Report: Karl Rove suggests Hillary fall might have caused brain injury

By Mary Katherine Ham
This is just breaking, so I thought I’d serve it up for y’all:

Onstage with Robert Gibbs and CBS correspondent and “Spies Against Armageddon” co-author Dan Raviv, Rove said Republicans should keep the Benghazi issue alive.
He said if Clinton runs for president, voters must be told what happened when she suffered a fall in December 2012.
The official diagnosis was a blood clot. Rove told the conference near LA Thursday, “Thirty days in the hospital? And when she reappears, she’s wearing glasses that are only for people who have traumatic brain injury? We need to know what’s up with that.”

I know everyone’s going to be in a tizzy of righteous indignation over this, and Rove sounds rather blunter about it than I’d be. But the fall was serious, her disappearance lengthy, and information about her condition not exactly readily available. There would be questions about it just as there were always questions about McCain’s health, right? I suppose those questions are seen as unseemly, but I’m not sure they’re out of bounds.

Reality Show President: Inside the White House PR Machine

By Todd Krainin
...."The White House has effectively become a broadcast company," says Michael Shaw, publisher of Bagnewsnotes.com, a site dedicated to the analysis of news images. Shaw explains how strategically composed photos, taken by official White House photographers, travel from social media sites that are controlled by the administration to the front pages of newspapers around the world.
The press publishes the official White House photographs because independent photographers and videographers are increasingly barred from covering the president. This practice has diminished the power of the independent media as an exclusive distribution channel while empowering official photographers such as Pete Souza, who are on the presidential payroll.
And so, says Shaw, the public has been fed a steady diet of whatever kind of president the news cycle demands. When conspiracy theorists questioned Obama's patriotism, we saw images of Obama the American everyman. To celebrate the anniversary of Rosa Parks' 1955 refusal to move to the back of a public bus in Montgomery, Alabama, we saw Obama reenact her famous image. Time and again, we see Obama striking poses out of John F. Kennedy's repertoire. The official White House photographers have created a presidential identity for every conceivable occasion—as long as the image is flattering, and almost always, larger than life.
While presidents have always sought to control their image, Shaw and many in the press say that Obama has restricted media access to an unparalleled degree. As the AP's director of photography wrote last year in The New York Times, the Obama administration has "systematically tried to bypass the media by releasing a sanitized visual record of his activities through official photographs and videos, at the expense of independent journalistic access."
Media boycotts of official photographs have been ineffective in persuading the president to live up to his promise of transparency. It is only by a tradition of public openness, not law, that photographers have enjoyed access to the official business of the president. So we could revert to the practice before the JFK administration, when photographers were mostly kept away from the inner workings of the White House.
Short of generating public outrage, there is little the independent media can do. "Because [the White House] can distribute directly through all these different [new and old media] channels," says Shaw, "there's really not much downside to it, there's not much accountability."

A Selfie-Taking, Hashtagging Teenage Administration

The Obama crowd too often responds to critics and to world affairs like self-absorbed adolescents.

