Archive for July, 2015

Hillary Clinton Hits Jeb Bush First, And Hard, In Speech On Race. By The Time Jeb Bush Got To The Lectern Declaring “I Believe In The Right To Rise In This Country,” The Scent Of Political Gun-Powder Was Still In The Air!

Posted in 2016, Politics with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on July 31, 2015 by sheriffali

[NYT] FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — Jeb Bush and his aides had envisioned a big, inclusive, high-minded speech about race on Friday in his home state of Florida, a chance to bring his message of colorblind opportunity to a prestigious group of African-American leaders.

 

In a rare gesture of bipartisanship, Mr. Bush even planned to warmly quote President Obama, usually the subject of his derision.

 

Then Hillary Rodham Clinton stomped all over those plans.

 

In a biting pre-emptive attack delivered as Mr. Bush, the former Florida governor, waited backstage here at the annual convention of the National Urban League, Mrs. Clinton portrayed him as a hypocrite who had set back the cause of black Americans.

 

Mrs. Clinton, a Democratic candidate for president, latched onto Mr. Bush’s campaign slogan and the name of his “super PAC” — “Right to Rise,” his shorthand for a conservative agenda of self-reliance and hope — and turned it into a verbal spear.

 

“People can’t rise if they can’t afford health care,” Mrs. Clinton said to applause from convention goers, a dig at Mr. Bush’s opposition to the Affordable Care Act.

 

“They can’t rise if the minimum wage is too low to live on,” she said, a jab at his opposition to raising the federal minimum wage.

 

“They can’t rise if their governor makes it harder for them to get a college education,” she said, a critique of Mr. Bush’s decision as governor to eliminate affirmative action in college admissions.

 

When Mr. Bush reached the lectern, declaring, “I believe in the right to rise in this country,” the scent of political gunpowder was still in the air.

 

It was an unexpected moment of Campaign Theater that seemed to presage Mrs. Clinton’s general-election strategy should she prevail in her party’s primary contest: an elbows-out, cutting approach to her Republican rival. And it was all the more striking because the Bush and Clinton families make a point of highlighting their friendly ties: Former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush appear on this week’s cover of Time magazine.

 

Twitter @sheriffali

http://nyti.ms/1KELO93

CLINTON CAMPAIGN - URBAN LEAGE FLORIDA - 1 CLINTON CAMPAIGN - NEXT POTUS

Republicans And Some Democrats Whining About The Iran Deal Should Stop Being So Sanctimonious. 100 Years Ago July 15, 1915 the U.S. Invaded HAITI And Occupied It For 19 Years. President Woodrow Wilson’s Secretary Of State William Jennings, Quipped “Think Of It! Niggers Speaking French.” A Chilling Echo Of Jim Crow Era Bigotry Of The Time

Posted in Sanctimonious America with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on July 30, 2015 by sheriffali

[Washington Post] “In Haiti, the reality of American actions sharply contradicted the gloss of [American leaders’] liberal protestations,” wrote the historian Hans Schmidt, whose 1971 book on the U.S. occupation is still a widely cited text. “Racist preconceptions, reinforced by the current debasement of Haiti’s political institutions, placed the Haitians far below levels Americans considered necessary for democracy, self-government, and constitutionalism.”

 

A century ago, American troops invaded and occupied a foreign nation. They would stay there for almost two decades, install a client government, impose new laws and fight insurgents in bloody battles on difficult terrain. Thousands of residents perished during what turned out to be 19 years of de facto U.S. rule.

 

The country was Haiti, the Caribbean nation that’s often seen by outsiders as a metaphor for poverty and disaster. Yet rarely are Americans confronted with their own hand in its misfortunes.

 

On Tuesday, a group of protesters marched to the U.S. Embassy in the Haitian capital Port-au-Prince in commemoration of the grim legacy of the U.S. occupation, which began in July 1915 after President Woodrow Wilson used political chaos and violence in the country as grounds to intervene. Some in Washington feared the threat of competing French and German interests in the Caribbean.

 

The liberal, democratic values Wilson so famously championed in Europe were not so visible in Haiti, a largely black republic that since its independence from France a century earlier had been regarded with fear and contempt by America’s white ruling classes. “Think of it! N——s speaking French,” quipped William Jennings Bryan, Wilson’s secretary of state, in a chilling echo of the Jim Crow-era bigotry of the time.

