Watch: She Gets Asked The One Question A Democrat NEVER Wants To Hear, And It Gets Awkward…

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s face began to turn the color of her dress when MSNBC’s Chris Matthews threw her off-script, busted her for trying to spout tired talking points, and insisted that she answer a question that put her in an awkward spot for which she obviously wasn’t prepared.

Wasserman-Schultz, the Florida representative who serves as the chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), was pressed by the clearly frustrated host of Hardball to explain the difference between a Democrat and a socialist. The discussion on Thursday night’s show related to Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist who’s gaining traction in his challenge to Hillary Clinton for the party’s 2016 nomination for president.

As TheBlaze notes in its coverage of the tense exchange: “Matthews first began questioning Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fla.) on whether presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, a proud socialist, would be given a slot on primetime to speak at the Democratic National Convention.”

Matthews kept after Wasserman-Schultz until she finally blurted out an answer – you’d have thought he had a GOP spokesperson on the hot seat. But then the interview came close to going off the rails entirely when Matthews — a long-time Democrat loyalist who used to be chief of staff for House Speaker Tip O’Neill — insisted on getting an answer to his question:

What’s the difference between a Democrat and a socialist? I used to think there was a big difference. What do you think it is?

That’s when Debbie tried to play dodgeball on the show called Hardball. By clicking on the video above, you can see for yourself how the interview took on a decidedly downhill course.

What do you think the difference between a Democrat and a socialist is? Let us know in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

On Modern Feminism, From A Male Perspective

A small contingent of women (probably today’s feminists) take the same position as other “minorities” that there is a large majority keeping them down. They are playing on political correctness to accomplish certain goals they define improperly as those of women in general. But the concept is false on two levels.

First, it defines women as a class, a mass, a collective. Women are individuals, just as men are. Each woman has a mind, heart, lungs, brain, the capacity to learn, act, and achieve, and the ability to choose her own goals. And, by the way, the 2010 census tells us that women are a majority, not a minority. They comprise 50.8% of the U.S. population.

Second, it defines women’s goals as universal. They aren’t. Because each woman can define herself as well as decide what to do with her life’s energies. Many women become lawyers, doctors, politicians, business owners, technicians, cab drivers, school teachers, IT specialists… (As the King of Siam says in The King and I, “et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.”) Lo and behold, some women even choose to be housewives, mothers, homemakers, and matriarchs.

Yes, women have not always received proper treatment in society at large. According to the great historical author Barbara Tuchman, many women in the Middle Ages chose the convent over a marriage in which they would be dominated, often cruelly, by a husband who thought they were chattel. Up until the early 20th century, women did not have the vote. There was a glass ceiling forty or fifty years ago. My wife once told her father she wanted to be an architect. He discouraged her. It was unlikely, he explained, that a woman could be accepted in that profession.

But not anymore. Women are seen in all walks of life and a great many of them are visibly and admirably successful. Ask Condoleeza Rice. Ask Carly Fiorina. I’d say ask Hillary Clinton, but she takes the lying narrative to new heights, as does Michelle Obama, who recently claimed that America had somehow been unfair to her. Sure.

The narrative is false because certain people use it as an excuse, a tactic. Without the narrative, they can’t portray women as victims, and being victims is the way they gain sympathy—and inspire guilt in all the rest of us. This is not the way most women feel, of course. Most women nowadays work. They have jobs and responsibilities outside child rearing or cooking dinner (which they do in addition to doing their outside jobs). Women feel like individuals. They act like individuals. They don’t act like a class, a mob, or a collective, because they aren’t one.

The narrative may be partly a plot to elect Hillary Clinton, the intent being to inspire the kind of guilt that got Obama elected because he was black. However, Carly Fiorina is also a candidate and willingly puts the notion down. It is true that the position of women in the society has improved, but in the minds of most women it is probably about the same as it has always been because human nature does not change. Women want marriage, family, solvency, and children. They want a home and all the other “entitlements” they’ve always had, including having men open doors for them and buy them diamonds. They want to be attractive and sexy and often easily compete on an intellectual level with men. They don’t really need to compete, of course. They just need to be what they are – naturally smart and talented in many areas – and they need to take credit for what they do.

By the way, getting a woman elected president does not improve the lot of women in general, because achievement is not a class thing. It’s an individual thing. A woman who wants an education can get one, even if she doesn’t have a university door held open for her, even if she isn’t married, or even if she isn’t encouraged by a father to become an architect. She can work hard and make her own way. Nobody is holding women back. In fact, it is rare among men to even stereotype women nowadays. Not only is it politically incorrect, but it’s also repugnant to everyone but the crudest types.