By Eliot A Cohen
....There is a further explanation. Clues may be found in the president's selfie with the attractive Danish prime minister at the memorial service for Nelson Mandela in December; in State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki in March cheerily holding up a sign with the Twitter hashtag #UnitedForUkraine while giving a thumbs up; or Michelle Obama looking glum last week, holding up another Twitter sign: #BringBackOurGirls. It can be found in the president's petulance in recently saying that if you do not support his (in)action in Ukraine you must want to go to war with Russia—when there are plenty of potentially effective steps available that stop well short of violence. It can be heard in the former NSC spokesman, Thomas Vietor, responding on May 1 to a question on Fox News about the deaths of an American ambassador and three other Americans with the line, "Dude, this was like two years ago."
Often, members of the Obama administration speak and, worse, think and act, like a bunch of teenagers. When officials roll their eyes at Vladimir Putin's seizure of Crimea with the line that this is "19th-century behavior," the tone is not that different from a disdainful remark about a hairstyle being "so 1980s." When administration members find themselves judged not on utopian aspirations or the purity of their motives—from offering "hope and change" to stopping global warming—but on their actual accomplishments, they turn sulky. As teenagers will, they throw a few taunts (the president last month said the GOP was offering economic policies that amount to a "stinkburger" or a "meanwich") and stomp off, refusing to exchange a civil word with those of opposing views.
In a searing memoir published in January, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates describes with disdain the trash talk about the Bush administration that characterized meetings in the Obama White House. Like self-obsessed teenagers, the staffers and their superiors seemed to forget that there were other people in the room who might take offense, or merely see the world differently. Teenagers expect to be judged by intentions and promise instead of by accomplishment, and their style can be encouraged by irresponsible adults (see: the Nobel Prize committee) who give awards for perkiness and promise rather than achievement.
If the United States today looks weak, hesitant and in retreat, it is in part because its leaders and their staff do not carry themselves like adults. They may be charming, bright and attractive; they may have the best of intentions; but they do not look serious. They act as though Twitter and clenched teeth or a pout could stop invasions or rescue kidnapped children in Nigeria. They do not sound as if, when saying that some outrage is "unacceptable" or that a dictator "must go," that they represent a government capable of doing something substantial—and, if necessary, violent—if its expectations are not met. And when reality, as it so often does, gets in the way—when, for example, the Syrian regime begins dousing its opponents with chlorine gas, as it has in recent weeks, despite solemn deals and red lines—the administration ignores it, hoping, as teenagers often do, that if they do not acknowledge a screw-up no one else will notice.
The Obama administration is not alone. The teenage temperament infects our politics on both sides of the aisle, not to mention our great universities and leading corporations. The old, adult virtues—gravitas, sobriety, perseverance and constancy—are the virtues that enabled America to stabilize a shattered world in the 1940s, preserve a perilous order despite the Cold War and navigate the conclusion of that conflict. These and other stoic qualities are worth rediscovering, because their dearth among our leaders is leading them, and us and large parts of the globe, into real danger.

Meet The Liberal Network That Orchestrated The Hit On The Benham Brothers

By Alex Pappas
....A number of news outlets credited Right Wing Watch with drawing attention to the Benham’s pro-life, pro-traditional marriage views. But what is Right Wing Watch and who is behind it?
The answer: The anti-Christian conservative effort in Hollywood.
Right Wing Watch is a project of the liberal advocacy group People for the American Way, which started with an assist from the left-wing Tides Foundation (George Soros).
People for the American Way was founded with help from former television Norman Lear, a Hollywood executive producer credited with starting the anti-Christian-right movement in the 1980s.
This left-wing network of groups — and the people who run them — have been connected to past campaigns to silence television personalities who have expressed conservative beliefs on social issues.
The president of People for the American Way is Michael Keegan, a founding member of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD). GLAAD was involved in last year’s unsuccessful effort to permanently remove Phil Robertson from “Duck Dynasty” after his well-publicized comments about gays.
People for the American Way, perhaps ironically, is also a member of the National Coalition Against Censorship — a group that has protested the silencing of people based on their views on homosexuality.
Reached by The Daily Caller on Monday, a People for the American Way spokesman declined to comment on the group’s role in the firing of the Benhams.
But the leader of one group supporting the Benham brothers, Faith Driven Consumer, criticized the left’s crusade against them.
“There is a general secular agenda — the strongest voice of which currently is the LGBT agenda — that is so adamantly pushing their worldview that it attempts to steamroll any worldview that is in opposition to it,” Chris Stone, the founder of Faith Driven Consumer, said in an interview with TheDC on Monday.
Faith Driven Consumer battled GLAAD during its anti-Duck Dynasty effort last year. It has now launched an effort in support of the Benham brothers called FlipThisDecision.com.
More than 15,000 people have signed their petition demanding HGTV reverse its decision, he said. Stone acknowledged that the Benham brothers might end up on another channel.
“There seems to be a number of people, a number of networks, that are expressing interest in picking up the show,” he said.
This is how HGTV described the proposed Benham Brothers show last month: “Flip It Forward will feature real estate entrepreneurs and dads, David Benham and Jason Benham, as they leverage their good-natured sibling rivalry to help families find a fixer-upper and transform it into the dream home they never thought they could afford.”
The show was not expected to be about politics.

