Sunday, September 30, 2012
Occupy the Debates! Denver poster
http://www.jillstein.org/denver_poster
Do you like this page?
Occupy the Debates! Denver poster
Download, print, and post this poster to spread the word about Jill
Stein and Cheri Honkala's visit to Denver on October 3 to Occupy the
Debates. These events are coming up soon, so please put up posters in
your community as soon as possible!
Please print at a union shop, on recycled paper, if possible. Please be certain to keep a receipt and to notify us of your in-kind donation by filling out this in-kind donation form and email it to info@jillstein.org
Print out the PDF version of this poster: Click here to download PDF
Or click below:
Please print at a union shop, on recycled paper, if possible. Please be certain to keep a receipt and to notify us of your in-kind donation by filling out this in-kind donation form and email it to info@jillstein.org
Print out the PDF version of this poster: Click here to download PDF
Or click below:
Report Video Issue Dr. Jill Stein, Green Party Presidential Candidate Sep 30, 2012
starrra1
Thank you Dr. Stein ! Americans really need leadership that is for the American People more than
the private industry , Wall Street , and the constant bailing out of a corrupt financial system just for personal enrichment
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Friday, September 28, 2012
Barack to Mitt: Corporations Run the Economy | Common Dreams
Get full story here
Barack to Mitt: Corporations Run the Economy | Common Dreams
Barack to Mitt: Corporations Run the Economy | Common Dreams
Published on Friday, September 28, 2012 by Common Dreams
Barack to Mitt: Corporations Run the Economy
Here is an open letter that Barack Obama should write to Mitt Romney – pronto!
photo: ouno design via Flickr
photo: ouno design via FlickrDear Mr. Romney:
Not a day goes by without you blaming me for every slumping or stagnant economic indicator. Unemployment, increases in the number of food stamp recipients, government borrowing, and spending, home foreclosures, economic uncertainty for businesses, trade deficits – you name it. Only for droughts and hurricanes have you absolved me from responsibility.
I won’t go into what was inherited from your Republican party’s years in office. Deregulation, non-enforcement, non-disclosure by the financial industry, and subsidies and bailouts were that period’s hallmarks. But if I were to be held responsible for the state of the American economy, there would have to be a “command and control” economy enforced by the White House. You know full well that is not the case for several reasons.
First, our economy is dominated by corporations that make their own investment and hiring decisions. Two-thirds of the tens of millions of low-wage workers are employed by fifty large corporations, such as Walmart and McDonald’s. Thirty million American workers are laboring between the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour and what the minimum wage, adjusted for inflation from 1968, should be now – about $10 per hour. These companies are successfully opposing in Congress any increase in the minimum wage to such catch up with 1968. By the way, you favored an inflation-adjusted minimum wage for years. During the Republican primaries earlier this year, you changed your long-standing position and now oppose raising the minimum wage.
Moreover, many companies are sitting on more than $2 trillion in inactive cash reserves. I have no power to get more of that capital invested, other than to appeal to their USA corporate patriotism. I could also use that patriotic appeal to urge them to increase their dividends to shareholders which would pump tens of billions of dollars into our consumer economy to encourage much-needed spending. Some of these successful companies like Google, EMC and others offer no dividends at all to their owners. Those exhortations are just exhortations. CEOs can do what they want.
Alice Walker on 30th Anniv. of "The Color Purple": Racism, Violence Against Women Are Global Issues
DEMOCRACY NOW
LINK
Alice Walker on 30th Anniv. of "The Color Purple": Racism, Violence Against Women Are Global Issues
starrra1
Thank you for your commitment to human rights / civil liberties and much more
Alice Walker.
( Obama supporters )
I personally do not believe that people who say that they are for International law, human rights and civil liberties are being truthful when they publicly engage their support for the Obama or Bush administrations
foreign and domestic policies
LINK
Alice Walker on 30th Anniv. of "The Color Purple": Racism, Violence Against Women Are Global Issues
starrra1
Thank you for your commitment to human rights / civil liberties and much more
Alice Walker.
