[h=2]8 conservatives who hated Obama for not releasing Bergdahl — and now hate Obama for freeing him[/h] Updated by Zack Beauchamp on June 5, 2014, 11:45 a.m. ET @zackbeauchamp zack@vox.com
President Obama's deal to secure the release of American POW Bowe Bergdahl from Afghanistan in exchange for the release of five Taliban prisoners from Guantanamo Bay may have set a landspeed record for "fastest descent into a partisan foodfight." The issue has become utterly, totally partisan, with Republicans and conservative media slamming Obama for the move — demonstrated by these hilariously hypocritical tweets by conservatives who had previously attacked Obama for not releasing Bergdahl now attacking him for doing exactly the thing they'd wanted him to do. They're worth highlighting not pick on conservatives, but to illustrate the psychology of partisanship and how it's driving the Bowe Bergdahl debate.
Majority.fm's Matt Binder and LobeLog contributor Derek Davison noticed something funny: just before Bergdahl was released, conservatives on Twitter loved to blast Obama for not freeing Bergdahl. There was even a whole meme on conservative Twitter saying Bergdahl was "abandoned by this administration."
But all of a sudden after Bergdahl was released, these people changed their tune. Here's 8 particularly choice examples that Binder and Davison dug up:
[h=3]1. "Obama had to lay out the red carpet for the terrorists"[/h]
[h=3]2. "Stand him against the wall with Obummer"[/h]
[h=3]3. "#Bergdahl the traitor!"[/h]
[h=3]4. "Where's the petition to hang that traitor?"[/h]
[h=3]5. "Obama should b impeached 4 derelict of duty"[/h]
[h=3]6. "They died because of a traitor #outraged"[/h]
[h=3]7. "US blood on Bowe's hands"[/h]
[h=3]8. "Another example of the Obama terrorist appeasement policy"[/h]
It's not just these eight people. Binder and Davison found tons of them.
It's true that the less savory parts of Bergdahl's story — the accusations that he got US soldiers killed, for instance — came out after his release. But we've known for years that Bergdahl had beliefs that could be describe as anti-American, and was very likely a deserter. Michael Hastings' blockbuster Rolling Stone story on just these points came out in June 2012. Anyone who was really following the Bergdahl saga wouldn't be surprised by much of what's been discussed since its release.
The point is that these people either didn't care about those details until the case became a partisan issue, or weren't actually following the Bergdahl issue. They just latched onto an ideologically convenient way to bash Obama. You think the president hates the troops — why hasn't he brought our captured man home? You think Obama is secretly anti-American — why did he release Taliban leaders to free a traitor?
Now, you can find people saying just about anything if you search long enough on Twitter. But these tweets perfectly demonstrate the larger principle that politics makes you stupid. A raft of social science research finds that people seek out facts that prove their political worldview correct, and ignore or reject the ones that challenge it. It's so bad that, in experiments, people reject the right answers to math problems when their conclusion is ideologically threatening.
From the get-go, the POW's release was politicized
So it is with Bergdahl, and beyond just these tweets. From the get-go, the POW's release was politicized: the White House held a Rose Garden ceremony announcing his release. That's about as close to a literal victory lap as you could get.
As a consequence, the issue became an important part of each political tribe's defining identity. If you're a liberal, you had to believe that Obama did the right thing freeing Bergdahl. If you're a conservative, you needed to believe that Obama screwed up.
So immediately, two sets of facts emerged. As the collected tweets prove, people just totally transformed their beliefs about Bergdahl to fit the more politically convenient conclusion. As a consequence, the legitimate issues about his release — whether Obama broke the law, for instance — are in danger of being ignored.
President Obama's deal to secure the release of American POW Bowe Bergdahl from Afghanistan in exchange for the release of five Taliban prisoners from Guantanamo Bay may have set a landspeed record for "fastest descent into a partisan foodfight." The issue has become utterly, totally partisan, with Republicans and conservative media slamming Obama for the move — demonstrated by these hilariously hypocritical tweets by conservatives who had previously attacked Obama for not releasing Bergdahl now attacking him for doing exactly the thing they'd wanted him to do. They're worth highlighting not pick on conservatives, but to illustrate the psychology of partisanship and how it's driving the Bowe Bergdahl debate.
Majority.fm's Matt Binder and LobeLog contributor Derek Davison noticed something funny: just before Bergdahl was released, conservatives on Twitter loved to blast Obama for not freeing Bergdahl. There was even a whole meme on conservative Twitter saying Bergdahl was "abandoned by this administration."