Stephen A: Don’t Force Everybody To Celebrate Michael Sam Kiss

By Andrew Johnson
ESPN commentator Stephen A. Smith took serious issue Monday with the Miami Dolphins’ decision to punish safety Don Jones for his reaction to Michael Sam’s kiss with his boyfriend.
....Smith, a popular, unsmiling sports analyst widely known as “Stephen A.,” criticized the punishment as well as the public backlash Jones received. While he repeatedly indicated his support for same-sex marriage and gay rights, Smith called on Sam’s supporters to practice the tolerance they preach.
“It’s a very, very dangerous thing when people see something and they have a problem with what they’re seeing and they express themselves, and ultimately they’re fined,” he said on ESPN2’s First Take on Monday. “You can say they’re wrong, you could be the Miami Dolphins and talk to them, but to fine them and prohibit them from team activities — that’s getting a bit dicey now.”
Smith also suggested the public insistence on cheering for Sam’s special relationship and the excesses of the display may help explain Jones’s reaction. “I would say the same thing I would say to a heterosexual couple: Get a room,” he remarked, cautioning that he had only had the clip described to him by others. He noted that a local store owner had confronted him prior to Monday’s show, complaining that ESPN “constantly” played the clip. Smith suggested that the sports network “kind of instigated” such reactions.
Smith pointed out that many viewers may have had personal, moral, or faith-based issues with the kiss, and he suggested the gay community and its supporters to be patient and respectful of those people’s views, just as they expect their views to be respected. Similarly, as gays look for further inclusion in society, they have to realize “that doesn’t mean everybody is going to like you.”
Smith explained that as consensus evolves and changes, people have to be considerate with those who don’t feel like joining in the celebration of moments like Sam’s kiss:

We’re learning these things as we go along. In the process of learning it, Skip, at the same time when somebody is willing to stand up and say, “Excuse me, I was watching the NFL draft — I didn’t expect to see that, it just shocked me. Oh, and by the way, it was shown over and over and over again, and I wasn’t ready for that,” is that wrong? Is that a crime? Is that something that warrants a fine, and being ostracized from team activities until training camp?
I’m saying, Wait a minute; the gay community talks about and alludes to tolerance and an elevated level of understanding. There is no question as a nation we have made a concerted effort to aim in that direction. . . If somebody else ain’t ready for that, and all they’re say is, ‘Wow, I didn’t expect to see that while I’m watching the NFL draft.’ Really, that’s a problem? That’s my point.

7 Filthy Rich Liberals Railing Against 'The Rich' In Quotes

By John Hawkins
One of the biggest myths in politics is that Republicans are the "party of the rich."
If only....then the rich might be voting for us and pouring massive money into the Republican Party.
But, but, but...KOCH BROTHERS! Yes, the evil, terrible, awful Koch Brothers who live in Harry Reid's head for free and eat the dreams of Occupy protesters. In actuality, those guys are only the 59th biggest donors in American politics. Just the six biggest union donors in American politics combined give 15 times more money than the Koch brothers have – and, of course, that money went almost exclusively to Democrats.
The rich vote Democrat as well. Eight of the ten richest congressional districts in America are represented by Democrats. Eight of the ten richest counties in America also voted for Obama.
Why?
Crony socialism.
Democrats talk about "change," but they're the party of stagnation. Their welfare policies keep the poor mired in poverty, crush the middle class and keep them from becoming wealthy, while doing little to impact the richest Americans. If you're Warren Buffet or George Soros, Democrat policies don't hurt you, but they do hamstring the next generation of entrepreneurs and keep them from ever competing with you. In other words, it's a win/win for rich liberals.
So, how does the party of George Soros co-exist with the Occupy Movement?
Easy.
Democrats go to $32,000 a plate fund raisers where they plan out their legislative agenda with plutocrats over caviar and truffles and then they turn around and denounce "the rich." The rich Democrats line their pockets, their Republican-voting middle class competitors get blocked off from the high life, and the Occupy Crowd is content because it heard what it wants to hear. Liberal celebrities who've earned more acting than they could spend in ten lifetimes trash Republicans as the "party of the rich" and then vote for the party that carves out special tax benefits for them. It's all a huge con game.
Meanwhile, Republicans get cast as the "party of the wealthy" because we believe in the free market, think low taxes produce a strong economy and because we agreed with Ronald Reagan when he said, "We’re the party that wants to see an America in which people can still get rich."
You don't think it's true? You don't think the liberals are engaged in a huge scam designed to pull the wool over the eyes of gullible socialists and low information voters who don't know any better? Well then, maybe you'll change your mind after seeing all these quotes from filthy rich liberals railing against "the rich."

