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

President Obama – Man On Fire – Not Having To Carry Whining Democrats On His Back; Republicans And Benjamin Netanyahu Have Met Their Match!

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 19, 2015 by sheriffali

Meet Drama Obama Because Mr. Cool Has Left The Building!

 

Obama is gambling that he won’t hurt his party and that in 10 years Iran will be a better member of the international community. But he can’t do worse as an oracle of the Middle East than the conservative warmongers who ravaged the region.

 

 

[Maureen Dowd NYT] Washington — IN the midst of Iran mania, the president got tossed a question about Bill Cosby.

 

Would he revoke the Medal of Freedom given to a comedian who has been accused of subverting the free will of dozens of women, and counting?

 

It was a riveting moment.

 

It has been said that Cliff Huxtable was instrumental in paving the way for Barack Obama.

 

Until the nation began watching the sterling Obamas, the sterling Huxtables were the most celebrated positive image of a wholesome, engaging, upper-middle-class black family.

 

The president may have flashed back to another White House news conference in 2009 when he forthrightly — and correctly — accused the police of acting “stupidly” in arresting his friend Skip Gates on a suspicion of breaking into his own Cambridge, Mass., home. The backlash from the police led to Obama suffering through the inane “beer summit.”

 

So when April Ryan of the American Urban Radio Networks asked about Cosby, President Obama’s lawyerly side kicked in at first. He punted, saying he did not comment on cases that could be litigated.

 

Then he looked down, pressed his lips together and unleashed a well deserved hell on Cosby. Because in the sunset of his presidency, Obama’s bolder side is rising. He’s a lame duck who doesn’t give a damn.

 

“If you give a woman — or a man, for that matter — without his or her knowledge, a drug, and then have sex with that person without consent, that’s rape,” he said.

 

The father of two daughters reflected genuine disgust.

 

With Cosby, the Charleston, S.C., eulogy with the rendition of “Amazing Grace” and the visit with felons in federal prison in Oklahoma to speak up for that unloved constituency, and say “There but for the grace of God,” the president who once tread gingerly on race has discovered a more gingery voice.

 

And the chorus in the land finally proclaims: “That’s the man I voted for.”

 

Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to tell colleagues that one is only president from the inauguration to the first midterm. But President Obama is rewriting the book on Oval Office juice.

 

He has talked wistfully in private for years about “going Bulworth” and emulating Warren Beatty’s hilariously blunt senator in that movie. Now he’s doing it.

 

“This is the guy I know,” David Axelrod told me. “He’s focused on big things, speaking hard truths and damning small politics, and that is why so many of us were attracted to him from the start.”

 

When CBS’s Major Garrett grandstanded in the White House press conference, asking the president why he was content “to leave the conscience of this nation, the strength of this nation, unaccounted for in relation” to the Americans stuck in prison in Iran, Obama gave Garrett the back of his hand.

 

“Major,” he shot back, “that’s nonsense, and you should know better.”

 

Time to dismiss the Anger Translator.

 

The president is far more energized than a couple years ago, when — thwarted by intransigent Republicans and the intractable Middle East — he acted as though he would like to quit, if it was a job you could stride away from.

 

He clearly enjoys settling into his favorite role — the man alone in the arena, disdaining the flattering rituals and back-scratching of politics, the dread drinks with Senator McConnell and stupid golf with Speaker Boehner.

 “Eight months ago, he was left for dead after the midterm elections,” Axelrod said. “But he saw it as a liberating moment, the starting buzzer on the final quarter. And he is working down his list of things undone and knocking them out one after another. For those of us who were there from the start, it’s thrilling to see.”

 

Aside from Mitch McConnell, the happiest person last November when McConnell won was Obama because he was freed from having to humor Harry Reid and Hill Democrats.

 

He passed the trade bill with help from Republicans who spent years trying to hurt him and he is now teaming with the Koch brothers, who have spent a fortune trying to kill his agenda, for a criminal justice overhaul.