But all of a sudden after Bergdahl was released, these people changed their tune. Here's 8 particularly choice examples that Binder and Davison dug up:
[h=3]1. "Obama had to lay out the red carpet for the terrorists"[/h]
[h=3]2. "Stand him against the wall with Obummer"[/h]
[h=3]3. "#Bergdahl the traitor!"[/h]
[h=3]4. "Where's the petition to hang that traitor?"[/h]
[h=3]5. "Obama should b impeached 4 derelict of duty"[/h]
[h=3]6. "They died because of a traitor #outraged"[/h]
Please support BOWE BERGDAHL! He is a #POW and we really need to get him HOME! #SupportBowe #BringBoweHome #SOT http://t.co/8vJxovhS
— The Consrvative Diva (@ConsrvativeDiva) June 18, 2012
— The Consrvative Diva (@ConsrvativeDiva) June 18, 2012
[h=3]7. "US blood on Bowe's hands"[/h]
[h=3]8. "Another example of the Obama terrorist appeasement policy"[/h]
Why has Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl been left behind and practically forgotten by the Obama administration?
— Thomas (@lemontree46) January 16, 2014
— Thomas (@lemontree46) January 16, 2014
It's not just these eight people. Binder and Davison found tons of them.
It's true that the less savory parts of Bergdahl's story — the accusations that he got US soldiers killed, for instance — came out after his release. But we've known for years that Bergdahl had beliefs that could be describe as anti-American, and was very likely a deserter. Michael Hastings' blockbuster Rolling Stone story on just these points came out in June 2012. Anyone who was really following the Bergdahl saga wouldn't be surprised by much of what's been discussed since its release.
The point is that these people either didn't care about those details until the case became a partisan issue, or weren't actually following the Bergdahl issue. They just latched onto an ideologically convenient way to bash Obama. You think the president hates the troops — why hasn't he brought our captured man home? You think Obama is secretly anti-American — why did he release Taliban leaders to free a traitor?
Now, you can find people saying just about anything if you search long enough on Twitter. But these tweets perfectly demonstrate the larger principle that politics makes you stupid. A raft of social science research finds that people seek out facts that prove their political worldview correct, and ignore or reject the ones that challenge it. It's so bad that, in experiments, people reject the right answers to math problems when their conclusion is ideologically threatening.
From the get-go, the POW's release was politicized
So it is with Bergdahl, and beyond just these tweets. From the get-go, the POW's release was politicized: the White House held a Rose Garden ceremony announcing his release. That's about as close to a literal victory lap as you could get.
As a consequence, the issue became an important part of each political tribe's defining identity. If you're a liberal, you had to believe that Obama did the right thing freeing Bergdahl. If you're a conservative, you needed to believe that Obama screwed up.
So immediately, two sets of facts emerged. As the collected tweets prove, people just totally transformed their beliefs about Bergdahl to fit the more politically convenient conclusion. As a consequence, the legitimate issues about his release — whether Obama broke the law, for instance — are in danger of being ignored.
[h=1]More on Bergdahl, including my brush with the big time[/h] Posted on June 6, 2014 by DWD
Hey. Hi. How are you? What, me? Anything new? Well, you know, nothing big. I mean, I did get cited by the big-time media for my insightful deeply silly writing retweeting of ridiculous conservatives, if you’re into that sort of thing:
Here’s the thing: nutpicking on Twitter is funny, but it is still nutpicking. Still, these Twitter cases are echoing, or (more likely) being echoed by, national Republican leadership, many of whom have been complaining that the Obama administration wasn’t doing enough to get Bergdahl out, some of whom even called on the administration to do everything it could to secure Bergdahl’s release, who are now loudly complaining about what the administration actually did. The transmogrification of Duncan Hunter’s position on Bergdahl is particularly jarring (maybe not as jarring as John McCain’s, but then you expect McCain to be on both sides of something like this); he’s gone from writing nasty letters to Fox News of all places, complaining that they were unfairly suggesting that Bergdahl was a deserter, to calling Bergdahl a deserter himself.