Nobody needs permission to achieve, at least not in American society. It’s what makes our country desirable for women, unlike Muslim countries where women are less than chattel, and in many Hispanic countries where males often engage in traditional misogynistic attitudes. There are pockets in our society where the attitude toward women in general is negative, but women do not need to remain in those pockets. They can break free fairly easily—by reading books, acquiring skills, and learning to move themselves forward and upward in society.

Attitudes are only attitudes. The glass ceiling no longer holds anyone down if she exhibits intelligence, talent, and the will to work smartly hard. The best ammunition with which to fight a fictional war on women is to ignore the enemy that doesn’t exist.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

New Report Confirms Findings Of Citizens’ Commission On Benghazi

Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi (CCB) member Clare Lopez believes that, in 2011, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was orchestrating its own gun running operation to the Libyan rebels—and that arms dealer Marc Turi has been set up to take the fall for these “illicit arms deals.”

“The Justice Department has charged Turi with lying on an export-license application, alleging he hid his intent to ship weapons and ammunition to Libya in direct violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 170,” reports Jerome Corsi for WorldNetDaily.

“Marc Turi was set up and framed for something he didn’t do, while others, who actually did collaborate with Qatar and the UAE to deliver the weapons under U.S. and NATO protection and supervision, are not only not prosecuted like Marc Turi, they’re not even mentioned,” Lopez told Corsi.

“Lopez made it clear she was speaking for herself and not for the commission,” he reports.

Corsi has written several previous articles about the work of the CCB, which was established by Accuracy in Media back in 2013. “The commission has been working behind the scenes for the past two years to ensure Congress uncovers what really happened in the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans,” writes Corsi.

“Lopez [said the] ‘key point is that Marc Turi, despite receiving written approval from the U.S. government to broker weapons to Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, never actually went through [with] any weapons purchases or shipments to Qatar, to the UAE or to Libya,” he writes.

Lopez referred to the Citizens’ Commission’s April 2014 interim report, which stated: “Even more disturbingly, the U.S. was fully aware of and facilitating the delivery of weapons to the al-Qa’eda-dominated rebel militias throughout the 2011 rebellion. The jihadist agenda of AQIM, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), and other Islamic terror groups represented among the rebel forces was well known to U.S. officials responsible for Libya policy.”

In fact, “The rebels made no secret of their al-Qa’eda affiliation, openly flying and speaking in front of the black flag of Islamic jihad…” states the report.

When Hillary Clinton’s Libya-related emails were released, they exposed how Mrs. Clinton was interested in arming the rebels before they were “formally recognized by the U.S. or United Nations,” according to Catherine Herridge and Pamela Browne.

Fox News previously reported that Turi had said the “weapons supplied to Libya were in the hands of the U.S. government and the State Department’s Bureau of Political and Military Affairs, headed by key Hillary Clinton aide Andrew Shapiro,” reports Corsi. “Shapiro was responsible to oversee the export control process at the State Department.”

Mrs. Clinton exchanged emails with the Director of Policy Planning for the Department of State, Anne-Marie Slaughter, in the spring of 2011. On March 30, 2011, Slaughter counseled Hillary Clinton that she was “VERY dubious about arming the Libyan rebels.” When Hillary Clinton asked why, Slaughter argued that “sending more arms into a society generally… will result in more violence—against each other” and “adding even more weapons does not make sense.”

Yet Mrs. Clinton emailed her aide, Jake Sullivan, on April 8, 2011, that “FYI. The idea of using private security experts to arm the opposition should be considered.”

Years after the intervention, Libya remains a broken state marred by ongoing violence.

It’s already been established that Mrs. Clinton failed to turn over all of her work related emails, allowed sensitive and classified material on her private email server, and lied about both. Yet we are asked to believe that the more than 30,000 emails that she had deleted and wiped from her server were all personal emails. It’s clear that even her allies in the media are getting nervous about where all of this is headed, since she is the presumed Democratic Party standard bearer. The question is, will she ever be held accountable, and judged by the same standards as others who have “mishandled” classified information? And what about her role in the Libyan and Benghazi scandals? It is looking more and more like the only accountability may come from the American voters.

This article originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

BOMBSHELL: Hillary Rocked By Another Scandal As Top Author Spills Shocking 3-Word Secret

First came the news, only days ago, that a scandal-seeking website has just been launched by Kathleen Willey, one of the women who publicly accused then-President Bill Clinton of sexual harassment. Then Linda Tripp, the one-time White House staffer who blew the whistle on the Clinton-Lewinsky affair, suddenly stepped back into the spotlight to accuse Hillary Clinton of ruthlessly and mercilessly trying to destroy the women who pointed the sex-abuse finger at Bill.