 

Though framed as an attempt to bring stability to an unstable, benighted land, the United States “also wanted to make sure that the Haitian government was compatible to American economic interests and friendly to foreign investment,” writes Laurent Dubois, a Duke University academic and author of “Haiti: The Aftershocks of History.”

 

“In Haiti, the reality of American actions sharply contradicted the gloss of [American leaders’] liberal protestations,” wrote the historian Hans Schmidt, whose 1971 book on the U.S. occupation is still a widely cited text. “Racist preconceptions, reinforced by the current debasement of Haiti’s political institutions, placed the Haitians far below levels Americans considered necessary for democracy, self-government, and constitutionalism.”

 

Twitter @sheriffali

 

Open Washington Post Link For Full Article http://wpo.st/v1wS0

HAITI - USA INVASION JULY 15 1915 HAITI - USA INVASION JULY 15 1915 - 1

New York Times Has Turned Into Fox Print News Writes Bad Ass Slash Fiction Story About Hillary Clinton Criminal Investigation. After New York Times Changed Their Story Four Times Without Any Apology To Their Readers, It Is Self Evident That New York Times Is Finally Bankrupt Of Shame

Posted in Politics with tags , , , , , , , , on July 29, 2015 by sheriffali

In its pathological Liberal Media quest to catch Billary Clinton Doing Some Kind of Bad Thing That Is Bad Maybe, the New York Times published a devastating, campaign-destroying, earth-shattering, game-changing, smoking gun GOTCHA! Story late Thursday night, and it was Not Excellent News for Hillary:

 

Criminal Inquiry Sought in Clinton’s Use of Email

 

Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday.


That sounds pretty uh oh. Criminal, even! Hillary will never be president now because she will be in PRISON, for emailing sensitive classified state secrets from her personal GrammaYOLO@Hillz.com email, even though she said she only used it to plan her daughter’s wedding and talk about yoga. But no! She used it for doing crime and jeopardizing national security. Bad Hillary, no White House for you!

Just one little problem: it’s not true, according to the Justice Department. Oops!

 

A statement issued by the Department said it had received a “referral” on the matter, although it did not say who originated it.

 

“It is not a criminal referral,” the statement said.

 

But what about looking into Hillary’s “use of email”? Nope, that’s not true either:

 

The Justice Department said Friday it has been asked to investigate the “potential compromise of classified information” in connection with the private e-mail account that Hillary Rodham Clinton used while serving as secretary of state.

 

That’s a little bit different from saying Hillary Clinton might be criminally investigated for emailing classified information, isn’t it? As the Times noted in its shocking story:

 

In the course of the email review, State Department officials determined that some information in the messages should be retroactively classified. In the 3,000 pages that were released, for example, portions of two dozen emails were redacted because they were upgraded to “classified status.” But none of those were marked as classified at the time Mrs. Clinton handled them.

 

So the State Department is retroactively classifying documents Hillary emailed, which were not classified at the time, but that adds up to criminal activity by Clinton, and the DOJ is ON IT, except not? Ace reporting there, The New York Times!

 

The paper eventually decided it regrets the error of getting the whole thing wrong, so it changed the headline and the lede and the story, and added a “correction,” and it is very sorry about that, we good now?

But the interweb is forever, so you can see the changes from the original story here, thanks to NewsDiffs.

 

So, how did the Times fuck this up so badly? Well, it got some secret memos. Can’t tell you how, it is a SECRET. But Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings, who is a member of the House Benghazi Committee To Investigate Hillary Clinton Until They Prove She Did Benghazi, thinks he might know:

 

In a statement, Cummings said that “this is the latest example in a series of inaccurate leaks to generate false front-page headlines — only to be corrected later — and they have absolutely nothing to do with the attacks in Benghazi or protecting our diplomatic corps overseas.”


So hmm, maybe Republicans are leaking information to the Times to try to turn a story that isn’t a story into a story, for their own political gain. But nah, they would never do something like that, would they? And the Times would never play along, would it? (
Yes and yes.)

