Scotland voters, vote YES to Scottish Independence! #YesScotland #Scotland #ScottishIndependence
Today’s the big day in Scotland, Voting starts at 1AM CDT (7AM Scotland Time) and ends at 4PM CDT (10PM Scotland Time).
Results will be coming out sometime late Thursday night or more likely Friday.
I have not leaned either way on the issue until now, but now I’m throwing in my support for the Yes Scotland movement.
The movement descends into litigation. “We can either go and beat him up or we can go to court.”
WASHINGTON — Activists who organized the dormant Occupy Wall Street movement are suing another activist for control of the main Twitter account, and one of the plaintiffs says there was no other option but to turn to litigation to solve the dispute.
The conflict centers around @OccupyWallStNYC, one of the main Twitter feeds that distributed information during the movement’s heyday in 2011. The OWS Media Group filed a lawsuit against organizer Justin Wedes on Wednesday, which is also the third anniversary of the beginning of Occupy Wall Street. The group, led by activist Marisa Holmes, is seeking control of the Twitter account as well as $500,000 in damages.
The Twitter account, which used to be shared among several activists, is now under the control of Wedes, who explained his decision to take over the Twitter feed in a blog post in August:
A thread about “self-promotion” became just another shaming session. If we start from a place of assuming bad intentions – i.e. discouraging “self-promotion” over encouraging solid, relevant content – we will end up with rules that shame rather than empower. Group members took on the task of limiting others to “1 to 2 tweets per day” (or week) on a topic, a form of censorship that would never have been allowed in the earlier days of the boat. I had to say enough!
“We can either go and beat him up or we can go to court,” Holmes, a video editor who was part of the core organizing team of Occupy, told BuzzFeed News. “And quite frankly if we go and beat him up then we could end up with countersuits against us, and that puts us in a more damaging position and we don’t really want to do that anyway.”
“So this is actually the least harmful for ourselves and him given the fact that he won’t give up the account without any kind of punitive measure,” Holmes said.
Holmes said that there had been numerous attempts to get control of the Twitter feed from Wedes, and that suing him was a last resort.
“I’ve given him many many chances and so have a lot of other people,” she said. “For the last six weeks there have been conversations online, mainly on Facebook and through intermediaries.”
“There has been conversation about it and Justin knew he was going to get sued.”
She accused him of using the feed for his own projects, especially his activism surrounding water rights in Detroit.
His taking control of the account is “equivalent to someone running off with a bunch of money or selling off assets,” she said.
This is the second time in the past year that there have been major fights over control of Occupy’s still-extant social media accounts, though the movement has for all intents and purposes died. Activists clashed in February over the @OccupyWallSt Twitter account, which was wrested away from other activists by Google engineer Justine Tunney, who claimed to have founded the account.
Wedes did not return requests for comment.
Rachel Maddow reports on the role of partisan politics in the upcoming Scotland independence vote, where Scotland’s disdain for British conservatives could boost secession while empowering conservatives by taking Scotland’s liberals out of Parliament.
From the 09.17.2014 edition of MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show:
"Scrubbed" Benghazi Docs "Bombshell" Is Based On Evidence-Free Report By Discredited Benghazi Hoax Architect
A new report from discredited investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson baselessly suggested State Department staff removed damaging documents on Benghazi instead of turning them over to the Accountability Review Board (ARB) for investigation. But Attkisson’s claims have been denied by the State Department and are based solely on speculations from a disgruntled employee after he was disciplined for his “lack of leadership” and engagement by the ARB.
In a September 15 report for The Daily Signal, a publication of the conservative Heritage Foundation, Attkisson reported that a former State Department diplomat alleges that “Hillary Clinton confidants were part of an operation to ’separate’ damaging documents before they were turned over to the Accountability Review Board investigating security lapses surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya.” The Daily Signal described this as a “Benghazi Bombshell.”
Attkisson reported that the diplomat, Raymond Maxwell, a former deputy assistant secretary responsible for North Africa, says that in late 2012 he observed an “after-hours session” at which a State Department office director “close to Clinton’s top advisers” directed staff to separate out Benghazi documents “that might put anybody in the Near Eastern Affairs front office or the seventh floor in a bad light” from “boxes and stacks of documents.” Attkisson notes that “‘seventh floor’ was State Department shorthand for then-Secretary of State Clinton and her principal advisors.” Maxwell told Attkisson that while he was present, Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills and Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan “appeared to check in on the operation and soon left.”
