Thursday, July 28, 2016

Voter Angst! Did "Aw Shucks Bill" Whitewash Hillary? The Many Faces Of Hillary" Marines Train In Israel. Hillary "R Rated" Clinton's Robotic Speech!



                                                                                  Telling me Hillary is qualified because of her
                                                                                                      achievements.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Montana Department of Employment, Division of Labor Standards claimed a small rancher was not paying proper wages to his help and sent an agent out to investigate him.

AGENT: I need a list of your employees and how much you pay them.
RANCHER: Well, there's my hired hand who's been with me for 3 years. I pay him $200 a week plus free room and board. Then there's the mentally challenged guy. He works about 18 hours every day and does about 90% of all the work around here. He makes about $60 per week, pays his own room and board, and I buy him a bottle of Jack Daniels every Saturday night so he can cope with life. He also sleeps with my wife occasionally.
AGENT: That's the guy I want to talk to - the mentally challenged one.

RANCHER: That would be me.
+++
Let's look at a few facts confronting voters.
Democrats have swung to the very far Left because of Bernie's influence. The Democrat Party now appeals to young, so called educated male and female whites, and minorities like blacks and Hispanics, though the latter will soon become the majority.

Hillary voted for the Iraq War and yesterday, Democrats booed the former Defense Secretary who talked about ISIS, because they oppose going to war even, apparently, in defense of this nation. Are Democrats displaying they have no will to fight Islamic Terrorism?

Hillary was in favor of killing bin Laden and Qaddafi.

These same Democrats want to increase spending on more entitlements like paid college education and Hillary was in favor of our trade policies.  These same voters seem to ignore the fact that her behavior, vis a vis the handling of sensitive e mails,  is not significant and they still love Obama.

The facts are that the economy is enjoying a pitifully low recovery, the head of the FBI laid out an indicting case but could not bring himself to make the necessary recommendation and, since they are opposed to Trump's ideas on illegal immigration, one would think Democrats do not care about protecting our borders.

The Democrat Party is very pro justice yet Obama and Hillary have been quick to accuse police before the facts and yesterday all 6  police were set free because the Baltimore prosecutor brought a racially motivated case against them without any basis in facts.

Hillary favored The Iran Deal and an overwhelming majority of Americans believe we are decidedly heading in the wrong direction and, specific to Hillary, she is not trusted and has enriched herself while in office with questionable contributions to their foundation.(See 1 below.)

Obviously Democrats who vote for Hillary must ignore and/or overlook Hillary's reputation and past actions that seemingly conflict with their own supposed beliefs and principles.

https://www.billwhittle.com/firewall/hillary-guilty

On the Republican side we have Trump, whose campaign behavior has turned off many of the Party's establishment and they have walked away from their own party's nominee. Trump has no political experience beyond that necessary for a successful businessman dealing with various city halls and unions.

Trump has made boorish comments against a female FOX personality, has said churlish things he is blamed for that are offensive to voters he needs to win over and has defied all orthodox campaign methods yet, remains a strong challenger.

Every time Donald opens his mouth he says something the Democrats jump on and cite, as evidence, Trump does not have the temperament necessary for the presidency. Trump is totally politically incorrect yet, the consequences are the reverse of what you would think. His popularity remains high. Why?  I suspect the media and press are seen as the biased protectors of all things Trump voters oppose, ie. their being branded as embracing the 3 G's,  political correctness, cuddling various voting sectors with tax payer money, disregard of  the threat from Islamist Terrorists, support of open borders etc.

Trump adherents are angry and feel their country has been taken away from them by elitist politicians who promise, failed to deliver and also enriched themselves. They also are disgusted with their political representative's inability to successfully challenge Obama's disregard of the Constitution and allowing laws and legislation to be passed they cannot abide.

Obviously the argument that Hillary is experienced lacks appeal because integrity still seems to be more important. Loving Hillary remains a hard sell.

Democrats accuse Trump of gaining his foreign policy experience by watching television.  In truth, if Trump does, he could not be less informed than those who claim to be our experts. Obama lost the entire Middle East and millions are now refugees, Hillary lost Libya and four Americans and our State Department has been clueless regrading most every event involving ISIS, Turkey, Syria etc..

