Tuesday, February 9, 2016
Hillary Clinton pledges to stand with Flint through water crisis
Hillary Clinton promised the people of Flint, Michigan, whose lives have been turned upside down by the city's ongoing water crisis, that she will be their partner in what is sure to be a long recovery.
Speaking from the pulpit at House of Prayer Memorial Baptist Church on Sunday, Clinton told a largely African-American audience that what has happened in Flint, where untreated water has been contaminated with lead, is not just an environmental crisis, but one deeply imbued with race.
"This is not merely unacceptable or wrong, though it is both, what happened in Flint is immoral," Clinton said.
"This has to be a national priority, not just for today or tomorrow. Clean water is not optional, my friends, it is not a luxury. As I said weeks ago, if what had been happening in Flint had happened in Grosse Point or Bloomfield Hills, I think we all know we would have had a solution yesterday," Clinton added, referencing two wealthy, largely white Detroit suburbs.
Clinton came to Flint on Sunday, taking a break from campaigning in New Hampshire days before the state's critical primary on Tuesday, to stress the need to urge the Republican controlled Senate to approve the Senate Democrats' $600 million amendment to help Flint.
There are also politics at play for the trip: Clinton's appearance in a majority African-American city will resonate in early voting states like South Carolina and Nevada, where minority voters make up large portion of the electorate.
In New Hampshire, Clinton is trailing Bernie Sanders by 22 percentage points, according to Sunday's CNN/WMUR tracking poll.
"This to me a personal commitment," Clinton said. "I will stand with you every step of the way. I will not for one minute forget about you or forget about your children, I will do everything I can to help you get back up, to get your strength and resilience flowing through this community again because what happened here should never have happened anywhere."
Clinton's speech was well received. At different points, attendees shouted "President Hillary" or "Madame President." When she closed, a woman stood and yelled, "It's your time Hillary."
After the event, Clinton was swarmed with people, some of whom shared stories about the constant struggle of filtering their water and dealing with possible lead poisoning.
Clinton met with mothers impacted by the contaminated water before the event and pledged to the mayor and pastors form the church that she will "not let the light dim" on Flint.
Clinton has been criticized, namely by Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, for politicizing the water crisis.
On Sunday, congregants rejected the idea Clinton was using the issue.
"When you have gone through a lot like many of black folks and minorities and women have struggled with all of their lives and then along comes a public servant like Hillary Clinton, you know the real deal when you see it," said Gerald Matthews, a 72-year-old retiree who has lived in Flint for over 40 years.
Matthews said he would have used foul language to describe people arguing the Clinton is politicizing the issue, but didn't want to in a house of worship.
Pastor Kenneth Stewart who preached to the audience before Clinton arrived, was speechless after Clinton's remarks, openly crying from the pulpit after her remarks.
"Hillary Clinton is on the waiting list and about nine months from now the United States is going to give birth to a president and I am praying that it is going to be a girl," the pastor said, adding later that he was "just proud to have Hillary Clinton in our city."
Clinton has made Flint a focus of her campaign since early January and her aides say she wanted to visit Flint earlier this year, but was concerned that the horde of journalists, Secret Service agents and aides that come with her would overwhelm the city's already strapped resources.
Clinton, instead, dispatched her top political aide, Amanda Renteria, to visit Flint and meet with Mayor Karen Weaver in January. Weaver, at the time, invited Clinton to visit the city and later endorsed Clinton's presidential campaign.
Clinton said Sunday that Weaver, who received a standing ovation for her work on the water crisis, was a "servant leader."
Earlier this week in New Hampshire, Clinton charged that Gov. Rick Snyder and the state's government "allowed children in Flint to drink poison water just to save a buck, as if their lives weren't worth even that much."
Sanders, Clinton's Democratic opponent, called on Snyder to resign over the issue.
US Election 2016: Bernie Sanders accepted Goldman Sachs cash
David Usborne
Up against a wall in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton showed her hackles on Monday, rejecting the claims of Senator Bernie Sanders that she had been bought by Wall Street, telling supporters at a rally that he had himself benefited from money from Goldman Sachs.
“There is nothing wrong with that, it didn’t change his views. Well it didn’t change my view or my vote either,” she declared, claiming that $200,000 given by Goldman Sachs to Democrats on Capitol Hill had made its way to Mr Sanders. “I haven’t just talked the talk, I haven’t just made speeches, I’ve called them out,” she said of her own efforts to end malfaisance in the financial community.