Speculating that potentially missing, possibly damaging documents made it impossible for the ARB’s investigation to be thorough, Attkisson reported that Maxwell said ”he couldn’t help but wonder if the ARB—perhaps unknowingly—had received from his bureau a scrubbed set of documents with the most damaging material missing.”
Fox News’ America’s Newsroom quickly reported Attkisson’s claims, calling them a “bombshell development” and a “smoking gun of a potential cover-up”:
Fox subsequently reported that the interview indicated that Maxwell “claims Clinton allies scrubbed Benghazi documents.”
But Attkisson’s report has several flaws. It is based solely on conjecture from Maxwell, who does not claim and cannot prove that any documents were withheld from the ARB in its investigation, but rather only speculates about the fate of the documents that were reviewed.
The State Department has already denied Maxwell’s speculation in a statement to Attkisson — State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach called “the implication that documents were withheld ‘totally without merit,’” emphasizing that the “range of sources that the ARB’s investigation drew on would have made it impossible for anyone outside of the ARB to control its access to information.” Other allegations that the ARB investigation was biased have been repeatedly disproven.
Maxwell himself is a dubious source. He was placed on administrative leave after the Accountability Review Board’s investigation found a “lack of proactive leadership” and pointed specifically to Maxwell’s department, saying some officials in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs “showed a lack of ownership of Benghazi’s security issues.” A House Oversight Committee report released findings from the classified version of the ARB report, which revealed that the ARB’s board members “were troubled by the NEA DAS for Maghreb Affairs’ lack of leadership and engagement on staffing and security issues in Benghazi.”
Disgruntled over being “the only official in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (NEA), which had responsibility for Libya, to lose his job,” Maxwell spoke to The Daily Beast in May 2013 in an attempt to “restore” his “honor.” Maxwell, who had filed official grievances regarding his treatment, expressed anger that Mills — the same staff member Maxwell speculated was involved in hiding potentially damaging documents — “reneged” on a deal to eventually bring Maxwell back to the NEA after his leave.
While Maxwell has previously been interviewed by the ARB, the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the House Oversight Committee, the Daily Beast, and Examiner.com, this is curiously the first time this allegation has been made public. FoxNews.com reported that Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) had confirmed “that Maxwell told him and other lawmakers the same story when they privately interviewed him last year.” The claim is absent from the House Oversight Committee’s Benghazi Attacks: Investigative Update Report on the Accountability Review Board, which was based in part on Maxwell’s 2013 testimony.
Attkisson, too, has been roundly discredited and is well known for her shoddy reporting, both during her time at CBS News and after leaving the network. Attkisson supported CBS’ disastrous Benghazi reporting, for which the network ultimately had to apologize and retract. And CBS executives reportedly saw her as “wading dangerously close to advocacy on the issue.”
Fox’s adoption of this story as a major new development is not surprising given the network’s history of relying on discredited Benghazi hoaxsters and using “bombshell" to describe everything but new developments in the story.
"How can you be so poor and have all this stuff?" -Bill O’Reilly
Each of these screenshots is from a different Fox show attacking poor Americans for having amenities, trying to make the point (pretty much) that “when I was a kid, poor people had a lot less than this.”
Of course, this is all based on one thoroughly-debunked Heritage Foundation report that conservative media have been parroting for years.
Breaking news for Fox: We’re not in the 1950’s anymore. As technology advances, each year older technology gets less and less expensive, and therefore more working class Americans are able to access it.
Matt Yglesias elaborates:
A serious person would follow this up with a discussion of relative prices. Over the past 50 years, televisions have gotten a lot cheaper and college has gotten a lot more expensive. Consequently, even a low income person can reliably obtain a level of television-based entertainment that would blow the mind of a millionaire from 1961. At the same time, if you’re looking to live in a safe neighborhood with good public schools in a metropolitan area with decent job opportunities you’re going to find that this is quite expensive. Health care has become incredibly expensive. The federal poverty line for a family of three is $18,530 a year. I wonder how many Heritage Foundation policy analysts are deciding they want to cut back and work part time because it’d be super easy to raise two kids in DC on less than $20k in salary? Perhaps just an outfit full of workaholics.