Both candidates are not beloved and seriously flawed.  It all boils down to an election which candidate is more capable of reaching the anger and disgust of the most voters and yet, Trump could still lose, even if he wins most votes, because Democrats are favored by the electoral college, have more money, have better organizational skills and have a proven record of stealing elections.

Favoring Trump, the election of Hillary is another 4 years of Obama in a pant suit.

“The real test of a society is its devotion to principles; by this test, most societies have failed miserably.   . . . most people are willing to overlook their principles when fear, anger, hate, or self-interest begin pounding in their breasts.”

— Sydney J. Harris, 1917-1986, American journalist, author, drama critic, educator, and syndicated columnist for the Chicago Daily News and, later, theChicago Sun-Times.
Vote for the Supreme Court! Choosing not to vote for the "lesser of two evils," is a vote for the greater of those evils.
By Mark Alexander

Stay tuned.
===
Did "Aw Shucks Bill"clear and re-position Hillary? (See 2, 2a and 2b below.)

Did not hear the speakers last night but understand it was more about what was not discussed, ie. ISIS, Middle East, Israel, Iran Deal, Deficit Spending, the economy, Hillary's carelessness and all the things that are on voter's minds but Democrats cannot discuss or fear touching.

Tonight, Hillary has another chance to re-position herself and voter views of her and convince them why she is the best candidate to sit in The Oval Office.  She might do so starting with a big apology, she might do so by ignoring her last 25 years or she might do so by being herself. You never know with Hillary because she has so many faces. (See 3 below.)

This from a dear friend and fellow memo reader regarding Trump's possible trap: " Think about it.
If all the 30,000 plus emails were private and not involving national security,
why is the Hillary campaign and surrogates claiming a risk of national security
and espionage if Russia were to turn over the emails to the FBI.
A clever trap.......


Excerpt: ".. What the Clinton campaign did next was make a colossal error: The Clinton campaign was quick to respond. Said advisor Jake Sullivan: “This has to be the first time that a major presidential candidate has actively encouraged a foreign power to conduct espionage against his political opponent. That’s not hyperbole, those are just the facts. This has gone from being a matter of curiosity, and a matter of politics, to being a national security issue.”
As Sean Davis noted, the Clinton camp just walked right into Trump’s trap, whether or not he knew he was setting one. For the past year, Hillary’s defense of her private email server has been that the whole thing was a nothing burger that put no sensitive information at risk."

The guns pulled their own triggers! (See 3a below.)

A dear friend of mine and fellow memo reader, who claims he is a centrist but constantly sends me articles from the NY Times and Washington Post and, is going to vote for Hillary because Mayor Bloomberg did not run, is critical of the fact I have not listened to the Democrat Convention.  He accuses me of not wanting to learn.

The truth is, we made dates long before we knew when the Democrat  Convention was going to occur However, in the interest of truth and full disclosure, most evenings I do return home early enough to hear the main speaker and  will this evening.

So will I learn anything by listening?  I doubt it in terms of substance. I expect Hillary will have to avoid telling the truth about her destroyed e mails.  I doubt she will explain why she sides with the children of  families of blacks killed by police before she knew the facts. ( strange behavior for a lawyer.)

I doubt she will explain why she aligned herself with The Iran Deal.  Certainly she will not tell the truth about Benghazi and admit that our relationship with Russia is not what she envisioned when she instituted her reset button policy.

I certainly do not believe she will admit her Party stiffed Bernie.  I also do not believe she will reveal why so many companies paid so much to hear her talk and why ,when Sec.of State, a deal to sell 20% or more of our uranium was accomplished with Russian interests and approved by her State Department (the same State Department which disapproved the Keystone Pipeline) and then millions were subsequently contributed to her Foundation from these same sources. (Yet, her party attacks Trump for being in bed with Putin.)

I doubt she will admit unions have ruined education opportunities for black kids nor will she tell me where her policies will differ from Obama's. I doubt she will explain her reluctance to embrace the term Islamist Terrorists.  Will I hear her tell me how she is going to pay off our debt after spending more money on welfare transfers? So I ask myself what will I not learn by not listening?

