President Obama on Tuesday blamed "criminals and thugs" for the violence that erupted in Baltimore in response to the death of Freddie Gray, a black man who died in police custody.
“There is no excuse for the kind of violence we saw yesterday. It is counterproductive," Obama said. "They’re not protesting, they’re not making a statement. They are stealing.”
Every good race-hustler knows those are 'code words' In fact, doublespeak is Obama's second language.
Is it okay to use the word thug now, or just for Obama, or just for today?
Rival gangs Crips & Bloods pose in solidarity w/ Nation Of Islam in Baltimore
If Obama did have a son, would he look like one of these 'community organizers' too? The coalition of the left and the race hustle industry has the same recurring themes and bad actors, among those are Barack Obama, his DOJ and race ambassador Al Sharpton, along with the SEIU and their comrades like the Revolutionary Communist Party. Enough is enough.
The Clinton political machine and it's allies in the media seek to control the narrative on the latest book called Clinton Cash, written by a right leaning author. Left leaning media outlets such as the New York Times, the Washington Post and even Reuters have found the Clinton corruption worthy of investigation and reporting. The latest leftist publication to take a look and find questionable conduct and unanswerable questions is the New Yorker. This is just ONE of the money trails ....
1. Was there a quid pro quo? Based on the Times reporting, there was certainly a lot of quid (millions in donations that made it to a Clinton charity; a half-million-dollar speaker’s fee) and multiple quos (American diplomatic intervention with the Russians; approvals when the Russian firm offered a very “generous” price for Uranium One). The Clinton perspective is that, although the approvals were delivered by the State Department when Clinton led it, there is no evidence that she personally delivered them, or of the “pro” in the equation. The Clinton campaign, in its response to the Times, noted that other agencies also had a voice in the approval process, and gave the Times a statement from someone on the approvals committee saying that Clinton hadn’t “intervened.” The Clinton spokesman wouldn’t comment on whether Clinton was briefed about the matter. She was cc’d on a cable that mentioned the request for diplomatic help, but if there is a note in which she follows up with a directive—an e-mail, say—the Times doesn’t seem to have it.
This speaks to some larger questions about political corruption. How do you prove it? Maybe the uranium people simply cared deeply about the undeniably good work the foundation is doing, and would have received the help and approvals anyway. In cases like this, though, how does the public maintain its trust? Doing so becomes harder when the money is less visible, which leads to the second question:
2. Did the Clintons meet their disclosure requirements? The Timeswrites, of the $2.35 million from Telfer’s 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.” This is one of the more striking details in the story, because it seems so clear-cut that the donation ought to have been disclosed. Moreover, the Times says that the foundation did not explain the lapse. I also asked the foundation to explain its reasoning. The picture one is left with is convoluted and, in the end, more troubling than if the lapse had been a simple oversight. The legalisms can be confusing, so bear with me: the Clinton Foundation has several components, including the Clinton Global Initiative and—this is the key one—the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership, formerly known as the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative. The memorandum of understanding makes it clear that the donor-disclosure requirement applies to each part of the foundation.
Craig Minassian, a Clinton Foundation spokesman, pointed out, though, that there are two legally separate but almost identically named entities: the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership and the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada). The second one is a Canadian charitable vehicle that Giustra set up—doing it this way helps Canadian donors get tax benefits. It also, to the foundation’s mind, obliterates the disclosure requirements. (There are also limits on what a Canadian charity is allowed to disclose.) Minassian added, “As complex as they may seem, these programs were set up to do philanthropic work with maximum impact, period. Critics will say what they want, but that doesn’t change the facts that these social enterprise programs are addressing poverty alleviation and other global challenges in innovative ways.” Minassian compared the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada) to entirely independent nonprofits, like AmFAR or Malaria no More, which have their own donors and then give money to the foundation’s work.
This does not make a lot of sense unless you have an instinct for the most legalistic of legalisms. Unlike AmFAR, the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada) has the Clinton name on it. Money given to the Canadian entity goes exclusively to the foundation. Per an agency agreement, all of its work is done by the foundation, too. The Web site that has the C.G.E.P. name on it also has the Clinton Foundation logo and Bill Clinton’s picture; it also has a copyright notice naming the Canadian entity as the site’s owner. Anyone visiting the site would be justifiably confused. They are, in other words, effectively intermingled.
