ABC Report on New Benghazi Revelations

Jonathan Karl: Email suggests WH used video to deflect criticism of Obama’s policies

BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
April 30, 2014 7:23 pm

ABC’s Jonathan Karl reported on his testy exchange with White House press secretary Jay Carney over a recently revealed email suggesting the Obama administration coached Susan Rice to attribute the September, 11 2012 Benghazi attacks to an anti-Islam video Wednesday on World News Tonight:

JONATHAN KARL: 18 months after the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya that killed four Americans, newly released emails suggest the White House blamed the attacks on an anti-Islamic video in order to deflect criticism of the president’s policies. The previously secret White House email lists top goals for Ambassador Susan Rice as she prepared for a now infamous round of interviews just says after the attacks, saying she should “underscore these protests are rooted in an internet video and not a broader failure of policy.” And that’s what she said.

SUSAN RICE: In reaction to this very offensive video — that was disseminated.

KARL: The White House has long insisted that Rice’s talking points came from the intelligence community but the email is written by a top political aide. And the former CIA director recently told Congress the intelligence community didn’t agree with what Rice said.

MICHAEL MORRELL: When she talked about the video, my reaction was, that’s not something that the analysts have attributed this attack to.

KARL: The White House insists the email doesn’t change the story at all, but it was only released in response to a lawsuit demanding all Benghazi related emails. Why were you holding back this information, why was this email not turned over to the Congress? This is directly relevant. Why did you hold it back?

JAY CARNEY:Jjohn, again –

KARL: Why did it take a court case for you to release this?

CARNEY: John, I can say it again and again and I know you can keep asking again and again, this document was not about Benghazi.

KARL: That’s right, the White House says it didn’t initially release the email because it was about broader unrest in the Arab world and not about Benghazi specifically. Officials also point out that they eventually corrected the record acknowledging there were no protests in Benghazi before that attack. But Diane, this latest revelation has Republicans demanding another investigation.

Democrat Senator Markey’s “Hate Speech” Bot

Democrat Senator Markey’s “Hate Speech” Bot

Designed to shut down speech and eliminate political opposition

Kurt Nimmo
April 30, 2014
Sen. Markey and the Democrats want you to believe there are evil KKK racists out there blogging and they threaten the social order.

Sen. Markey and the Democrats want you to believe there are evil KKK racists out there blogging and they threaten the social order.

Earlier this month, we ran a story on Senator Ed Markey’s The Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014. The legislation proposes updating a twenty year old report on the role the internet, radio and TV allegedly play “in encouraging hate crimes based on gender, race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.” The report would then be submitted to respective committees in the House and Senate for action.

Mac Slavo, writing for, extrapolates how the government might go about collecting “hate speech” on the internet to be included in the report and then submitted to Congress for action.

“As we noted previously, there are already pre-crime systems actively monitoring the internet looking for discussions and behaviors that can be used to identify potential criminals before any crime occurs,” Slavo writes. “Combined with new Web Bot hate speech tools, could the government then preempt detentions and arrests under the Patriot Act or National Defense Authorization Act, both of which allow for action to be taken against those who threaten national security, yet another broadly define term?”

Roundups à la Nazi Germany are, at this stage, probably not part of the agenda, but one can easily imagine zealous Democrats and “progressives,” forever striving to broaden the horizon of unacceptable behavior (on the part of their ideological enemies), and thus using this law, if enacted, to ferret out the likes of Harry Reid’s “domestic terrorists” and shutting down their websites.

Due to the fact the Ku Klux Klan is virtually nonexistent (and was, in the 1960s, part of the government’s COINTELPRO) and white supremacists like Hal Turner work for the FBI, this law would have little applicable purpose beyond eliminating all who stand in the way of a socialist utopia where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others (based on skin pigmentation, gender and sexual orientation).

For the political elite, the internet is a dangerous quagmire where thoughts run free and truth is allowed to exist without interpretation by the establishment intelligentsia. Increasingly, the proles are turning away from the control channels of the corporate propaganda media and are seeking out information and formulating their own opinions. More and more citizens, according to Markey and the Democrats and no shortage of establishment Republicans, are falling victim to “hate speech,” i.e., speech in opposition to the government and the establishment.

This is the real nature of The Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014. It is not designed to prevent crimes by racists and homophobes. It is designed to shut down speech. It is designed to eliminate the political opposition. The establishment does not care about the murder of gays or lynchings of blacks, as infrequent as such events are in today’s world. The political establishment, be it controlled by Mao, Stalin, or Obama, is primarily and exclusively interested in safeguarding and maintaining its monopoly on political power. Imposing a “hate speech” criteria is merely another way for the establishment to make sure there is no challenge to its hegemonic power.

This article was posted: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 at 3:39 pm

Dem. Rep.: I Can Call Clarence Thomas An “Uncle Tom” Because I’m Black, And It’s True.

Dem. Rep.: I Can Call Clarence Thomas An “Uncle Tom” Because I’m Black, And It’s True.

Welcome to the Democratic Party: All racism, all the time …

Rep. Bennie Thompson, (D-Miss.) doubled-down on his remark that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was an “Uncle Tom” because he is one. And he can say that because he’s black.

Where does the Democratic Party get these people from?

Here’s the interview between Bash and Thompson:

Bash: When you said Clarence Thomas was an “Uncle Tom,” what did you mean by that?

Thompson: ”Well if you look at his decisions on the court, they have been adverse to the minority community, and the people I represent have a real issue with an African American not being sensible to those issues.”

Bash: Isn’t that a racially charged term?

Thompson: ”For some it is, but to others it’s the truth.”

Bash: Because looking at that and hearing that kind of language, that certainly wouldn’t be appropriate if it was coming from somebody who was white.

Thompson: ”But I’m black.”

Bash: That makes it OK?

Thompson: ”I mean, you’re asking me the question, and I’m giving you a response. The people that I represent, for the most part, have a real issue with those decisions–voter ID, affirmative action, Affordable Care Act–all those issues are very important and for someone in the court who’s African American and not sensitive to that is a real problem.”

Bash: The other thing you were talking about is the fact that you believe some of the opposition, maybe even much of the opposition, to the president is because of the color of his skin.

Thompson: “Well, I’ve been here a long time. I’ve seen a lot of issues come before Congress. I’ve never seen the venom put forth on another candidate or a president like I’ve seen with this president and that’s my opinion.”

Bash: Are there specific things that people have said that are racially tinged that make you say that, or are you reading the tea leaves of what’s going on?

Thompson: ”I’ve seen quite a few State of the Union messages, I’ve never heard a president called a liar in a State of the Union message.”

Bash: You think Congressman Joe Wilson was race based?

Thompson: ”Well, I’ve never heard it before, it was a stupid decision…statement, but it has no real bearing.”

Bash: last question, just broadly…Where do you think the Republican Party is right now on issues of race? You have younger people who are trying to reach out to the African American community. Do you see things changing?

Thompson: “You always see a change when you see the policies change, when you see programs that have been beneficial to the survival to African Americans in this country being cut, whether it’s Head Start, nutrition programs, educational programs, job training programs. It’s hard to demonstrate that you care about people when the programs that they hold closest to their survival are being put on the chopping block.”

Bash: Were Mitch McConnell’s comments were racist?

Thompson: ”It had nothing to with that. The comments are insensitive. To say to a president that you’re going to oppose anything that he puts out there is just totally…”

Bash: You think it was race based?

Thompson: ”Well I’ve never heard him say it to any other president.”