 

He brushed away the contentious politics on Cuba, the Confederate flag and Iran and said it was long past time to move on.

 

A few years ago, he privately fretted that he was no longer lucky. But he got lucky with the Supreme Court on health care and gay marriage.

 

He wrote in his memoir that from the time he was young, he learned the trick of not seeming angry so he wouldn’t alarm white folks.

 

But now he seems eager to mix it up as he goes through his rhymes-with-bucket list. As Glenn Thrush put it in his “Meet ‘Drama’ Obama” piece in Politico, “Mr. Cool has left the building.”

 

Obama has always radiated the smug air that he was right and any other positions were illogical. But it is gratifying when aimed at the obnoxious Republicans and more obnoxious Bibi.

 

Republicans were never going to go for the Iran deal. Their apocalyptic statements were written well in advance and they just had to hit “Send” followed by a fund-raising appeal to Jewish donors.

 

Twitter @sheriffali

 

Twitter @hrcwhitehouse

 BARACK - MAN ON FIRE  - 1 BARACK - WHINING DEMOCRATS BARACK - BUSH CHENY PLUS CRIMES BARACK - ENEMIES FRONT AND BACK

 

 

{The Iran Deal Problem} A President’s Intelligence Contrasting Warmongers In The Repugnant, Republican, GOP Party..

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 16, 2015 by sheriffali

President Obama was well into his feisty and freewheeling news conference on the Iran nuclear deal when Major Garrett of CBS News got under the presidential skin.

 

“As you well know, there are four Americans in Iran, three held on trumped-up charges,” Garrett said. “Can you tell the country, sir, why you are content, with all the fanfare around this deal, to leave the conscience of this nation, the strength of this nation, unaccounted for in relation to these four Americans?”

 

The normally cool president reacted slowly, as though trying to control his anger.

 

“The notion that I am content — as I celebrate — with American citizens languishing in Iranian jails?” Obama asked, icily. “That’s nonsense, and you should know better.” After that extraordinary scolding, the president went on to explain that he didn’t link the American captives to nuclear talks because doing so may have made Iran think “we can get additional concessions out of the Americans,” and would have made it “much more difficult for us to walk away” from a deal.

 

Garrett’s question, though loaded, was legitimate; one of those being held on bogus charges in Iran is Jason Rezaian, The Washington Post’s Tehran bureau chief. And Obama’s answer was revealing: Full of Sturm und Drang, he ultimately acknowledged that the United States just doesn’t have the clout to enforce its will.

 

This was an undercurrent of the whole news conference Wednesday afternoon, and of Obama’s overall defense of the Iran deal. He was tough and strong, but in service of the argument that American power is limited — that this is the best deal we could get with our declining leverage. His defenders call it realism; it also may amount to ratifying retreat.

 

Obama took on those who said a better deal would have stripped Iran of all nuclear capability. “The problem with that position is that there is nobody who thinks that Iran would or could ever accept that, and the international community does not take the view that Iran can’t have a peaceful nuclear program,” he said. “And so we don’t have diplomatic leverage.”

 

As for those who argue for continued economic sanctions? Obama said that sanctions “required the cooperation of countries all around the world, many of whom really want to purchase oil from Iran.” If they saw the United States walking away from a deal, “the sanctions system unravels,” he said, and “we have lost credibility in the eyes of the world.”

 

He positioned the nuclear deal as the work of a nation trying to triage its problems in global affairs. “The argument,” he said, “that because this deal does not solve all those other problems, that’s an argument for rejecting this deal, defies logic . . . and it loses sight of what was our original number one priority, which is making sure that they don’t have a bomb.”

 

Broadly, Obama offered his view that “it’s not the job of the president of the United States to solve every problem in the Middle East,” and he said he couldn’t end the Syrian civil war without “buy in” from Russia and Iran. He acknowledged that the nuclear deal might mean more money for Hezbollah, but said, “Is that more important than preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon? No.”