And what would it mean if the Canadian explanation flew—that the Clintons could allow a foreign businessman to set up a foreign charity, bearing their name, through which people in other countries could make secret multi-million-dollar donations to their charity’s work? That structural opacity calls the Clintons’ claims about disclosure into question. If the memorandum of understanding indeed allowed for that, it was not as strong a document as the public was led to believe—it is precisely the sort of entanglement one would want to know about. (In that way, the Canadian charity presents some of the same transparency issues as a super PAC.) At the very least, it is a reckless use of the Clinton name, allowing others to trade on it.
ABC's Stephanopoulos reflexively goes on the defensive for his old bosses.....
3. Did the Clintons personally profit? In most stories about dubious foundation donors, the retort from Clinton supporters is that the only beneficiaries have been the world’s poorest people. This ignores the way vanity and influence are their own currencies—but it is an argument, and the foundation does some truly great work. In this case, though, Bill Clinton also accepted a five-hundred-thousand-dollar speaking fee for an event in Moscow, paid for by a Russian investment bank that had ties to the Kremlin. That was in June, 2010, the Times reports, “the same month Rosatom struck its deal for a majority stake in Uranium One”—a deal that the Russian bank was promoting and thus could profit from. Did Bill Clinton do anything to help after taking their money? The Times doesn’t know. But there is a bigger question: Why was Bill Clinton taking any money from a bank linked to the Kremlin while his wife was Secretary of State? In a separate story, breaking down some of the hundred million dollars in speaking fees that Bill Clinton has collected, the Washington Postnotes, “The multiple avenues through which the Clintons and their causes have accepted financial support have provided a variety of ways for wealthy interests in the United States and abroad to build friendly relations with a potential future president.”
4. Putting aside who got rich, did this series of uranium deals damage or compromise national security? That this is even a question is one reason the story is, so to speak, radioactive. According to the Times, “the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.” Pravda has said that it makes Russia stronger. What that means, practically, is something that will probably be debated as the election proceeds. 5. Is this cherry-picking or low-hanging fruit? Put another way, how many more stories about the Clintons and money will there be before we make it to November, 2016? The optimistic view, if you support Hillary Clinton or are simply depressed by meretriciousness, is that the Times reporters combed the Schweizer book and that this story was the worst they found. The pessimistic view is that it was an obvious one to start with, for all the reasons above, and that some names that stand out less than Uranium One and ARMZ will lead to other stories. Are the Clintons correct in saying that there is an attack machine geared up to go after them? Of course. But why have they made it so easy?
The conduct of police is under heavy scrutiny by the race hustlers in the current administration and the left in general. Even after the embarrassing false allegations and the death and destruction in Ferguson fomented by the White House on down, their search for a new victim of police brutality now focuses on Freddie Gray in Baltimore. The associations and conduct of the 'protesters' are overlooked or explained away. The latest 'peaceful protest' turned violent and destructive was blamed on domestic terror tourism, also known as out of town activists.
Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) alleged Sunday that many rioters in Baltimore the previous night were from "out of town," noting that he was amid crowds in the area.
A protest over the death of Freddie Gray, a black 25-year-old, in police custody turned violent as some went on a rampage as darkness fell, as they were seen smashing windows and throwing objects at police.
"I've gotta give it to the citizens of Baltimore. I was there all day, and it was very peaceful all day," Cummings said on CBS's "Face the Nation."
"At the end, there were a few people that said, 'We're gonna turn this city down, we're gonna close it down.' And the next thing you know we had a few people – mainly from out of town – to come and to start beating up on police cars and throwing all kinds of projectiles," Cummings alleged.
Elijah Cummings, a leader of the Congressional Black Caucus, is a proven race-hustler. Why can't Cummings hold his own constituents accountable for a riot in his own city? And the above headline leads to some interesting questions that won't get asked.
Mainly what was their race? Mainly what party supports this nonsense? Mainly, what is the purpose of the Congressional Black Caucus? Mainly, who protected this administration from any accountability, Cummings?
And more peaceful protesters....
PHOTO: ‘Peaceful’ Black Lives Matter attempts to stab white guy in Baltimore riot http://t.co/oDtQQBcKhO
— Right Scoop (@trscoop) April 26, 2015
Washington (CNN)This week is the 100th anniversary of what many historians acknowledge as the Armenian genocide -- the Turkish massacre of an estimated 1.5 million Armenians
And it's also the seventh year in a row President Barack Obama has broken his promise to use the word "genocide" to describe the atrocity.
It's a moral position taken by Pope Francis, actor George Clooney and even by the Kardashians.
