Uncommon Sense

politics and society are, unfortunately, much the same thing

Obama supported the same racist policies Trump supports

original article: Video surfaces of Obama supporting asylum restrictions that Democrats now slam Trump over
July 17, 2019 by Chris Enloe

Democrats blasted President Donald Trump this week over new asylum regulations enacted in response to the growing humanitarian crisis at the southern border.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called the regulations — which require migrants to claim asylum in the first safe country to which they arrive, not the country of their preference — “illegal” and “cruel.”

However, new video of former President Barack Obama from five years ago shows just how far Democrats’ goal posts have moved.

Obama meets with leaders of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador at the White HouseAlex Wong/WHITE HOUSE POOL (ISP POOL IMAGES)/Corbis/VCG via Getty Images

Speaking in 2014, Obama said that poverty and crime are not sufficient legal reasons for granting asylum.

“Under U.S. law, we admit a certain number of refugees from all around the world based on some fairly narrow criteria. And, typically, refugees status is not granted just based on economic need or because a family lives in a bad neighborhood, or poverty,” Obama said.

“It’s typically defined fairly narrowly,” he explained. “You have a state, for example, that was targeting a political activist and they need to get out of the country, for fear of prosecution or even death.”

“There may be some narrow circumstances in which there is a humanitarian or refugee status that a family might be eligible for,” Obama went on to say. “If that were the case, it would be better for them to be able to apply in country, rather than take a very dangerous journey all the way up to Texas to make those same claims.”

However, Obama was clear that the American asylum-request pipeline is not suited to handle a large-scale humanitarian asylum crisis.

“I think it’s important to recognize that would not necessarily accommodate a large number of additional migrants,” Obama emphasized.

Obama’s comments followed a meeting at the White House with Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez, then-Guatemalan President Otto Perez Molina, and then-El Salvadorian President Salvador Sanchez Ceren.

Obama had met with his three counterparts to discuss what was at the time an ongoing migrant crisis impacting Central America, Mexico, and the U.S. That crisis is most notable for the surge of unaccompanied migrant children that overwhelmed U.S. immigration resources.

Democrats, government, immigration, politics, president, public policy, relativism

Filed under: Democrats, government, immigration, politics, president, public policy, relativism

Black people lost ground under Obama

Host Tavis Smiley argues black people have lost ground in every major economic category over the last ten years.
April 6, 2016

https://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4834072253001&w=466&h=263

Democrats, economy, government, politics, president, public policy, reform, tragedy, unintended consequences

Filed under: Democrats, economy, government, politics, president, public policy, reform, tragedy, unintended consequences

Did Russia feed misinformation for Steele dossier?

original article: Major Report Omission Shows Mueller Was Either Incompetent Or A Political Hack
May 6, 2019 by Margot Cleveland

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s March “Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election” contains a glaring omission: Not once in the 448-page tome does Mueller mention an investigation into whether Russia interfered with the U.S. presidential election by feeding dossier author Christopher Steele misinformation.

But Mueller also did not charge Steele with lying to the FBI, or refer a criminal case against Steele to federal prosecutors, as he did when the special counsel uncovered evidence of criminal misconduct unrelated to the 2016 election. Given Mueller’s conclusion that no one connected to the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to interfere with the election, one of those two scenarios must be true—either Russia fed Steele disinformation or Steele lied to the FBI about his Russian sources.

Steele Openly Said He Got Info from Russians

The Steele dossier, which consisted of a series of memorandum authored by the former MI6 spy, detailed intel purportedly provided by a variety of Vladimir Putin-connected sources. For instance, Steele identified Source A as “a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure” who “confided that the Kremlin had been feeding Trump and his team valuable intelligence on his opponents, including Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.”

Other supposed sources identified in the dossier included: Source B, identified as “a former top-level Russian intelligence officer still active inside the Kremlin”; Source C, a “Senior Russian Financial Officer”; and Source G, “a Senior Kremlin Official.” Steele also described a smattering of unlettered sources as a FSB Cyber Operative; a former Senior Intelligence Officer; a Senior Government Figure; “well-placed and established Kremlin source 1”; “well-placed and established Kremlin source 2”; a Kremlin official involved in U.S. relations; a Senior Russian leadership figure; and a Kremlin insider with direct access to leadership.