I get that wanting something in the abstract is different from approving of it after it’s actually been done for real, but when you say that everything should be done and then complain about what actually gets done, you’re a hypocrite. When you go in a matter of weeks or even days from “Obama is a criminal for leaving Bowe Bergdahl behind” to “Obama is a criminal for cutting a deal with the Taliban to free Bowe Bergdahl,” then you’re just using Bergdahl as a political club. When you go, again in some cases in a matter of days, from “Free hero POW Bowe Bergdahl” to “Bowe Bergdahl is a traitor deserter who should be shot,” then you’re just careening and people should probably slowly back away from you before bad things happen. Because literally nothing has changed between “then” and “now” for these folks apart from the fact that Bergdahl has actually been released. There was always going to have to be an exchange of prisoners to leverage Bergdahl’s release, unless you were of the opinion that we could drone strike him to freedom, or that we could be real nice to the Taliban and they would just be all, “Oh, gosh, you Americans aren’t so bad! Here, take this one American we found a couple of years ago! Merry Christmas!” And the circumstances of Bergdahl’s capture, his alleged desertion, have been an open question for years now.
Rolling Stone and Kevin Drum both have some quick and dirty reality checks on the tidal wave of supposition coming from the right on the Bergdahl case, and the Afghan Analysts Network is doing fantastic in-depth reporting on the whole affair, but what continues to amaze me is the degree to which the media machine has ratcheted up the details of this story over the past week, without any additional facts to fuel it. Take the freed Taliban (please! BOOM!), for example. The five Taliban figures we traded for Bergdahl have, in the course of the past week, gone from “five Taliban figures” to “The Taliban 5,” or “The Taliban Dream Team,” or “Mullah Omar’s board of directors” (I wish I were making this stuff up), or “the hardest of hardcore,” who have “close ties to Osama bin Laden” (if that guy still has close ties to bin Laden, maybe we should just surrender). Has anything actually changed about these five guys, or about what we know about them, over the past week? No. Were any of these guys actually very high-ranking or radicalized or dangerous? It doesn’t appear that they were.
There’s also Bergdahl to consider. As I said above, it’s been public knowledge for years now that Bergdahl had probably abandoned his unit before he was captured. In my humble opinion, that changes nothing; you still get the guy back and then deal with him in your own military justice system. Yet in one week, in the eyes of the American right (and apparently CNN, see below) Bergdahl has gone from suffering POW to deserter and, now, to traitor, without a single new piece of information on which to base that wild shift.
This is not Photoshopped. You are not reading The Onion. (via)
Well, unless you consider “secret documents prepared on the basis of a purported eyewitness account” to which only Fox News has access to be “information.” But, you know, his dad has a long beard and talked funny terrorist talk in the Rose Garden, so all the pieces are falling into place. We’ve also been told that his capture led directly to at least 6 combat deaths during search missions, which, if true, actually makes the case for bringing him back (and making sure those lives weren’t lost for nothing) stronger, but it turns out that might not be quite accurate either. This whole thing is, in a very real sense, Benghazi 2.0, but not in the way Fox News means it.
I don’t know what lessons you draw from this insane, shameful week in American politics, apart from reinforcing the fact that those politics are fundamentally broken, and that this country is still suffering debilitating PTSD when it comes to terrorism. I kind of hope the roller coaster stops now.
Hey. Hi. How are you? What, me? Anything new? Well, you know, nothing big. I mean, I did get cited by the big-time media for my insightful deeply silly writing retweeting of ridiculous conservatives, if you’re into that sort of thing:
Majority.fm’s Matt Binder and LobeLog contributor Derek Davison noticed something funny: just before Bergdahl was released, conservatives on Twitter loved to blast Obama for not freeing Bergdahl. There was even a whole meme on conservative Twitter saying Bergdahl was “abandoned by this administration.”
So I’ve got that going for me. Which is nice. And in all seriousness, much thanks to Matt Binder, who does this kind of thing regularly and very well, for acknowledging my small contribution.
Here’s the thing: nutpicking on Twitter is funny, but it is still nutpicking. Still, these Twitter cases are echoing, or (more likely) being echoed by, national Republican leadership, many of whom have been complaining that the Obama administration wasn’t doing enough to get Bergdahl out, some of whom even called on the administration to do everything it could to secure Bergdahl’s release, who are now loudly complaining about what the administration actually did. The transmogrification of Duncan Hunter’s position on Bergdahl is particularly jarring (maybe not as jarring as John McCain’s, but then you expect McCain to be on both sides of something like this); he’s gone from writing nasty letters to Fox News of all places, complaining that they were unfairly suggesting that Bergdahl was a deserter, to calling Bergdahl a deserter himself.