“No special interests, no powerful interests are going to be able to call the shots,” when she is president, Ms Clinton pledged to a throng inside a community college here, trying to blunt the main spear of her rival’s campaign, that she is part of the system that has rigged the economy against ordinary Americans.
With polls pointing to an easy win for Senator Sanders in today’s crucial primary election and his drawing almost level with her nationally in two recent polls, Ms Clinton’s campaign has taken on an angry whiff. Former President Bill Clinton has similarly let loose against Mr Sanders. “If you disagree, you are just part of the establishment,” he said while introducing his wife last night, a sarcastic jibe at Mr Sanders.
He followed a similar theme campaigning solo on her behalf at the weekend. “Hillary’s opponent has a different view. It’s a hermetically sealed box… ‘The system is rigged against you by the big banks, and both parties are in the thrall of the big banks. Anybody who takes money from Goldman Sachs couldn’t possibly be president’,” he said at one event. “He may have to tweak that answer a little bit”.
He also asserted that the “political revolution” promised by Mr Sanders couldn’t be paid for. “When you’re making a revolution you can’t be too careful with the facts,” he intoned in the small town of Milford.
“The New Hampshire I campaigned in really cared that you knew what you were doing and how it was paid for,” he declared, harking back to 1992, when he was hailed as the “comeback kid” for taking an unexpected second place here, a surge that sent him eventually to the White House. It was a comeback that was to a very large extent thanks to Ms Clinton standing by his side.
It is deeply galling to Mr Clinton that the state that essentially saved him then may not do the same for his wife.
So angry are both Clintons with the performance of her campaign so far, they are looking for both a strategy revamp and possibly a shake-up of top staff, Politico reported last night. “The Clintons are not happy, and have been letting all of us know that,” one Democratic official told the site. “The idea is that we need a more forward-looking message, for the primary – but also for the general election too… there’s no sense of panic, but there is an urgency to fix these problems right now.”
In Milford, Mr Clinton took particular aim at Mr Sanders’ proposals to nationalise health care insurance and replace Obamacare. “Is it good for America? I don’t think so. Is it good for New Hampshire? I don’t think so,” he said. “The New Hampshire I knew would not have voted for me if I had done that.”
He also accused Mr Sanders’ backers of online “trolling” and “sexism”, suggesting that one female blogger backing his wife had taken to writing under a pseudonym to protect herself. “She and other people who have gone online to defend Hillary, to explain why they supported her, have been subject to vicious trolling and attacks,” he said.
A sour conversation has also erupted over the duty – or otherwise – of women to support Ms Clinton. It was spurred partly by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright musing that there was a “special place in Hell” for women who don’t help women, while Gloria Steinem, the iconic feminist, said young women backing Mr Sanders were looking for boys – a remark she has since apologised for.
An especially malodorous piece of Clinton baggage meanwhile emerged as Kathleen Willey, a former White House volunteer who has alleged she was groped by Mr Clinton in the Oval Office when he was president, was named as the national spokesperson for an outside political action group that will be launched in the event that Ms Clinton wins the Democratic nomination.
“This gives me more of an opportunity to get this message out to young voters who weren’t even born or don’t even remember what happened and to the women who have suffered,” Ms Willey told Reuters. “They’re going to be confronted every day, on radio, on television, on billboards,” Roger Stone, a conservative activist behind the putative group, added.
Ms Clinton’s plight has many of her fans anguished. “I think people are forgetting the requirements of the job, all the experience she has does nothing but qualify her and prepare her,” said Teresa McInerny, 56, an advertising executive, who skipped work to attend yesterday’s rally.
“I am 110 per cent for Hillary and I think she can still win here, but it’s been a surprisingly bumpy ride with Bernie.”
Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Nomination
Voters have the chance to choose one of the most broadly and deeply qualified presidential candidates in modern history.For the past painful year, the Republican presidential contenders have been bombarding Americans with empty propaganda slogans and competing, bizarrely, to present themselves as the least experienced person for the most important elected job in the world. Democratic primary voters, on the other hand, after a substantive debate over real issues, have the chance to nominate one of the most broadly and deeply qualified presidential candidates in modern history.
Hillary Clinton would be the first woman nominated by a major party. She served as a senator from a major state (New York) and as secretary of state — not to mention her experience on the national stage as first lady with her brilliant and flawed husband, President Bill Clinton. The Times editorial board has endorsed her three times for federal office — twice for Senate and once in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary — and is doing so again with confidence and enthusiasm.
