Ted Cruz refuses to endorse GOP nominee in prime time RNC convention speech

Ted Cruz, refuses to endorse GOP candidate Donald Trump.

Looking for all the world like a “sore loser,” Texas Senator Ted Cruz refused to endorse the 2016 Republican presidential winner Donald J. Trump tonight at the RNC convention in Cleveland.

Even though Newt Gingrich tried to soften the spectacle, by “explaining” away the obvious non-endorsement of the GOP winner Trump by Cruz, many were not buying it.

As the hashtag #TedCruz began, the reactions of upset or support began to the Senator’s otherwise well-received speech on Wednesday. Some thought it was gutsy for Cruz to do. Not everyone, however, thought so.

From fellow Texan, radio host Mark Davis, there was clearly some disgust, however:

And then later, there was this from the Texas talk show host watching the drama unfold Wednesday night before an obviously torn crowd:

Mike Huckabee reacts

A former 2016 Presidential candidate and former Governor of Arkansas, taking to Facebook to publicly react, had strong words.

“The question was whether Cruz would make his speech about HIS future or the future of the country,” Huckabee wrote. “And that question was answered when Ted Cruz chose to not keep his word that he (along with me and every other GOP candidate) gave one year ago in that very arena where tonight he put his own ambitions above country. Donald Trump did something no previous nominee has done—he allowed Ted Cruz to speak without his promising to support the nominee.”

The former governor had more to say. “I’ve spoken at every convention since 1992, and I can attest to the fact that no one got near that stage without supporting the nominee. Trump trusted Ted and was rewarded with a betrayal, but the delegates in that arena booed Cruz off the stage and out of Cleveland.”

Security Concerns: Wright State University bails on hosting first 2016 U.S. Presidential debate; Hofstra University steps up for it

Donald J. Trump and Hillary Clinton.

Wright State University officials are bailing out on the honor of hosting the very first 2016 U.S. Presidential debate due to “safety” and financial costs, according to the announcement posted on their website.

The Wright State Board of Trustees fully supports their president, David R. Hopkins, on the decision to cancel, said board Chair Michael Bridges. Chairman Bridges believes that this is “the responsible thing to do.” Bridges added the main issue then, per the post.

“While the community has been overwhelmingly supportive of Wright State hosting the debate, the safety and security of the campus and community is of paramount importance.”

“Hosting the debate was expected to cost Wright State between $3 million and $5 million and as much as $8 million,” according to officials. Wright State President Hopkins sees this as a bigger financial burden on the university.

“We have a responsibility to our community both safety-wise and financially to do the right thing,” said Wright State President Hopkins.

‘a growing crescendo’

“This is a very difficult decision, [but] there has been a growing crescendo of concern about what it would take to guarantee the safety and security of the campus and the community. The expense would be daunting,” said Wright State President Hopkins.

As noted also in the announcement, Wright State “… cannot restrict public access to its campus, which adds to security challenges.” Private Universities hosting debates in the past apparently are allowed to restrict access from the public.

“We were fully aware of the challenges and were prepared to meet them when we decided to host the debate, but things have changed,” said Hopkins. “The current national environment has made security even more critical.”

Hofstra University will host Sept. 26 debate

The honor of hosting this first Presidential debate goes to Hofstra University, according to the information over at the 2016Debate website.

The nonpartisan, nonprofit Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) has announced the formats for the three scheduled presidential debates.

“The formats for the 90-minute debates are designed to facilitate in-depth discussion of the leading issues facing the nation,” the CPD information states. “The debate will be divided into six time segments of approximately 15 minutes each on major topics to be selected by the moderator and announced at least one week before the debate.”

One vice presidential debate is also scheduled for the fall as well. As in the presidential debates, the formats “… are designed to facilitate in-depth discussion of the leading issues facing the nation.”

RNC Convention begins: Expect some fireworks with immigrant Melania Trump, the not shy retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, and some midwestern sensibility on security

Melania Trump

The speakers for the first night’s program for the 2016 Republican National Convention have been announced and may indicate to the rest of the world just what  issues the Party intends to confront during this 2016 election cycle.