1) "I first would allow the guilty bankers to pay… back anything over 100 million in personal wealth because I believe in a maximum wage of 100 million dollars and if they’re unable to live on that amount then they should go to the reeducation camps, and if that doesn’t help, then be beheaded." -- Roseanne Barr. Net Worth: 80 Million.

2) "This book is about how Washington is rigged to work for those who can hire armies of lobbyists and lawyers and make sure that everything that they want gets done in Washington. The game is rigged to work for those who already have money and power." -- Elizabeth Warren. Net Worth: 14.5 million.

3) "If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet." -- Barack Obama. Net Worth: 11.8 million

4) "These billionaire oil tycoons (the Koch brothers) are certainly experts at contributing to climate change. That's what they do very well. They are one of the main causes of this." -- Harry Reid from the senate floor. Net worth: 5 million

5) "What more do they want? They have a number of homes, the bigger the yacht, da da da da da, the taller the mast, the whole thing. They have museum quality art. They want immortality. (laughter) They want so much money that their names are all, for prestige they could never get any other way, they could buy with endless money. Because what else could you possibly want?" -- Nancy Pelosi. Net worth: 26.43 million

6) "How in the world do you, Mitt Romney, justify making more in one day than the median American family makes in a year while paying the effective tax rate of the guy who has to scan your shoes in the airport?" -- Jon Stewart. Net worth: 80 million.

7) "It's time to make the rich pay. Tax them! How much? Not enough! How much? Still not enough! They are thieves. They are gangsters. They are kleptomaniacs. They have tried to take our democracy and turn it into an hypocrisy." -- Michael Moore. Net Worth: 50 Million.

Tim Geithner is no hero, no matter how many time he says that he is one.

By Nick Sorrentino
TARP was the absolute height of crony capitalism. Many of the big banks should have gone down, but in the midst of a “Blackberry panic” – as David Stockman puts it – the masters of the masters of the universe lost sight of reality and the nature of markets. Yes, Goldman Sachs would have gone down. But this would have been a GOOD THING. The blood which should have filled the the streets of Downtown Manhattan would have washed the unsustainable leverage clean from the system (for a while.) Giants are meant to fall. It would have been good for the economy.
It would have been terrible for Wall Street of course. Banks, livelihoods, careers, and reputations hung in the balance that fall of 2008. For the bankers the world was indeed ending. So in a selfish act of desperation they forced the American public to save them.
Now Tim Geithner is trying to make it out like TARP wasn’t an act of theft. That TARP was in America’s best interest. That though the banks got bailed out while average Americans were being turned out into the street by the very banks which got bailed out, and even IF TARP were a grossly unjust measure, the American people made a “profit” on their investment. So we should thank him. Geithner sites a return of 1% annualized over 5 years as a good return. Given even the artificially modest official rate of inflation as calculated by the Fed that’s still a loss of 5% in real terms.
But the American people “made billions” Geithner says.
In addition to this bit of obfuscation he reportedly never discusses the opportunity costs of intervening as he and his compadres did in the marketplace. Could we actually be 3 years into a non-Fed driven rally (perhaps the first of my lifetime) at this point without all the hocus pocus? I think there’s a good chance that we would have been if we had just let the market work as it was supposed to. But will never know now.
Geithner’s whole premise is that he flushed the market mechanism down the toilet for good reason. That without the interventions which saved his banker friends the world would have imploded. He’s still trying to sell this.
But he’s wrong. Now I felt the pain of the Crash first hand. But in the back of my mind I was thinking – as painful as it is now we will soon be looking at the chance of a lifetime in terms of buying stocks and real estate. Let things settle out. get the insane leverage out of the system and then pick up a house and some stocks while they are relatively inexpensive. This is how great fortunes are made. Lord Templeton for instance made much of his money in the wake of World War II this way.
But Geithner, by intervening with Bernanke worked to protect those who already had their fortunes at the cost of everyone else. The Templeton moment, the period where the market had gotten rid of most of its fat was never allowed to happen. So too did we lose out on the organic (not Fed driven) expansion in the wake of the bloodletting during which many people who were not invested could also have done well.
No Geithner took care of the banks and the crew within the banks. It is what he was hired to do I guess.