I get that wanting something in the abstract is different from approving of it after it’s actually been done for real, but when you say that everything should be done and then complain about what actually gets done, you’re a hypocrite. When you go in a matter of weeks or even days from “Obama is a criminal for leaving Bowe Bergdahl behind” to “Obama is a criminal for cutting a deal with the Taliban to free Bowe Bergdahl,” then you’re just using Bergdahl as a political club. When you go, again in some cases in a matter of days, from “Free hero POW Bowe Bergdahl” to “Bowe Bergdahl is a traitor deserter who should be shot,” then you’re just careening and people should probably slowly back away from you before bad things happen. Because literally nothing has changed between “then” and “now” for these folks apart from the fact that Bergdahl has actually been released. There was always going to have to be an exchange of prisoners to leverage Bergdahl’s release, unless you were of the opinion that we could drone strike him to freedom, or that we could be real nice to the Taliban and they would just be all, “Oh, gosh, you Americans aren’t so bad! Here, take this one American we found a couple of years ago! Merry Christmas!” And the circumstances of Bergdahl’s capture, his alleged desertion, have been an open question for years now.
Rolling Stone and Kevin Drum both have some quick and dirty reality checks on the tidal wave of supposition coming from the right on the Bergdahl case, and the Afghan Analysts Network is doing fantastic in-depth reporting on the whole affair, but what continues to amaze me is the degree to which the media machine has ratcheted up the details of this story over the past week, without any additional facts to fuel it. Take the freed Taliban (please! BOOM!), for example. The five Taliban figures we traded for Bergdahl have, in the course of the past week, gone from “five Taliban figures” to “The Taliban 5,” or “The Taliban Dream Team,” or “Mullah Omar’s board of directors” (I wish I were making this stuff up), or “the hardest of hardcore,” who have “close ties to Osama bin Laden” (if that guy still has close ties to bin Laden, maybe we should just surrender). Has anything actually changed about these five guys, or about what we know about them, over the past week? No. Were any of these guys actually very high-ranking or radicalized or dangerous? It doesn’t appear that they were.
There’s also Bergdahl to consider. As I said above, it’s been public knowledge for years now that Bergdahl had probably abandoned his unit before he was captured. In my humble opinion, that changes nothing; you still get the guy back and then deal with him in your own military justice system. Yet in one week, in the eyes of the American right (and apparently CNN, see below) Bergdahl has gone from suffering POW to deserter and, now, to traitor, without a single new piece of information on which to base that wild shift.
Well, unless you consider “secret documents prepared on the basis of a purported eyewitness account” to which only Fox News has access to be “information.” But, you know, his dad has a long beard and talked funny terrorist talk in the Rose Garden, so all the pieces are falling into place. We’ve also been told that his capture led directly to at least 6 combat deaths during search missions, which, if true, actually makes the case for bringing him back (and making sure those lives weren’t lost for nothing) stronger, but it turns out that might not be quite accurate either. This whole thing is, in a very real sense, Benghazi 2.0, but not in the way Fox News means it.
I don’t know what lessons you draw from this insane, shameful week in American politics, apart from reinforcing the fact that those politics are fundamentally broken, and that this country is still suffering debilitating PTSD when it comes to terrorism. I kind of hope the roller coaster stops now.
[h=1]GOP Rep. Who Defended Bergdahl Now Calls Him Deserter[/h]
Tom Kludt – June 5, 2014, 5:02 PM EDT
Back in 2009, not long after Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was taken prisoner in Afghanistan, Rep. Duncan D. Hunter (R-CA) signed onto a letter along with 22 other members of Congress to denounce a Fox News analyst who described the soldier as a deserter.
But this week, after President Obama negotiated an exchange to get Bergdahl back, Hunter found himself on Fox News making the same accusations he once found so detestable.
Hunter, a former Marine, joined a bipartisan group of congressional veterans five years ago in a letter demanding an apology from Fox News chairman Roger Ailes for a harsh comment about Bergdahl that aired on the cable channel.
Weeks after the soldier's disappearance, Fox News military analyst Ralph Peters called Bergdahl an "apparent deserter" and said that, if the desertion charges against Bergdahl were true, "the Taliban can save us a lot of legal hassles and legal bills."
Peters also condemned Bergdahl's actions in a video released by the Taliban, claiming it showed the missing soldier "collaborating with the enemy."
In their letter, the lawmakers slammed Peters for questioning Bergdahl's patriotism, arguing that the soldier's comments in the video were "being forced by his captors."