I think, if I listen, I will hear a lot of platitudes and how experienced she is because she has been hanging around D.C for over 25 years. I believe I will hear about what a bad deal America will get by electing Donald Trump because he is against women, blacks and illegal Hispanics and even legal ones and I will hear about how she will heal our divide, which her president has created, and work for the "little people" who her president has done little for besides giving them more food stamps and she will disingenuously attack Wall Street but will praise Socialist Bernie as a visionary.

Finally, I do not care to listen to Hillary tell me all the things Trump will promise and cannot deliver as she makes promises she knows she cannot deliver while reminding me of all the great hope and change Obama promised and also failed to deliver.

Most importantly of all, I will have to listen to her daughter introduce her mother so soon after dinner and after listening to Trump's children so that is not a 'huge' inducement.


Frankly, the more I write the more I am reminded why I will learn very little worth listening to so I will let my wife listen while I watch an HBO movie which I hope is rated R rather than a R rated political address given robotically by Hillary "R" Clinton.
===
Ex Israeli Defense Minister speaks and U.S. Marines Train in Israel. (See 4 and 4a below.)
===
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)

Will Clinton Decry Her Own Money Machine?

By Kimberly A. Strassel

A call to get ‘big money out of politics’ rallies Democratic convention-goers, as big donors help swell the party’s war chest


This week’s Democratic convention has featured a nonstop string of speakers vowing to crack down on “big money” in politics. They will presumably get serious about this project in December, or only after all the “big money” in 2016 has helped put Hillary Clinton into the White House.
To listen to the prime-time speakers here in Philly, there is no greater threat to democracy than the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United, which struck down some limits on political speech. Progressive firebrand Bernie Sanders used his Monday night address to deride it as “one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in the history of our country,” which allows “the wealthiest people” to buy elections and move the country toward “oligarchy.” Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren echoed that with her own promise that this election is all about getting “big money out of politics” by overturning Citizens United so as to “return this government to the people.”
The theme follows on Mrs. Clinton’s high-profile vow to propose, within 30 days of taking office, a new constitutional amendment that will “overturn” Citizens United. That’s another way of saying the Democratic nominee intends to gut the First Amendment, putting government in charge of who precisely can speak in elections.
It’s a dangerous pledge, but also one that is hard to swallow coming from a woman who has spent the past decades building—via the Clinton Foundation—one of the most ruthlessly efficient big-money machines ever witnessed in politics. And successfully so, given that the real “big money” to be found this presidential-election season is all solidly behind Democrats. Donald Trump’s fundraising woes are by now a central factor in the race, as many traditional high-dollar donors remain reluctant to go all in for his candidacy. Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and its allies, meanwhile, are on track to break records by potentially spending $1.5 billion. Mr. Trump’s side might prove lucky to raise a third of that.
Who is filling this Democratic war chest? A Tuesday story in Politico reported that billionaire George Soros has given or committed $25 million for Hillary and other Democrats. That includes more than $7 million to Priorities USA Action, a super Pac supporting Mrs. Clinton, and $2 million to American Bridge 21st Century, a super Pac devoted to opposing Republicans.
Finance reports show that billionaire and green activist Tom Steyer has donated $31 million to Democratic causes this year. (That’s far less than the $74 million Mr. Steyer blew in 2014, but the year is young.) The list of Democrats’ superdonors goes on. Entertainment mogul Haim Saban: $11 million. Media baron Fred Eychaner: $11 million. Hedge-fund manager Don Sussman: $13 million. Add in the multimillion-dollar checks from the Pritzker family (of Hyatt hotel fame); James Simons (hedge-fund billionaire); and Herbert Sandler (banking baron).
The Sanders fans on the left may well believe in their anti-money cause. But Mrs. Clinton’s world has long been that of the 1%. Though she may feel compelled to chase progressive voters by signing up for their campaign against Citizens United, don’t assume she thinks getting rid of “big money” is good for elections or democracy. What Mrs. Clinton believes is that getting rid of her opponents’ money is good for her.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++2)

