Politics...The Art Of Compromise by Springeraz,Blogspot
Hillary Clinton endorsed by New York Times & Communist Party USA
Posted on February 5, 2016 by TMH
By: Renee Nal | New Zeal
Democratic presidential candidates
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) (L) and Hillary Clinton take part in a
presidential debate sponsored by CNN and Facebook at Wynn Las Vegas on
October 13, 2015 in Las Vegas, Nevada. Five Democratic presidential
candidates are participating in the party's first presidential debate.
(Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)" width="540" height="352"/>
LAS VEGAS, NV – OCTOBER 13:
Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) (L) and
Hillary Clinton take part in a presidential debate sponsored by CNN.
(Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
- Hillary Clinton “...repair[ed] relations around the world that had been completely trashed by the previous administration.” (NYT)
- Hillary Clinton “...will build on the achievements of Obama’s presidency.” (CPUSA)
- Hillary Clinton “...led the fight in ensuring that poor women get federal funds to pay for their abortions.” (NYT)
- Hillary Clinton will “defend the integrity of democratic structures, governance, and traditions [big government].” (CPUSA)
The very first sentence of the New York Times editorial endorsing Hillary Clinton trashes Republican
As the ideological lines become increasingly blurred, perhaps an endorsement from Communist
Party USA (CPUSA) is a positive step in the right direction for the
progressively-indoctrinated youth vote. And clearly, the watchdogs are
turning a blind eye.
Sam Webb,
former national chairperson for CPUSA who currently serves as
CPUSA’s public spokesperson says that although Hillary Clinton is not
Bernie Sanders, she “will build on the achievements of Obama’s
presidency. In other words, her White House will press for economic,
social, and political reforms on a range of issues, including
existentially necessary action on climate change.”
Webb, not the sharpest tool, warns ominously:
If the Republicans win the presidency, that firewall against far-right extremism that the Obama administration represented will disappear and the barbarians will be no longer at the gate, but likely in charge of the whole castle.
The
NYT astonishingly praises Hillary Clinton’s efforts as Secretary of
State, claiming that along with Obama and their shared vision,
Clinton “allowed the United States to repair relations around the world
that had been completely trashed by the previous administration.”
Hillary Clinton, according to the Old Grey Lady (who is most certainly not a
lady) deals with the most “substantive” of issues like her support
of gun control, regulating the “business establishment” and “the wage
gap for women, especially for women of color.” Clinton also led the
fight in ensuring that poor women get federal funds to pay for their
abortions.
For his part, Sam Webb of CPUSA continues to say that Hillary,
“will fight for the full range of democratic rights – collective bargaining rights, wage rights, job rights, women’s rights, civil rights, gay rights, voting rights, immigrant rights, and, not least, health rights – as well as defend the integrity of democratic structures, governance, and traditions [code for big government].’
As
an aside, the NYT also condescendingly trashes Republican candidates
for having experience outside of Washington. One can almost feel the
sneer:
“...it would be comical to watch any of the Republican candidates try to make that case [regulations for Wall Street and banks], given that they are all virtually tied to, or actually part of, the business establishment.”
On Clinton’s use of the military, the New York Times explains:
“...we have no doubt that Mrs. Clinton would use American military power effectively and with infinitely more care and wisdom than any of the leading Republican contenders.”
Webb
laments that if a Republican wins the White House, he or she will “ramp
up militarism, [engage in] climate change obstructionism, and the wholesale shrinkage of the public sector.”
Webb continues:
To make matters worse, this concentration of state power in the hands of the extreme right at the federal level is matched and augmented by its control of thirty state governments, ubiquitous voice in the major media, network of well-funded think tanks, pastors in the pulpits, energetic grassroots constituency, and nearly bottomless war chest – thanks to the Koch brothers and other right wing billionaires.Which brings me back to the slogan ‘Bernie or Bust.’ If too many interpret it to mean Bernie or no one, least of all Hillary, it becomes an action (or inaction) that could well cede the country to right wing extremists.