The lineup of Convention speakers in Cleveland tonight includes Melania Trump, Lieutenant General (ret.) Michael Flynn, U.S. Senator Joni Ernst, U.S. Rep. Ryan Zinke and possibly others unlisted.

From the RNC2016 Cleveland page, however, the theme for the first night will be “Make America Safe Again,” and there is a desire to focus not just on the domestic attacks.

“From attacks on our own soil and overseas to the tragedy in Benghazi, the policies of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have left us vulnerable. Our immigration system is broken, leaving our country open to security threats and the negative consequences of illegal immigration. A Donald Trump administration will listen to and learn from our nation’s heroes who have put themselves in harm’s way and pursue a national security strategy and foreign policy that will strengthen our military and make America safe again,” reads the GOP information page.

Melania Trump/Louisa Adams – immigrant spouses:

Described as being a “very significant” and “very historic” potential First Lady by historian Jane Hampton Cook on Fox News Monday, Melania Trump may be one of the few individuals who may be able to actually connect to those immigrants who have desired to enter the country and start working on their own so-called “American Dream.” The last immigrant First Lady in the United States was Louisa Johnson, the wife of John Quincy Adams, Cook explained, and she was born in London in the 1700s.

Possible points to be made are the fact that Melania, unlike former First Lady Hillary Clinton, speaks many other languages. Imagine what an asset this could be when addressing Eastern and Western European officials in their own preferred languages.

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn

Reporters Shane Harris and Nancy Yousseff, writing over at the DailyBeast, observed that retired Lt. General Flynn had something to say in regards to “… that ‘political correctness’ which has prevented the U.S. from confronting violent extremism….”

Flynn is described in the story as a “well-known critic” of the Obama Administration’s campaign against ISIS and foreign policy too. The writers state also that Flynn sees this violent extremism as being a “cancerous idea that exists inside of the Islamic religion.”

It seems no surprise that the presumptive nominee Donalt Trump has looked to this military man’s experience on national security already. So, of course, expect some strong words in this speech from someone who is focused on keeping the nation safe from that violent extremism.

Mid-western sensibilities

As for the Congressional aspects on what is popularly called “good sense,”  U.S. Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa and U.S. Rep. Ryan Zinke of Montana will also be addressing the crowd on Monday night.

The line up of speakers are being called “unconventional,” over at the wnyt page online. The most interesting news on Zinke is reported on over at kfbb online.

“U.S. Rep. Ryan Zinke told The (Billings) Gazette that he still plans to give a speech Monday to the convention about national security,” reads the news from kfbb. “But he says he’s withdrawing as a delegate because the GOP platform is ‘more divisive than uniting.'”

In the GOP platform, draft language exists apparently which is calling upon Congress “to pass legislation that would shift some federally controlled public lands to the states,” states the report. “This has been a major issue in Montana’s House race. Zinke says he supports better management but not transfer to the states.”

Paul Manafort says Trump picked Pence as VP for ‘party unity’ and ‘to help build a program that could get through Congress and become law in first 100 days’

Gov. Mike Pence.

Splashing lots of common sense this weekend on the choice of Indiana Governor Mike Pence to be 2016 Presidential presumptive nominee Donald Trump’s running mate, Trump campaign Chairman Paul Manafort explained in an interview with Chris Wallace of “Fox News Sunday” that while the two men are not expected to “see eye-to-eye on everything,” Pence was chosen for three big reasons.

Manafort cited “the mess that has been created by the people in Washington,” and stated that they need to be removed. He also revealed that Trump asked Pence to be the Vice Presidential running mate on Wednesday and Pence had gone to New York not for shopping but to be announced as such by Trump. However, Trump and Manafort were in California and because of the “tragedy” in the world they held off on the political announcement, which some took to mean Trump was not sure about his choice.

Pence could become President on ‘Day One’

Pence was not in New York to go shopping, Manafort told host Wallace. And in fact, Trump chose Pence not just for “party unity,” he said, but for three other important reasons. The first reason being Pence will be able to be “President on day one” if need be, and two being that the Indiana Governor could help build a program that could “get through Congress and become law in the first 100 days.”

The third criteria, revealed Manafort, was that Pence understands and has been inside of “the system.” That seems important because clearly Trump has been in business for most of his life.