Mrs. Clinton’s main opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-described Democratic Socialist, has proved to be more formidable than most people, including Mrs. Clinton, anticipated. He has brought income inequality and the lingering pain of the middle class to center stage and pushed Mrs. Clinton a bit more to the left than she might have gone on economic issues. Mr. Sanders has also surfaced important foreign policy questions, including the need for greater restraint in the use of military force.
In the end, though, Mr. Sanders does not have the breadth of experience or policy ideas that Mrs. Clinton offers. His boldest proposals — to break up the banks and to start all over on health care reform with a Medicare-for-all system — have earned him support among alienated middle-class voters and young people. But his plans for achieving them aren’t realistic, while Mrs. Clinton has very good, and achievable, proposals in both areas.
The third Democratic contender, Martin O’Malley, is a personable and reasonable liberal who seems more suited for the jobs he has already had — governor of Maryland and mayor of Baltimore — than for president.
Mrs. Clinton is a strong advocate of sensible and effective measures to combat the plague of firearms; Mr. Sanders’s record on guns is relatively weak. Her economic proposals for financial reform reflect a deep understanding of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform act, including the ways in which it has fallen short. She supports changes that the country badly needs, like controls on high-frequency trading and stronger curbs on bank speculation in derivatives.
Mr. Sanders has scored some rhetorical points against Mrs. Clinton for her longstanding ties to Wall Street, but she has responded well, and it would be comical to watch any of the Republican candidates try to make that case, given that they are all virtually tied to, or actually part of, the business establishment.
One of the most attractive parts of Mrs. Clinton’s economic platform is her pledge to support the well-being and rights of working Americans. Her lifelong fight for women bolsters her credibility in this area, since so many of the problems with labor law hit women the hardest, including those involving child care, paid sick leave, unstable schedules and low wages for tipped workers.
Mrs. Clinton is keenly aware of the wage gap for women, especially for women of color. It’s not just that she’s done her homework — Mrs. Clinton has done her homework on pretty much any subject you’d care to name. Her knowledge comes from a commitment to issues like reproductive rights that is decades old. She was well ahead of Mr. Sanders in calling for repeal of the Hyde Amendment, which severely limits federal money to pay for abortions for poor women.
As secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton worked tirelessly, and with important successes, for the nation’s benefit. She was the secretary President Obama needed and wanted: someone who knew leaders around the world, who brought star power as well as expertise to the table. The combination of a new president who talked about inclusiveness and a chief diplomat who had been his rival but shared his vision allowed the United States to repair relations around the world that had been completely trashed by the previous administration.
Mrs. Clinton helped make it possible to impose tougher sanctions on Iran, which in turn led to the important nuclear deal now going into effect. She also fostered closer cooperation with Asian countries. She worked to expand and deepen the dialogue with China and to increase Washington’s institutional ties to the region. Mrs. Clinton had rebuked China when she was first lady for its treatment of women, and she criticized the Beijing government’s record on human rights even as she worked to improve relations.
In January 2011, before the Arab Spring, Mrs. Clinton delivered a speech that criticized Arab leaders, saying their countries risked “sinking into the sand” unless they liberalized their political systems and cleaned up their economies. Certainly, the Israeli-Palestinian crisis deepened during her tenure, but she did not cause that.
Mrs. Clinton can be more hawkish on the use of military power than Mr. Obama, as shown by her current call for a no-fly zone in Syria and her earlier support for arming and training Syrian rebels. We are not convinced that a no-fly zone is the right approach in Syria, but we have no doubt that Mrs. Clinton would use American military power effectively and with infinitely more care and wisdom than any of the leading Republican contenders.
Mrs. Clinton, who has been accused of flip-flopping on trade, has shown a refreshing willingness to learn and to explain, as she has in detail, why she changed her mind on trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership. She is likely to do more to help workers displaced by the forces of trade than previous presidents have done, and certainly more than any of the Republicans.
Mrs. Clinton has honed a steeliness that will serve her well in negotiating with a difficult Congress on critically important issues like climate change. It will also help her weather what are certain to be more attacks from Republicans and, should she win the White House, the possibility of the same ideological opposition and personal animus that President Obama has endured. Some of the campaign attacks are outrageous, like Donald Trump’s efforts to bring up Bill Clinton’s marital infidelity. Some, like those about Mrs. Clinton's use of a private email server, are legitimate and deserve forthright answers.