(From Reason.com)
The return is not impressive. Geithner and the Times tend to talk about the profits—”$32 billion,” “a couple hundred billion dollars”—without mentioning the amount spent or the amount of time it was invested. The same ProPublicascorecard that shows the profit—$30.4 billion, not the $32 billion the Times claims—says $611.2 billion has gone out the door. A $30 billion return on $611 billion is a return of about 5 percent total over five years. That’s pathetic during a five-year period in which the total U.S. stock market has been returning about 19.5 percent a year, or a compounded total return of about 150 percent. Even if you use the “$179 billion” or “couple hundred billion,” figure, if it is the return over 15 years on a $611 billion outlay, it’s not exactly a spectacular success.
It ignores what the money could have done in private hands.If you divide that $611 billion among the 140 million or so individual income tax filers who were taxed or indebted to pay for the outlay, it works out to about $4,360 for each tax filer. Who knows what that money could have produced if it were spent, saved, or invested by individuals rather than by Geithner, Henry Paulson, or Ben Bernanke?

Why the Left Doesn't Care about Bad Economic News

By Dennis Prager
Most conservatives, and just about all independents, have a huge misperception of the left. They think that the gulf between conservatism and leftism is primarily about means, not goals.
This perception is wrong. It is their goals that are irreconcilable. And until conservatives, independents and the Republican Party understand this, it will not be possible to defeat the left.
Take economic indicators. Most conservatives talk and act as if bad economic news disturbs the left as much as it disturbs them. It doesn't.
Almost everywhere the left is in control -- in California, for example -- the economic news is awful. But this has no effect on the ruling Democrats, the Los Angeles Times editorial page, New York Times economics columnist Paul Krugman or others on the left.
....They don't care because the left is not interested in prosperity; the left is interested in inequality and in the environment. Furthermore, the worse the economic situation, the more voters are likely to vote Democrat. The worse the economic situation, the greater the number of people receiving government assistance; the greater the number of people receiving government assistance, the greater the number of people who will vote Democrat.
Therefore, both philosophically and politically, the left has no reason to be troubled by bad economic news. And it isn't. It is troubled by inequality and carbon emissions.

Democrats: Koch Brothers to Blame for Every Major Problem in the World

By Andrew Stiles
Democrats are obsessed with libertarian philanthropists Charles and David Koch. They seem convinced that the brothers are the embodiment of pure evil.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) has accused them of being “un-American” from the floor of the United States Senate and has suggested that they are to blame for basically every bad thing that has ever happened, ever.
In the past several weeks, Democrats have blamed the Koch brothers for:
Russia’s Annexation of Crimea
Reid suggested that the events in Crimea may have “unfolded differently” if not for Republican “obstruction” on an aid package for Ukraine. Why were Republicans obstructing? “In order to protect the Koch brothers and billionaires like them,” Reid said.
Benghazi Scandal
Reid’s statement in response to House Speaker John Boehner’s (R., Ohio) decision to establish a select committee to investigate the Benghazi attacks mentioned the Kochs in the second sentence. The new committee was “political circus” concocted by Republicans, who are only interested in “protecting the Koch brothers,” Reid said.
Climate Change
Reid said the “multizillionaire” Koch brothers are the “main cause” of climate. “Not a cause,” Reid said. “The main cause.”
The Veterans Affairs Scandal
Senator Bernie Sanders (Socialist, Vt.), a favorite to win the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, suggested that the Koch brothers were responsible for the emerging scandal at the Department of Veterans Affairs.
“Right now, as we speak, a concerted effort to undermine the VA,” Sanders said. “What are the problems? The problems are, is, that all of these are large, governmental institutions and you have folks out there now, Koch Brothers and others, who want to radically change the nature of society, and either make major cuts in all of these institutions, or maybe do away with them entirely.”
The Dangerous Proliferation of Hospitals in America
In March, liberal groups and local Democratic politicians protested outside a New York City hospital that received a $100 million donation from David Koch. Seriously, that happened.

Liberal Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Valise

By Debbie Hallberg

....With this in mind, I have created a knapsack of invisible items that make up liberal privilege – what I call the “invisible valise,” as it’s a little bit bigger and sturdier than a knapsack. Don’t expect the phrase “liberal privilege” to catch on right away, but we can all dream about the day when students feel comfortable telling their peers, “Check your liberal privilege.”