Regarding Trump’s “temperament,” Manafort answered that Trump is clearly “upset” about “failed” leadership. On the question of the two men being so different on social issues, and what could be said to moderates and liberals in the expanding Republican Party, Manafort stated that Pence “is a man of principle.” (Note: Pence was listed over in an Esquire article from 2008 for running against “the oily John Boehner” and being “one of the most principled members, from either party.”)

Times have changed of course, but some history may be pertinent for the choice of Mike Pence this year. William Kristol, over at the NationalReview in 2009, once touted Pence as a person to challenge Indiana Senator Evan Bayh in a 2010 race, saying Pence “could make the race competitive.” When Representative Mike Pence challenged John Boehner for the minority leadership position in 2006, he lost, per the story at NBC from that year.

Manafort now says Pence is somebody who believes in “using the U.S. Constitution to defend the rights of all people,” and further, Manafort believes Pence and Trump agree that the “system” is “rigged” and this is a serious issue for many Americans.

‘Huh, what?’

Regarding the general “Huh, what?” reaction to Pence, Manafort said what Trump observed in Governor Pence  was “exactly the kind of leadership” that Trump wants to bring to Washington. “So, Governor Pence complements Donald Trump.”

The question arose of the Governor’s initial reaction to Trump’s proposed Muslim immigration ban and Manafort played that one down, saying the men do agree there is a crisis, Manafort said.

“They both agree there needs to be a ban on terrorist countries until we figure things out, but on the issues you’re raising they are not disagreeing on fundamental things.”

NAFTA was supposed to be reviewed

On the issue of free trade, Manafort stated that “Pence agrees on fair and free trade.” But he pushed back on the media notions regarding the North American Free Trade Agreement which was a deal signed for Canada, Mexico, and the United States and took effect in 1994.

NAFTA is a situation that needs to be reviewed, according to Manafort. He then informed Wallace that there are “clauses in the law,” which state there are supposed to be “review periods, and they’ve never been reviewed.”

And, finally, as writer Robert Costa sums up perfectly on the subject, over at the WashingtonPost, “[i]n Pence’s favor is that, as a low-key Midwesterner and seasoned Republican, he would give Trump someone with governing experience and a running mate who presented voters with a temperamental and ideological contrast. A former talk-radio host and evangelical Christian who reveres Ronald Reagan, Pence has long couched his politics in the cadence of movement conservatism. Over the past decade, he has twice considered running for the White House before ultimately deciding against it.”

‘Washington has misled the American people about foreign sponsorship of 9/11,’ says author Paul Sperry

redacted, newly released 9/11/01 pages.

Previously kept secret from the public, information from the congressional investigation regarding the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001  have been vetted, released and the previously redacted “28 pages” are now posted online.

Via the Washington Post and the Congressional Intelligence Committee, the pages have been available since Friday for more public review  and scrutiny, and they are receiving scrutiny, even as more terror attacks occur and as one U.S. ally, Turkey, seems to be still reeling from a military coup.

As Paul Sperry states in his NYPost opinion column on the subject, it seems that “… Washington has misled the American people about foreign sponsorship of 9/11. For 15 years, we’ve been told that al Qaeda acted alone, with no state sponsors. We were led to believe that 15 Saudi nationals who barely spoke English received no help while in America; that they operated in isolation, like visitors from outer space.”

Sperry sums it all up for readers, however. “It was all a monstrous lie.”

Last year, in a report on the subject from Eugene Kiely over at FactCheck, under the headline “Saudi Arabia and the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks,” the writer quotes from a Times story on the deposition given by Zacarias Moussaoui, a convicted 9/11 co-conspirator.

According to Kiely in his 2015 report, “Zacarias Moussaoui, a convicted 9/11 co-conspirator, says members of Saudi Arabia’s royal family helped finance al Qaeda in the years just prior to the 2001 terrorist attacks. The Saudi government says that ‘there is no evidence to support Moussaoui’s claim,’ citing U.S. government investigations.”

And then Kiely wonders. “Who’s right?”