 

Even when the news conference took a brief detour into domestic issues — revoking Bill Cosby’s Presidential Medal of Freedom — Obama spoke of powerlessness. “There is no precedent for revoking a medal,” he said. “We don’t have that mechanism.”

 

 

A couple of dozen seats at the news conference were empty, so a smaller-than-usual crowd got to see the rare spectacle of Obama going off script. After finishing his list of pre-selected questioners (and posing a few questions to himself about various objections to the deal), he opened the floor to all comers. “Have we exhausted Iran questions here?” he asked. “I really am enjoying this Iran debate.”

 

There’s little that Obama’s Republican critics in Congress can do about the deal other than vote their symbolic disapproval, and the president seemed to be speaking as much for the history books as for contemporary critics, using phrases such as “historic chance” and “future generations.” But mostly what came through was a defense of what future historians may describe as the Obama doctrine: an America that recognizes the limits of its power and acts less ambitiously.

 

“No one suggests that this deal resolves all the threats that Iran poses to its neighbors or the world,” he said, returning repeatedly to the argument that none of his critics has “presented to me or the American people a better alternative.”

 

He’s right. And this is why it was, sadly, a powerful case — for American weakness. [Dana Milbank Washington Post]

 

Twitter @sheriffali

 

Twitter @hrcwhitehouse

 

Washington Post Link http://wpo.st/bupQ0

 COOL PRESIDENT OBAMA 07-15-15 COOL PRESIDENT OBAMA 07-15-15 - 2 COOL PRESIDENT OBAMA 07-15-15 - 3 COOL PRESIDENT OBAMA 07-15-15 - 4

Bernie Sanders Is Already Making It More Likely For Republicans To Win The White House In 2016. The Democratic Party Is Splitting Right Down The Middle. Republicans Objective Is To Divide And Conquer!

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , on July 14, 2015 by sheriffali

Bernie Sanders is selling his supporters a lot of high hopes and dreams that don’t match reality, and once he loses the primaries, that will probably lead to many disenfranchised Democrats who now believe Hillary Clinton to be “not liberal enough” or “just another Republican” to stay home and not vote.

 

In lots of ways, far-left liberals are actually helping out the Republican Party by bashing Hillary Clinton. I have opened a Hillary Clinton Page on my Facebook Page which is under Sheriff Gerry Ali. The page was recently opened but there is a lot of activity going on in the comments. You should open the page and see.

 

These far-left liberal’s comments is self evident of just how delusional many people have become about Mrs. Clinton. They believe that if Hillary Clinton had to nominate Supreme Court Justices, her choices might be more conservative than many of her potential Republican opponents.

 

Bernie Sanders on the other hand can say and do a lot of what he’s doing now because he’s not actually trying to win. Sure, his rhetoric plays well with far-left liberals, many liberal blogs and people who care more about idealism instead of realism, but none of that is going to win in the General Presidential Election.

 

One thing is certain and that is if Bernie Sanders were the Democratic Nominee for President, he would get crushed in the General Election. Promulgating all of the far-left idealism is not realism and perhaps, just perhaps, if Democrats can see that what Republicans are doing and wake up in the very near future, we may still be able to hold on to the White House. In the final analysis, Republicans with the Crazy Train Bunch are fully cognizant they cannot beat Hillary Clinton in the General Election, so there plan is to “Divide and Conquer.”

 

Whoever wins the primaries, the Democrats as a party are going to lose, and when we fall, the rest of America will echo it along with us. I hope everyone is happy. We’ve just made it easier for the Republicans to win even though we know exactly what the country will be like under their rule. Democrats should feel ashamed right now. [Source for some information is from “forward progressives”]

 

Twitter @sheriffali

 

Twitter @hrcwhitehouse

 

 

www.whitehousehillaryclinton.com

 HILLARY CLINTON 2016 - SANDERS FAR-LEFT BERNIE SANDERS PIE IN THE SKY 1