United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Benghazi Mom Condemns Hillary–Why Doesn’t The MSM Grant HER “Absolute Moral Authority”?
Source:
VDare
URL Source: http://www.vdare.com/articles/who-gets-absolute-moral-authority
Published: Jul 20, 2016
Author: Michelle Malkin
Post Date: 2016-07-20 13:40:36 by nativist nationalist
Keywords: None
Views: 330
Comments: 5
My 12-year-old son couldn’t remember the phrase “take a walk down memory lane” last week, instead describing a stroll through “nostalgia road.” I knew it would come in handy. Put on your hiking boots and join me for an educational trip down good ol’ nostalgia road. It seems like yesterday when Champion of Wimmin Maureen Dowd, bemoaning the lack of sympathy for anti-war mom Cindy Sheehan, declared in The New York Times that “the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute.” No ifs, ands or other hedging qualifiers. Absolutely absolute. And it was just a blink of an eye ago that the same New York Times spilled barrels of adulatory ink on the 9/11 widows known as the Jersey Girls. Remember them? The quartet of Democratic women parlayed their post-terror attack plight into powerful roles as Bush-bashing citizen lobbyists. Their story, the lib narrative-shaping paper of record reported, was a “tale of a political education, and a sisterhood born of grief.” Moms and widows deserved special consideration in the public square, the argument went a decade ago. Their experience and their testimony warranted respect, deference and the national spotlight. But then, as now, only a special class of victims is entitled to cash in the Absolute Moral Authority card. Not all parents and spouses who have lost loved ones can join the Club of the Unquestioned and Unassailable. On Monday night at the Republican National Convention, Pat Smith shared her own tale of a political education born of grief after her diplomat son, Sean Smith, died in the Benghazi terrorist attack. Hillary Clinton, she passionately insisted, “deserves to be in stripes!” GQ sports writer Nathaniel Friedman showed his compassion for Smith’s loss and pain by tweeting, “I don’t care how many children Pat Smith lost I would like to beat her to death.” MSNBC host Chris Matthews, who had helped make Cindy Sheehan a media star and urged her to run for Congress based on her status as a grieving war mom, fumed that Pat Smith had “ruined” the entire convention with her heartfelt testimony. The smug Democratic political operative turned TV bloviator, who had also elevated the Jersey Girls’ celebrity status with multiple bookings on his show, couldn’t bear to speak Smith’s name: “I don’t care what that woman up there, the mother, has felt. Her emotions are her own, but for the country in choosing a leader, it’s wrong to have someone get up there and tell a lie about Hillary Clinton.” Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., chimed in on the same network that he was disgusted with how the GOP convention was using Smith to “exploit a tragedy.” GOP-bashers heaped similar derision on father Jamiel Shaw Sr. and mothers Sabine Durden and Mary Ann Mendoza, who all spoke at the convention about losing children to criminals who had slipped illegally through open borders and revolving deportation doors. “Progressives” sneered at Shaw as an “Uncle Tom” for pointing out that Latino gangbangers targeted his black son because of his race. The intolerant tolerance mob also accused Durden of being “fooled” and Durden and Mendoza of being “exploited for apocalyptic theater.” Will these horrified hand-wringers be as outspokenly offended next week when the Democratic National Convention dedicates an entire evening to the so- called Mothers of the Movement? Among the sainted moms of the Black Lives Matter movement who will speak on Hillary Clinton’s behalf are Gwen Carr, mother of Eric Garner; Sybrina Fulton, mother of Trayvon Martin; Maria Hamilton, mother of Dontre Hamilton; Lucia McBath, mother of Jordan Davis; Lesley McSpadden, mother of Michael Brown; Cleopatra Pendleton-Cowley, mother of Hadiya Pendleton; and Geneva Reed-Veal, mother of Sandra Bland. Each of these cases lumped under supposedly unjustified gun violence and systemic racism is complicated and distinct. For starters, Bland hanged herself when her friends and family wouldn’t bail her out of jail after she had kicked a police officer. Two of the “children” involved in police shootings (Brown and Hamilton) had assaulted cops during their fatal encounters. But drop all questions and doubts. “These mothers have worked tirelessly to raise awareness around the issues that surround their children’s deaths,” the liberal Huffington Post reports. Because these women endorse race-baiting, gun-grabbing narratives and left- wing candidates, no one working in the mainstream media will ever challenge their parental prerogative to participate in politics on behalf of their loved ones. Moms who have lost their children to Democratic incompetence, corruption and open-borders treachery are out of luck. The dealers of Absolute Moral Authority play with a loaded deck. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: nativist nationalist (#0)
MSNBC and the other media liberals threw poor dumb Cindy Sheehan under the bus after GWB left office and she started going after Obama and Pelosi. No more invitations on Hardball after that,