The information cited by Kiely, included this bit on the deposition given in prison:

Feb. 3, New York Times: He said in the prison deposition that he was directed in 1998 or 1999 by Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan to create a digital database of donors to the group. Among those he said he recalled listing in the database were Prince Turki al-Faisal, then the Saudi intelligence chief; Prince Bandar Bin Sultan, the longtime Saudi ambassador to the United States; Prince al-Waleed bin Talal, a prominent billionaire investor; and many of the country’s leading clerics.

“Sheikh Osama wanted to keep a record who give money,” he said in imperfect English — “who is to be listened to or who contributed to the jihad.”

Mr. Moussaoui said he acted as a courier for Bin Laden, carrying personal messages to prominent Saudi princes and clerics. And he described his training in Qaeda camps in Afghanistan.

Sperry writes in his column that “FBI files show Saudi agent Omar al-Bayoumi provided ‘substantial assistance’ to Saudi hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi after they arrived in San Diego in February 2000. Hazmi was the leader of the cell that attacked the Pentagon, while Mihdhar was one of that cell’s muscle hijackers. …. At the same time he was aiding the hijackers, Bayoumi was getting large salary increases from a Saudi defense front company tied to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, where he worked as a ghost employee. Another alleged Saudi intelligence officer who handled the hijackers, Osama Bassnan, worked closely with Bayoumi.”

But the Saudi Foreign Minister, Adel al-Jubier, is quoted over in a New York Daily News story on the newly-released documents. Minister al-Jubier said he was happy the pages were out. “The surprise in the 28 pages is that there is no surprise.”

CIA Director talks about ‘ungoverned spaces and of the digital revolution’

Director Brennan, CIA.

Terrorism and instability rock the nations of our 21st century world, and as people watch demented, fanatical men and women with black flags trying to establish their very own “global Islamic caliphate” and killing every person they don’t like in the meanwhile, it may comfort some to understand that there are people who think about fighting these terrorists and look forward to thwarting them and killing them, too in defense of Western civilization.

The challenges of “ungoverned spaces and of the digital revolution,” according to the current Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director John O. Brennan, are “two defining features of global instability that keep us quite busy at Langley.”

Speaking recently before a crowd at the Brookings Institution in Washington D.C. recently, (see CIA website speech text here), Brennan also believes that technology has transformed human interaction.

The ‘unstable world’

“Beyond the challenge of ungoverned spaces, the digital revolution is perhaps the defining feature of our unstable world, in both the most positive and negative ways,” Brennan said. “The cyber realm and information technology have fundamentally transformed the most prevalent means of human interaction. These technologies have given rise to new information-based industries that have displaced older ones, sometimes deepening gaps within societies and between the developed and underdeveloped worlds. They enable social interaction that can be swift and destabilizing, as we saw with the so-called Arab Spring. And they invest individuals with unprecedented influence and even power—for better or worse.”

Enemies can now utilize new tools of technology without ever needing to travel to this country, Brennan tells the crowd. “Cyber makes it possible for our adversaries to sabotage vital infrastructure without ever landing an agent on our shores. And we have seen how our own citizens can be indoctrinated by terrorist groups online to commit terrible acts of violence here at home.”

Directorate of Digital Innovation

In addressing the issues confronting the nation’s security, Brennan announces a new CIA Agency directorate called the “Directorate of Digital Innovation.” It is the first new addition in over a half-century, he said, and it is created in an “effort to hasten the adoption of digital solutions into every aspect of our work. It is accelerating the integration of our digital and cyber capabilities across all our mission areas—espionage, all-source analysis, open-source intelligence, liaison engagement and covert action.”

During his remarks , Director Brennan also mentioned the turmoil people are seeing in 2016. (The headlines this Friday are about a possible coup in Turkey from theGuardian, and another horrific terror attack in France reported over at wbtv.)

2016 ‘instability’ costs

“Clearly, the world in 2016 is witnessing a significant amount of instability,” stated Brennan, “and has been for some time. Instability is a vague and antiseptic term, but we all know that it carries some very real costs—especially in terms of humanitarian suffering, rising extremist violence, and diminishing freedom throughout the community of nations.”

Reports come in about the decline of freedom, he said. “For instance, Freedom House this year reported an acceleration in a decade-long slide in democracy around the world. The number of countries showing a decline in freedom for the year—72—was the largest since the downward trend began.”