 

Twitter @sheriffali

 


Read more at http://wonkette.com/592018/new-york-times-writes-badass-slash-fiction-about-hillary-clinton-criminal-investigation#OwpA6GDXD4zsdvZ5.99

 CLINTON CAMPAIGN - NYT FICTION

Israelis scold Huckabee for saying Iran deal sends them to ‘door of the oven’

Posted in Politics with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 28, 2015 by sheriffali

The fallout over Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee’s controversial remarks on the Iran nuclear deal has now reached Israel.

 

Over the weekend, Huckabee derided the deal announced in Vienna between six world powers and Iran, saying it would “take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven.” The comments, which invoked the Holocaust in criticizing the agreement — it restricts Tehran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief — earned swift condemnation from the Anti-Defamation Leaguecomedian Jon Stewart and congressional Democrats, as well as President.

 

Huckabee, as my colleague Jose A. DelReal noted, made hay with the controversy, responding to Obama’s censure with a new attack on the president’s supposed blindness to the real threat that Iran poses.

 

Criticism now, though, has come from a constituency the former Arkansas governor would probably be less inclined to offend: Israel.

Yisrael Katz, the country’s transport minister and a close ally of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said on Facebook that although he appreciated Huckabee’s concern for Israel, the comments went a bit too far.

 

“Respected Mr. Huckabee: nobody marches the Jews to ovens anymore,” Katzsaid. “To this end we established the State of Israel and the [Israel Defense Forces]; and, if need be, we will know how to defend ourselves, by ourselves.”

 

Katz was not alone in raising an objection.

 

“These are not words that I would use or that I think are appropriate,”said Ron Dermer, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, stressing that despite his opposition to the deal, he didn’t believe the White House was acting in bad faith.

 

Twitter @sheriffali

 

 

Open Washington Post Link For Full Article

http://wpo.st/YcKS0

GOP - MIKE HUCKABEE 3 GOP - MIKE HUCKABEE 5 GOP - MIKE HUCKABEE 4

The New York Times Got Caught Red Handed Over Their Sinister Article About Hillary Clinton Criminal Investigation Have Tried To Weasel Their Way Out of Their Egregiousness.

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 28, 2015 by sheriffali

A Clinton Story Fraught With Inaccuracies: How It Happened and What Next! New York Times For Which I am a Paid Subscriber, I Have Witnessed Over The Past Months, Seems Self Evident Has Become Fox News In Print!

 

 

The New York Times after indulging in nothing short of sinister motives, much later, The Times backed off the startling characterization of a “criminal inquiry,” instead calling it something far tamer sounding: it was a “security” referral.

 

 

[Public Editor’s Journal Margaret Sullivan] The story certainly seemed like a blockbuster: A criminal investigation of Hillary Rodham Clinton by the Justice Department was being sought by two federal inspectors general over her email practices while secretary of state.

 

It’s hard to imagine a much more significant political story at this moment, given that she is the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination for president.

 

The story – a Times exclusive — appeared high on the home page and the mobile app late Thursday and on Friday and then was displayed with a three-column headline on the front page in Friday’s paper. The online headline read “Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email,” very similar to the one in print.

 

But aspects of it began to unravel soon after it first went online. The first major change was this: It wasn’t really Mrs. Clinton directly who was the focus of the request for an investigation. It was more general: whether government information was handled improperly in connection with her use of a personal email account.

 

Much later, The Times backed off the startling characterization of a “criminal inquiry,” instead calling it something far tamer sounding: it was a “security” referral.

 

From Thursday night to Sunday morning – when a final correction appeared in print – the inaccuracies and changes in the story were handled as they came along, with little explanation to readers, other than routine corrections. The first change I mentioned above was written into the story for hours without a correction or any notice of the change, which was substantive.

 

And the evolving story, which began to include a new development, simply replaced the older version. That development was that several instances of classified information had been found in Mrs. Clinton’s personal email – although, in fairness, it’s doubtful whether the information was marked as classified when she sent or received those emails. Eventually, a number of corrections were appended to the online story, before appearing in print in the usual way – in small notices on Page A2.

 

But you can’t put stories like this back in the bottle – they ripple through the entire news system.

 

So it was, to put it mildly, a mess. As a result, I’ve been spending the last couple of days asking how this could happen and how something similar can be prevented in the future. I’ve spoken to the executive editor, Dean Baquet; to a top-ranking editor directly involved with the story, Matt Purdy; and to the two reporters, Matt Apuzzo and Michael S. Schmidt.