On the 2008 campaign trail, Obama promised to use the word "genocide" to describe the 1915 massacre by Turks of Armenians -- a pledge he made when seeking Armenian-American votes.
Back then, he held up his willingness to call it a "genocide" as an example of why he was the kind of truth-telling candidate the nation needed.
In 2006, after the U.S. Ambassador to Armenia was asked to resign for using the term Armenian genocide, then-Sen. Obama hammered the Bush administration for not taking a stand.
"The Armenian genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion, or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence," he said.
Who is the main target of the story? Well, Ted Cruz, of course. The 'news' article starts....
There are not many people who once fought on the same side as Fidel Castro and are now heroes to American social conservatives.
But that is exactly the trajectory taken by Rafael Cruz, father of 2016 presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas).
The elder Cruz now regrets his fight on the side of the pro-Castro rebels in his native Cuba, ascribing it to dislike of Castro’s arch-enemy, U.S.-backed President Fulgencio Batista, rather than any sympathy for Communism.
Rafael has travelled a complicated path in the United States, encompassing two divorces, business reversals and a second career as a preacher.
But it is his red-hot rhetoric that appalls liberal groups and enthuses social conservatives.
That, in turn, makes his son one of three GOP hopefuls this year whose relationships with their fathers bring complicated political dynamics.
Smearing the POTUS candidate Republican Senator Ted Cruz by using the 'sins of his father' is low, but even the implication of Ted Cruz's father as a communist rebel is even lower. Considering the fact that Ted Cruz's father fled Cuba in 1957 and never returned when Fidel Castro gained power is important, but the fact that is most important is this factoid.
By the time Castro formally declared Cuba a socialist state on May 1, 1961(24) and proclaimed himself a "Marxist-Leninist" in a televised speech on December 2, 1961,(25) communist power in Cuba had been consolidated.
Math and the truth aren't readily used by the smear merchants on the left, but these facts speak for themselves. Ted Cruz's father, Rafael, fought against Batista in Cuba and not for communist Castro. The media was silent on Barack Obama's marxist parent's politics, silent on his mentor Frank Marshall Davis's communist party membership and his writings for communist newspapers were conveniently 'overlooked' by the media.
The 'mainstream media' never vetted Barack Obama and protected him while he was in office. Their bias and contempt for anything Republican or conservative is regularly on display and the elections in 2016 is already a race to the bottom for these so-called journalists. Is there any doubt that the fourth estate is really the fifth column in our once great Republic ?
"Frank" is mentioned throughout Obama's book. Curiously, in the abridged audio version of Dreams from My Father released in 2005, the year Obama began his Senate career, all mentions of his mentor were scrubbed.
The GOP controlled Senate was ready to pass a human trafficking bill when the Democrats said the GOP tricked them on abortion language in the bill, followed by the laughable defense that the Democrats didn't read the bill before passing it out of committee. Stalling the bill has led to a delay in consideration of Obama's next pick for Attorney General, Loretta Lynch.
Barack Obama's candidate to be the next attorney general of the United States, replacing the disgraced Eric Holder, is an embarrassment in, and of itself Of course, that is not how Barack Obama will spin it......
President Obama on Friday vented his frustration over the delay in confirming his attorney general pick Loretta Lynch, calling the Senate’s handling of her nomination “embarrassing.”
Three years ago, then-U.S. Attorney of the Eastern District of New York Loretta Lynch crafted a soft-touch deferred-prosecution deal for Europe's largest bank, HSBC, which had only been caught in the largest drug-money-laundering case in history.
Opposition to Barack Obama’s nominee for US attorney general over her handling of the HSBC scandal is growing in Congress after she admitted deciding not to prosecute the bank for money laundering offences without hearing from key regulators or a separate investigation into tax secrecy.
There is a lot more to the HSBC scandal and even Loretta Lynch's handling of other cases, but the biggest concern over Lynch's appointment as AG concerns her ability to act in the best interest of the country not as a protector of the POTUS and a rubber stamp for his agenda.
The tiresome, shrill cries of the left of racism or sexism for the delay or failure to vote on Loretta Lynch was a predictable distraction from the candidate's troubling history and testimony. Loretta Lynch should not be America's top cop.
Days after the March 31 deadline for negotiations passed, this headline, and many similar across the United States announced an 'historic deal', until the article was examined. The reader then discovers that the deal is really just a 'framework' or an outline for future negotiations with another future deadline. Even more important, are the caveats and fine print of this 'historic' deal as explained by the President, Barack Obama.