Because the MSM will protect the Demonturds, Obunghole, and Shitlery at all costs! Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. if you look around, we have gone so far down the the rat hole, the almighty is going to have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah, if we don't have a judgement come down on us. President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. --Clint Eastwood "I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
Yes, they will. But no amount of pointing out the double standards, corruption and failure of the Democrats matters, or ever will matter, until the Republicans change their economic philosophy and understand that they HAVE TO get behind a reasonable economic redistribution to elevate the poor and middle class to secure status. Nothing else will ever matter, and Republicans will always lose to Democrats, in the end (even if they temporarily win power for a few moments), because, in the end, people have to eat and have security, and that costs money, so much money that to actually accomplish it will most certainly mean that the Upper Class, and the Upper Middle Class, will be less "Upper" than they are. Reasonably financial security for all of our countrymen costs money, a lot of it, so much of it that the top cannot remain AS rich as they are, and cannot pull as far ahead. Republicans are the party of the top, and in the final analysis they simply will not accept policies that make things better for everybody else at the financial expense of the top. The idols Democrats worship are power and sex. The idols Republicans worship are power and money. Everybody can have sex, so the Democrats get a round-to- the-bottom pull by being liberal about sex, but the MAIN thing is money. Everybody works for money. Money drives the whole society, and every family, and every working person, and 90% of all major decisions. And the Republicans favor a narrow financial class, which makes them forever minoritarian. Democrats can really be low-lifes individually, but as long as they cast their votes for social support structures, they will be popular. And most of the time, they will win. Republicans can only win, long term, if they stop being the party of oligarchy. If Trump wins, he may be able to move them more down the economic scale in the interests they represent. If he loses, the Republicans will never win again and their policies will all go into the toilet, because the Democrats will control the Supreme Court, and use it to RAPIDLY enact reforms that are sweeping, and that redistribute a lot of the wealth from the top, weakening the top. The Republicans, to survive, must ALSO commit to a redistribution, but they can do it less wholesale than the Democrats will. Because the Republicans refuse to compromise on that AT ALL, they - like the French nobility of old - will be utterly destroyed by the Democrats and never have power again, and the rich who are not Democrats will be destroyed by a combination of taxes, regulations and lawsuits, while the Democrat rich will be protected by loopholes. So, if you don't want that, then this election is really the last chance. The Supreme Court is literally in the balance. If the Democrats win this election, it will be Democratic until the end of the lives of every American alive today.
You espouse the greatness of communism. Redistribution requires total control. Total control leads to poverty, both of spirit and materially. I believe you believe what you are pushing is "slightly socialist" and it will lead to a better society. The facts prove you wrong, just run an experiment with your own children. Give them a level of money that makes it sure they never need be without enough to get by, but no more. Provide a floor of support with food, housing, medical care and education. What is their motivation for going to school? Getting up in the AM? Getting married? Having children? You will end up with lazy people, with nothing to do with their time but please themselves. Now why would they go to work ever? Why would any majority of people work for something that someone else will provide? I actually think we are already there as a society. Not all children are like that, but a large majority are. Exercising rights is only radical to two people, Tyrants and Slaves. Which are YOU? Our ignorance has driven us into slavery and we do not recognize it.
I reread your comment, and I actually agree with you on the point that Republicans cannot have sustained success in pushing for limited government. I also agree with you on the reason. That being people not only want, but they now believe they NEED social programs or they will die....or worse, be poor. It is not clear at all that you support the socialist/communist model at all. It is more likely that you were merely stating a logical conclusion to current trends. We are near the point where there is no way to change course without people actually facing TRUE financial need, physical want, and struggle for day to day survival. FUBACOR..... Fouled Up Beyond Any Chance Of Recovery. It's much worse than FUBAR.
Exercising rights is only radical to two people, Tyrants and Slaves. Which are YOU? Our ignorance has driven us into slavery and we do not recognize it.
It seems like yesterday when Champion of Wimmin Maureen Dowd, bemoaning the lack of sympathy for anti-war mom Cindy Sheehan, declared in The New York Times that “the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute.”
#2. To: nativist nationalist (#0)
" Benghazi Mom Condemns Hillary–Why Doesn’t The MSM Grant HER “Absolute Moral Authority”? "
#3. To: Stoner (#2)
Because the MSM will protect the Demonturds, Obunghole, and Shitlery at all costs!
#4. To: Vicomte13 (#3)
#5. To: Vicomte13 (#3)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]