Furthermore, Brennan said, “[t]he challenges we face today are unprecedented in both their variety and complexity. They are highly fluid, constantly shifting and taking on new dimensions. And they are increasingly interconnected, testing our ability to anticipate how developments in one realm will shape events in another.When CIA analysts consider the trends that are shaping the coming decade, they look at dynamics such as rapid population growth and urbanization in the developing world. They look at technological advances that vastly outpace the ability of governments to manage them, as well as at low economic growth globally.”

‘daunting array of 21st century challenges’

The nations of the world are experiencing greater and greater stress, Brennan observes. “If these trends hold, we could see greater volatility and increased demands on nation-states, which are already under the greatest stress we have seen in many years, perhaps going back to the period after the First World War. Governments worldwide have found that handling the daunting array of 21st century challenges on their own—those related to economics, security, technology, demographics, climate change, and so on—is increasingly difficult, if not impossible.”

Director Brennan mentions the practical side of his work, in thwarting groups and individuals intent upon doing evil. “… it means that our operations officers must be able to maintain their cover in a dynamic digital environment and collect in it as well. It means that our analysts must be able to quickly process and analyze enormous volumes of data. And it means that our IT experts must be able to harden our networks against intrusion and better protect our sources and methods.”

He calls for national discourse on the issues. “Some 85 percent of the internet is owned and operated by the private sector, which is why we need to have an honest, vigorous dialogue between public and private sector stakeholders about government’s proper role in the cyber domain. In that vein, we need to have a more robust and comprehensive national discourse about how the government and the private sector must work together to safeguard the security, reliability, resilience, and prosperity of the digital domain.”


Congress discussing ‘current threats to the homeland,’ but not much about shady money, meddling

FBI Director James Comey.

A few Americans perhaps felt unexpectedly riveted to their monitors today, listening to an exchange on C-Span between Arizona Representative Martha McSally and the current FBI Director James Comey, a former Director of HSBC Holdings, regarding the Hillary Clinton email/server scandal as it relates to the topic of “current threats to the homeland.”

The Congresswoman pressed Director Comey regarding ex-Secretary Clinton’s email “carelessness” and possible lies to the American public. (See video, at 01:40:37, of the conversation at this link: FBI Director James Comey talks about Clinton email scandal.”)

Stating to Director Comey that she has served in the military for 26 years, McSally handled the highest levels of secure information, and wanted to know what consequences someone else might receive for the same conduct as Clinton.

The Congresswoman was clear. “If an airman in the Air Force had conducted behavior similar to Secretary Clinton’s, I am confident, as a minimum, that they would lose their clearance, they would be kicked out, they would never get a clearance or be able to work for another federal department or agency, in addition [to other fines].”

She then asked Comey if such people would even “get an interview” at the FBI with such security violations such as ex-Secretary Clinton did.

“I can’t answer that as a hypothetical,” answered Comey. Inside the FBI, there exists “a robust process to assess suitability….”

If his own chief of staff mishandled classified information at the FBI, “…it would be a significant security review” along with consequences such as firing the employee, loss of pay, or even some reprimand or lose clearances, Comey answered when pressed again.

Rep. McSally then moved on to “how” the classified information got from a “classified system” to an “unclassified” system. Comey answered there were three specific email “conversations” of confidential concern.

Comey tried to explain the transmitting of confidential information on an unclassified system. “I think we concluded that somebody [at a lower level in State] had typed a talking point for the Secretary…”

“This is concerning on many levels,” replied Rep. McSally. She wanted it followed up. “Those people should be held accountable as well.”

Not illegal, but ‘scandalous’

As Jonathan Allen of Vox points out in his report, there exists 181 Clinton Foundation donors who actually lobbied ex-Sec. Hillary Clinton’s State Department. “The size and scope of the symbiotic relationship between the Clintons and their donors is striking,” states Allen. “At least 181 companies, individuals, and foreign governments that have given to the Clinton Foundation also lobbied the State Department when Hillary Clinton ran the place, according to a Vox analysis of foundation records and federal lobbying disclosures.”