Bill’s Ineffective Whitewash

By JONATHAN S. TOBIN 

For all of Bill Clinton’s legendary appeal as a charming public speaker, his “I met a girl” speech at last night’s convention will be remembered far more for what he didn’t say.
When it came to telling their private story, the 42nd president’s pointed omission of even a mention in passing of the very public crisis in a marriage about which most Americans already think they know too much echoed throughout the speech.
We’re all entitled to be the heroes and heroines of our own novels and, if this is the story the Clintons want to tell their grandchildren, so be it. The rest of us are aware of the complicated nature of their marriage. Though her husband gave us a detailed history of their courtship and early years together, he prudently failed to mention his very public infidelities and the fact that during his presidential campaigns and then during the Monica Lewinsky affair, her willingness to stand by him was the key factor in allowing him to survive.
We will be told that this is ancient history and that there is no need to re-litigate his perjury or Hillary’s willingness to back him up. But if we are now obliged to listen as Bill ably takes on the part of the faithful adoring spouse, it can’t be considered in bad taste to bring this up. The more he tries to divert us from the facts, the easier it is to remember that the relationship in question long ago took on the aspect of a cold political alliance in which her loyalty now obliges him to work for her election. Ironically, just as Donald Trump’s children were tasked with providing an alternative narrative for the Republican candidate’s well-known private life, so, too, did Bill Clinton try to give us a new version of a story that most already tired of hearing long ago.
It is a bit much to ask us to ignore what we know and instead buy into the fairy tale the former president was peddling. The same is true for the clever attempt to pitch this veteran political player and officeholder as an “change-maker.” Whatever one may think of her opponent—and I take a dim view of Trump—any effort to deny that Hillary is the status quo candidate of 2016 ranks up there with Bill’s“I didn’t have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky” in the pantheon of Clinton falsehoods. The same is true of the effort to depict her four years as secretary of state as one of unrivaled success when in fact she presided over the unraveling of the Middle East and one of the great tragedies of the last half century in Syria and the revival of Russian imperialism (“reset”).
The Clintons have been part of our public conversation for 24 years. The notion that they can re-sell themselves to the public is a comforting delusion for Democrats. If most voters don’t trust the Democratic nominee, and they don’t, it isn’t because they don’t know the real Hillary or are buying into a lie as her husband insists. Her problem is that we know her all too well. Her deceptions and the casual corruption of the conflicts of interest, which were created by their family foundation that has helped make them a very rich couple, is not a secret. Nor is her obsessive secrecy (already on display when she was first lady when she sought to remake health care out of public view) and willingness to repeatedly lie about her misdeeds. It’s not for nothing that even some Democrats took up the “lock her up” chant this week.
Bringing these facts to light is not a “cartoon,” which is the word the former president used to dismiss attacks on his wife. It is the unvarnished truth that no amount of romanticization of her will bury. Americans will make up their own minds as to whether her frauds are less odious than those of Donald Trump.