Explain to this author what the difference is between the Democrats, the socialists and the Communists again?
Neither of the articles mentioned the Constitution.
Republicans question why FBI interviewed Powell, not Clinton, over emails
By SARAH WESTWOOD (@SARAHCWESTWOOD) •
Powell, a Republican appointee, told Politico Thursday he had been visited by two FBI agents late last year for a "casual" discussion of his email practices.
The former chief diplomat disputed an inspector general's findings that two emails sent from "state.gov"
accounts to his personal inbox should have been classified as
"confidential," the lowest level of classification in government.
David
Bossie, president of Citizens United, questioned why Powell would be
contacted by the FBI when Hillary Clinton, who transmitted more than
1,600 classified emails on a private network, was not.
"Hillary
Clinton has recently said she has not been contacted by the FBI. Now we
know Colin Powell has been contacted by the FBI," Bossie told the Washington Examiner. "This only makes sense if Hillary Clinton is the target of the investigation — in which case she would be contacted last."
The
State Department announced last week that 22 of Clinton's private
emails have been upgraded to "top secret." Rep. Chris Stewart, R-Utah,
told the Examiner on Wednesday that seven additional emails have been deemed "top secret" as well.
"The
FBI is conducting a thorough investigation and I assume they are
working their way to the target — Secretary Clinton," Bossie said.
The
FBI has not said whether Clinton is the target of its investigation,
but Clinton has maintained she is not the law enforcement agency's
focus.
Her campaign quickly seized on the news that Powell may have handled classified material outside secure channels, touting it as evidence that the government has a tendency to over-classify information.
However,
Powell drew distinctions between his occasional use of a commercial
email account when his official account was running slowly and Clinton's
exclusive use of a private email network run out of her home on a
personal server.
Jeff
Bechdel, spokesman for the Republican group America Rising, also
expressed skepticism over the idea that the FBI interviewed Powell but
not Clinton.
"The
fact remains Secretary Clinton is the only cabinet official to ever
house and maintain a private server in her basement that contained all
of her work and personal emails," Bechdel said. "The security of that
server and the risk it posed to national security is at the heart of the
FBI's ongoing investigation — not 12-year-old emails sent to
secretaries of past administrations."
The
two classified emails in Powell's private inbox were revealed as part
of an inspector general probe into the State Department's past
record-keeping practices, Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., said Thursday in a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry.
Clinton Corruption Leads to Russian Aggression
By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media
The New York Times endorsed Hillary
Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, calling her “one of
the most broadly and deeply qualified presidential candidates in modern
history.” There was one big problem with the editorial. Her policy
toward Russia laid the groundwork for the Russian aggression that the
Pentagon now has to spend billions of dollars to prepare for. The paper
somehow forgot to mention that.
The
Obama/Clinton Russian “reset” policy in 2009 set the stage for Russian
wars of aggression and military intervention in Ukraine and Syria, and
Vladimir Putin’s decision to give sanctuary to NSA defector Edward
Snowden. Snowden’s stolen documents have assisted the rise of ISIS.
The
liberal paper is entitled to endorse anybody it pleases. But to endorse
Mrs. Clinton and not explain or justify her failed policy with regard
to Russia is an oversight that borders on dishonesty.
When
President Obama’s own Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, just a few days
later, identified Russia as one of America’s biggest threats, the Times
was put in a bad spot. How could it defend endorsing the former
secretary of state when the Russian threat she had ignored was now
taking center stage, and going to cost the U.S. billions of dollars?
The
paper’s editorial writers had to think fast. That’s right: blame
Secretary Carter for asking for too much money! The Times ran an editorial suggesting
in a vague way that Carter’s $582.7 billion budget request for the
Pentagon was not correct, and that additional spending on the threats
from Russia and ISIS needed to be recalibrated in some way. The Times
wasn’t too specific, but it decided to call his request a “blank check,”
and added that “it is unclear” that Carter’s plan is the right one.