I can, if I wish, arrange to be in the company of people who think exactly like me most of the time.

I can avoid spending time with people who think differently from me and whom I was trained to revile.

On the campus of almost any college or university, I can be pretty sure of being in the political majority, and I don’t have to worry about being singled out or ridiculed because of my views.

I can freely express my opinions on virtually any political issue, and I don’t have to worry about whether anything I say will be deemed offensive or uncomfortable to anyone around me.

I can remain ignorant of the thoughts, teachings, and philosophy of 50% of the country without paying any penalty for such ignorance.

I can turn on the television news or view the front page of almost any newspaper and see people of my political persuasion widely represented.

I can easily buy books, newspapers, and magazines featuring people who think like me and that rarely feature examples of my political opponents.

I can be comfortable ignoring another person’s voice in a group in which he or she is the sole representative of an opposing political ideology.

When I hear discussions about my cultural values, I can be pretty sure that the comments will be positive and even fawning, and I don’t have to worry that my values and cultural heritage will be degraded and disrespected.

Every time I meet someone new or attend a social gathering, I need not fear what will happen if my political identity becomes known.

I can place political banners, bumper stickers, or posters in my car or house and not have to worry about vandalism or theft, or having someone flip the finger or shout at me.

If I use vile language to criticize my political opponents and even lie about them, I can be pretty confident I will not suffer any negative consequences. I may, in fact, become a media hero.

I can feel confident that my children will not be given a bad grade or singled out by teachers because of their political identity.

I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that reflect our family’s ideology and that ignore all other points of view.

I do not have to educate my children to be aware of the systemic bigotry and ridicule they face if their political identity becomes public.

My children are given texts and classes that implicitly support our political choices and do not turn my children against those choices.

I can be pretty sure that my children’s teachers and employers will tolerate them if they ﬁt school and workplace norms. My chief worries about them do not concern others’ attitudes toward their political identity.

I do not have to coach my children on how to disagree with teachers and fellow students on any number of topics without inviting snickers, sneers, or derision.

I can send my children to a private school and I don’t have to apologize, explain, or feel embarrassed about this choice.

I can drive an SUV, buy a huge second home, fly around the world on multiple vacations, and not have people question or criticize my huge carbon footprint.

If I am a celebrity or politician, I can hire a bodyguard who carries a gun, and I don’t have to apologize, explain, or feel embarrassed about this choice.

I can speak in public to any political group without putting my political ideology on trial.

I am almost never asked to explain or defend accusations of hypocrisy by people of my political persuasion, and if challenged, I know I can pretty much change the subject.

If someone asks me how I voted, I can be pretty sure that my answer will not elicit grasps, winces, snickers, or guffaws.

I can criticize my government and talk about how much I fear its policies and behavior without being seen as an “extremist.”

If I want to apply for tax-exempt status for a political group I formed, I can be pretty sure I will be approved, without any delays or problems.

If the IRS audits my tax return, I can be sure I haven’t been singled out because of my political ideology.

I can donate to almost any political cause without having to fear losing my job or my business, being boycotted, having my home picketed, or having my name disparaged on the nightly news.

I can go home from most organizational meetings, feeling somewhat tied in, rather than isolated, out of place, outnumbered, unheard, held at a distance, or ridiculed.

I can be pretty sure that an argument with a colleague of an opposing political ideology is more likely to jeopardize her/his chances for advancement than mine.

I know that I can get a majority of my colleagues to join me in a boycott, protest, or letter-writing campaign against any political opponent, and I don’t have to worry about negative repercussions.

I can be pretty sure that if I’m not hired for a job, it wasn’t because of my politics.

I can post political rants on Twitter and Facebook and not have to worry about whether they will hurt my employment or professional status.

My culture gives me little fear about ignoring the perspectives of people who disagree with me.

I am not automatically assumed to be racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-immigrant, or anti-anything else.

I can talk about racism without being seen as patronizing or phony, or fearing that anything I say will be labeled racist.

I can usually get the media on my side, without having to bend over backwards to get fair coverage or worrying about being ambushed or stabbed in the back.

I don’t have to worry excessively about losing a friend or alienating a colleague because of my political beliefs.