2a) Clinton Cash
By John Stossel

This week, as Democrats fawn over Hillary Clinton, I'm struck by how both Clintons continue to thrive despite their remarkable record of sleazy dealings.      
 The just released documentary "Clinton Cash," based on a book by Peter Schweizer, explains how they make big money by selling access to themselves.        
In a conversation, Schweizer told me how the Clintons use "speaking fees" to get around bribery laws.        
"If somebody gave a politician or family member money for a favor, that's breaking the law. But if you say it's a speaking fee, and you pay double or triple the normal rate, that seems to be legal." 
Since Bill Clinton left office, he's earned more than $126 million giving speeches. Nothing wrong with that. Bill likes to talk, and if people want to pay big bucks to hear him or just to say they were near him, so be it. It's their own money.        
But what suggests influence peddling, says Schweizer, is that before Hillary became secretary of state, Bill's usual fee was less than $200,000. But after Hillary became secretary of state, he made as much as $750,000 per speech.
That's "evidence that people paying him expect to get something in return," says Schweizer. "She becomes appointed secretary of state, a friend of the president of Nigeria suddenly offers (Bill) $700,000 apiece for two speeches. An investment firm in Moscow that's tied to the Kremlin who had never paid for him to speak before suddenly gave him $500,000."      
Those are just two of many examples cited in "Clinton Cash."        
Sometimes the Clintons launder the money through the Clinton Foundation. It's collected more than $2 billion to "improve global health and wellness."     
But Sean Davis of The Federalist examined Clinton Foundation records and concluded only about 15 percent of the money goes to actual charity work to help needy people.        
Most is spent paying Clinton cronies and other well-connected people to schmooze with governments and charities, which supposedly helps those governments and charities help people. I doubt it helps much.
Even the earthquake in Haiti became a moneymaking opportunity for the Clintons.  After the earthquake, the Clinton Foundation announced that it would work with governments and businesses to help rebuild Haiti. Actual rebuilding has been meager.
A Clinton Foundation press release promised an industrial park that would create "up to 60,000 jobs." Just 7,000 jobs have been created.   
What the Foundation has managed to do is help Clinton "friends." One, Irish billionaire Denis O'Brien, runs Digicel, a company that wanted a grant to build Haiti's cellphone network.        
"Four weeks after their application," says Schweizer, Digicel sponsored a speech for Bill Clinton in Jamaica and "paid him $225,000. Within four months of that speech, Digicel would receive the first installment of that grant money."   
Hillary Clinton's brother, Tony Rodham, even managed to cash in. The Haitian government awarded an exclusive gold mining contract to a company called VCS mining. VCS, says Schweizer, "has no experience in mining, very little experience in Haiti, and it raises the question, of all the companies out there, why did the Haitian government pick this one company?"        
The Clintons will tell you that it had nothing to do with the facts that Hillary's brother got a job with VCS and the chairman happens to be a Democratic donor.        
The worst example in "Clinton Cash," says Schweizer, is the Ericsson telecom deal. The Swedish company Ericsson was in trouble with the State Department because it sold telecom equipment to repressive regimes.        
Says Schweizer, "WikiLeaks cables show the State Department sort of busting up the Swedish foreign minister, saying you need to get Ericsson into line. Ericsson decides that this would be a great time to sponsor a speech by Bill Clinton. They had never done so before. They decided to go big, $750,000 for a 20-minute speech. Bill gives the speech and literally seven days later, the State Department comes out with a statement saying we're not going to take further action against Ericsson. We're going to ask them to police themselves."        
Hillary Clinton would like you to believe that electing a woman (Electionbettingodds.com shows she is favored 67 percent to 32 percent) means you've picked an "outsider" who will put a stop to Washington favoritism. Don't believe it.        
I hope "Clinton Cash" gets the attention it deserves.

 2b) The Other Clinton ‘Change’

No one in Philadelphia wants to talk about the Clinton Foundation.