Steele first provided a summary of the Kremlin-supplied “intel” on Trump to the FBI in June or July 2016, when he met with his reputed handler, Rome-based FBI agent Mike Gaeta. In September 2016, Gaeta provided the dossier to agents working on the Russia collusion investigation at the FBI headquarters in Washington D.C.

The following month, the U.S. Department of Justice included details from the dossier in an application submitted to the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court and obtained a court order to surveil former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page. That FISA court order gave the Obama administration and career DOJ and FBI agents accessto Page’s communications with Trump campaign officials prior to Page’s departure.

Using Leaks to Seed News Stories

Leaks propelled the claimed collusion into the news. Steele shared details from the dossier with Michael Isikoff. Citing a “Western intelligence source,” Isikoff reported at Yahoo! News that “Page met with Igor Sechin, a longtime Putin associate and former Russian deputy prime minister,” and discussed the lifting of sanctions.

Government sources told Isikoff that Page’s activities in Russia had “been discussed with senior members of Congress during recent briefings about suspected efforts by Moscow to influence the presidential election.” “After one of those briefings,” Isikoff wrote, “Senate minority leader Harry Reid wrote FBI Director James Comey, citing reports of meetings between a Trump adviser (a reference to Page) and ‘high ranking sanctioned individuals’ in Moscow over the summer as evidence of ‘significant and disturbing ties’ between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin that needed to be investigated by the bureau.”

The DOJ later cited Isikoff’s article to support its FISA application to surveil Page. The application also detailed some of the impact this news story had on the Trump campaign: “Based on statements in the September 23, [Yahoo!] News Article, as well as in other recent articles published by identified news organizations, Trump’s campaign repeatedly has made public statements in an attempt to create the appearance of distance between Page and [Trump’s] campaign.”

Mueller’s report also acknowledged that the Steele dossier, and leaks about it, affected the Trump campaign. For instance, Mueller noted that “on October 11, 2016, Podesta stated publicly that the FBI was investigating Russia’s hacking and said that candidate Trump might have known in advance that the hacked emails were going to be released.” Additionally, Mueller highlighted the media’s questioning of vice presidential candidate Mike Pence concerning “whether the Trump Campaign was ‘in cahoots’ with WikiLeaks in releasing damaging Clinton-related information.”

Although Pence shot down the suggestion, responding, “nothing could be further from the truth,” the narrative dragged the Trump campaign up to election day—and a rabid portion of the populace continues to believe and peddle the Russian hoax. Yet Trump still solidly defeated Hillary Clinton.

It Appears Russia Used Steele to Meddle in U.S. Elections

But Trump’s victory does not negate the reality that, assuming Steele truthfully relayed to the FBI and the media the intel his Russian sources provided, Russia interfered in the election by feeding Steele false intel about Trump.

Yet in the special counsel report, Mueller identified only two principal ways Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election: “First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents.”

Surely, a plot by Kremlin-connected individuals to feed a known FBI source—Steele had helped the FBI uncover an international soccer bribery scandal—false claims that the Trump campaign was colluding with Russia would qualify as a “principal way” in which Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. The Russia social media campaign to disparage Hillary Clinton wasn’t a patch on the plot the Kremlin launched to destroy Trump: It resulted not only in bad press, but also an investigation into the Trump campaign and the use of court-approved surveillance exposing campaign communiques.

Even though Mueller was authorized, as he put it in the special counsel report, to investigate “the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election,” the report is silent of efforts to investigate Russia’s role in feeding Steele misinformation.

Only the Senate Has Raised This Possibility

Little notice was made of Mueller’s apparent failure to investigate whether Russia interfered in the election by peddling phony intel to Steele that Steele relayed to the FBI, until Sen. Chuck Grassley raised the issue with Attorney General William Barr last week.  During questioning before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Grassley pitched the issue as follows:

The Clinton campaign and the Democrat National Committee hired Fusion GPS to do opposition research against candidate Trump. Fusion GPS then hired Christopher Steele, former British intelligence officer, to compile what we all know as the Steele dossier, that reportedly used Russian government sources for information. The Steele dossier was central to the now-debunked collusion narrative.