( Obama supporters )
I personally do not believe that people who say that they are for International law, human rights and civil liberties are being truthful when they publicly engage their support for the Obama or Bush administrations
foreign and domestic policies
Thursday, September 27, 2012
U.S. Army Tested Chemicals on Cities, Low-Income Residents
LINK
U.S. Army Tested Chemicals on Cities, Low-Income Residents
DEMOCRACY NOW REPORTS
U.S. Army Tested Chemicals on Cities, Low-Income Residents
DEMOCRACY NOW REPORTS
Newly disclosed documents have revealed details on how the U.S. military carried out testing of chemicals on major U.S. cities during the 1950s and 1960s. Sociologist Lisa Martino-Taylor of St. Louis Community College says zinc cadmium sulfide was sprayed in several cities without residents’ knowledge. The most densely sprayed area appears to have been a housing complex for low-income people in St. Louis.
Lisa Martino-Taylor: "It was pretty shocking, the level of duplicity and secrecy. Clearly they went to great lengths to deceive people. There’s a lot of evidence that indicates that people in St. Louis in the city, particularly in minority communities, were subjected to military tests that was connected to a larger radiological weapons development and testing project."
Imagine All the Voters … … Treating the Green Party like another realistic option
Imagine All the Voters …
… Treating the Green Party like another realistic option
(SEPT. 27, 2012) For an hour on a Monday night, a few hundred people imagined a different America: one where no one went bankrupt because he got sick, where homeowners were bailed out instead of bankers, and where the military was used for defense, not offense.
Standing at a podium at Humboldt State University, a small, slim woman promised she’d deliver just that — if only Americans could break free from the fear that the only real choices for president are two lousy choices.
“There’s just plenty of devastation here that would be wrought by both parties,” said Dr. Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate for president. “To go into the voting booth and vote for either Wall-Street-backed candidate, that is the definition of throwing away your vote.”
Stein is the only presidential candidate likely to visit Humboldt in what’s left of the election season. She’s a Harvard-trained physician, but for the last 10 years or so she’s been losing for the Greens — for governor of Massachusetts, for secretary of state, for state representative.
Greens are used to losing, but they keep at it with that same wistfulness some people get when they sing the lyrics to “Imagine.”
FULL STORY LINK HERE
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
The only wasted vote is one that goes unused
Though, if you prefer to see America continue on its current path, a vote for Green Party Candidate, Dr. Jill Stein, would be wasted vote.Holding both parties accountable for 30 years of this country's largest transfer of wealth to the rich means coming to terms with the fact that neither are in a position to solve the challenges we face. While some partisan Democrats are once again claiming that a vote for the Greens is a vote for the Republicans, that argument falls flat with millions of disenfranchised voters who believe we can do better.
These are Americans who believe we must stop our descent into economic disparity, the erosion of our civil liberties, and the corruption of our political system by corporate power and massive wealth. They are Americans who understand the Democratic Party has been complacent, if not complicit, in this process and is now, as evidenced by an administration that has kept the policies of George W. Bush largely in place, institutionally incapable of any real reform.
The fact is, political parties change over time, so why shouldn't our votes change as well?
This is not the Democracy the revolutionaries of 1776 envisioned. They had just lived through a long, bloody war to throw off the shackles of an oppressive regime that had denied them rights and representation while pillaging their resources and their labor. It was not their intention that we live under a duopoly political system where a tiny handful of people control the pursestrings and allegiances of both parties.
This is not the Democracy the revolutionaries of 1776 envisioned. They had just lived through a long, bloody war to throw off the shackles of an oppressive regime that had denied them rights and representation while pillaging their resources and their labor. It was not their intention that we live under a duopoly political system where a tiny handful of people control the pursestrings and allegiances of both parties.
Votes aren't being stolen, they are being bought.
Hundreds of millions of dollars from a small group of individuals are being spent by the two establishment parties to control the national conversation and convince Americans they have a clear choice. That sum of money and their record provide clarity enough. It is not a choice, it is maintenance of the status quo. It is a further grab for power by those who are threatened by recent cracks in the national conversation opening to issues of money and politics, the polarization of wealth, ecological responsibility, and the preservation of civil liberties.
Hundreds of millions of dollars from a small group of individuals are being spent by the two establishment parties to control the national conversation and convince Americans they have a clear choice. That sum of money and their record provide clarity enough. It is not a choice, it is maintenance of the status quo. It is a further grab for power by those who are threatened by recent cracks in the national conversation opening to issues of money and politics, the polarization of wealth, ecological responsibility, and the preservation of civil liberties.