They also called on Ailes to repudiate the "implied suggestion that the Taliban should simply kill PFC Bergdahl." (The soldier was promoted to sergeant since his capture.)
"We demand an apology to PFC Bergdahl's family and to the thousands of soldiers who put their lives on the line for our country," they wrote. "As a member of the military family, Mr. Peters should measure his remarks and remember that the United States will never abandon one of its own."
Hunter sang a very different tune during an interview with Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly on Wednesday night, backing the accounts of some of Bergdahl's former platoon members who have accused the soldier of desertion.
The three-term congressman dismissed the notion that Bergdahl is receiving the "swift boat" treatment — a reference to the notorious smear campaign targeting John Kerry in the 2004 presidential race. Hunter said Bergdahl's alleged actions are similar to Kerry's protests of the Vietnam War, which have rankled conservatives for years.
"And his squad mates, his platoon mates have every single right to come out and tell the American people what kind of young man Bergdahl was because they're not very impressed by him and he just left them there," he said.
Hunter's spokesperson did not respond to TPM's requests for comment on Thursday.
In a letter sent Monday to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, Hunter called Bergdahl's release "welcome news" but he questioned the White House's claims that the POW's deteriorating health made the situation urgent. He also decried the release of five Taliban detainees that helped secure Bergdahl's freedom.
Hunter's fellow California Republican, Rep. Darrell Issa, also signed the 2009 letter to Ailes. In an interview this week with San Diego-based television station KUSI, Issa said it's up to the military to determine whether Bergdahl is a deserter.
"Because, if he was a POW first, he needs to be treated as a POW," Issa said. "If, in fact, he was a deserter, then his incidental incarceration does not earn him many of the benefits POW's receive."
When the letter was sent to Ailes, Bergdahl's disappearance was even murkier than it is now.
A Rolling Stone article by the late journalist Michael Hastings in 2012 shed more light on the situation. The piece included correspondence between Bergdahl and his father, Bob, in which the soldier was highly critical of the military. In a response to the soldier's final message, Bob Bergdahl told his son, "OBEY YOUR CONSCIENCE!"
For some, the messages showed that the elder Bergdahl, who's also come in for plenty of criticism this week, endorsed his son's plan to walk off his post in Afghanistan.
The New York Times reported Thursday on a classified military report indicating that Bergdahl wandered off his assigned areas prior to his 2009 disappearance.
As evidenced by Peters' critical assessment within a month of Bergdahl's capture, the desertion accusations were alive and well when Hunter was denouncing them.
But nearly a week after the prisoner exchange, however, the prospect of a Republican or conservative sticking his neck out for Bergdahl is unthinkable.
Tom Kludt – June 5, 2014, 5:02 PM EDT
Back in 2009, not long after Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was taken prisoner in Afghanistan, Rep. Duncan D. Hunter (R-CA) signed onto a letter along with 22 other members of Congress to denounce a Fox News analyst who described the soldier as a deserter.
But this week, after President Obama negotiated an exchange to get Bergdahl back, Hunter found himself on Fox News making the same accusations he once found so detestable.
Hunter, a former Marine, joined a bipartisan group of congressional veterans five years ago in a letter demanding an apology from Fox News chairman Roger Ailes for a harsh comment about Bergdahl that aired on the cable channel.
Weeks after the soldier's disappearance, Fox News military analyst Ralph Peters called Bergdahl an "apparent deserter" and said that, if the desertion charges against Bergdahl were true, "the Taliban can save us a lot of legal hassles and legal bills."
Peters also condemned Bergdahl's actions in a video released by the Taliban, claiming it showed the missing soldier "collaborating with the enemy."
In their letter, the lawmakers slammed Peters for questioning Bergdahl's patriotism, arguing that the soldier's comments in the video were "being forced by his captors."
They also called on Ailes to repudiate the "implied suggestion that the Taliban should simply kill PFC Bergdahl." (The soldier was promoted to sergeant since his capture.)
"We demand an apology to PFC Bergdahl's family and to the thousands of soldiers who put their lives on the line for our country," they wrote. "As a member of the military family, Mr. Peters should measure his remarks and remember that the United States will never abandon one of its own."
Hunter sang a very different tune during an interview with Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly on Wednesday night, backing the accounts of some of Bergdahl's former platoon members who have accused the soldier of desertion.