While Fox is so busy pointing out how many people have access to microwaves and refrigerators, they conveniently forget to mention how many people have poor access to quality education, health care, and affordable housing. Because really, what good is an A/C if you can’t even afford to keep living in your house?
BREAKING: Cardinals' Jonathan Dwyer Arrested On Domestic Violence Charge, The Team Has Already Deactivated Dwyer For This Week's Game
The running back reportedly was arrested on suspicion of aggravated assault and preventing someone from calling 911. The Cardinals have deactivated Dwyer.
Arizona Cardinals running back Jonathan Dwyer was arrested Wednesday on suspicion of domestic violence, according to multiple media reports.
3TV reported that Dwyer was questioned by police after practice on Wednesday.
Following weeks of questions about the NFL’s policies on domestic violence, action apparently came swiftly.
We didn’t know that our activism and our peaceful displays would result in guns literally looking down our eyes. Literally looking down our eyes. Guns.
And I had young people who were willing to die. For justice.
I had a young person — and he’s definitely the example of many young people that I represent who said "I didn’t think I would make it to twenty-one years old so I’m ready to die now. Let’s do it now."
State senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal (@MariaChappelleN) speaks on the Senate floor about the events she witnessed in Ferguson, Missouri in the weeks following the execution of Mike Brown. Senator Chappelle-Nadal was one of many protesters tear gassed for three hours without reprieve by the Ferguson PD.
She has been consistent and unrelenting in her criticism of Governor Jay Nixon — to the point of tweeting him “FUCK you, Governor!” — for his lack of action over the violation of citizens’ constitutional right to peacefully protest, and passionately vocal about the violent ways in which protesters were abused by the police.
This woman is an inspiration.
The NFL star isn’t the only one. The practice of beating children lives on, buoyed by an organized, conservative Christian movement that promotes corporal punishment.
I wish I could say it was surprising to learn that Adrian Peterson, his lawyer, and his friends are all defending Peterson from allegations of child abuse by saying that Peterson’s choice to beat his 4-year-old son with a stick was nothing but an expression of love. Beating children this way can leave scars, both physical and mental, but the practice continues—and continues to be treated by many as normal—in no small part because there’s an organized, conservative Christian movement that continues to promote corporal punishment and even argues that attempts to stymie the practice are an assault on their religion.
Like Peterson, I grew up in rural Texas and can attest that yes, it’s more common than not for parents to beat their children with sticks, belts, and various kitchen implements, all in the name of “love.” (I personally was never hit this way, but my family was the exception, not the rule.) It’s not just in Texas, either, as 67 percent of parents admit to spanking their children. In fact, 19 states, including Texas, still allow corporal punishment in schools.
Most of the people who support spanking draw a distinction between “corporal punishment” and “child abuse,” but as the Peterson case shows, where people draw that line varies wildly. To make the situation worse, the Christian right has, for decades now, both heralded corporal punishment as the best way to discipline children and has resisted efforts to strengthen protections for children on the grounds that these violate “parental rights.”
This is why the United States, along with Somalia, is the only country in the world not to have ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, a document that outlines U.N. expectations for how governments are to handle the rights of children. The reason for the reluctance is simple: The Christian right won’t allow the Senate to ratify the Convention. There are many reasons for this, but a big one is fear that the Convention would force the government to outlaw spanking.
It is true that the Convention, according to UNICEF, gives children “the right to be protected from being hurt and mistreated, physically or mentally” and that “any form of discipline involving violence is unacceptable.” The Convention doesn’t go so far as to explicitly call on governments to outlaw spanking, but the wording does strongly advise against all hitting of children in favor of other forms of discipline.Spanking your child is a part of many people’s identities about what it is to be a Christian, which is why so many conservative Christians love to claim “spare the rod and spoil the child.”
“Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children” if the U.S. ratified the Conventions, argues the Christian right website Parental Rights, the primary resource fighting efforts to protect the rights of children.