Now here’s the irony: The Mueller report spent millions investigating and found no collusion between Trump campaign and Russia but the Democrats paid for a document created by a foreign national with reported foreign government sources. Not Trump, but the Democrats. That’s the definition of collusion. Despite the central status of the Steele dossier to the collusion narrative, the Mueller report failed to analyze whether the dossier was filled with disinformation to mislead U.S. intelligence agencies and the FBI.

“My question,” Grassley continued: “Mueller spent over two years and 30 million dollars investigating Russia interference in the election. In order for a full accounting of Russia interference attempts, shouldn’t the special counsel have considered whether the Steele dossier was part of a Russian disinformation and interfere campaign?”

Barr responded that he had “not yet had anyone go through the full scope of [Mueller’s] investigation to determine whether he did address or look at all into those issues,” before adding, “one of the things I’m doing in my review is to try to assemble all the existing information out there about it, not only for the Hill investigations and the OIG, but also to see what the Special Counsel looked into. So I really couldn’t say what he looked into.”

Later during the four-hour hearing, Sen. John Cornyn asked the attorney general, “how do we know that the Steele dossier is not evidence of a Russian disinformation campaign? Knowing what we know now that the allegations are unverified? Can we state with confidence that the Steele dossier was not part of the Russian disinformation campaign?” Barr responded: “No, I can’t state that with confidence, and that is one of the areas that I’m reviewing. I’m concerned about it, and I don’t think it is entirely speculative.”

If Barr is concerned about it, why wasn’t Mueller? Any competent prosecutor would have investigated whether Russia peddled false intel to Steele.

Or Maybe Mueller Investigated and Omitted the Results

Or did Mueller investigate this question? It’s possible, maybe even likely, given this acknowledgement in the special counsel report: “From its inception, the Office recognized that its investigation could identify foreign intelligence and counterintelligence information relevant to the FBI’s broader national security mission.” “During the Special Counsel investigation,” Mueller then explained, the FBI had embedded personnel “whose purpose was to review the results of the investigation and to send-in writing-summaries of foreign intelligence and counterintelligence information to FBIHQ and FBI Field Offices.”

Here’s the clincher: Not all of the intelligence and counterintelligence information derived from the special counsel investigation was included in the report. Rather, as Mueller explained, the report contains only the “information necessary to account for the Special Counsel’s prosecution and declination decisions and to describe the investigation’s main factual results.”

This assertion is laughable given the special counsel’s report unnecessarily opined on whether Trump obstructed justice, but then failed to reach a “prosecution or declination decision,” as required by regulation. The more likely answer? Political expedience. After all, evidence that Russia interfered in the election by feeding the false collusion narrative to Steele would vindicate Trump, who has been screaming “Witch hunt” from day one.

Of course, there is another possibility: Steele could have invented his Russian sources and the “intel” they supposedly provided him. If so, Steele should have been charged with lying to the FBI. Yet Steele remains a free man, showing either Mueller is incompetent or a political hack.

bias, corruption, government, oversight, politics, president, propaganda, scandal

Filed under: bias, corruption, government, oversight, politics, president, propaganda, scandal

Some refugees prefer to stay home. Who knew?

In the present environment of American politics, some say bringing refugees to the U.S. is THE solution to the Syrian crisis. But there are other perspectives, such as the perspective of some refugees themselves.

 

This refugee from Syria expresses gratitude for America’s military action in response to the gas attack on Syrian civilians, which appear to be the work of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad. He also mentions the fact he and his fellow refugees don’t want to be forced out of their homes and into some foreign country. Some in the American media, such as CNN’s Brooke Baldwin, fish for criticism of President Trump and his immigration policies when interviewing refugees. Debora Heine at PJ Media wrote on this story in CNN Narrative Fail: Syrian Refugee Slams Clinton, Obama; Praises Trump.

“With all due respect, with all due respect,” Kassem began. “I didn’t see each and every person who was demonstrating after the travel ban…. I didn’t see you three days ago when people were gassed to death….I didn’t see you in 2013 when 1,400 people were gassed to death. I didn’t see you raising your voice against President Obama’s inaction in Syria that left us refugees,” he said, completely deflating her expectations.

“If you really care about refugees, if you really care about helping us, please — help us stay here in our country,” he continued.

Others who have looked into immigration have reached a similar conclusion. Rather than play politics and act as if racism or xenophobia are the motivation, those who are willing to make an intellectually honest assessment of the crisis recognize immigration is not the solution the refugees need. Just like the Syrian refugee who wants help remaining in his home, Roy Beck shows good reasons to question the open immigration narrative by discussing the practical details that actually affect the people involved.

bias, crisis, foreign affairs, government, ideology, immigration, military, news media, politics, president, public policy, tragedy, unintended consequences, victimization, video, war

Filed under: bias, crisis, foreign affairs, government, ideology, immigration, military, news media, politics, president, public policy, tragedy, unintended consequences, victimization, video, war

Health Insurance Premiums Rising Faster Than Wages

original article: Health Insurance Premiums Rising Faster Than Wages
March 23, 2016 by Ali Meyer

Health insurance premiums have increased faster than wages and inflation in recent years, rising an average of 28 percent from 2009 to 2014 despite the enactment of Obamacare, according to a report from Freedom Partners.

President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law on March 23, 2010, and Wednesday is the law’s sixth anniversary.

The Obama administration expressed concern in 2009 about skyrocketing health care premiums in a report entitled, “The Burden of Health Insurance Premium Increases on American Families.” They were concerned that premiums had increased by 5.5 percent from 2008 to 2009.

However, from 2010 to 2011 in the first year after Obamacare was enacted, premiums increased by 9.4 percent.

“In 2009, when the [Executive Office of the President] issued its report, states had seen premiums increase on average by 30 percent between 2004 and 2009,” states the Freedom Partners report. “But since 2009, health insurance premiums have continued to grow faster than wages in nearly every state, averaging a 28 percent increase from 2009 to 2014, resulting in a greater amount of disposable income being consumed by rising premiums.”

According to the report, while premiums increased by 28 percent from 2009 to 2014, wages increased by only 7.8 percent. From 2004 to 2009 when premiums increased by 30 percent, wages increased by only 12.2 percent.

The data also finds that health care costs have exceeded the rate of inflation. “The average annual cost of a family’s employer-sponsored health insurance policy was $17,545 in 2015, which marks a 4.2 percent increase from the 2014 average of $16,834, while the inflation rate remained low at 0.1 percent,” states the report. “With health care costs still rising faster than inflation six years after passage of the Affordable Care Act, it is clear that the law is not helping lower the burden of health care expenses for American families.”

Americans can expect their health care costs to rise again in 2017. According to Stephen Parente, a scholar at the University of Minnesota, each type of health care plan on the exchanges can expect to see an average premium increase of 7.3 percent for families and 11 percent for individuals.

“The Administration claimed the ACA would bend the cost curve, but our report shows it bent in the wrong direction—premiums didn’t slow down under the Affordable Care Act, they sped up,” said Nathan Nascimento, senior policy adviser at Freedom Partners. “No wonder the White House is trying to change the national conversation away from health care costs. By their own standards, the Affordable Care Act has failed.”

The Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to requests for comment by press time.

bureaucracy, economy, government, health care, ideology, left wing, legislation, liberalism, medicine, nanny state, politics, president, progressive, public policy, reform, unintended consequences

Filed under: bureaucracy, economy, government, health care, ideology, left wing, legislation, liberalism, medicine, nanny state, politics, president, progressive, public policy, reform, unintended consequences

Did Obama admin cheat on college scorecards?

original article: White House ‘College Scorecard’ shuts out conservative schools
September 22, 2015 by Perry Chiaramonte

Conservative colleges say the White House flunked its so-called “College Scorecard,” which is intended to help high school graduates pick schools but served up what critics say is an incomplete list of choices.

The scorecard, which ranks schools by an index designed to demonstrate “bang for buck,” evaluated more than 7,000 colleges and universities. Left off the list were such well-known conservative schools as Michigan’s Hillsdale College — ranked in the top 75 by U.S. News and World Report — and Pennsylvania’s Grove City College. Also omitted were Wyoming Catholic College, Idaho’s New Saint Andrews College and Christendom College in Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley.

“This scorecard is nothing more than a justification of some bureaucrat’s job and an attempt to manipulate the data to make it appear such independent institutions aren’t up to snuff,” said Kyle Olson, founder of higher education news website EAGnews.org. “As we’ve seen the administration attack for-profit schools, they will discredit any school that operates differently than they see fit.”

When it was released last week, the scorecard was trumpeted as a way to help high school grads sort through the higher education possibilities amid a stagnant jobs market and rising tuition costs.

“Americans will now have access to reliable data on every institution of higher education,” President Obama said. “You’ll be able to see how much each school’s graduates earn, how much debt they graduate with, and what percentage of a school’s students can pay back their loans — which will help all of us see which schools do the best job of preparing America for success.”

Department of Education spokeswoman Denise Horn told FoxNews.com in a statement that some schools were left out because they did not take federal funding, which comes with a requirement that they provide data used in crafting the scorecard.

“With the College Scorecard, the Department is committed to doing what the President asked us to do: provide information to families and consumers to help them make a college choice that’s smart for them,” Horn said. “As of now, institutions that do not participate in Title IV federal financial aid are not included on the site because they are not required to send us data.”

A Title IV participating institution is a school that accepts funding from federal sources including the Stafford, Perkins and Federal Supplemental loans, the Federal Parent Loan for Undergraduate Students and grants from the Federal Supplemental Education Opportunity and Pell programs.

Horn added that the department “is listening closely to concerns from users and other stakeholders and will work to address those concerns in future updates to the tool.”

But schools said they were given other reasons for being left off the list, some of which they claim don’t add up. Hillsdale officials told FoxNews.com that when they asked why they were left off, the Department of Education told them it was because most of the degrees the school awards are certificates, not two-year or four-year degrees.

“This statement is false,” a school spokeswoman said. “Contrary to the Department of Education’s spokeswoman, Hillsdale issues only four-year undergraduate degrees as well as master’s degrees, and does not issue certificates of any kind for academic credit.”

Paul McNulty, president of Grove City College, a Christian liberal arts institution that requires students of all denominations to attend a certain amount of chapel services each semester, said the school also inquired about the omission.

“In response to our inquiry, the Department informed us that the site is limited only to Title IV participating institutions,” he said. “Our graduates enjoy a well-recognized return on an affordable investment that exceeds national averages in all of the Scorecard categories. We are concerned that Grove City’s absence from the Scorecard will confuse or disserve families seeking out higher education institutions with our record of success.

“For now, the Department should, at the very least, include a disclaimer that the Scorecard is not comprehensive or reflective of all college and universities,” he added.

Christendom College President Timothy O’Donnell said the Scorecard’s criteria makes it impossible for schools like his to be included.

“We were not surprised to be left off the list as Christendom receives no federal money, and as a consequence, files no data under Title IX; without this data, it is impossible for the Scorecard to include Christendom,” O’Donnell said. “We are, however, as a fully-accredited, four-year national liberal arts college ranked highly…because of our high-caliber and time-tested education.”

That is the problem, according to Olson, who charged that the grading system was created with misguided reasoning in Washington.

“Such a scorecard designed by statists will naturally cast independent private institutions in a negative light,” Olson said. “That’s either intentional or is byproduct of the schools’ unwillingness to play by the statists’ rules. Parents and prospective students don’t need any seal of approval from President Obama or some DOE bureaucrat to decide whether a school is good or not. The prospective student and his or her parents can make that determination just fine.”

bias, bureaucracy, conservative, Democrats, discrimination, education, elitism, government, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, pandering, philosophy, political correctness, president, progressive, propaganda, public policy, scandal

Filed under: bias, bureaucracy, conservative, Democrats, discrimination, education, elitism, government, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, pandering, philosophy, political correctness, president, progressive, propaganda, public policy, scandal

White House tried to hide extent of Personnel hack

White House reportedly hid extent of Office of Personnel Management hack
June 25, 2015 by Fox News

The Obama administration reportedly concealed the true amount of information compromised by a cyberattack on the federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM) for several days after the initial disclosure of the hack, according to a published report.

The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that the day after the White House admitted that hackers had breached personnel files, OPM publicly denied that the security clearance forms had been compromised despite receiving information to the contrary from the FBI. The administration did not say that security clearance forms had likely been accessed by the intruders until more than a week had passed.

A OPM spokeswoman denied the claims, telling the Journal the agency had been “completely consistent” in its reporting of the data breach.

The Journal, citing U.S. officials, reported that lengthy period between disclosures was the result of a decision taken by both White House and OPM officials to report the cyberattack as two separate breaches, one of the personnel files and one of the security clearance forms. That meant that rather than saying the hack may have compromised the information of approximately 18 million people, including some who have never worked for the government, OPM initially said that only about four million people were affected.

By contrast, the paper reports, FBI officials who had to speak to lawmakers about the incident, including director James Comey, defined the theft as the result of one breach.

On Wednesday, House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz asked whether the true number of people affected could be as high as 32 million, and called for OPM Director Katherine Archuleta to step down.

“I think you are part of the problem,” Chaffetz told Archuleta during a hearing. “That hurricane has come and blown this building down, and I don’t want to hear about putting boards up on windows (now). It’s time for you to go.”

In her testimony, Archuleta said the estimate of 18 million people affected “refers to a preliminary, unverified and approximate number of unique Social Security numbers in the background investigations data … It is a number I am not comfortable with.”

However, the Journal reports that  in a private briefing with lawmakers Tuesday, a senior FBI official interjected and told Archuleta the number was based on OPM’s own data.

Investigators believe that China was behind the cyberattack, which was discovered in April. If the security clearance forms were compromised, information about espionage operations could be exposed. Beijing has strongly denied any role in the hack.

corruption, cover up, criminal, Democrats, espionage, ethics, foreign affairs, government, hypocrisy, lies, national security, pandering, politics, president, propaganda, scandal, security

Filed under: corruption, cover up, criminal, Democrats, espionage, ethics, foreign affairs, government, hypocrisy, lies, national security, pandering, politics, president, propaganda, scandal, security

Cursing the Confederate flag, but praising the use of the N-word?

As many Americans are rightly opposed to displaying the Confederate Flag because of the obvious racial history associated with it, others are praising the use of the N-word.

Here’s What People Across America Had to Say About President Obama’s Use of the ‘N-Word’
May 23, 2015 by VICTORIA TAFT

MSNBC pundit Michael Eric Dyson says he thinks it’s ‘incredibly important’ President Obama used the ‘n’ word during an interview with a podcaster on a show called ‘WTF’.

“Look, those of us who have been pressing President Obama to speak more explicitly and more articulately about race, this is part of the payoff.

He chooses his words carefully, he chooses his point of entry carefully, but I think this was an incredibly important moment in intervention on behalf of the American public by our president, the president of the entire United States of America to talk specifically and particularly about using that n-word.”

The Georgetown University Sociology professor says the President used the word as a shock:

“What he was doing was shocking us. It’s a shock to the system, a jarring reminder of the intemperate use of that word and how it’s been connected to legacies of white supremacy that he brilliantly and forthrightly has addressed and certainly in this case did again.”

Radio host and author Larry Elder told CNN’s Jake Tapper he doesn’t know why anyone’s surprised:

“I’m kind of surprised that people are surprised, Jake. He wrote a book, his first book, where he did use the ‘n’ word. You can even hear Obama using the ‘n’ word in his book on tape. To me, the lead ought to be his negative view about race relations in America. My goodness!”

Former Congressman Harold Ford told MSNBC’s Morning Joe that he believes the President could have made his point without using the racist epithet.

Vox opined that even though the President’s point in using the word was ‘vague’, the media reaction ‘proved’ his point.

Some believed the President sent mixed messages by using the epithet:

full article: Here’s What People Across America Had to Say About President Obama’s Use of the ‘N-Word’

related: GOP Candidates Get 3rd Degree Over Confederate Flag, But Check Out Billary’s History With It
June 22, 2015 by JENNIFER VAN LAAR

bias, Democrats, diversity, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, left wing, liberalism, news media, pandering, political correctness, politics, president, progressive, propaganda, racism, racist, relativism, scandal

Filed under: bias, Democrats, diversity, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, left wing, liberalism, news media, pandering, political correctness, politics, president, progressive, propaganda, racism, racist, relativism, scandal

Uber-rich Hillary campaigns on economic equality

Clinton formally launches 2016 campaign with focus on economic equality
June 13, 2015 by Fox News

Hillary Clinton on Saturday officially launched her 2016 presidential campaign, calling for a return to shared prosperity and asking American workers, students and others to trust her to fight for them.

Clinton made the announcement at an outdoor rally on New York City’s Roosevelt Island, two months after announcing her campaign with an online video.

“You have to wonder: When do I get ahead? I say now,” Clinton told the crowd in a roughly 46-minute speech. “You brought the country back. Now it’s your time to enjoy the prosperity. That is why I’m running for president of the United States.”

The former first lady, U.S. senator from New York and secretary of state is the Democratic frontrunner in the 2016 White House race.

Also in the race are Sen. Bernie Sanders, of Vermont, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chaffe.

She lost her 2008 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination to then-Sen. Obama.

Clinton, wearing her signature blue pantsuit, walked through the crowd en route to the stage for her speech.

She remarked that Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms are a “testament to our nation’s unmatched aspirations and a reminder of our unfinished work at home and abroad.”

Clinton also drew into focus what will likely be the key themes of her campaign including support for same-sex marriage, wage equality for women and all Americans, affordable college tuition and free child-care and pre-kindergarten.

“The top-25 hedge fund managers make more than all kindergarten teachers combined,” she said. “And they’re paying lower taxes.”

Clinton attempted to portray herself as a fierce advocate for those left behind in the post-recession economy, detailing a lifetime of work on behalf of struggling families. She said her mother’s difficult childhood inspired what she considers a calling.

“I have been called many things by many people,” Clinton said.” Quitter is not one of them.”

She said that attribute came from her late mother, Dorothy Rodham, in whom she would confide after hard days in the Senate and at the State Department.

“I wish my mother could have been with us longer,” Clinton said. “I wish she could have seen the America we are going to build together … where we don’t leave any one out or any one behind.”

Clinton was joined by her husband, former President Bill Clinton, and their daughter, Chelsea.

She also was critical in her speech of Republicans, suggesting they have reserved economic prosperity for the wealthy, in large part by cutting taxes for the country’s highest wage-earners.

She also accused them of trying to “wipe out tough rules on Wall Street,” take away health insurance from more than 16 million Americans without offering any “credible alternative” and turning their backs on “gay people who love each other.”

The Republican National Committee said in response that Clinton’s campaign was full of hypocritical attacks, partisan rhetoric and ideas from the past.

“Next year, Americans will reject the failed policies of the past and elect a Republican president,” RNC Press Secretary Allison Moore said.

Republicans also argued Clinton devoted only about five minutes of her speech to foreign policy.

Clinton now heads to four early-primary states, starting Saturday night in Iowa where she will talk with volunteers and others about grassroots-campaign efforts for the first-in-the-nation caucus state.

The organizational meeting will be simulcast to Clinton camps across the country and serve as a blueprint for them all 435 congressional districts.

She then travels to New Hampshire on June 15, South Carolina on June 17 and in Nevada on June 18.

Clinton vowed Saturday to roll out specific policy proposals in the coming weeks, including ones on rewriting the tax code and sustainable energy.

In what was her first major speech of her campaign, she also cited President Obama, Roosevelt and her husband, saying they embraced the idea that “real and lasting prosperity must be built by all and shared by all.”

Holding the event on an island between Queens and Manhattan raised some criticism about its accessibility by vehicle and public transportation.

The campaign estimated the event crowd, whose members needed a ticket, at 5,500. However, the number appeared smaller, and the overflow section was empty.

campaign, corruption, cronyism, Democrats, economy, elections, elitism, government, greed, hypocrisy, left wing, nanny state, pandering, philosophy, political correctness, president, progressive, propaganda, reform, relativism, wealthy

Filed under: campaign, corruption, cronyism, Democrats, economy, elections, elitism, government, greed, hypocrisy, left wing, nanny state, pandering, philosophy, political correctness, president, progressive, propaganda, reform, relativism, wealthy

Bob Woodward: Wrong, Bush Did Not Lie Us Into Iraq

original article: Bob Woodward: Wrong, Bush Did Not Lie Us Into Iraq
May 25, 2015 by Jack Coleman

Future commencement speech invitations for Beltway media eminence grise Bob Woodward effectively evaporated, at least in the Northeast, after his appearance yesterday on Fox News Sunday.

Woodward, who’ll be known in perpetuity as the stable half of the reporting duo who brought down Richard Nixon for a scandal that now appears paltry compared to the vast money-laundering scheme dignified under lofty title of Clinton Global Foundation, admirably did his part to puncture a sacred liberal myth — that Bush lied and people died. As Woodward sees it, only the latter half of that equation is correct.

http://www.mrctv.org/embed/135982

No matter, liberals will keep muttering it, usually when they’re awake, since clinging to their delusions is essential for maintaining what passes for sanity among them —

HOST CHRIS WALLACE: I want to turn to a different subject in the time we have left and that is the politics of Iraq which has gotten a lot of attention in the last couple of weeks with Jeb Bush, with Marco Rubio and with a bunch of other people and these questions of was it was a mistake to go in in 2003, was it a mistake to get out in 2011, and what impact this could have both in the Republican race and also the Democratic race. …

WOODWARD: Iraq is a symbol and you certainly can make a persuasive argument it was a mistake but there’s a kind of line going along that Bush and the other people lied about this. I spent 18 months looking at how Bush decided to invade Iraq and lots of mistakes, but it was Bush telling George Tenet, the CIA director, don’t let anyone stretch the case on WMD and he (Bush) was the one who was skeptical. And if you tried to summarize why we went into Iraq, it was momentum. The war plan kept getting better and easier and finally at that end people were saying, hey look, it’ll only take a week or two and early on it looked like it was going to take a year or 18 months and so Bush pulled the trigger.

A mistake, certainly, can be argued and there’s an abundance of evidence but there was no lie in this that I could find.

WALLACE: And what about 2011 and Obama’s decision to pull all the troops out? There had been a status of forces agreement between Bush and the Iraqi government that provided for a follow-on force. The Pentagon was talking about somewhere between 10- and 20,000 (troops) and a lot of people think, although Obama says, well we tried to negotiate and we didn’t, a lot of people think he really didn’t want to keep any troops there.

WOODWARD: Well, I think he didn’t. Look, Obama does not like war, but as you look back on this the argument from the military was, let’s keep 10-, 15,000 troops there as an insurance policy and we all know insurance policies make sense. We have 30,000 troops or more in South Korea still 65 years or so after the war. When you’re superpower, you have to buy these insurance policies and he didn’t in this case. I don’t think you can say everything is because of that decision but clearly a factor.

Obama will never admit it, but he knows he was wrong to abandon Iraq in 2011 for the sole purpose of potentially embarrassing Bush by saddling him with its loss. He’s tacitly acknowledged this by delaying the US military withdrawal from Afghanistan, which Obama in 2008 deemed the good war to Bush’s doomed misadventure in Iraq.

What should haunt Obama now as a result of his callow folly is the specter of Baghdad going the way of Saigon in the spring of 1975, as vividly depicted in Rory Kennedy’s most recent documentary, Last Days in Vietnam. Should this come to pass and the death toll rises to the point where genocide and not mass killings is invoked to describe the scale of slaughter, fellow Democrats will agree with Obama that this too is Bush’s fault. But which is preferable — Iraq as it is ripped asunder after six years of Obama’s quixotic foreign policy, or its stability and prospects when Bush left office in 2009?

No Lie
May 26, 2015 b Peter Roff

Bob Woodward throws cold water on the left’s claim that Bush lied the nation into war with Iraq.

american, foreign affairs, history, iraq, military, national security, politics, president, saddam hussein, terrorism, troops, war, wmd

Filed under: american, foreign affairs, history, iraq, military, national security, politics, president, saddam hussein, terrorism, troops, war, wmd

Pages

Categories

November 2019
M T W T F S S
« Oct    
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930