The choice to be made is: Do we wish to be truly represented? Do we need to set a new course as a country? Do we need a real opposition party immediately capable of new ideas and energy, that isn't subject to the approval of the most rich and powerful?
Evil vs. Eviler.Choosing the lesser of two evils keeps things exactly as they are. Fear tactics have worked well in the past to keep party stragglers and independent voters in check. But today's America is not the the America of 2000. We've seen first hand that the lesser of two evils isn't lesser at all. Arguably, it is worse because we are encouraged to hope against history, yet the outcome is the same.
If Democratic operative
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
16] Israel: Elect Romney, Obama = Romney, UN General Assembly Distraction?
POWERFUL ! Abby ! really enjoyed the show
i always enjoy
i always enjoy
Phyllis Bennis
Obama May Do Social Security Reform During Lame Duck Session, Senate Democrats Worry | Common Dreams
LINK FULL STORY
Obama May Do Social Security Reform During Lame Duck Session, Senate Democrats Worry | Common
Dreams
Progressives are increasingly concerned that caged language about what Obama will or will not do to protect and strengthen the Social Security system.One of the most progressive voices in the caucus, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), said he was heartened to hear Obama tell the AARP last week that he'd be open to raising the cap on income that's taxed for purposes of paying into the Social Security trust fund. Sanders also applauded the president for taking off of the table any reform language that resulted in the "slashing" of benefits (several Social Security advocates, disagreeing with Sanders, said they were worried such language was counterproductive, as it opens the door for cuts that could be deemed minor).
starrra1
there is no doubt in my mind that
Obama will serve up Social Security to his friends ( The right wing ) if he is given a second term
for his own personal gain
Obama May Do Social Security Reform During Lame Duck Session, Senate Democrats Worry | Common
Dreams
Published on Tuesday, September 25, 2012 by Huffington Post
Obama May Do Social Security Reform During Lame Duck Session, Senate Democrats Worry
Defenders worry that change in structure will hurt recipients, undermine program
WASHINGTON -- Concern is mounting among some Senate Democrats that President Barack Obama will make a deal with Senate Republicans during the lame-duck session that would result in changes to the benefit structure of Social Security.
Progressives are increasingly concerned that caged language about what Obama will or will not do to protect and strengthen the Social Security system.One of the most progressive voices in the caucus, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), said he was heartened to hear Obama tell the AARP last week that he'd be open to raising the cap on income that's taxed for purposes of paying into the Social Security trust fund. Sanders also applauded the president for taking off of the table any reform language that resulted in the "slashing" of benefits (several Social Security advocates, disagreeing with Sanders, said they were worried such language was counterproductive, as it opens the door for cuts that could be deemed minor).
But the Vermont Independent worried that all of this could be posturing for the lame-duck session immediately after the election, when lawmakers are expected to rush to find another "grand bargain" on tax and entitlement reform to stave off the so-called fiscal cliff.
"That's exactly what's going to happen," Sanders said of Social Security being on the proverbial table, "Unless someone of us stops it -- and a number of us are working very hard on this -- that's exactly what will happen. Everything being equal, unless we stop it, what will happen is there will be a quote-unquote grand bargain after the election in which the White House, some Democrats will sit down with Republicans, they will move to a chained CPI."
Chained CPI, or consumer price index, is an alternative measure of calculating inflation that would lessen the cost of living increases for Social Security payments. When the president and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) attempted to craft a deal on the debt ceiling last summer, Obama offered the chained CPI as a concession.
starrra1
there is no doubt in my mind that
Obama will serve up Social Security to his friends ( The right wing ) if he is given a second term
for his own personal gain
Monday, September 24, 2012
[15] US Lobbies for Terrorists, End The Fed, Rotten Side of Apple | Brea...