 Bill Clinton on Tuesday portrayed his wife as a “change maker” whose life has overflowed with good intentions and commitment to others. No one can spin a yarn like Bill, and for the believers it was a touching portrait. But if it’s true, why do the polls show that 68% of Americans don’t trust Hillary Clinton? That has to do with the rest of the story, which is how the Clintons have used politics to enrich themselves and retain power.
Nowhere is this clearer than at the words you didn’t hear Mr. Clinton speak: the Clinton Foundation. This supposedly philanthropic operation has become a metaphor for the Clinton business model of crony politics. The foundation is about producing a different kind of “change.”
No doubt the foundation does some charitable good, but this is incidental to its main purpose of promoting the Clinton political brand. Since its creation in 1997, the nominal nonprofit has served as a shadow Super Pac, designed to keep the Clintons in the national headlines, cover their travel expenses, and keep their retinue employed between elections.
The payroll has included Huma Abedin, who drew a State Department salary even as she managed politics at the foundation and is now vice-chairwoman of the Clinton campaign.Dennis Cheng raised money for Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 bid, then became the foundation’s chief development officer and now leads Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 fundraising. Cheryl Mills,Hillary’s chief of staff at State, sat on the foundation board. And don’t forget Sid Blumenthal, the longtime Clinton Svengali who was secretly advising Mrs. Clinton at State while drawing a foundation salary. This may not be illegal but the charity here is for the Clintons’ benefit.
The funding for this political operation has come from nearly every country and major company in the world. These contributors have the cover of giving to charity, when everybody knows the gifts are political tribute to a woman determined to be President. Donations to a charity aren’t governed by the same caps or restrictions as those that go to a traditional Super Pac. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren somehow overlooked this in their Monday night riffs against money in politics.
Witness the charitably minded donors from Algeria, Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The Swiss bank UBS gave more than $500,000 to the foundation after Secretary Clinton solved its IRS problem. Canadian mining magnate Ian Telfer used a family charity to donate millions to the foundation at the same time a Cabinet committee on which Mrs. Clinton sat was reviewing (and ultimately greenlighted) a Russian mining deal involving his company. According to the Washington Post, Bill Clinton received $105 million for 542 speeches between January 2001 (when he left the White House) and January 2013 (when Hillary stepped down from State), often from companies and countries with business before State.
The foundation also rewards Clinton friends and political allies. This newspaper reported in May that the Clinton Global Initiative (a foundation program) directed a financial commitment to a company, Energy Pioneer Solutions, part-owned by Clinton friends. In 2010 Canadian tycoon Frank Giustra, a foundation donor, won the right to cut timber in Colombia, not long after the Clintons met with Colombia’s president.
There are no doubt other examples we don’t know about because the Clintons have hidden foundation details until they are exposed in the press. The foundation had to admit that it continued to accept donations from foreign governments while Mrs. Clinton was Secretary of State, though she had promised not to do so. The Associated Press reported this month that the official calendar Mrs. Clinton kept at State publicly omitted at least 75 meetings she held with “longtime political donors, Clinton Foundation contributors, and corporate and other outside interests.”
Keep in mind that the Clintons did all this after their ethical travails of the 1990s and knowing Mrs. Clinton would run for President again. It’s as if the lesson they learned from the 1990s isn’t that they should cut fewer corners but that they can get away with anything. And maybe they can.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) Last NIght Was Ridiculous
By  

I don’t much believe anything the President said last night. I find him to be a particularly divisive President, dividing Americans up into groups and playing them off each other for political gain. I find him too willing to politicize tragedies to advance an agenda, giving no respite to mourn in a never ending campaign. But thank God the President had the grace on that stage last night to point out that Donald Trump is neither a Republican nor a conservative. I am glad that even the President is not willing to tar and feather my party with Trump, despite my party’s willingness to commit political suicide.
The President gave a speech that was multiple things. It was an ode to American progressivism and defense of his record. It was the Republican response to Donald Trump. It was a flat sounding campaign for Hillary Clinton. The progressivism was nauseating. I cannot blame the President for ignoring the low economic growth rate during his administration. His values are not my values.
But I appreciate his denunciation of Donald Trump. He was accurate. The Republican Party is supposed to be the party of the individual that believes in the American people. It is now the party of Trump that believes only by electing Donald Trump can we make America great again. The party of Reagan that put faith in the people now puts faith in an orange braying jackass who is all talk and bankruptcies.
I got a text message from a senior Republican congressman after hearing President Obama’s speech last night. The congressman wrote, “We were supposed to make that sort of speech.” Barack Obama offered optimism and “Morning in America” to Trump’s “Midnight in America” doom, gloom, and despair.
I may disagree with the President and I may not really believe the President, but I don’t matter. The American people watching at home matter.
Last week, Republicans consoled themselves that television viewership of their convention was down, but that’s because people don’t watch TV anymore. They stream online. I suspect we are going to find that the President’s speech last night was widely seen and will be widely viewed as effective.
The GOP had a real opportunity to win in 2016. I’m sure today the Republican voices in the media will tell us that the Americans are not anywhere near Baghdad. But they know it is not so. The GOP had the chance to lift the American spirit against a woman with 60% disapproval. Instead, they chose a man even less liked that her.
I hate 2016.
3a) Jesse Jackson, Hillary's character witness, blames 'assault weapons' for dead cops
Chicago Tribune

