The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.
Showing posts with label Jason Chaffetz. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jason Chaffetz. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 17, 2018

A New GOP Sect; Watch It Grow




Image may contain: outdoor

"Identity Europa"

Since we spend moderate amounts of time reporting on growing racism and white nationalism at the core of the GOP, it is also important to note and report on new fissures. We are speaking of white nationalist (racist) offspring which feels it has something in common with the GOP.

Of even more importance, we do not find riposte actions from the GOP. Retort actions which would send a message to the white nationalist they are not welcome in the party. In the absence of such, we can only assume these movements are welcomed in the GOP.
A new hate group wants to take over the GOP https://www.msnbc.com/velshi-ruhle/watch/a-new-hate-group-wants-to-take-over-the-gop-1346500163789 via @msnbc
Is there any reason for more verbiage?  How about that GOP vote?

Utter racism follows. 

Former US Congressman (R-UT)








And here is how it ends.

StumbleUpon

Sunday, October 4, 2015

Fiorina's Winning Campaign Debate Performance Included An Utter Lie! (Ring of Fire Radio)



Everyone knows politicians lie. They lie exponentially as they campaign for office, especially during televised debates. Debate strategy is not to put forth positions that ping the opponent (all sixteen). The key to winning the GOP debate is to garner aghast and applause for oratory. An easy task if the audience is comprised of conservatives (with ample financial wherewithal). It also doesn't seem to matter if said oratory has any basis in fact. Factually, the first two GOP debates have been so laced with WWE like entertainment (and utter international machismo from Rubio) seeking a singular truism would be fruitless. As fruitless as panning for gold in the Florida Everglades.

Other than Donald Trump's maniacal railings in the first debate, and Ben Carson's nuttiness in the second debate, Carly Fiorina garnered the most aghast and applause after insisting on inserting an utter prep-planned lie.

Ring of Fire Radio (KJ McElrath)

Fiorina KNEW the Video was a Miscarriage, not an Abortion: Lied in Front of 23 Million Viewers

By now, half of the people in the country have either seen or heard about the infamous video clip, depicting a live fetus, approximately 18 weeks old, laying and struggling on a stainless steel table after allegedly having been aborted. The video was released by anti-abortion activist Gregg Cunningham. However, when interviewed by Time magazine, Cunningham refused to identify when or where the video was made or who filmed the scene. Claiming that his organization, the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, enters into “confidentiality agreements” in order to acquire the videos. 
During the second GOP debate a few weeks ago, Fiorina said, “I dare Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama to watch these tapes…watch a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.” Significantly, Cunningham would neither “confirm nor deny” whether or not the video was filmed at a Planned Parenthood clinic. He nonetheless stated that he was “confident” that the procedure shown was an abortion. 
It turns out that it was nothing of the kind. A few hours following the video’s publication online, medical experts pointed out that it is virtually impossible to resuscitate a baby younger than 23 weeks. One doctor pointed out that “the chance of survival below [23 weeks] is simply so remote that application of aggressive neonatal resuscitation and intensive care would be not only futile, but cruel.” 
What happened is that one of Cunningham’s fellow activists, David Daleiden, had taken the raw footage, then used a voice-over from an entirely different procedure in which fetal tissue was being harvested for medical research. That voice-over had nothing to do with the events in the video clip, which by now, is known to be of a miscarriage – not an abortion. 
Caught with his pants down, Daleiden admitted that it was a miscarriage – but told CNN that it “didn’t matter” – as long as it proves his point. Egregiously, Daleiden did not have the distraught mother’s permission to film the event or use it. “We used it to illustrate exactly the kind of late-second trimester baby…fetus that we’re talking about in these cases of organ harvesting.” 
In other words, Daleiden, Cunningham and the rest are perfectly willing to present blatant fabrications in order to advance their agenda. Furthermore, Fiorina knew that the video was misleading and depicted a miscarriage rather than an abortion. Nonetheless, she was also willing to spout lies and distortions in order to pander to the base she believes will support her. 
It is typical of the right-wing religious nut jobs who don’t give a tinker’s damn about the child once he or she is born. When they are caught in a lie and attempt to cover up the truth, they simply respond that it’s not relevant. It’s not the only example of this kind of behavior. Recently, GOP Representative Jason Chaffetz of Utah was called out by Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards in front of the House Oversight Committee when he brought out a chart supposedly demonstrating that the number of abortions performed at PPH clinics was on the rise. He claimed the chart was taken from PPH’s own annual reports. It was actually from another anti-choice group, Americans United for Life – and the chart was completely misleading. 
Fiorina and the rest of the sex-obsessed theocrats can rant all they like. The bottom line is, revelations about this infamous video is further destroying the right-wing’s credibility. They’re even alienating their pro-life supporters.