starrra1
Thanks Abby , great show ! Dems and Reps hate Democracy , free speech , third party candidates because they will not be able to monopolies ripping off the tax payers because of the
one party system
Rosario Dawson Talks to WeAreChange
starrra1
This is very good guys :)
WOW ! This woman is profoundly intelligent ( humanly , morally , socially , intellectually )
She's the perfect package :)
This is very good guys :)
WOW ! This woman is profoundly intelligent ( humanly , morally , socially , intellectually )
She's the perfect package :)
Republicans block vote on veterans jobs bill (UPDATE) | The Raw Story
Republicans block vote on veterans jobs bill (UPDATE)
LINK FULL STORY
Republicans block vote on veterans jobs bill (UPDATE) | The Raw Story
UPDATE: Senate Democrats failed to achieve cloture and thus prevent a filibuster on the legislation. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) led the opposition to the bill, arguing that the nation’s debt overrode its obligations to help veterans get jobs, and only 5 Republicans voted to proceed with the debate, leaving Democrats two votes short of the 60 required to block a threatened Republican filibuster.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Veterans groups and Democrats are urging Republican senators to put political bickering aside and stop blocking a bill which would help offset high unemployment rates among veterans.
Senators were due to vote on Wednesday on the bill which would cost $1bn over five years to help veterans find employment in public work projects and as police officers and firefighters. It gives priority to the newest generation of veterans, post-9/11, whose employment prospects are almost three percentage points below the national average.
Minutes before the vote, Patty Murray, the Democratic senator who introduced the bill, gave an impassioned speech from the floor, asking for unity to pass the bill which she said “should not be killed by procedural games”.
She said “I urge my colleagues to join with us in waiving this point of order. To join with us in telling our veterans that we are not done investing in their care and benefits – not by a long shot.”
She said that a vote for the point of order proposed by the Republicans sent a message to veterans telling them: “We have spent enough on our veterans.” It would have a long-lasting impact, she said, not only to kill their ability to pass the bill but would also affect other veteran bills to improve mental health care access and to allow those who had lost the ability to have children access to fertility services.
She added: “Join with us in moving forward with a bill that is paid for, that won’t add to our deficit, and that shouldn’t be killed by procedural games.Join with us in putting veterans above political obstruction, and back to work.”
The vote, postponed from last week because of Republican manoeuvres, is the latest in a series of measures to delay the bill, as members of the House prepare to leave Washington to campaign on their re-election.
Stop Voting For Democrats & Republicans
starrra1
PLEASE AMERICA ! LISTEN TO JEFF CAREFULLY !
Thank you JEFF ! I share your sentiment 100% :)
PLEASE AMERICA ! LISTEN TO JEFF CAREFULLY !
Thank you JEFF ! I share your sentiment 100% :)
Sunday, September 23, 2012
War profiteering
starrra1
A VOTE FOR DEMS OR REPS IS A VOTE FOR ENDLESS WAR FOR PROFIT , VOTE THIRD PARTY AND CHANGE AMERICA FOREVER
DEFINITION OF ( WAR PROFITEERING )
A VOTE FOR DEMS OR REPS IS A VOTE FOR ENDLESS WAR FOR PROFIT , VOTE THIRD PARTY AND CHANGE AMERICA FOREVER
DEFINITION OF ( WAR PROFITEERING )
A war profiteer is any person or organization that profits from warfare or by selling weapons and other goods to parties at war. The term has strong negative connotations. General profiteering may also occur in peace time.
[edit]Types
[edit]International arms dealers
Others make their money by cooperating with the authorities. Basil Zaharoff's Vickers Company sold weapons to all the parties involved in the Chaco War. Companies like Opel and IBM have been labeled war profiteers for their involvement with the Third Reich.
[edit]Commodity dealers
War usually leads to a shortage in the supply of commodities, which results in higher prices and higher revenues.
[edit]Politicians
Political figures taking bribes and favors from corporations involved with war production have been called war profiteers. Abraham Lincoln's first Secretary of War, Simon Cameron, was forced to resign in early 1862 after charges of corruption relating to war contracts. In 1947, Kentucky congressman Andrew J. May, Chairman of the powerful Committee on Military Affairs, was convicted for taking bribes in exchange for war contracts.
[edit]Civilian contractors
More recently, companies involved with supplying the coalition forces in the Iraq War, such as Bechtel, KBR, Blackwater and Halliburton, have come under fire for allegedly overcharging for their services.[1] The modern private military company is also offered as an example of sanctioned war profiteering.[2] [3] On the opposing side, companies like Huawei Technologies, which upgraded Saddam's air-defense system between the two Gulf Wars, face such accusations.[4] [5]
[edit]Military contractors
Groups that potentially profit from war, or the threat of war, are military contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman,Raytheon and General Dynamics, to name a few. Old military material has to be discarded due to age or is lost due to fighting and new and different military material is needed by the military to maintain strategic advantages over the military technologies of foreign nations which are hostile or may become hostile.