The problem with “reasonable” is there’s no good definition of what counts as reasonable. It’s a phrase designed to call to mind a soft and painless swat on a toddler’s butt to get their attention, but in reality, what Christian conservatives define as “reasonable” is intended to cause pain and injury to children. Focus on the Family argues that any kind of spanking that does more than “sting” is too much, but even their supposedly “reasonable” approach allows for parents to “use a wooden spoon or some other appropriately sized paddle” and that it “ought to hurt” and should produce “a few tears and sniffles.”
The worst part is that Focus on the Family is restrained compared to other Christian conservative child-rearing advice. A more controversial but still popular book on child-rearing, To Train Up A Child by Michael and Debi Pearl, recommends that parents start spanking at 6 months old and use belts and plumbing tubes to beat children with. Unsurprisingly, considering the harsh attitude toward children on display, this book has turned up in a number of homes of parents accused of abusing children to death.
Christian conservatives defend the practice of spanking children, even with weapons, by saying that parents are not supposed to do so in anger. “You want to be calm, in control, and focused,” writes Chip Ingram of Focus on the Family, and that a parent who embraces corporal punishment “is not an angry, insensitive person with a big club and a vicious agenda.” This echoes a common refrain from parents to justify spanking, that they don’t do it in anger and they reserve it for serious infractions that require a lot of time and processing so the child doesn’t do it again.
Unfortunately, parents are overestimating their own abilities to keep it in check. Researchers at Southern Methodist University strapped audio recorders onto the arms of 33 mothers to see if and when they used spanking, and found that instead of retreating to a quiet space to calmly administer a spanking, mothers who spank are just hitting in anger and frustration. Kids got spanked for finger-sucking, messing with pages of a book, or getting out of a chair when they weren’t supposed to. Parents who spank say they do so around 18 times a year, but the SMU researchers found it was closer to 18 times a week.
“The recordings show that most parents responded either impulsively or emotionally, rather than being intentional with their discipline,” explained the lead researcher. This study was just of mothers who were smacking with their hands, but as the Peterson case shows, there’s reason to believe that parents who escalate to much more violent kinds of hitting are no more likely to hold back or temper their anger.
To make it all worse, there’s no reason to think spanking works. In the SMU study it was found that children lasted about 10 minutes after a smack before they started misbehaving again. Farther-reaching research shows that not only are spanked children not better behaved, they’re worse off for it, and that spanking is associated with more criminal and antisocial behavior as well as slower cognitive development.
Spanking doesn’t work to improve behavior. It’s hard for parents to regulate their spanking, so that it all too frequently turns into outright abuse. The line between “reasonable” spanking and abuse is hazy for even the best-intentioned parent. So why does the practice persist and why does the Christian right melt down at the mere hint of a suggestion that anyone would make it legally more difficult to beat your children?
A major part of the problem is that spanking your child is a part of many people’s identities about what it is to be a Christian, which is why so many conservative Christians love to claim “spare the rod and spoil the child.” Because of this, attempts to fix the problem and discourage spanking and even outright abuse are often regarded as attacks on their identities as Christians. Peterson’s own public statement, where he indicates that he was disciplined like this as a child and “the way my parents disciplined me has a great deal to do with the success I enjoyed as a man.” People feel, when you criticize spanking, that you are criticizing their families, their upbringing, and even their faith.
But it doesn’t have to be that way. As Peterson also said in his public statement, “There are other alternative ways of disciplining a child that may be more appropriate,” ways that don’t cause physical or mental harm, whether intended by the spanker or not. Christian conservatives have long argued that it’s totally possible to allow spanking while disallowing child abuse. Let’s hope this Adrian Peterson debacle shows that idea is much easier said than done.
With corporal punishment in the news recently (Adrian Peterson), it is no surprise that the biggest backers of spanking your child(ren) in the name of “love” and “discipline” (even to the point of extreme abuse) are Christian Conservatives.
Their influence is the primary reason why spanking is still allowed in schools in 19 states and why the US hasn’t ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
h/t: Amanda Marcotte at The Daily Beast
Missouri attorney sends nasty letter to Ozark Fire captain who applied for partner benefits [TW: Homophobia, Anti-LGBTQ Bigotry, Right-Wing Asshattery]
Captain Andi Mooneyham is an 8-year veteran of the Ozark Protection Fire District in Missouri who’s been fighting to get benefits for her wife after the two were legally married in California in 2013. Unfortunately, Missouri doesn’t recognize same-sex marriages and despite support from the community and the Ozark Fire Department, the board denied partner benefits based on advice from the department’s attorney who warned it was counter to Missouri law.