The three-term congressman dismissed the notion that Bergdahl is receiving the "swift boat" treatment — a reference to the notorious smear campaign targeting John Kerry in the 2004 presidential race. Hunter said Bergdahl's alleged actions are similar to Kerry's protests of the Vietnam War, which have rankled conservatives for years.
As John Kerry threw his medals over the White House fence and turned his back on all of his Vietnam brothers and sisters, that’s what Bergdahl did. Bergdahl walked away from his men, and he left them in a bad spot. People lost their lives and got hurt trying to find him. But the one real commitment that you have as a military person, especially when you're fighting and it's dirty and you're tired and you're hungry, it's not always to your flag, it's not always for your country, it's for the man or the woman standing next to you. And he betrayed that and that is the most sacred trust that you have in the military, whether it's the Marine Corps, the Army, the Navy or the Air Force. It's that trust that you have with the person next to you. That's what he betrayed.
Hunter also defended the former members of Bergdahl's unit who have ratcheted up the desertion charges in the days following the prisoner swap."And his squad mates, his platoon mates have every single right to come out and tell the American people what kind of young man Bergdahl was because they're not very impressed by him and he just left them there," he said.
Hunter's spokesperson did not respond to TPM's requests for comment on Thursday.
In a letter sent Monday to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, Hunter called Bergdahl's release "welcome news" but he questioned the White House's claims that the POW's deteriorating health made the situation urgent. He also decried the release of five Taliban detainees that helped secure Bergdahl's freedom.
Hunter's fellow California Republican, Rep. Darrell Issa, also signed the 2009 letter to Ailes. In an interview this week with San Diego-based television station KUSI, Issa said it's up to the military to determine whether Bergdahl is a deserter.
"Because, if he was a POW first, he needs to be treated as a POW," Issa said. "If, in fact, he was a deserter, then his incidental incarceration does not earn him many of the benefits POW's receive."
When the letter was sent to Ailes, Bergdahl's disappearance was even murkier than it is now.
A Rolling Stone article by the late journalist Michael Hastings in 2012 shed more light on the situation. The piece included correspondence between Bergdahl and his father, Bob, in which the soldier was highly critical of the military. In a response to the soldier's final message, Bob Bergdahl told his son, "OBEY YOUR CONSCIENCE!"
For some, the messages showed that the elder Bergdahl, who's also come in for plenty of criticism this week, endorsed his son's plan to walk off his post in Afghanistan.
The New York Times reported Thursday on a classified military report indicating that Bergdahl wandered off his assigned areas prior to his 2009 disappearance.
As evidenced by Peters' critical assessment within a month of Bergdahl's capture, the desertion accusations were alive and well when Hunter was denouncing them.
But nearly a week after the prisoner exchange, however, the prospect of a Republican or conservative sticking his neck out for Bergdahl is unthinkable.
[h=1]Liberal Activist Raped By A Black Man, Turns And Blames White Men For It[/h]The Patriot June 3, 2014 Liberal Activist Raped By A Black Man, Turns And Blames White Men For It2014-06-03T06:39:47+00:00 News 498 Comments
Amanda Kijera was on a humanitarian trip to Haiti, when she was violently raped by a black man. The act was both coincidental and devastating, as Kijera was actually in Haiti to dispel the “myths” that violence against women on the island was overstated by women’s rights organizations.
The intention of Kijera’s trip was to push back on the portrayal of black men as “savages” in the media. Her hope was that she would eliminate misconceptions and push back against common views imposed by “the man.”
However, Kijera’s trip took a turn for the worse when one of the men she had worked to protect cornered her on the rooftop, and raped her numerous times.
“The experience was almost more than I could bear,” Kijera wrote about the incident, “I pleaded with him to honor my commitment to Haiti, to him as a brother in the mutual struggle for an end to our common oppression, but to no avail. He didn’t care.”
According to Kijera, she eventually stopped fighting him, claiming that there was nothing she could do to stop him from raping her repeatedly. After the tragic experience, she placed the blame on a very unexpected course.
“Women are not the source of their oppression; oppressive policies and the as-yet unaddressed white patriarchy which still dominates the global stage are,” she explained. She also went on to argue that it is up to the United Nations to support people who are forced to bear the brunt of black male aggression.
Kijera makes the outrageous claim that dependency on white people causes them to act out against them. She alludes that this was the reason for her attack.
While the circumstances Kijera were forced to endure were unacceptable, her commits make the unspoken conclusion that the incident would not have happened if it weren’t for white men.