But Allen is also clear that while it is not illegal, … “but it is scandalous.” He adds this: “Still, the Clintons have shown they can’t police themselves,” and then proceeds to point out that the Clinton Foundation’s acting CEO, Maura Pally, had “… acknowledged problems with reporting on federal 990 tax forms in a statement issued Sunday, in which she contended that information about donors was available but not appropriately listed in filings with the government.”

What was Pally doing before the gig at the Foundation? According to Allen, “[b]efore working for the foundation, she was a deputy assistant secretary under Hillary Clinton at State.”

Allen quotes Pally: “So yes, we made mistakes, as many organizations of our size do, but we are acting quickly to remedy them, and have taken steps to ensure they don’t happen in the future.”

HSBC clients and the Clinton Foundation

As writers Paul Lewis and James Ball discovered and published over at theGuardian last year, “[l]eaked files from HSBC’s Swiss banking division reveal the identities of seven donors to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation with accounts in Geneva. They include Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining magnate and one of the foundation’s biggest financial backers, and Richard Caring, the British retail magnate who, the bank’s internal records show, used his tax-free Geneva account to transfer $1m into the New York-based foundation.”

And, as pointed out previously, James Comey is a former Director of HSBC Holdings.

Per the Guardian report, “… another client of HSBC Geneva to donate to the Clinton foundation is Denise Rich, the ex-wife of the late billionaire and commodities trader Marc Rich, who fled to Switzerland in 1983 after being indicted by US authorities for tax evasion, fraud and racketeering. Mark Rich was was controversially granted a presidential pardon by Bill Clinton just hours before the former president left office in 2001.”

Peter Schweizer, in his article over at the NYPost, wrote that in his “… last day in office, Bill Clinton issued a pardon for international fugitive Marc Rich. It would become perhaps the most condemned official act of Clinton’s political career. A New York Times editorial called it ‘a shocking abuse of presidential power.’ The usually Clinton-friendly New Republic noted it ‘is often mentioned as Exhibit A of Clintonian sliminess.'”

Congressman Barney Frank felt that President Clinton’s pardon for the fugitive “… was a real betrayal by Bill Clinton of all who had been strongly supportive of him to do something this unjustified. It was contemptuous.” (Rich had big deals with Iran, Libya, Yugoslavia, North Korea, Cuba and the U.S.S.R. and was on the FBI’s “Ten Most Wanted” List, apparently.)

As Schweizer also points out in his article, Rich was “[f]acing prosecution by Rudy Giuliani in 1983” when he (Rich) fled to Switzerland.

And, as the Guardian story highlights, “Denise Rich contributed as much as $500,000 to the Clinton foundation. Now 70, she is reported to have recently renounced her US citizenship, becoming tax-resident in Austria.”



Green Party’s Dr. Jill Stein wants voters ‘to demand our inclusion in the Presidential debates’

Dr. Jill Stein.

The Green Party’s Dr. Jill Stein wants voters “to demand our inclusion in the Presidential debates” and she has apparently angered some for her very bold comments against the Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee, Hillary Clinton.

In her recent opinion piece, posted over at theHill, Dr. Stein writes that “[m]y campaign offers real hope for [an economy that works for working people, not just the billionaires]. Our Green New Deal would create 20 million living wage jobs while solving the climate crisis. Our call to abolish student debt provides relief to tens millions of young people trapped by debt for education that failed to produce the jobs they promised. We can finally make health care a human right.”

Characterizing the moment when Sanders supporters realized their candidate was now backing Clinton, Stein writes that “… Sanders supporters refuse to be ‘berned’ by a Democratic Party that hopes to absorb their revolution into a campaign that represents the opposite of what they and Bernie Sanders have fought for.”

The Green’s candidate believes that there were “… consistent efforts of the Democratic Party to minimize, sideline, and sabotage the Sanders campaign…” and wants disappointed voters to realize “… that we can’t have a revolutionary campaign inside a counter-revolutionary party.”

Dr. Stein has much more to say in her piece, of course, and she squarely slams Clinton. “The policies Ms. Clinton has fought for — along with her partner Bill Clinton — created the fault lines of economic disaster most Americans are still struggling with: the abuses of deregulated Wall Street, rigged corporate trade agreements, racist mass incarceration, and the destruction of the safety net for poor women and children.”