Although Captain Mooneyham is still looking at her legal options, she was shocked only days after the decision to receive a cruel letter from a well-known Springfield, Missouri attorney named Dee Wampler. The letter said:Dear Captain Mooneyham:PROMO is an advocacy group in Missouri for the gay, lesbian, transgender and bisexual equality. They posted the letter in full on their Facebook page with the caption "think discrimination doesn’t exist?"
I agree with the decision of the board to refuse to grant and extend benefits to lesbians and homosexuals.
Missouri has a constitutional provision and a state statute providing that marriage is between one man and one woman which has been the law since time and memorial in our world’s history.
I’m tired of promo attempting to cram homosexuality and lesbians down our throats.
You have followed the law and I congratulate you.
Now-back to fighting fires.
The Springfield News-Leader reached out to Dee Wampler for comment and he kept it short:"Whatever I wrote, I believe," he said.Good luck to Captain Mooneyham and her wife as they pursue further options. You can see the letter below the fold.
Congressman Jared Polis filed today to force a vote in the House on a newly revised ENDA.
Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) today filed a discharge petition with the Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives to force Speaker of the House John Boehner and Republican leadership to bring the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) to a vote.
Polis, the chief sponsor of the bill and co-chair of the LGBT Equality Caucus, has crafted a revised ENDA with “narrowed religious exemption,” the Washington Blade’s Chris Johnson reports this morning. Polis’ discharge petition would go into effect, forcing a vote, “if a majority of House members, or 218, sign the petition.”
Johnson notes that Rep. Polis filed the petition today, “just two months before a mid-term election in which Democrats are fighting to maintain control of the Senate. The lack of Republican signers on the ENDA discharge petition could serve to highlight to difference between the Democratic and Republican parties just before Election Day.”
Indeed, supporters face an “uphill battle in attempting to pass ENDA by initiating a discharge petition. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), an original co-sponsor of ENDA, has already told the Blade she wouldn’t sign the petition, saying through a spokesperson it’s a ‘partisan political tool.’ No Republican co-sponsor has agreed to signing a discharge petition for ENDA.”
LGBT organizations, after the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision, pulled their support from ENDA because of its extensive religious exemptions. It is believed those exemptions could effectively write anti-gay religious discrimination into law, rather than protecting LGBT people from discrimination.
Yesterday on “Trunews,” Family Research Council executive vice president Jerry Boykin said that President Obama has committed impeachable offenses but is getting off scott-free because the president, with help from the Muslim Brotherhood and LGBT advocates, is “brainwashing” Americans.
Boykin said that Obama “orchestrated the invasion” of child migrants fleeing Central America into the U.S. in order to “establish a voter bloc that would be in perpetuity would be a bloc for the Democrats.”
“It is treasonous behavior,” Boykin said, explaining that Obama should be impeached “but nobody is going to do it” and so now he is going to become America’s all-powerful “King.”
Boykin agreed with host Rick Wiles that Obama is employing Islamist-Marxist “psy-ops,” or psychological operations, to manipulate Americans in order to hold onto power.
“The Islamists are running an influence campaign, trying to change our thinking and you saw the evidence of that when the president stood up last week and said ‘ISIS is not Islam,’ that’s an influence campaign, that’s brainwashing the American people trying to get them to believe that nonsense,” he said. “You see that also with the Marxists, Marxists are doing exactly the same thing. The LGBT lobby is doing the same thing, they are bombarding us with this messaging that is really about changing the way we think, changing our attitude.”
The two right-wing commentators then agreed that Obama is a full-blown Marxist and “the first ‘Red’ president.”
Two crazy right-wing kooks.
h/t: Brian Tashman at RWW
Protesters from across St Louis turned up and turned out for the first St Louis County Council Meeting since Mike Brown’s Death. (Part I)
The St Louis County Council wasn’t as bad as Ferguson’s Council, but still very few answers and virtually no accountability from the folks who unleashed unholy hell on the residents of Ferguson, following Brown’s murder. #staywoke #farfromover
KEEP POSTING I NEED TO KNOW! DONT STOP POSTING ABOUT THIS. IT IS NOT OVER!