[edit]Black marketeers
A distinction can be made between war profiteers who gain by sapping military strength and those who gain by contributing to the war. For instance, during and after World War II, enormous profits were available by selling rationed goods like cigarettes, chocolate, coffee andbutter on the black market. Dishonest military personnel given oversight over valuable property sometimes diverted rationed goods to the black market. The charge could also be laid against medical and legal professionals who accept money in exchange for helping young men evade a draft.
Don't Let "Bigger Forces" Hold you Back "Show You How I Escaped"
starrra1
I THINK HE REALLY HAS HIS FINGER ON THE PULSE !
THINK YOU SO VERY MUCH !
Graham Hancock and the Sacred Vine | London Real
"Fingerprints of the Gods" author Graham Hancock explains why all politicians should drink Ayahuasca 10 times, the gruesome Aztec history behind his new book "Wargod", why he drank Iboga to gain closure with his late father, and how Joe Rogan is just an all-around cool dude.
"You said that all politicians should be required to drink Ayahuasca 10 times before taking office." - Brian (00:46)
"All across the world we have a venal class of dishonest, self-serving bureaucrats who are using the power we give them to oppose themselves upon us." - Graham (01:52)
GET FULL STORY LONDON REAL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6Hqm01QzNY&feature=em-uploademail-new
Saturday, September 22, 2012
THE FEDER FILES
THE FEDER FILES Sirius Left 127
LINK TO SITE
http://www.federfiles.com/
MIKE IS ONE OF THE BEST GUYS
Challenging the NDAA: We Won—For Now | Common Dreams
FULL STORY LINK
Challenging the NDAA: We Won—For Now | Common Dreams
starrra1
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MUST ELECTORALLY END THE WAR FOR PROFIT MACHINE
REPS & DEMS / OBAMA & ROMNEY BY VOTING THIRD PARTY 2012
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MUST SEND A MESSAGE AT THE POLES
BY NOT VOTING FOR DEMS OR REPS ( THE MAJORITY VOTE FOR A THIRD PARTY WILL CHANGE GOV. FOREVER
Challenging the NDAA: We Won—For Now | Common Dreams
starrra1
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MUST ELECTORALLY END THE WAR FOR PROFIT MACHINE
REPS & DEMS / OBAMA & ROMNEY BY VOTING THIRD PARTY 2012
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MUST SEND A MESSAGE AT THE POLES
BY NOT VOTING FOR DEMS OR REPS ( THE MAJORITY VOTE FOR A THIRD PARTY WILL CHANGE GOV. FOREVER
In January I sued President Barack Obama over Section 1021(b)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which authorized the military to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely, strip them of due process and hold them in military facilities, including offshore penal colonies. Last week, round one in the battle to strike down the onerous provision, one that saw me joined by six other plaintiffs including Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg, ended in an unqualified victory for the public. U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest, who accepted every one of our challenges to the law, made her temporary injunction of the section permanent. In short, she declared the law unconstitutional.
Truthdig columnist Chris Hedges, who is currently suing the government over a controversial provision in the most recent NDAA, is seen here addressing a crowd in New York’s Zuccotti park. (AP/John Minchillo)
Almost immediately after Judge Forrest ruled, the Obama administration challenged the decision. Government prosecutors called the opinion “unprecedented” and said that “the government has compelling arguments that it should be reversed.” The government added that it was an “extraordinary injunction of worldwide scope.” Government lawyers asked late Friday for an immediate stay of Forrest’s ban on the use of the military in domestic policing and on the empowering of the government to strip U.S. citizens of due process. The request for a stay was an attempt by the government to get the judge, pending appeal to a higher court, to grant it the right to continue to use the law. Forrest swiftly rejected the stay, setting in motion a fast-paced appeal to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and possibly, if her ruling is upheld there, to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Justice Department sent a letter to Forrest and the 2nd Circuit late Friday night informing them that at 9 a.m. Monday the Obama administration would ask the 2nd Circuit for an emergency stay that would lift Forrest’s injunction. This would allow Obama to continue to operate with indefinite detention authority until a formal appeal was heard. The government’s decision has triggered a constitutional showdown between the president and the judiciary.