 

Meanwhile, I heard from readers, like Maria Cranor who wanted clarification and explanation on The Times’s “recent, and mystifying, coverage of the HRC emails. It appears that your reporters relied on leaks from the Gowdy committee to suggest that Clinton was involved in some kind of criminal malfeasance around the emails. The subsequent walk backs have not been effective, or encouraging. Please help us retain our wavering confidence in the Times’ political coverage!” (Her reference is to the Republican congressman, Trey Gowdy.)

 

Another reader, Paul Kingsley, demanded a refund for his Friday paper. “We all deserve one,” he wrote to me. And, complaining about the lack of transparency and the errors, he added:

 

1) Please repost the original reporting;


2) Provide an explanation as to how it made it to press and what was wrong.


3) What are you going to do to prevent such inaccurate bias in the future?


4) Are you going to minimize using unnamed sources?

 

Twitter @sheriffali

 

 

 Open The Link Read The Full Article, You Would Be Amazed How Low Journalism Has Stooped!

 

http://nyti.ms/1JKJgk0

CLINTON CAMPAIGN - NEW YORK TIMES JULY 28 15 CLINTON CAMPAIGN - AMERICA'S NEXT POTUS CLINTON CAMPAIGN - THE ONLY 2016 CHOICE CLINTON CAMPAIGN - NEW YORK TIMES JULY 28 15

Republicans Buttresses Israel Continue Racist Assault On President Obama Despite Sucking 4.5 Billion Dollars Annually From The American Taxpayers!

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 25, 2015 by sheriffali

41 Republican Senators Blocked A Bill To Help Veterans With PTSD But Increased America’s Handout To Israel From 3.2 Billion To 4.5 Billion Annually. Republican Warmongers Send America’s Sons And Daughters In The Middle Of Religious Conflict Where They Are Killed And Wounded And The Same Warmongers Call Returning Veterans Moochers.

 

WHEN IS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE GOING TO WAKE UP?

 

“Do u know what Obama Coffee is? Black and weak.”

— A June 21 tweet by Judy Mozes, wife of Israeli interior minister and vice prime minister Silvan Shalom.

[Washington Post] Judy Shalom Nir-Mozes, a well-known Israeli radio and television personality, deleted the tweet and later apologized after drawing criticism for what she called a “stupid joke.”

 

Those who regard the Iran nuclear deal as a grave threat to Israeli and U.S. interests have a moral duty to vigorously oppose it, just as those of us who view the deal as the best way to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon should work for its adoption. Vilifying the president of the United States with slurs and insults, however, is out of bounds. Except, perhaps, in some places and with some people.

U.S.-born Michael Oren, Israel’s former ambassador to the United States, has done his own anti-Obama number. Citing President Obama’s upbringing,Oren suggested in a series of recent articles in Foreign Policy that the president’s “abandonment” by his mother’s “two Muslim husbands” created in him a desire for “acceptance by their co-religionists” that has now influenced his foreign policy. Conspiracy theorists and birthers could hardly have said it better — Obama’s Christianity notwithstanding.

 

This is beneath the Michael Oren I thought I knew.

 

It has come to this: racially charged affronts to the president of the United States from, of all places, Israel.

 

According to the Book of Esther, Haman, a high official of the ancient kingdom of Persia, sought to annihilate the Jewish people. A few months ago, Shlomo Riskin, chief rabbi of Efrat, a West Bank settlement, likened Obama to a scourge on the Holy Land, telling an audience, “The president of the United States is lashing out at Israel just like Haman lashed out at the Jews.”

 

Riskin wasn’t the first rabbi to dub Obama a reincarnation of Haman.

 

In 2012, Dov Lior, then chief rabbi of another West Bank settlement, Kiryat Arba, also compared Obama to Haman, according to Israel’s Army Radio. But Lior stooped lower. He labeled Obama a “kushi” of the West, which, the Jerusalem Post reported, is a modern-day derogatory term used to describe people of African descent.

It’s not only the name-calling and insults hurled at Obama that grab the gut. Behavior sends signals, too.

 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before Congress drew rave reviews from his Republican hosts and most — but not all — of Israel’s supporters. Many members of the 46-member Congressional Black Caucus were outraged that Netanyahu would go behind the back of the White House and arrange with Republicans to use the U.S. Capitol as the stage to challenge the president’s Iranian nuclear negotiations. Several chose to stay away.