Stein also believes that for decades the Democrats have “increasingly campaigned on the politics of fear, promoting a lesser-of-two-evils voting strategy because ‘the Republicans are even worse.'”

She adds to her message that “… we allowed ourselves to be silenced,” and her comment about voters having to choose Clinton “…because they fear Trump, and vice versa” seems an accurate point.

Things such as the economy, health care, and politics are “rigged,” writes Stein. “Millions are realizing that if we want to fix the rigged economy, the rigged racial injustice system, the rigged health care system, toxic fossil fuel energy and all the other systems failing us, we must fix the rigged political system. And that will not happen through political parties funded by predatory banks, fossil fuel giants and war profiteers.”

As John Aravosis writes in his article, posted over at americablog however, that many believe Stein has her own negative issues. One pointed out in his piece is the fact that around Mother’s Day, she caught the ire of those who believe Hillary Clinton has been a good mother.

Maybe she realized saying outrageous things gets you free media publicity? (It seems to have worked well for Donald Trump.)




Sanders yields; Clinton ‘has won the Democratic nominating process’

2015-09-27 12.47.38

Bernie Sanders is endorsing Hillary Clinton as the Democratic Presidential nominee for 2016, according to multiple media outlets, in a joint rally in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, bringing a strong reaction from another Presidential presumptive nominee Jill Stein of the Green Party.

Perhaps another nightmare scenario ends today for Clinton then, having just recently escaped being legally held as responsible as others have been by both the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice/Attorney General of the United States. Director James Comey and Loretta Lynch both opted to not hold the former First Lady, Secretary of State and ex-New York Senator as accountable as other Federal government employees for setting up a private server and sending classified, government emails on the same private system, gaining the anger of many voters. Sanders thus lays concerns to rest that many feared he just might “… sit on his hands in the general election — or worse, run as a third-party candidate on the left,” as proposed by a post over at myfox8.

“Together, we have begun a political revolution to transform America and that revolution continues,” Senator Sanders stated in a transcript from politico-transcript online.

He also conceded he did not have enough delegates won. “Secretary Clinton has won the Democratic nominating process, and I congratulate her for that. She will be the Democratic nominee for president and I intend to do everything I can to make certain she will be the next president of the United States.”

However, the presumptive Green Party nominee, Jill Stein, had strong words about this, according to Nick Gass, in another Politico report.

“If you don’t want to vote for a war monger or racist billionaire, there are more options. The political revolution will keep going,” Gass quoted Stein’s tweet just before Sanders’ announcement.

For more information:

Sanders endorsement – Sanders transcript/Stein reacts.

Dallas Chief Brown: Shooter planned to punish law enforcement

A pound of C-4 and a robot was deployed to stop shooter Micah Johnson

Police Chief David Brown is defending his decision to use a pound of C-4 and a robot to stop shooter Micah Johnson, and also revealing that the Dallas shooter had bomb-making materials and a journal in his residence revealing his intention to take out cops and “make us pay,” according to various media reports.

Had the robot not been used, Chief Brown believes that more innocent people would have died or been injured, per the report at wfaa. “I’ll do it again given the same circumstances,” he said. “We believe that we saved lives by making this decision.”

Addressing critics of the decision to use the robot-delivered bomb, Brown stated that  “[they] are not on the ground, and their lives are not at stake.”

Micah Johnson, the shooter, “obviously had some delusion,” Chief Brown is quoted in a story posted by writer Eric Bradner at CNN. He apparently believed what he was doing was “righteous” and believed that targeting law enforcement was right, as Chief Brown said, to “make us pay.” Johnson killed five officers, injured nine others and two civilians as well. Chief Brown also stated that the deceased shooter’s plans were enough to have had “devastating effects on our city.”

The Dallas Police Chief is no stranger to the personal pain of losing family and friends to crime. Besides losing his son, per the story from the LosAngelesTimes, Chief Brown is a three-decade veteran of the Dallas Police Department who also lost a brother and police partner.  “His former police partner was shot and killed in 1988. His brother was killed three years later,” according to writer Haily Branson-Potts.



1 2 3