“This may be the most significant constitutional standoff since the Pentagon Papers case,” said Carl Mayer, co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs.
In January I sued President Barack Obama over Section 1021(b)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which authorized the military to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely, strip them of due process and hold them in military facilities, including offshore penal colonies. Last week, round one in the battle to strike down the onerous provision, one that saw me joined by six other plaintiffs including Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg, ended in an unqualified victory for the public. U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest, who accepted every one of our challenges to the law, made her temporary injunction of the section permanent. In short, she declared the law unconstitutional.Truthdig columnist Chris Hedges, who is currently suing the government over a controversial provision in the most recent NDAA, is seen here addressing a crowd in New York’s Zuccotti park. (AP/John Minchillo)
Truthdig columnist Chris Hedges, who is currently suing the government over a controversial provision in the most recent NDAA, is seen here addressing a crowd in New York’s Zuccotti park. (AP/John Minchillo)
Almost immediately after Judge Forrest ruled, the Obama administration challenged the decision. Government prosecutors called the opinion “unprecedented” and said that “the government has compelling arguments that it should be reversed.” The government added that it was an “extraordinary injunction of worldwide scope.” Government lawyers asked late Friday for an immediate stay of Forrest’s ban on the use of the military in domestic policing and on the empowering of the government to strip U.S. citizens of due process. The request for a stay was an attempt by the government to get the judge, pending appeal to a higher court, to grant it the right to continue to use the law. Forrest swiftly rejected the stay, setting in motion a fast-paced appeal to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and possibly, if her ruling is upheld there, to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Justice Department sent a letter to Forrest and the 2nd Circuit late Friday night informing them that at 9 a.m. Monday the Obama administration would ask the 2nd Circuit for an emergency stay that would lift Forrest’s injunction. This would allow Obama to continue to operate with indefinite detention authority until a formal appeal was heard. The government’s decision has triggered a constitutional showdown between the president and the judiciary.
“This may be the most significant constitutional standoff since the Pentagon Papers case,” said Carl Mayer, co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs.
As Italy Sentences 23 CIA Agents in Rendition Case, Obama Refuses to Prosecute Anyone for Torture
LINK Democracy Now
As Italy Sentences 23 CIA Agents in Rendition Case, Obama Refuses to Prosecute Anyone for Torture
As Italy Sentences 23 CIA Agents in Rendition Case, Obama Refuses to Prosecute Anyone for Torture
Italy’s high court has upheld the sentences of 23 CIA operatives convicted of kidnapping a Muslim cleric under the U.S. program of "extraordinary rendition." The cleric, Abu Omar, was seized from the streets of Milan in 2003 and taken to U.S. bases in Italy and Germany before being sent to Egypt, where he was tortured during a four-year imprisonment. The Americans were all convicted in absentia after the United States refused to hand them over. The ruling marks the final appeal in the first trial anywhere in the world involving the CIA’s practice of rendering terror suspects to countries that allow torture. But back in 2008, then presidential candidate Barack Obama unequivocally denounced torture and extraordinary rendition. Well, according to our guest, four years after Obama made those comments, impunity for torture has now become a bipartisan policy of the U.S. government. For more, we speak with Alfred McCoy, a professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is the author of the new book, "Torture and Impunity: The U.S. Doctrine of Coercive Interrogation."
Friday, September 21, 2012
Obama Univision Interview: President Struggles With Tough Questions about Immigration Reform
Obama Univision Interview: President Struggles With Tough Questions about Immigration Reform
President Obama fielded tough questions from Univision anchors Jorge Ramos and Maria Elena Salinas at the University of Miami-Dade Thursday afternoon. The most difficult question came from Ramos, an advocate of immigration reform, who asked the president why he had not kept his promise to pass immigration reform.
During his 2008 campaign, Obama had specifically promised Ramos that he would pass comprehensive immigration reform
starrra1
Not only Univision ! everybody got played by Obama, an under the bus moment for most of his supporters especially at the top
A MUST WATCH !
it's about time someone ask tough questions
thanks Univision ! ! !
Voices from our community: Mason Bliss, Afghan Vet
starrra1
THANKS MASON ! I completely share your sentiment
THANKS MASON ! I completely share your sentiment
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)