 

U.S. representative and caucus member James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the third-ranking House Democrat, said he regarded Netanyahu’s speech as an “affront to America’s first black president.”

 

In an interview with USA Today columnist DeWayne Wickham, Clyburncalled Netanyahu’s White House end run “a real in-your-face slap at the president, and black folks know it. ... [Netanyahu] wouldn’t have done it to any other president.” Pressed as to why Netanyahu would disrespect Obama, Clyburn responded, “You know why.”

 

Should it come to a search for 40 Democratic votes to join the House’s 247 Republicans in voting to override a possible Obama veto of legislation blocking an Iranian deal, don’t look for help from the Congressional Black Caucus. Hostility to the current Israeli leadership is real, and not just among caucus members. Many of their African American constituents are quietly seething, too.

 

Clyburn’s “and black folks know it” speaks volumes.

 

To no surprise, Republicans are trying to exploit the situation.

 

The National Republican Senatorial Committee sent out a petition urging people to sign and “[t]ell Obama it’s now time to stand with Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu.” Are the petitions being circulated in Zip codes where large numbers of blacks reside? It would be wasted effort.

 

There is a larger concern. While the jury is still out, the argument over the Iran deal could well stress the long-standing and largely fruitful political alliance between blacks and Jews in this country.

 

It would be a pity if the nuclear arms debate shapes up as a dispute between U.S. supporters of Netanyahu’s policies and Americans who respect and trust Obama’s judgment. And it would be a sorrow to those of us who still look with favor upon an alliance that has stood the test in the hardest of times.

 

That may explain why the “Obama Coffee” insult, the rabbinical slurs and the below-the-belt punches of Israeli officials are so sad, dispiriting and potentially disrupting in ways that once seemed unimaginable.

 

Twitter @sheriffali

 

http://wpo.st/YI0S0

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU - LARGE -1 GOP - 2 PIMPS FOR NETANYAHU 2 CLINTON CAMPAIGN - GOP FOOLS 

 

United Nations Five [5] Permanent Members Russia, China, France, Britain And The United States Chose Peace Over War, Death And Destruction. Republicans And Benjamin Netanyahu Wants War To Kill More Of America’s Sons And Daughters Like George W Bush And Dick Cheney Did In Iraq!

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 20, 2015 by sheriffali

[NYT] UNITED NATIONS — The United Nations Security Council on Monday unanimously approved a resolution that creates the basis for international economic sanctions against Iran to be lifted, a move that incited a furious reaction in Israel and potentially sets up an angry showdown in Congress.

 

The 15-0 vote for approval of the resolution — 104 pages long including annexes and lists — was written in Vienna by diplomats who negotiated a landmark pact last week that limits Iran’s nuclear capabilities in exchange for ending the sanctions.

 

Iran has pledged to let in international monitors to inspect its facilities for the next 10 years and other measures that were devised to guarantee that its nuclear energy activities are purely peaceful.

 

The Security Council resolution, which is legally binding, lays out the steps required only for the lifting of United Nations sanctions.

 

It has no legal consequence on the sanctions imposed separately by the United States and the European Union.

 

The European Union also approved the Iran nuclear deal on Monday, putting in motion the lifting of its own sanctions, which include prohibitions on the purchase of Iranian oil. Europe will continue to prohibit the export of ballistic missile technology and sanctions related to human rights.

 

Diplomats have warned that if the United States Congress refuses to lift American penalties against Iran, the Iranians may renege on their commitments as well, which could result in a collapse of the entire deal.

 

The resolution takes effect in 90 days, a time frame negotiated in Vienna to allow Congress, where members have expressed strong distrust of the agreement, to review it. President Obama, who has staked much of his foreign policy ambitions on the Iran pact, has vowed to veto a congressional rejection of the nuclear accord.

 

Twitter @sheriffali

 

Twitter @hrcwhitehouse

 

 

Open New York Times Link For Full Article

 

http://nyti.ms/1JslNnC

 BARACK - UNITED NATIONS JULY 20 15 3 BARACK - UNITED NATIONS JULY 20 15 2 BARACK - UNITED NATIONS JULY 20 15 4