Amanda Kijera was on a humanitarian trip to Haiti, when she was violently raped by a black man. The act was both coincidental and devastating, as Kijera was actually in Haiti to dispel the “myths” that violence against women on the island was overstated by women’s rights organizations.
The intention of Kijera’s trip was to push back on the portrayal of black men as “savages” in the media. Her hope was that she would eliminate misconceptions and push back against common views imposed by “the man.”
However, Kijera’s trip took a turn for the worse when one of the men she had worked to protect cornered her on the rooftop, and raped her numerous times.
“The experience was almost more than I could bear,” Kijera wrote about the incident, “I pleaded with him to honor my commitment to Haiti, to him as a brother in the mutual struggle for an end to our common oppression, but to no avail. He didn’t care.”
According to Kijera, she eventually stopped fighting him, claiming that there was nothing she could do to stop him from raping her repeatedly. After the tragic experience, she placed the blame on a very unexpected course.
“Women are not the source of their oppression; oppressive policies and the as-yet unaddressed white patriarchy which still dominates the global stage are,” she explained. She also went on to argue that it is up to the United Nations to support people who are forced to bear the brunt of black male aggression.
Kijera makes the outrageous claim that dependency on white people causes them to act out against them. She alludes that this was the reason for her attack.
While the circumstances Kijera were forced to endure were unacceptable, her commits make the unspoken conclusion that the incident would not have happened if it weren’t for white men.
Liberal Activist Raped By A Black Man, Turns And Blames White Men For It
The Patriot June 3, 2014 Liberal Activist Raped By A Black Man, Turns And Blames White Men For It2014-06-03T06:39:47+00:00 News 498 Comments
Amanda Kijera was on a humanitarian trip to Haiti, when she was violently raped by a black man. The act was both coincidental and devastating, as Kijera was actually in Haiti to dispel the “myths” that violence against women on the island was overstated by women’s rights organizations.
The intention of Kijera’s trip was to push back on the portrayal of black men as “savages” in the media. Her hope was that she would eliminate misconceptions and push back against common views imposed by “the man.”
However, Kijera’s trip took a turn for the worse when one of the men she had worked to protect cornered her on the rooftop, and raped her numerous times.
“The experience was almost more than I could bear,” Kijera wrote about the incident, “I pleaded with him to honor my commitment to Haiti, to him as a brother in the mutual struggle for an end to our common oppression, but to no avail. He didn’t care.”
According to Kijera, she eventually stopped fighting him, claiming that there was nothing she could do to stop him from raping her repeatedly. After the tragic experience, she placed the blame on a very unexpected course.
“Women are not the source of their oppression; oppressive policies and the as-yet unaddressed white patriarchy which still dominates the global stage are,” she explained. She also went on to argue that it is up to the United Nations to support people who are forced to bear the brunt of black male aggression.
Kijera makes the outrageous claim that dependency on white people causes them to act out against them. She alludes that this was the reason for her attack.
While the circumstances Kijera were forced to endure were unacceptable, her commits make the unspoken conclusion that the incident would not have happened if it weren’t for white men
OMFG, you can't make this shit up!
There has to be a "liberal gene" which will eventually lead to a cure?
View attachment 16972
[h=1]MORE SMART CARS TIPPED IN SAN FRANCISCO[/h]
123
0
255
1
Email ArticlePrint articleSend a Tip
by WILLIAM BIGELOW 8 Jun 2014 267POST A COMMENT
[h=1]CAR TIPPING VANDALS FLIP OVER SMART CARS IN...
[/h]Car Tipping Vandals Flip Over Smart Cars In San Francisco
[h=2]San Franciscans, who often pride themselves on their sophistication, have taken to a more sophisticated prank than their rural counterparts who favor cow tipping: Smart car tipping. Over the weekend, two more of the two-seat Smart cars were tipped over in the Twin Peaks and Cole Valley neighborhoods.[/h]The Smart cars, which weigh between 1,600 and 1,800 pounds, were tipped in the middle of the night. They follow four tipped cars that were overturned in April.
The act is considered felony vandalism by police.
In April, Andrew Smith commented when his Smart car was overturned that the spree of tipping cars might have been from natives hostile to the tech boom: "The Smart car and the gentrification of San Francisco are linked in some people's minds." Shelley Gallivan, another victim, said, "My husband Chris said don't put it there, someone's going to hit it… It's a bummer because this is going to cost thousands of dollars."