Breitbart London Asks: "Have They Cut Chelsea Manning's Penis Off Yet?" [TW: Transphobia, Anti-LGBTQ Bigotry]
A Breitbart.com columnist launched a transphobic attack on transgender former Army Private Chelsea Manning, calling her a “traitorous transsexual” and asking if the government had “cut it off yet.”
In a September 16 column for Breitbart London, columnist Milo Yiannopoulos attacked Manning - who was convicted in 2013 of leaking classified documents to Wikileaks - for publishing an op-ed in The Guardian about the Islamic State (ISIS or ISIL). Yiannopoulos repeatedly misgendered Manning, asking if the government had “cut it off yet” - referring to Manning’s genitalia:
Have they cut it off yet? The penis attached to traitorous transsexual Chelsea Manning, I mean. How else to explain the level of feverish disturbance necessary for the former Private Bradley to pen an op-ed saying we should “let ISIS succeed” in its mission to destroy half the Middle East, murdering, raping and torturing anyone in its way.
Manning, is of course, suffering from a lamentable psychiatric disorder. Normally, we help people like that by giving them access to doctors and drugs.
I don’t believe everything the government tells me, and I know it snoops on me more than it should, but do I trust the NSA more than I trust a loopy alleged rapist, Putin’s bitch or a psychologically fragile, gender-bending convicted traitor? You bet I do. [emphasis added]
Yiannopoulos also linked to a personal blog post in which he called “transgenderism” a “disease” and suggested that some transgender women are just “marginalised, lonely” gay men crying for help.
It goes without saying that Yiannopoulos’ transphobic screed contradicts expert consensus, which has acknowledged transgender identities as “part of the human condition.” He relies on the discredited work of former Johns Hopkins Hospital psychiatrist Paul McHugh, ignoring current professional medical recommendations about the transgender community.
Pseudoscience aside, though, Yiannopoulos’ column is a stark example of the kind of gratuitous hate speech Breitbart.com is willing to publish. Manning’s Guardian op-ed had nothing to do with being transgender, but Breitbart couldn’t pass up another opportunity to depict transgender people as unstable or deviant.
Quinn for Illinois TV Ad - Bruce Rauner “APS”
Bruce Rauner cannot be trusted to serve as our next Governor. Vote Quinn/Vallas!
Rauner will inflict pain on our state if he is elected.
Oklahoma state Sen. Bennett: American Muslims are a ‘cancer in our nation that needs cutting out’ [TW: Islamophobia, Hate Speech, Bigotry]
Oklahoma state Senator John Bennett (R) came under fire last week for comments he made about Muslims in America.
The Tulsa World reports that yesterday he doubled down on those comments, refusing to apologize “because I’m right, and they know I’m right.”
Bennett claims that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) “used political pressure to make me back down, but I didn’t and I’m not going to.”
“Islam,” he began, “if you bring it up as a non-Muslim, you’re called a ‘racist,’ or a ‘bigot,’ or an ‘Islamophobe.’ That’s what I was called by CAIR.”
“But the truth is,” Bennett said, “I’m speaking the truth.”
He said that “I’ve read the Koran,” and “90 percent of it is violence. And only 10 percent of it is conciliatory, or what some would say is the ‘peaceful’ part of the Koran.”
Bennett went on to say that he would talk about “Islam, and Muslim, and what the difference is between Islam and Muslim, and what those really mean.”
“I’m going to talk about threat of ISIS, and the Muslim Brotherhood, and CAIR, which is right here in the state of Oklahoma.”
“Is there a difference between moderate and radical Islam?” he asked, before answering, “I say, ‘No.’”
After attempting to describe the difference between “Muslim and Islam,” Bennett asked, “How can I be racist against Muslims or Islam when the ethnicity is actually Arab? This is kind of confusing.”
He then said that the goal of all Muslims is “the destruction of Western civilization from within. This is a cancer in our nation that needs to be cut out,” he added, but “the media is playing right into their hands.”
Watch Bennett’s presentation courtesy of The Tulsa World below.