I can be pretty sure of finding people in my workplace who will be willing to talk with me and advise me about my next steps and would not hold me back because of my politics.

I can think over many options – social, political, imaginative, or professional – without wondering whether a person of my political ideology would be accepted or allowed to do what I want to do.

I can speak out at a meeting or disagree with a proposal without having people dismiss me, ignore me, or attack me on a personal level.

I can be sure that if I need legal or professional help, I won’t have to keep my political identity a secret.

I can feel pretty confident I will never have to experience feelings of rejection owing to my political ideology.

If I have low credibility as a leader, I can be sure that my political identity is not the problem.

I can easily find academic courses and institutions that give attention only to people of my political persuasion.

I can expect figurative language and imagery in all of the arts to testify to experiences of my political identity, and I don’t have to worry about my political identity being targeted for attack, ridicule, or outright distortion.

I can be pretty sure of never having my point of view seriously challenged and never having to defend my views in any systematic, thoughtful way.

I can make jokes about political opponents freely and, even if the jokes aren’t especially funny, know that people will smile and nod in agreement.

I have no difficulty finding associations or groups where people approve of my politics.

I will feel welcomed and “normal” in the usual walks of public life, institutional and social.

Whitewashing Boko Haram

by Dr. Sebastian Gorka
Boko Haram was created soon after the 9/11 attacks in 2002. One would think that twelve years would be enough time to come to understand a terrorist organization of the magnitude of Boko Haram; apparently not for the left-wing media and the administration.
Monday morning, just as video was being released worldwide by the terrorist group showing that the Christian girls they have kidnapped have been converted to Islam, the Daily Beast was reporting that the group is misunderstood and that its actions have nothing to do with the teachings of Mohammad. The author, Dean Obidallah, writes that it is "grotesquely irresponsible of the media" to suggest that Boko Haram has anything to do with Islam.
Given that this is the same Dean Obeidallah who used a TV appearance to publicly deride Mitt Romney's family for adopting a black child, it is tempting to dismiss the whole episode as hack journalism. Unfortunately, there is however a pattern to this "White Wash," one that is linked to the White House and the administration's policy on Boko Haram.
First there was the petition by MoveOn.org to prevent the US government from listing Boko Haram as a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization. Then there were the efforts by Hillary Clinton's State Department to do to same two years ago, which is highly significant, since in US law it is the State Department that makes the determination as to whether or not a given group should be formally given terrorist status.
Breitbart has reported how the removal of any reference to religion or Islam within US counterterrorism policy is a product of abstruse academic theories that place the blame for terrorism upon the governments that "oppress" the people and upon US foreign policy. This stretches the concept of victimhood to such a degree that the terrorist is no longer responsible for the violence he or she perpetrates, since the environment "forced" them to kill. Religion therefore has to be irrelevant according to this conceptualization which blames colonial US policies or the behavior of our allies. Incredibly this theory led to the purging and censorship by the White House of all counterterrorism training materials used by the DoD and DoJ in 2011. Mention of Islam when discussing al Qaeda or its affiliates became haram (that's "forbidden" to you infidels out there).
The topic of who and what Boko Haram is should, of course, be kept out of the hands of politicians and their partisan media allies. Stephen Ulph is one of the world's foremost experts on international terrorism, especially of the Islamist kind. The former editor of JANES Terrorism Security Monitor and founding editor of JANES Islamic Affairs Analyst, he was commissioned to write an 80-page analysis of Boko Haram for the Westminster Institite. Ulph goes to the source. Here is Boko Haram's spokesman Abu Qaqa on who they are and what they want:

We wish to reiterate that our crusade is not for personal gain; it is meant to ensure the establishment of an Islamic state by liberating all Muslims from the excesses of the infidels... [T]he bottom line of our struggle is to set the Muslims free from enslavement. We only kill unbelievers.

Should that not be clear enough, Ulph also quotes numerous Boko Haram leaders as well, to include Abubakar Shekau himself:

This work that we are doing is not our work, it is Allah's work, we are doing Allah's work.

Ulph's report is here and a summary can be found here.
So if Boko Haram say they are doing the work of Allah, then that would seem to be definitive. As one survivor of the Holocaust once said when asked what the one true lesson of his experience had been: listen to what people say. When they repeatedly declare you inhuman and to be killed, you shouldn't ignore them.