Police said in April that they thought between six and eight people were involved; Officer Gordon Shyy said, "All we have right now are multiple suspects wearing black hooded sweatshirts."
123
0
255
1
Email ArticlePrint articleSend a Tip
by WILLIAM BIGELOW 8 Jun 2014 267POST A COMMENT
[h=1]CAR TIPPING VANDALS FLIP OVER SMART CARS IN...
[/h]Car Tipping Vandals Flip Over Smart Cars In San Francisco
[h=2]San Franciscans, who often pride themselves on their sophistication, have taken to a more sophisticated prank than their rural counterparts who favor cow tipping: Smart car tipping. Over the weekend, two more of the two-seat Smart cars were tipped over in the Twin Peaks and Cole Valley neighborhoods.[/h]The Smart cars, which weigh between 1,600 and 1,800 pounds, were tipped in the middle of the night. They follow four tipped cars that were overturned in April.
The act is considered felony vandalism by police.
In April, Andrew Smith commented when his Smart car was overturned that the spree of tipping cars might have been from natives hostile to the tech boom: "The Smart car and the gentrification of San Francisco are linked in some people's minds." Shelley Gallivan, another victim, said, "My husband Chris said don't put it there, someone's going to hit it… It's a bummer because this is going to cost thousands of dollars."
Police said in April that they thought between six and eight people were involved; Officer Gordon Shyy said, "All we have right now are multiple suspects wearing black hooded sweatshirts."
lol. Especially given how Ukraine is turning out (umm, they got a west-leaning leader in charge, 
... )and worse how he had to turn to China with zero leverage...did he say pretty please to China? haha!!..... yeah, he's THE GUY who's going to 'teach you about diplomacy'
http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2023733791_jackdevineopedrussia01xml.html?cmpid=2628
good grief
ps., put a shirt on Putin-- sagging pecs, arms have zero definition....
... )and worse how he had to turn to China with zero leverage...did he say pretty please to China? haha!!..... yeah, he's THE GUY who's going to 'teach you about diplomacy'http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2023733791_jackdevineopedrussia01xml.html?cmpid=2628
good grief
ps., put a shirt on Putin-- sagging pecs, arms have zero definition....
One is a leader. The other is not.
One has a set. The other does not.
One loves his country. The other does not.
One is feared around the world. The other is not.
One walks the walk. The other talks the talk.
One wrestles bears. The other wears mom jeans.
One rides a horse. The other rides a women’s bicycle.
I could go on and on but I’m sure you get the picture.
Here Are The Two Multi-Million Dollar Mansions Hillary Says She “Struggled” To Pay Mortgage On
In an interview with Diane Sawyer, Hillary Clinton claimed that after the White House their family “struggled..to piece together the resources for mortgages, for houses.” The “we struggled to get by” defense from a multi-millionaire might be tough to swallow for Americans actually struggling to pay their mortgage. Hillary, after-all, left the White House having spent 20 years living in gratis government mansions in Little Rock and Washington D.C. Additionally, lets not forget that Bill Clinton’s annual salary was $200,000/year as President and he was able to cash-in on a $50,000 expense account. The Clintons made roughly FOUR times what the average American made and “struggled to get by.”
After leaving the White House, the Clintons bought two multi-million dollar mansions. They bought this $1.7 million mansion in Chappaqua, NY so Hillary could claim residence in the state ahead of her 2000 Senate campaign.
Then they purchased this $2.85 million mansion on Embassy Row in Washington D.C. The home has 5 bedrooms and 6 baths.
In an interview with Diane Sawyer, Hillary Clinton claimed that after the White House their family “struggled..to piece together the resources for mortgages, for houses.” The “we struggled to get by” defense from a multi-millionaire might be tough to swallow for Americans actually struggling to pay their mortgage. Hillary, after-all, left the White House having spent 20 years living in gratis government mansions in Little Rock and Washington D.C. Additionally, lets not forget that Bill Clinton’s annual salary was $200,000/year as President and he was able to cash-in on a $50,000 expense account. The Clintons made roughly FOUR times what the average American made and “struggled to get by.”
After leaving the White House, the Clintons bought two multi-million dollar mansions. They bought this $1.7 million mansion in Chappaqua, NY so Hillary could claim residence in the state ahead of her 2000 Senate campaign.
Then they purchased this $2.85 million mansion on Embassy Row in Washington D.C. The home has 5 bedrooms and 6 baths.