The Rev. Jesse Jackson gave a full-throated backing of Hillary Clinton from the Democratic National Convention stage Wednesday, branding the former secretary of state as “trusted and tested and tried.”
Jackson said Clinton could be trusted to make the right appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court, to take up gun control and bring Americans together instead of threatening to deport millions like Republican nominee Donald Trump.
But while Jackson used his seven-minute speech to extol Clinton’s virtues, he also sought to heal differences within the Democratic Party and divisions that have arisen after recent shootings of black men by white police officers and the recent killing of officers in Dallas and Baton Rouge, La.
“I stand proudly in support of the next president of the United States, Hillary Rodham Clinton,” Jackson said, with pair of reading glasses perched at the tip of his nose. “And let me also congratulate Bernie Sanders for energizing this campaign with ideas and hope. The Bern must never grow cold.”
As he has repeatedly in recent years, Jackson also used his time at the microphone to advocate for stronger gun control laws. But in doing so, he also voiced concerns over the recent killings of police officers.
“Hillary understands the historic dimensions of the agony, hope and promise of Black Lives Matter. She knows our scars and our suffering,” Jackson said. “The shootings of young black men must stop, and we deeply regret the killing of police officers with powerful assault weapons. Those police should be alive today. Ban assault weapons now.”
In making his case for Clinton, Jackson also decried the spike in shooting deaths in Chicago.
“She can be trusted to ban the assault weapons that have turned our communities into killing fields, with 2,300 shot in Chicago this year and nearly 250 killed this year alone,” said Jackson, though the actual number is at least 377. “Ban these assault weapons now.”
Jackson formally endorsed Clinton’s presidential bid in June, as it became clear she would secure enough delegates to win the nomination. The backing also came shortly after Clinton’s campaign announced she would speak at the annual convention of the Rainbow/Push Coalition that Jackson has run from the South Side for 50 years.
Prior to his endorsement of Clinton, Jackson had become close to Sanders, who endorsed Jackson’s 1988 presidential bid.
Jackson passed over Clinton in 2008 to endorse then-U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, though Obama’s star power already had begun to eclipse the reverend’s role as a spokesman in the African-American community.
There were no signs of friction between the Clintons and Jackson on Wednesday, as the 74-year-old civil rights leader capped off his speech by removing his reading glasses and repeating the same thundering refrain nine times as the crowd rose to a loud standing ovation.
“It’s healing time! It’s hope time! It’s Hillary time!”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4)
[RG Note: On May 20, 2016- Moshe Ya'alon announced his resignation as Israel's Defense Minister and stated that he would run for prime minister in the next elections.  His opposition to Prime Minister Netanyahu was taken as a validation of U.S. criticisms of Israel's policies toward the Palestinian Authority.  In the following account of Ya'alon's speech today (Wednesday) at Bar-Ilan University in Israel he stated (a) the Palestinian Arabs "view the entire State of Israel as a settlement" (b) when the Palestinian Arabs speak of "the occupation", "they are referring to the entire territory of the Land of Israel, not just Judea and Samaria" [note that Ya'alon refers to what our media call the "west bank" of the Jordan River by their historical terms "Judea and Samaria", which is what they were called in all international bodies, including the U.N., until around 1950 when Transjordan annexed those areas of Judea and Samaria that they illegally occupied in the war of 1948-49] (c) referring to the Gaza "disengagement", Ya'alon said "we receive rockets in exchange for land" (d) crucially - in my view - "the division between Right and Left is meaningless -- the Arab leadership does not recognize Israel as a Jewish state" (e) "the desire to separate from the Palestinians is an illusion. They are dependent on us financially and security-wise. Without the IDF, the Fatah regime would not survive. We disengaged from Gaza and we still provide them with electricity and water." and (f) if the IDF left the "west bank", "rockets would fall in Israel" and the Kingdom of Jordan would probably fall, not to mention the collapse of the Fatah-ruled Palestinian Authority.  Regarding his assessment of the Palestinian Authority, there seems to be little difference between that of the current Israel government and that of the former defense minister.  It appears that the differences between Ya'alon and the current government have little, if anything, to do with the assessment of the prospects for a permanent peace arrangement with the Palestinian Arab leadership.]




Ex-defense minister: To Palestinians, all of Israel is a settlement 


Former Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon: "'Hamastan' and the Palestinian Authority refuse to recognize Israel, and we receive rockets in exchange for land" • Ya'alon reaffirms his intention to run for prime minister in the future.

Israel Hayom Staff
Former Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon, Wednesday
|
  Photo credit: Yossi Zeliger 


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 





Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)