacate and move to Canada after President Bush was reelected in 2004.

This is a significant and determined first step in the process to take back this nation from a president who has made numerous attempts to circumvent the U.S. Constitution.

Impeachment for the purposes of clarification comes from English law and was used in 1640 case against Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford. He had, “traiterously endeavored to subvert the Fundamental Laws and Government of the Realms . . . and instead thereof, to introduce Arbitrary and Tyrannical Government against Law.”

Obama has moved to subvert the fundamental laws and government of the United States, by refusing to enforce DOMA which is congressional legislation passed and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. He has issued an executive order which circumvents federal immigration law, granting nearly a million illegal immigrants the right to be protected from removal which the law demands. These are just a few of his attempt to subvert the U.S. Constitution.

So in plain English, President Obama should face impeachable offenses that can be determined in the House of Representatives.

Begin now to take your first steps of many to protect the integrity of your Second Amendment U.S. Constitution’s right to protect your family. Today, tonight and tomorrow consider: what are you prepared to do to protect your family?

( click to let me know what you think )

The YouTube video & Susan Rice; UN Blasphemy Laws fit the “Narrative”

Maybe I should start this off with “Warning: what you about to read could be dangerous to your health, side effects outrage, hypertension, and tequilla shots “needed” have been reported by 99% of readers to this post.” So you have been “warned”.

Anyone remotely following the Benghazi attacks and murder of four Americans, all remember the whole YouTube video “excuse” and the fallout from said “excuse”.   We were told by Jay Carney, Press Secretary, and President Obama on September 12th, that this was a “spontaneous” protest (over the YouTube video) that erupted into a deadly attack.   We heard “official” condemnations of this disgusting video. We all saw the Cerritos, Calfornia “movie maker” hauled away at 1:30am for interrogations.   We heard Susan Rice on September 16th, as she made the rounds to the “Sunday” shows, citing the video. And we heard all of them–Obama, Clinton, Carney and Rice state “there was no intelligence that could have prevented such an attack” and that this was “no act of terror”.   So much for story time.

We now know, the following, from an official Congressional hearing held today, October 10, 2012 that,  in the last 13 months there has been 230 attacks in and around Benghazi.   One on June 6, 2012, was an IED that blasted a hole in the Benghazi consulate wall that “40 men could walk through.”   Around this time our officials on the ground begin to “sound the alarm” back to the State Department. Eric Nordstrom, who is the former security officer in Tripoli, asked twice for more security to be sent.   Charlene Lamb, a State Department official’s response was they “wanted to keep the number of U.S. security personnel in Benghazi “artificially low.”

On September 18th, CNN went to Benghazi, and found Ambassador Steven’s diary, which entries state he felt “threatened and unsafe”.   The facts, the “real” facts started to come out and the “fairy tale” we were told began to unravel. There were NO protests in Benghazi.   In the diary, Stevens relates to being outside at 8:30pm saying goodbye to a Turkish official, the street was quiet, yet a hour later at 9:40pm, Steven’s would be in a fight for his life.   A fight that included being sodomized and tortured.

September 21st, Hillary Clinton finally says “its a terror attack”, although on the same day the 21st, Obama is still on story line #1, its a mob act of protest turned into murder.   September 26th, the YouTube movie maker is hauled away, for check fraud, and I have “intell” from the Sheriff’s Department’s substation in Cerritos, California, about this arrest.   The “word” came from the FBI, that they wanted an “arrest” made of this man, who was “highly dangerous” and that SWAT was needed.   Insider from the LA County Sheriff’s Department, who requested to remain “anonymous” said he took part in the raid, and that the Captain and higher ups were not impressed with arresting this man for “check fraud” and then having to hand him over to the FBI.   “Something just didn’t smell right” he said, “this man had a shady background in check fraud but to arrest him on the fraud charges when we all knew it was due to his involvement in this YouTube video, well, something seemed wrong“.     He went on “Then the FBI “rambo” in, say he is “highly dangerous”, I mean c’mon, the guy pissed his pants when he saw SWAT and a small army outside his house”.

So they had their “Patsy“.   Except, that didn’t fly. On October 2, Nordstrom comes forward, and it all falls apart.   The questions not answered are these, “why the YouTube video excuse?” Who decided that would be the “story” and what did they have to gain from this story?   Why did they, as Susan Lamb says, want to keep the “numbers artificially low” and what does “artificially mean?”