About the Author
KJ McElrath
K.J. McElrath is a former history and social studies teacher who has long maintained a keen interest in legal and social issues.
StumbleUpon

Sunday, January 5, 2014

Conservatives Reject New York Times Report! The Horror On The Right


giveusliberty1776.blogspot.com


"Give US Liberty!"

The Right wants the liberty to frame the Benghazi attack on the US Consulate and killing of four Americans in their "likeness."  

Is there any level of low conservatives will not stoop to facilitated that they perceive as politically expedient?  

For sake of discussion, let's clarity a few points via a set of questions.  

Have you heard or read anyone or any entity (media, pundits, surrogates, et al) speak of or any comment about denial of congressional funding for additional US Embassy security?  
I. GOP Rep: I 'Absolutely' Voted To Cut Funding For Embassy Security .. 
II. Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Securit

Are you aware Ambassador Stevens denied additional security twice over the yeas proceeding his death?
I. Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security ... 
II. The GOP's embassy security problem | MSNBC 
III. CNN Fact Check: What about the security in Benghazi? - CNN.com

Who is responsible for worldwide US Embassy Security? The responsibility is shared between the host country and the US State Department. PBS explored issues related to embassy security In a September 2012, four months after the tragic killings in May of that year.  (bold text added by The Pardu)
Who's responsible for security at an embassy -- the host country or the embassy itself?There's a dual responsibility. Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the host country is responsible for security of embassies. However, experience has taught the Americans that they can't rely on the host country to do that. They've experienced big losses in places like Kuwait, and Beirut a couple of times, even in Islamabad, Pakistan, when it was burnt to the ground. So they've learned they need to establish their own security bureaucracy to take care of that, and the Diplomatic Security Service (or law enforcement arm of the State Department) came into being in the mid-1980s. 
What can be done to step up security at U.S. embassies?One of the things you can do is draw down on personnel, which is what they did in Libya. They had an ordered departure, where they had nonessential personnel, family members and dependents evacuated from the country. The other thing is to draw down American personnel from vulnerable facilities like Benghazi and leave the local personnel in charge of the facility to conduct business because they are less of a target. They can increase the local police and military presence outside the perimeter. They can also bring in additional Marines like they have done now in Tripoli. 
Which embassies have a Marine presence?It's usually at the larger facilities, like Sanaa, Yemen, and Cairo, Egypt. At the smaller consulates and sometimes at smaller embassies, you don't have Marines stationed there. It depends on the post, the number of Americans there and the amount of classified information that needs to be protected. And sometimes even the political sensibilities of the country. 
Which embassies are most at risk of attacks?The State Department looks at that carefully. When you look at the profile of what happened in Benghazi, it was a recently established facility in a place where the bureaucracy hadn't caught up with it yet. So Congress hadn't appropriated money and the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations didn't have the opportunity to really plan and build a new facility there that meets security specifications. Anytime you have a new embassy in that kind of situation, you don't really have any real security. Places that are new, like in South Sudan, which is a new country, might have issues. A well-established facility in the Middle East can be attacked -- as we've seen in Cairo and Sanaa -- but when it's a well-built, well-fortified structure, it's much more difficult to impact.

Before we move to a piece from The Moderate Voice via RePost US, we want to remind of the recent New York Times investigation report that casts serious and credible doubt of the Benghazi attacks as coordinated and enacted by Al Qaeda. The NYT report is at the core of what follows as The Moderate Voice delves into conservative rejection of the NYT investigation results.


As you read the following, we will be amazed if you come away with any impression beyond an unyielding desire from the Right to retain Benghazi as a political issue. The horrors of the attack and killings provide fodder against President Obama and political leverage to disparage Hillary Clinton should she decide to seek the Democratic nomination in 2016.

Conservative Republicans reject New York Times Benghazi findings (via The Moderate Voice)
The New York Times investigation that found Al Qaeda or a terrorist group was not behind the Benghazi attack is — as predicted here — being rejected by Republicans. As I noted in that post: This most likely won’t change the partisan attacks on…

StumbleUpon