This was supposed to take the heat off of Mrs. Clinton for not
anticipating the threat that the United States and its allies now have
to face.
It’s
important to set the record straight. Not only was the reset policy
wrong, but even the photo opportunity where the new policy was announced
was a disaster. Hillary Clinton had presented Russian Foreign Minister
Sergei Lavrov with a mock reset button with the word, “peregruzka,”
meaning “overcharged,” not “re-set.” She said, “We worked hard to get
the right Russian word.” He replied, “You got it wrong.” The video of the embarrassing exchange includes the infamous Hillary Clinton cackle.
Ignoring
all of this, the Times said, “As secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton
worked tirelessly, and with important successes, for the nation’s
benefit. She was the secretary President Obama needed and wanted:
someone who knew leaders around the world, who brought star power as
well as expertise to the table. The combination of a new president who
talked about inclusiveness and a chief diplomat who had been his rival
but shared his vision allowed the United States to repair relations
around the world that had been completely trashed by the previous
administration.”
The
Russian “re-set” was one such effort to “repair relations.” It failed.
It’s best, from the Times’ point of view, just to ignore this disaster.
“Russia and China are our most stressing competitors,” said Defense
Secretary Carter the other day. “They have developed and are continuing
to advance military systems that seek to threaten our advantages in
specific areas. And in some cases, they are developing weapons and ways
of wars that seek to achieve their objectives rapidly, before they hope,
we can respond.”
In
regard to what he called a “resurgent Russia,” Carter spoke of the need
for “a strong and balanced approach to deter Russian aggression...” He
said that “we haven’t had to worry about this for 25 years; while I wish
it were otherwise, now we do.” He went on to talk about threats from
China, North Korea, Iran and ISIS.
It’s
true that, for 25 years, administrations of both political parties have
misjudged Russia. The Times and other media need to demand
accountability from those who thought Russia could be our “partner” in
global affairs. Instead, the paper ran an editorial endorsing Mrs.
Clinton for president and cited her alleged expertise. This is the mark
of a paper that is determined, for political reasons, to make Mrs.
Clinton into something she is not. She was not a success. She was a
failure. The editorial won’t hold up under scrutiny.
The
honest approach would be to analyze why Mrs. Clinton was so wrong about
Russia. Interestingly, the Times may have the answer to this question
in its own pages.
Could it have something to do with the contributions to the Clinton Foundation from Russian interests? The Times itself ran the story,
“Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal,” on April
23, 2015. It talked about how Russian President Putin had moved “closer
to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain,”
based on a Russian deal to acquire a company called Uranium One—a deal
that required U.S. State Department approval when Mrs. Clinton was the
secretary of state.
The
paper said that as the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium
One during the time period 2009 to 2013, millions of dollars in
“donations” were flowing to the Clinton Foundation from Uranium One’s
chairman and his family foundation. “Those contributions were not
publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton
had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors.
Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.” The deal
gave the Russian government control of 20 percent of the uranium in the
United States.
We
can conclude that the Russian reset was an exercise in selling our
national security to Russia. It was corruption. But rather than retire
from public life, which would have been the honorable thing to do,
Hillary Clinton decided to run for the highest office in the land, and
has the support of The New York Times. She hopes the American people
will forget what she did. The Times has already done so, for political
reasons.
Today,
in order to counter the Russian threat, Secretary Carter is calling for
“reinforcing our posture in Europe to support our NATO allies in the
face of Russia’s aggression.” He calls it the European Reassurance
Initiative. It cost $800 million last year, Carter said, and this year’s
budget request asks for $3.4 billion. The Russian reset will be
incredibly expensive. But the Clintons already have their millions.
The
New York Times quibbles with the financial cost of addressing the
threat while ignoring Hillary Clinton’s role in making the world a more
dangerous place. The paper shares in the corruption that the Clintons
have specialized in. In fact, the Times has become nothing more than a
house organ of Hillary’s presidential campaign.
Laura J Alcorn
No comments:
Post a Comment