Many wondered “why did they send out Rice?”   I think my friend, and notable blogger Lisa Graas may have the answer.   From her September 17th post :

In December, 2011, Ambassador Rice signed on with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to adopt a U.N. Resolution on “religious intolerance” that had been receiving dwindling support in previous attempts to pass it.   It is the intention of this administration to side with the Muslim world that “blasphemy” against Islam should be actively discouraged by our government even to the point of considering American citizens who exercise freedom of speech as criminals.

 

We know, the State Department is not behind the “YouTube video” story, so that leaves the Obama Administration, someone in that brain trust, Valerie Jarrett, Susan Rice, David Axelrod— someone decided to “go with this”,  never leaving a good crisis to waste!    And, this plays perfectly into Rice’s actions back in December 2011, to in essence create a “blasphemy” law, that YouTube story really plays quite nicely into the whole “fiction” we have been told!   Bravo Obama et al, but, you had me at “YouTube”, and I wasn’t buying that, no three year old would buy that line.

Let me be clear.   This is no Watergate.   This is murder.   This is an Institutional “cover-up” with accessory to murder.   I wonder, I wonder what Ambassador Steven’s thoughts were while he was being dragged out to be sodomized and tortured?   I highly doubt, as Democratic Congressmen have insinuated during the hearing, that he was excited about the “Revolution” and the “Arab Spring“.

And that brings me to Mr. Jay Carney. Today he stated

“its just a fact, that the President has fought for, and put forward funding for our diplomatic personnel and Embassy’s around the world, and “others” have had their budget priorities, to reduce that funding by way of tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires…that’s just a fact.”

Really Carney?   Did you really say that malarkey?   You, who say Romney was “politicizing” the Benghazi attacks?   Carney you Sir, are a liar, plain and simple, and by the way, you are not a very good one.   There are four dead Americans, and we deserve so much more,  they deserve so much more than this travesty of bumblers and liars.   This was murder.   And the FBI spent a whole 3 hours on the ground in Benghazi, a whole 3 hours of “investigating” just last week, as Obama’s commitment to “finding the perpetrators and bringing them to justice“.

I think we have a good idea of who is ultimately responsible for these murders of our American Ambassador and Navy Seals, and you don’t need to go to Benghazi to find them.

White House: Mid East Attacks Not Premeditated

UN+Ambassador+Susan+Rice+Testifies+House+Committee+ujZYem6_I2el

The attack on America’s Benghazi consulate was not premeditated.

It was all about the video.

So said the White House, so said the State Department, so said U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice:

“Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo.  In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.  We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to – or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo.  And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons… And it then evolved from there”.

Never mind that Libyan President Mohamed Magariaf said the attack was planned in advance.

What would people who live and work in an official capacity within Libya know about what is going on in their country?

How could Americans possibly believe that the President of Libya knows more about what is happening on the ground in Libya than do Barrack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice or Jay Carney?

Those Americans should be ashamed of themselves.

Rather, Americans are to believe that on the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks upon the United States no elements of Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood or any other Islamofascist groups within Libya, Egypt, Tunis, or the other twenty odd countries that purportedly simultaneously and spontaneously erupted into violent anti-American hatred, planned to assault American embassies, besiege American consulates, burn American flags, hoist the Al Qaeda flag over the U.S. Embassy in Egypt and ruthless murder American Citizens in cold blood.

Nobody in any of those countries planned in advance.  No groups coordinated the date, the targets, the weapons, the tactics…nope.

It was all about the video.

It was all because of a low budget privately made video posted online by a relative unknown that a slim few had heard of, much less seen.

A video which, whether the White House, the State Department or anyone else within the institutionalized “progressive” left cares to admit, falls within an American’s God given, constitutionally protected Right to free speech.

The administration of Barrack Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Jay Carney, et al are counting on enough American voters being so naive that they will blindly accept any flimsy cover story coming out of the White House.

Of course it definitely helps when everyone save for a brave few souls in the media obediently parrots the “progressive” Party line while hiding, obstructing or completely ignoring entire stories and/or pertinent facts in the process.

It is a pretty darned good bet the people buying this White House cover story concerning anti-American violence in the Middle East also swallowed the equally flimsy cover story about Fast and Furious…hook line and sinker.

Yes, the administration and like-minded members of the self-imagined, self-appointed intellectual “progressive” elite truly believe a sufficient number of Americans needed to re-elect them ARE that stupid, ignorant, sufficiently distracted or simply not paying attention.

Americans have the chance to prove them wrong on November 6, 2012.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/09/16/white-house-mid-east-attacks-not-premeditated/