“It is a good deal, a deal that meets our core objectives,” Obama said during an 18-minute speech in the Rose Garden. “If this framework leads to a final comprehensive deal, it will make our country, our allies and our world safer.”
The headline and all the hype surrounding these negotiations show the willingness of the media in the United States to push the false narratives of this administration. Read the quote again and focus on the phrasing of 'if this framework leads to a final comprehensive deal '. Okay, so there is really not a deal and the candidate of hope and change thinks hope is a foreign policy strategy. Not only is the narrative false of historic deals, the truth gets stretched and actually breaks after Secretary of State John Kerry's press conference touting the 'agreement' Iran calls out the Obama administration for not telling the truth about the 'framework'
Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif accused the Obama administration of misleading the American people and Congress in afact sheet it released following the culmination of negotiations with the Islamic Republic.
Zarif bragged in an earlier press conference with reporters that the United States had tentatively agreed to let it continue the enrichment of uranium, the key component in a nuclear bomb, as well as key nuclear research.
Zarif additionally said Iran would have all nuclear-related sanctions lifted once a final deal is signed and that the country would not be forced to shut down any of its currently operating nuclear installations.
Following a subsequent press conference by Secretary of State John Kerry—and release of a administration fact sheet on Iranian concessions—Zarif lashed out on Twitter over what he dubbed lies.
“The solutions are good for all, as they stand,” he tweeted. “There is no need to spin using ‘fact sheets’ so early on.”
Zarif went on to push back against claims by Kerry that the sanctions relief would be implemented in a phased fashion—and only after Iran verifies that it is not conducting any work on the nuclear weapons front.
Zarif, echoing previous comments, said the United States has promised an immediate termination of sanctions.
Not only did Iran call out the Obama administration for not being truthful, the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu released the following statement about the 'framework'.
The Obama's administration's deal at any cost approach should concern Israel, especially since this administration helped negotiate on the side of IRAN
In his television interview, Mr Mottaghi also gave succour to western critics of the proposed nuclear deal, which has seen the White House pursue a more conciliatory line with Tehran than some of America’s European allies in the negotiating team, comprising the five permanent members of the UN security council and Germany.
“The US negotiating team are mainly there to speak on Iran’s behalf with other members of the 5+1 countries and convince them of a deal,” he said.
Should Israel really be concerned? Without an actual signed agreement in place, what are some of the realities? The NYTIMES reports the most important aspect of the deal. Iran still gets a nuclear bomb.
The agreement calls for Tehran to slash its stockpile of nuclear materials and severely limit its enrichment activities, theoretically bringing the time it would take to produce a nuclear weapon to a year — a significant rollback from the current estimate of two to three months.
The details of the negotiations leaked indicate that Iran gets the sanctions lifted, gets to develop nuclear weapons and will dictate the terms of verification and inspections. Inspections that are only as rigorous as the U.N Security Council requires. This leaves Russia and China, Iran's allies, in control of the process as reported in Politico.
We don’t yet know all the details of the nuclear agreement that Iran, the United States and five other world powers announced Thursday they are aiming to complete by June 30. What we do know is that any acceptable final deal will depend on a strong weapons inspection element. In his remarks in the Rose Garden, President Obama declared Tehran had agreed to precisely that. “If Iran cheats, the world will know,” he said.
Yet weapons inspectors can be no tougher than the body that empowers them—in this instance the UN Security Council. And herein lies the agreement’s fundamental weakness—and perhaps its fatal flaw. Do we really want to depend on Vladimir Putin? Because Russia will be able to decide what to enforce in any deal—and what not to.
The U.N as an organization has failed in all its missions and mandates, by design. Yet this administration is so desperate for any kind of foreign policy victory, it is willing to throw any, if not all of its allies under the bus, namely Israel. This administration and the left loathes Israel and has long worked to sabotage and destroy it. From supporting the BDS movement, to direct interference in Israel's elections. the Obama administration and the left have appeased Iran to aid in their attacks on Israel. From Occupy Wall Street to the current Commander in Chief, Barack Obama, capitulations to and the appeasing of Iran, along with the open hostilities toward Israel and its leader have left many Americans puzzled and concerned. This administration has allowed Iran and ISIS to divide and devour the middle east and it looks like Israel may be next.
This is the same administration that touted Iraq and Yemen as foreign policy successes.