Now, like a flurry of gut-punches delivered in a high-stakes prize fight, another bombshell of a body blow has hit the former first lady, already reeling from bad press and bad polls.

A man who used to be an investigative reporter for The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal — a prize-winning journalist who is now a best-selling author — has just dropped an allegation that threatens to further damage a Hillary Clinton presidential campaign that already appears to be in an ominous tailspin.

Ronald Kessler has told a radio talk show host on WPHT in Philadelphia that the marriage between Hillary and Bill Clinton is not based on love and loyalty, rather on power and profit, as well as their all-consuming desire to return to the White House in 2016.

Kessler, the author of “The First Family Detail: Secret Service Agents Reveal the Hidden Lives of the Presidents,” was talking with radio personality Chris Stigall when he confirmed what many Clinton watchers have long suspected:

“Agents say that it’s a business relationship. It’s not a marriage at all. It’s a total fake, like everything else about Hillary. It’s just a big show and a scam.”

The description of the Clinton marriage as “a total fake” doesn’t come out of nowhere, of course. Wednesday’s dirt-dishing by Kessler was not the first time the top author has pulled back the curtain on the Clinton White House to reveal dirty little secrets about both Bill and Hillary.

He has talked about Bill’s “blonde, busty mistress” who would visit “Slick Willy” when then-Secretary of State Clinton was away from their New York home. And in a March 10, 2015 piece in The Washington Times, Kessler wrote extensively about Hillary’s mean and nasty demeanor that made Secret Service agents dread being assigned to her detail.

“If you want to know why Hillary Clinton thought she could get away with violating federal regulations in order to conceal her emails when she was secretary of state, take a look behind the facade,” Kessler wrote in the Times.

“Mrs. Clinton pretends to be a compassionate woman who cares about the little people and will champion the middle class if elected president. The reality is that behind the scenes, she is abusive to those same people.”

“The First Family Detail,” which has just been released in paperback, is described in promotional material as presenting first-hand accounts of Hillary’s extremely disagreeable disposition.

Because Hillary Clinton is so nasty to agents, being assigned to her protective detail is considered a form of punishment and the worst assignment in the Secret Service.

As of this writing, there’s no indication that either Hillary Clinton or any aides have replied to the latest bombshell that claims her marriage is as phony as her campaign for president.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

What Was Just Spotted In Facebook’s DC Office Could Be A Terrible Sign For 2016 Election

A poster of Hillary Rodham Clinton on public display at the Facebook office in Washington, D.C., demonstrates just how important the Clinton campaign thinks social media is going to be in the 2016 presidential election.

The campaign could be right, too. Facebook has expanded its political arm to attract millions of dollars in political campaign money through the 2016 election. The company reached out to all those running for the nation’s highest office, including the 16 Republicans and five Democrats, with innovative ways to reach voters. Clinton hosted a question-answer session on the social media giant earlier this month.

Other candidates, including conservatives Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum and Dr. Ben Carson, regularly post blogs and pictures of their activities, host polls, and ask for followers to sign petitions, call elected officials on issues and donate to their campaigns. While presidential candidate Donald Trump’s campaign isn’t as active on Facebook as some of his competitors, his interviews and comments have been making the social circles for months, often going viral and giving his campaign traction.

Facebook will be the winner in this election cycle, taking in approximately $1 billion in online political advertising. The company plans to cash in more than in 2012 by doubling its political team, adding a political sales group and data teams dedicated solely to either Democratic or Republican campaigns. Many of those plans have already been implemented.

Two new features voters will be seeing throughout this campaign cycle are more and better videos and campaigns uploading voter files directly to the social media site. Facebook’s plan also includes tracking and targeting voters, just as it does for its other advertisers.

The numbers don’t lie. Facebook has 1.44 billion users worldwide, up from less than 250,000 in 2008, when then-candidate Barack Obama began using social platforms to attract younger voters. Numbers indicate around 1.25 billion of those users are on mobile devices. Around 189 million monthly users are in the United States. While there aren’t concrete numbers on how many of those users fall into the youth category, Facebook’s tracking system in 2012 indicated that the majority of its users who planned to vote were under the age of 35.

In 2012, Facebook launched an interactive question asking people to tell whether they plan to vote. The platform tracked responses in real time and mapped the answers. Data from 3.7 million users shows that about two-thirds of Facebook users planning to vote were under 35 years old. Thirty percent were between 18 and 24 years old, and 32 percent were between 25 and 34 years old.

That could be bad for Republicans. A study by the Pew Research Center indicated that young voters comprised most of the Democratic Party’s votes in the three general elections from 2004 through 2008. Research indicated that 66 percent of those under 30 years old voted for Obama, while the ballots of post-30 voters were evenly divided between Obama and contender Sen. John McCain.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth