PAST
George H.W. Bush receives Profile in Courage Award
Never mind that he participated in the killing of the man whose name graces the award. Must be why the war criminal fossil is laughing (and it proves aristocracy is thicker than truth).
The war criminal thing must run in the family:
"George W. Bush’s book on father recounts key decisions, debates" by Matt Viser | Globe Staff November 12, 2014
WASHINGTON – As the Watergate scandal was unfolding, taking down the Nixon presidency, George W. Bush was in the liberal bastion of Massachusetts. He was attending Harvard Business School, on a campus that was not friendly to Republicans, much less the son of the Republican National Committee chairman.
If you happen to get a room....
“I kept my head down, studied hard, and generally did not discuss politics,” Bush writes in his new book about his father, George H.W. Bush. “One exception came when I visited Dad’s only sister, my energetic and spirited aunt Nancy, in Lincoln, Massachusetts. We would play nine holes at her favorite golf course and commiserate about the putrid swamp that George Bush had waded into.”
That swamp, in fact, became the family business.
Bush’s book, “41: A Portrait of My Father,” is largely a warm recounting of a son’s take on his father’s life – what Bush calls a “love story” -- that throughout references the family’s ties to New England.
I think I'm going to be sick at this shameless book promotion by a fawning sycophant posing as a reporter, just as I am made ill by the promotion of his psychologically strange bathroom paintings that were lauded by the elite pre$$.
Bush writes that he was encouraged to pursue the book after meeting with Dorie McCullough Lawson, the daughter of historian and author David McCullough.
“One of my father’s great regrets in studying John Adams is there was no serious account of him by his son John Quincy Adams,” Bush says she told him about the nation’s only other father-son presidential pair. “For history’s sake, I think you should write a book about your father.”
(In fact, John Quincy Adams did start writing a biography on his father, portions of which were later published).
There are few new revelations in Bush’s book, although it does elaborate on his decision to invade Iraq – something many have suggested was done partly to complete something his father didn’t.
“I was not trying ‘to finish what my father had begun,’ as some have suggested. My motivation was to protect the United States of America, as I had sworn an oath to do.”
Bush writes that he never asked his father for advice – “We both knew that this was a decision that only the president can make,” – but he says they did talk about it over Christmas 2002 at Camp David.
“You know how tough war is, son, and you’ve got to try everything you can to avoid war,” Bush writes his father told him. “But if the man won’t comply, you don’t have any other choice.”
Much of the book is recounting his father’s life, from the senior Bush’s birth in Milton, Mass., to his years at Phillips Academy in Andover, to his long political career.
He refers to the bitter feelings about seeing his father falter in a New Hampshire presidential debate against Ronald Regan. The future president, when moderators tried to cut him off, uttered the now-famous line, “I am paying for this microphone, Mr. Green.” (As Bush writes, Reagan referred incorrectly to moderator Jon Breen – not Green -- of the Nashua Telegraph, but Reagan’s remark went over well with the audience and Reagan eventually won the nomination).
It was, Bush writes, “the first time I experienced the unique brand of pain that the child of a public figure feels.”
Bush rehashes several aspects of the 1988 presidential campaign, when his father faced off against then-Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis – a man Bush refers to as “the somewhat uncharismatic governor of a midsized liberal state.”
He writes about the famous Willie Horton ad, which was used to damage Dukakis by tying him to the convicted murderer who was released through a Massachusetts furlough program and then raped a woman and assaulted her fiancé.
Bush raised Horton frequently during the campaign, but it was an independent group that ran ads featuring him.
“Dad’s campaign had nothing to do with that ad,” Bush writes. “As a matter of fact, it infuriated George Bush. He would never play the race card. He had run ads criticizing the furlough program, which was a legitimate policy issue, but he had never shown a photo of Horton or otherwise alluded to Horton’s race.”
“In retrospect, the Horton controversy was a harbinger of a new political phenomenon: independent groups trying to influence elections,” Bush adds.
Bush several times mentions his 2004 Democratic opponent, John F Kerry, the former US Senator from Massachusetts who is now Secretary of State. He writes that he lost a debate to Kerry for “grimacing,” and compares it to how his father was criticized for a debate performance for checking his watch.
“It is a sign of the shallowness of the presidential debate process that their most memorable moments have centered not on issues but on gestures or quips,” Bush writes.
There is only a fleeting reference to Mitt Romney, Bush notes that his father was featured in a Newsweek cover story headlined, “George Bush: Fighting the ‘Wimp Factor.’”
“Twenty-five years later, Newsweek ran a cover story headlined, ‘Romney: The Wimp Factor,’” Bush writes. “Apparently only Republican candidates are wimps in their eyes.”
--more--"
Related:
"Former White House chief of staff Andrew Card has been named Franklin Pierce University’s fifth president. Card starts Jan. 12, 2015, succeeding James Birge, who became president in 2009 and announced his intent to resign last summer. Card was most recently acting dean of the George H.W. Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University. A native of Holbrook, Mass., he served on Franklin Pierce’s board of trustees from 1996 to 2000. He was appointed chief of staff to George W. Bush in November 2000. He became known as the person who whispered into the president’s ear the news that the country was under attack on Sept. 11, 2001."
Here is an interesting take on the attack (which doesn't excuse Bush criminality and involvement, but does delve into the layers and divisions within the elite):
"If you dare to follow this incredibly illuminating trial of evidence, someone from "the powers that BE" ( or one of their brainless lackeys) might be asking what you've been smoking. What is Israel's interest in such a monstrous plot, which, of course, no one believes except Islamist extremists who concocted this piece of disinformation in the first place, presumably to detract from the real culprits?
A: Jews never agreed to Bush Sr. (George H.W. Bush, the 41st president) or his son George W. Bush, the 43rd president. They made sure Bush senior didn't get a second term. His land-for-peace pressure in Palestine didn't suit Israel. They were also against the young Bush because he was considered too close to oil interests and the Gulf countries. Bush senior and Jim Baker had raised $150 million for Bush junior, much of it from Mideast sources or their American go-betweens. Bush Sr. and Baker, as private citizens, had also facilitated the new strategic relationship between Saudi Arabia and Iran. So clearly the prospect of a Bush Jr. ( "W") was a potential danger to Israel.
Jews were stunned by the way Bush Jr. stole the election in Florida. They had put big money on Al Gore. Israel has given its imperialist guardian parent opportunities to turn disaster into a pretext for imposing an all-encompassing military, political and economic agenda to further the cause of global capitalism.
Within 10 minutes of the second twin tower being hit in the World Trade Center CNN said Osama bin Laden had done it. That was a planned piece of disinformation by the real perpetrators.
And just who would be bringing me that?
--MORE--"
Israel also resented Baker and Bush after 1991 Iraq War when they cut off loan guarantees in an attempt to enforce their version of the NWO.
Andrew Card goes from Beacon Hill to academia, with a stop at the White House
That's where we will stop now.
PRESENT
"Asia trip tests Obama’s postelection global clout" Associated Press November 10, 2014
WASHINGTON — His influence at home fading, President Obama is looking abroad to China, the opening stop of a three-country trip that will test his ability to play a commanding global role during his final two years in office.
Once Obama was treated like a superstar on the world stage. But the president arrived in Beijing on Monday under far different conditions, with his most powerful days behind him.
At home, Republicans are rejoicing at having pummeled Obama’s party in the midterm elections, relegating Democrats to the minority in both chambers of Congress. His counterparts in Asia surely have noticed.
Obama acknowledged Sunday that he and his White House team had not succeeded in effectively promoting his policies to the American people. In an interview on CBS’s “Face the Nation,’’ the president called it a “failure of politics” that he must change in the final two years of his presidency.
He is just going to dictate now, even if we don't like it or want it!
Obama also said in the interview that he intends to issue an order easing the threat of deportation for immigrants in the country illegally, despite warnings from Republican leaders that he would be poisoning the well with a GOP-controlled Congress. He said if Congress does act, it would take the place of whatever he puts into place by his own authority.
See: Obama Order on Immigration is Impeachable
The Republicans will flail their arms and howl but they will not do their duty under oath.
During his three days in China, Obama plans to give a speech about US ties to Asia at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit and meet with President Xi Jinping. He will then visit Myanmar and Australia.
He put the muscle to them.
The trip marks one of Obama’s final chances to deliver on his goal to amplify America’s influence in Asia.
--more--"
Related: Obama Gums Up Peace in Asia
"Obama can’t govern? Who knew?" by Niall Ferguson | November 11, 2014
Sometimes politics isn’t all local. There is little doubt that it was President Obama and his administration’s failures that condemned the Democrats to a crushing defeat in both the congressional and gubernatorial contests last week. In particular, the president’s fumbling foreign policy played a key part, in defiance of former House Speaker Tip O’Neill’s rule that “all politics is local.”
Really? I don't recall the issues coming up at all unless it was bipartisan unity for war.
In a New York Times/CBS poll conducted in September, 58 percent of voters expressed disapproval of Obama’s foreign policy. The previous month, a majority said they thought the president was “not tough enough” abroad. And an October Pew poll showed the Republicans doubling their lead over the Democrats on foreign policy compared with 2010.
After a period of Iraq-induced “war weariness,’’ the public mood has changed.
This is such propaganda. The vote for Republicans was a reflex against this president and his endless wars. Wa$hington didn't get the message.
Btw, we are no longer weary of war, we hate it now. Period.
Clearly, recent events in the Middle East — including the rise of ISIS and its hideous decapitations of two American citizens — have disabused voters of the fantasy that the United States could somehow walk away from the problems of that region with impunity.
Yeah, the fake videos and the CIA-created ISIS has disabused us dumb voters. The insulting elitism of this rank rot is typical for the Globe op page.
Watching disaster unfold in Syria and Iraq, as well as Ukraine, people have woken up to the fact that this president is, as Foreign Policy’s David Rothkopf has written, a man whose “political and policy narcissism” is “bad for America and its role in the world.”
I agree with that.
Worse, he has consistently failed to think through the implications of three major challenges to American power: the continuing spread of Islamic extremism, the military threat posed by an aggressive Russia, and the rise of Asia’s new economic superpower, China.
(Oh, and for the record: I was just as critical of George W. Bush at the same stage in his presidency. Criticizing Obama’s foreign policy doesn’t equate to defending Bush’s.)
Yeah, me, too, and Obama has seamlessly advanced the same agenda. That's why I'm so disapproving of him.
--more--"
Turns out Ferguson was wrong:
"The president staged back-to-back events to showcase progress in these two areas and, along the way, to try to reinforce that he still has a role to play even though he now faces an opposition Congress....
The reason for the immigration order with a fine point on it?
The road ahead is not easy. But Obama has more than two years left in office and it is would be mistaken to count him out just yet."
Oh, I don't; it is still more than two long, long years before he is gone. That is plenty of time to do way more damage.
"President Obama faces tests of authority on two fronts" by Jeremy W. Peters and Ashley Parker, New York Times December 05, 2014
WASHINGTON — Congress moved on two fronts Thursday to test the limits of presidential authority, with a surprising maneuver in the Senate to begin debating President Obama’s war powers against the Islamic State and a vote in the House to prohibit him from enforcing his executive action on immigration.
With the two parties in a perpetual state of dispute, the actions represented a rare, if unplanned, shared view among liberals and conservatives: Through Congress’s passivity or its inability to compromise, it has ceded too much authority to an executive branch more than willing to step into the void.
That's not the kind of bipartisanship the agenda-pushing propaganda pre$$ wants to see!
Obama has angered Republicans on Capitol Hill by announcing that he would use his executive authority to shield millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation, a decision conservatives condemn as an abuse of his constitutional powers. And lawmakers in both parties have rebuked the president for executing a war in the Middle East that many believe has not been properly authorized by Congress.
But he's really rolling now!
The simultaneous moves in the two chambers demonstrated a strong desire to wrest some of that power back.
“The executive gets more powerful the more dysfunctional Congress gets,” said Senator Christopher S. Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, who supported forcing a vote to revisit the president’s war authority.
It's amazing to read that when what Israel wants is passed unanimously and the war budgets sail through with a solid majorities. No dy$function there.
The action on Capitol Hill focused on two of the most urgent and divisive issues of the moment — immigration and war policy — and foreshadowed the kinds of debates likely to dominate the new Congress after it is sworn in next month. Adding more volatility to the mix will be the frenzied politics of a presidential campaign, which will probably feature several members of Congress.
The dynamics of the 2016 campaign were on display as senators on the Foreign Relations Committee unexpectedly found themselves confronting the question of war against the Islamic State.
Shouldn't that have been discussed during the campaign? Instead it was nothing except the referendum on Obummer narrative from ma$$ media.
It began with procedural sleight of hand by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who is expected to seek the Republican nomination for president and has positioned himself as a less hawkish alternative to other potential candidates in his party.
The lesser of all evils?
Paul used a routine meeting over an unrelated issue — clean water — to force his colleagues to schedule a vote on authorizing force against the Islamic State. The committee agreed to move forward, though only after dissent from Republicans like Senator John McCain of Arizona, who take a more traditional interventionist approach. McCain called Paul’s proposal, which would prohibit the use of ground forces in most cases and set strict time limits on the conflict, “crazy.”
McCain never met a war he didn't like.
A vote, on either Paul’s plan or a similar one, could happen as early as Tuesday. If a plan is approved, it would get a floor vote before the end of the year if majority leader Harry Reid agreed to put it at the top of a crowded Senate calendar.
At issue is the administration’s position that it is justified in engaging in military activity today because of two acts of Congress now more than a decade old: a 2001 authorization passed after the Sept. 11 attacks, and a 2002 authorization sought by George W. Bush for the Iraq War.
Across the Rotunda, House Republicans turned their attention to the pressing matter of preventing a government shutdown when federal spending authority runs out on Dec. 11. The House on Thursday voted 219-197 in favor of a resolution by Representative Ted Yoho, Republican of Florida, to halt implementation of the president’s order stopping the deportations of millions of unauthorized immigrants.
But the vote was largely symbolic, enabling angry House Republicans to express displeasure with the president for altering the nation’s immigration policy without congressional approval. Reid has already made clear that he will not take up the House’s measure.
I'm tired of imagery and illusion being called news.
With immigration politics caught up in the fight over government spending, Thursday’s vote was part of a two-step strategy by House Republican leaders to corral their more conservative members and pass a broad spending bill so the government does not close on Dec. 11. Next week, House Speaker John A. Boehner and his leadership team plan to bring to the floor legislation that would fund almost all of the government through the next fiscal year, while funding the Department of Homeland Security — the agency primarily charged with executing the president’s immigration policy — only into early next year.
--more--"
Turns out it is not only Republicans unhappy with the Emperor:
Obama, congressional Democrats show cracks in unity
Better cool the rhetoric:
"Premiums to rise for those covered by health care law
WASHINGTON — Many people covered under President Obama’s health care law will face higher premiums next year, the administration acknowledged Thursday. While the average increase is modest, it provides fodder for the political battles over health care.
We were told there wouldn't be, but you know. When you have lived for so long under a government that lies to you it sort of rolls of your back like water on a duck.
Officials emphasized that millions of current HealthCare.gov customers can mitigate the financial hit if they are willing to shop around for another plan in a more competitive online marketplace. Subsidies will also help cushion the impact.
If it works.
It currently takes an average of 30 minutes for returning customers to update coverage.
Don't count on the automatic reenrollment.
Premiums for the most popular type of plan are going up an average of 5 percent in 35 states where Washington is running the health insurance exchanges this year and will do so again in 2015, said a report from the Department of Health and Human Services.
It IS a CA$H GRAB! WOW!
The modest average increases reported for 2015 mask bigger swings from state to state, and even within regions of a state. According to data released by the administration, some communities will still see double-digit hikes while others are seeing decreases. Most are somewhere in the middle.
Monthly premiums are one of the most important and politically sensitive yardsticks for Obama’s health care law, which offers subsidized private insurance to people who do not have access to coverage through their jobs. Sharper premium hikes were common before it passed.
I love how they end it.
Yeah, pay no attention to now. Back then.... SIGH!!!!!!!!!!
--more--"
Related: Medical errors in Mass. still common, study finds
At least state website works.
Taking my own advice, it is now time to turn to the holidays and all the fun they bring for little girls and boys.
Related: Obama plan aims to help young American Indians
Where has he been the last six years?
All of a sudden he's discovered the American Indian!
Senate faces new obstacle to its report on detainee torture because it could ignite new unrest in the Middle East and put US hostages at risk.
What a lame-ass excuse (as if the people subjected to such things didn't already know it)!!
This is to keep the AMERICAN PEOPLE from knowing what THIS CRIMINAL GOVERNMENT did in THEIR NAME!
It is unclear why Kerry waited until just before the report was scheduled to be released to sound alarms — since there has long been concern about the potential global impact of the report’s findings.
No, I think it is QUITE CLEAR WHY!
Some Democratic members of the Intelligence Committee said they saw no reason to delay the release and noted there has been a stream of objections to making it public. “It is hardly surprising that there is an eleventh-hour objection to releasing this vital report because there have been objections at every hour for quite some time,” said Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon. “My own view is that many Americans will be deeply angered when they read this report about misdeeds and mistakes and out-and-out falsehoods.”
Out and out falsehoods, huh? From this government?
UN panel criticizes US record on torture
US vows to stop using torture against terrorism suspects
That means they still are being tortured. (disappeared!).
3 cities compete to host Obama library
It's enough to make you want to puke.
Bush and CIA ex-officials rebut torture report
Now somehow torture has become heroically patriotic.
This has become so insanely Orwellian it's obscene.
Time to turn toward the next war criminal:
FUTURE
"George W. Bush gives Jeb run in 2016 a ‘50-50’ chance" Associated Press November 10, 2014
WASHINGTON — Former President George W. Bush is giving even odds on whether another Bush will try to occupy the White House.
I think Israel already has, and he's the last guy I want to see there.
You know the elite pickings are slim and the secrets scandalous when the next selection must be between a Bush and Clinton.
Brother Jeb, a former Florida governor, is ‘‘wrestling with the decision’’ of running for the Republican nomination for president in 2016, the former president said. ‘‘I think it’s 50-50,’’ he told CBS’s ‘‘Face the Nation’’ in an interview broadcast Sunday.
‘‘He and I are very close. On the other hand, he’s not here knocking on my door, you know, agonizing about the decision. He knows exactly, you know, the ramifications on family, for example. He’s seen his dad and his brother go through the presidency. I’d give it a tossup.’’
The former president’s estimate on the chances was more conservative than another family member’s. Jeb Bush’s son George P. Bush said two weeks ago it was more likely than not that his father would move forward.
George W. Bush is promoting ‘‘41,’’ a book about his father, former president George H.W. Bush.
‘‘One of the lessons you learn from George H.W. Bush is that you can go into politics and still be a good father,’’ George W. Bush said when asked if it was worth putting a family through a presidential campaign. ‘‘I put our family through it,’’ he responded.
George W. Bush said he would be ‘‘all in’’ for his brother if he decides to run for the office and would do whatever he asks, even if it is to stay behind the scenes.
Yeah, you better.
--more--"
"Bush father, son want Jeb Bush run for White House" by Michael Graczyk | Associated Press November 12, 2014
COLLEGE STATION, Texas — Former president George W. Bush said he and his father believe Jeb Bush should run for president but ultimately the former Florida governor must make a decision regardless of any pressure from the family.
‘‘I can tell you I can speak for 41,’’ Bush said, referring to 41st President George H.W. Bush during the official launch of the 43d president’s book at his father’s presidential library center at Texas A&M University. ‘‘He ought to run for president. He would make a great president.’’
‘‘We can pressure him all we want, but it’s not going to matter. . . . You can’t pressure somebody on such an important decision. It’s not going to cause him to think positively or negatively if we all continue to harass him. Only he can decide.’’
With his father and mother a few feet from him in the front row of an auditorium filled with a friendly audience of several hundred people, Bush was responding to questions from Andrew Card, his father’s transportation secretary and his own White House chief of staff, primarily about his personal book ‘‘41: A Portrait of My Father.’’ The older Bush, seated in a wheelchair, smiled and waved but did not speak at the event.
Bush said he did not know of any timetable for a decision but said that from speaking with his brother, he knows Jeb Bush ‘‘doesn’t like the idea of a political class.’’
‘‘The idea of ‘Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Bush’ troubles him, which speaks to his great integrity,’’ George W. Bush said of the succession of recent presidents. ‘‘So I said: ‘How does this sound? Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Clinton,’’’ George W. Bush added, referring to the potential presidential run of former secretary of state Hillary Clinton.
‘‘The point is you don’t get to pick the environment in which you run.’’
Someone el$e does that.
The comments were his most detailed to date about the possibility of continuing the Bush political dynasty. George W. Bush said Sunday on CBS that there was a 50-50 chance Jeb will run. Jeb Bush was not in attendance at the book event Tuesday.
George W. Bush, 68, said he wrote the book now while his father, 90 and in fragile health, was still alive and able to ‘‘see how much I care for him,’’ and how much other people care for him. He also said that a favorable reassessment of George H.W. Bush’s presidency is emerging despite a single term and being ‘‘overshadowed’’ by the two terms of predecessor Ronald Reagan.
‘‘This is a love story. It’s not an objective analysis,’’ he said of the book. ‘‘It’s a story of an extraordinary man, in my judgment, the finest one-term president our country has ever had.’’
He dismissed Tuesday as ‘‘psychobabble’’ any suggestions of friction between presidential father and president son and credited his father with serving as an example for when he got to the White House....
I remember him saying he followed a higher father in regard to invading Iraq.
--more--"
So he's the next nominee, huh?
"GOP governors starting to strut their stuff for 2016" by Jill Colvin, Associated Press November 29, 2014
BOCA RATON, Fla. — The Republican Governors Association’s annual conference at the oceanside Boca Raton Resort & Club felt like a test run for what is increasingly shaping up to be a brutal showdown for the GOP presidential nomination among more than a dozen potential contenders, including a cluster of governors....
While the potential GOP field appears stronger than four years ago, the Republicans are without a front-runner.
‘‘There are, like, 16 people who could run,’’ said Haley Barbour, former governor of Mississippi, who downplayed the potential risk of so many candidates at each other’s throats. ‘‘They won’t all run, of course, but a lot of quality in there.’’
The candidates aren’t expected to start formally declaring their intentions until the first quarter of next year. But the developing tensions were already apparent as five potential candidates appeared together on stage in a packed, grand ballroom to answer questions from moderator Chuck Todd, the host of NBC’s ‘‘Meet The Press’’ — a dress rehearsal of sorts for the looming primary.
********
Dozens of the party’s biggest donors enjoyed private audiences with prospective candidates. They mingled in hotel corridors, at fancy dinners, on a nearby golf course where basketball great Michael Jordan was spotted, and at fetes, like an oceanside reception decorated with twinkling lights, a clam cake station, and ice sculptures.
Did they have a lady playing the violin on a balcony?
The guest list included Republican heavy hitters such as Paul Singer, Anthony Scaramucci, and Foster Friess....
In contrast, Hillary Rodham Clinton has spent recent weeks basking in the glows of grandmotherhood and applause at a few public events — without any major challenger for the Democratic nod, should she choose to pursue it.
--more--"
Related: What Election 2014 means for Hillary Clinton in 2016
Where is the coronation of the queen of the Democratic Party to be held?
"Three finalists named for 2016 Democratic National Convention" by Matt Flegenheimer, New York Times November 25, 2014
NEW YORK — The Democratic National Committee said Monday that it had narrowed its list of possible convention sites in 2016 to three cities: Columbus, Ohio; New York City; and Philadelphia.
The committee had previously been considering Phoenix and Birmingham, Ala., as well.
“We’re thrilled to move to the next step of the selection process to determine where Democrats will come together to nominate the 45th president of the United States,” said Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the committee chairwoman.
“We are fortunate to have such a diverse and vibrant group of cities interested in hosting this special event, and we thank Phoenix and Birmingham for showcasing their special communities,” she said.
In New York, Mayor Bill de Blasio has made a spirited case for his home borough, Brooklyn, where the convention would be held at the Barclays Center.
See: De Blasio Begs Democrats to Choose Brooklyn For 2016 Convention
The bidding process has set off an occasional war of words between officials in New York and Philadelphia, where former governor Edward G. Rendell of Pensylvania has championed that city’s bid. He previously served as its mayor.
Rendell has said that a Brooklyn convention has “huge problems,” including a dearth of hotels near the convention site.
Columbus, meanwhile, would put Democrats in the center of the nation’s top presidential battleground state and offer an in-state rebuttal to Republicans, who are holding their convention in Cleveland.
Where that kid was shot?
--more--"
"Hillary Clinton urges examination of racial, judicial disparities" by Joshua MillerGlobe Staff December 04, 2014
Hillary Rodham Clinton dove into a roiling national debate about race, policing, and justice Thursday, saying the United States must wrestle with some “hard truths” and positioning herself as a proponent of criminal justice reform after two high-profile deaths of unarmed black men at the hands of white police officers.
In a speech at the Boston Convention & Exhibition Center that sounded decidedly presidential in its broad sweep and careful call to action, Clinton said, “Each of us has to grapple with some hard truths about race and justice in America.”
Why do I have to? I didn't do anything to anyone.
************
Clinton, speaking to a crowd pegged at 10,000, said despite decades of advances for people of color, African-Americans are still more likely to be stopped and searched by police, charged with crimes, and sentenced to longer prison terms.
I guess they responded to the appeal.
She said a third of all African-American men face the prospect of prison during their lifetimes. Clinton paused briefly before continuing: “What devastating consequences that has for their families and their communities, and all of us.”
Citing another statistic — that the United States has less than 5 percent of the world’s population, but has nearly 25 percent of its total prison population — Clinton said the high rate of imprisonment is not because Americans are more violent or criminal, but because “we have allowed our criminal justice system to get out of balance.”
Whose we? I had nothing to do with the $y$tem of AmeriKan JU$TU$ or its dispensations!
The former first lady also said she hopes the deaths give the country the opportunity to come together “to find our balance again.” And she called for learning from the police departments all over the country that protect public safety without depending on excessive incarceration or unnecessary force.
Is that what we needed, and if so, that's a statement on a $ick $ociety.
Otherwise, that is nothing but rank political OPPORTUNISM there!
Tapping into a discussion that grew as images of police in Ferguson with military-style equipment were broadcast on national television, Clinton called for funneling federal dollars to state and local law enforcement to boost best practices instead of purchasing “weapons of war that have no place on our streets.”
Were you been all these years?
She also said she backed the Department of Justice investigations into what happened in Ferguson and Staten Island. The families and the country deserve a full accounting, she said, “as well as whatever substantive reforms are necessary to ensure equality, justice, and respect for every citizen.”
Clinton told the primarily female crowd that facing the tough issues in policing can’t be left to officials — from the president to police chiefs.
She said it’s important for Americans to imagine what it’s like to walk in their fellow citizens’ shoes, to try to see the world “through our neighbors’ eyes.”
To that I say we are ALL PALESTINIAN!
Indeed, Clinton said, the deaths did not occur in a distant land to a foreign people.
People we kill based on lies and false flags are not as important! She just admitted it!
“These are our streets, our children, our fellow Americans,” Clinton said, “and our grief.”
Meaning OTHERS in this world are WORTH LESS! That's from a ONE-WORLD GLOBALIST, too!
The remarks, delivered with a slow, deliberate cadence at the Massachusetts Conference for Women as Clinton stood on a wide stage, came not long before she is expected to telegraph her political intentions.
Trying to hypnotize you?
Clinton has said she will probably decide in early 2015 whether to run for president a second time.
If the rest of the article is going to turn into presidential speculation....
Should Clinton jump into the race, a key goal will be winning a large percentage of minority voters, as the potent issues at the intersection of race and policing are likely to remain a big part of the national conversation.
African-Americans and other communities of color have long been a core constituency of the Democratic Party, and were a vital part of the coalition that lifted President Obama to his White House victories in 2008 and 2012.
Her husband, Bill Clinton, also enjoyed significant support among African-American voters.
Obama also energized black voters in the 2008 Democratic primary against Clinton, and some felt Clinton allies were subtly injecting race into a heated contest.
Polling has found stark divides in how white and black Americans see the police and grand jury decision not to criminally charge the Ferguson officer who shot and killed Brown.
An ABC News/Washington Post survey released this week found 35 percent of white people disapprove of the Missouri jury decision, while a whopping 85 percent of black people disapprove.
A 2013 Pew Research Center poll found 70 percent of black people said African-Americans are treated less fairly than white people in dealings with police.
As she considers a run for president, Clinton has traveled the country, campaigning for Democrats and making paid speeches.
It was not clear Thursday whether Clinton was compensated for her Boston appearance.
The media affairs director for the conference did not respond to e-mailed questions about whether and how much Clinton was paid. The Boston Globe was among the media sponsors of the conference.
Then wouldn't they know?
In the rest of her wide-ranging remarks — and a subsequent question-and-answer session — Clinton spoke about women in the workplace and the lingering gender gap in pay. She told personal anecdotes from her life and mulled the immense challenges of being president.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Clinton laced her remarks with references to Massachusetts past and present — including mentions of Abigail Adams, the Lowell textile mills, and the late Thomas M. Menino.
She struck a few notes of economic populism, repeatedly praising and emphasizing the significance of a ballot initiative, passed by Massachusetts voters last month, that will entitle employees to earn and use up to 40 hours of sick time each year.
Clinton said we are “overcoming this false idea that everybody is on their own in society and the workplace.”
She touched on many other topics — including a mention of an hourlong meeting in the Oval Office on Wednesday with President Obama.
But Clinton never directly spoke about the question that looms every time she makes a public appearance: Will she run again?
--more--"
Related: Hillary Clinton’s speech at conference . . . priceless
So is this:
h/t
No One Likes Hillary Clinton Anymore
I never did.