Hillary Clinton is the right choice for the Democrats to present a vision for America that is radically different from the one that leading Republican candidates offer — a vision in which middle-class Americans have a real shot at prosperity, women’s rights are enhanced, undocumented immigrants are given a chance at legitimacy, international alliances are nurtured and the country is kept safe.
Pakistan - How long are we expected to buy the ISPR’s unsubstantiated claims?
By Noreen Haider
3,400 terrorists killed, 837 hideouts destroyed, 13,200 intelligence based operations carried out, 183 hard core terrorists killed and 21,193 arrested, 488 army personal lost lives and 1914 injured in the one and a half years of the operation Zarb-e-Azb. These are the official figures released by the ISPR on their official website with the slogan, “stay positive, good days coming soon.” Only that the ‘coming soon’ slogan sounds more like the end line of the trailer of some about to be released movie. Actually ‘stay tuned for more’ seems to be more like it as the situation on the ground has taken a positively ghastly turn as the terrorists have openly threatened to blast the universities and colleges all over the country in a video recorded message released.
The thought that seems really demeaning to me, personally also, is the disregard our military establishment has for the cerebral prowess of Pakistani people as an entity and the media personnel in particular. Either they think that all the people living in this unfortunate country are blind or mentally retarded – or both. It is inconceivable how else the DG ISPR can do these amazing press conferences of his with a straight face. There is, however, one issue that he is not asked tough questions by anyone because probably the survival instinct of the humans present at the press conference kicks in, but it does not mean that anyone in his right mind would not but think of them.
The figures presented by the DG ISPR seem more likely to be that of somebody’s imagination rather than the reality. But even if we accept those figures for the sake of satisfying our simple minds, would they mind telling a few details which would corroborate these facts and figures. When they say the operation is going on and there are almost three and a half thousand terrorists killed, would they tell us how they identify these people as terrorists? Where are these killing fields where thousands of these terrorists are killed? What happens to the corpses after they are killed? Are those left for the vultures to devour and if so then are there fields littered with the carcasses of the slain murderers? Who identifies their bodies? Anyone? Or are all the operations carried out and completed without verifications? Where have the twenty-one thousand arrests been made? Which areas in particular? Where are these concentration camps where such an enormous number of terrorists are imprisoned? Who is cooking for these prisoners? Anyone? The army has mentioned only twenty one thousand odd arrests but the wise advisor of the federal ministry Tassadaq Hussain went slightly further and mentioned in a TV talk show that actually the military has made hundreds of thousands of arrests. When the host asked about the place where they are kept, well the sagacious advisor did not have any answer obviously for security reasons.
The question is, if according to the ISPR, there are thousands of people arrested and thousands killed where is the proof of all of this? We have nothing to verify this except the patriotic songs produced by ISPR and that is all the proof most need anyway. When they say ‘it’s done’ then it’s done. No questions asked, period. But questions have now taken a life of their own and they will not be slain by anyone. This has gone far enough now and the people have a right to know the truth. Is there anyone seriously perusing any big terrorists at all and if this is true then who is going to answer about the obvious anomalies? Things are just not adding up right. There are simply too many discrepancies in the claims made and the realities on ground.
The DG ISPR in his latest press conference stated that there were veiled women used to bring arms and ammunition from Darra Adam Khel in Landi Kotal. Is this place situated near Planet Mars where the army cannot reach? When the army claims that they have had spectacular successes in Zarb-e-Azb the claim only rings hollow when we see that only an hour’s drive from Peshawar there is a whole market of illegal arms and ammunition. Anybody – men, women and children – can come there and buy large caches of ammunition and then hide them in the burqa and come back on public transport buses without anybody or any agency remotely getting suspicious at all. Not only that, according to the DG there was a clear warning already with the government agencies regarding terrorist group threatening to strike Bacha Khan University.
I mean what can be a further example of the sheer audacity of the terrorist groups who went to buy the arms and ammunition from the open market, brought to the city of their choice in public transport – hence travelling on ordinary highways everybody uses and crossing each and every check post on the way – and they did not seem to have a care in the world. They do not seem apprehensive of the fact that there is a grand military operation going on where thousands have been slain and arrested and that there may be checking on any of the posts. No sir, they were clearly so comfortable that they contacted the news reporters of their choice to offer breaking news.
What is the meaning of this news provided by the DG ISPR himself? Can anyone shed some light on it? I for one cannot wrap my head around the apparent comfort level and ease of manner the operation was carried yet again. I mean the terrorists did not crawl under ground for miles, they did not cross dangerous jungles, and they did not swim in icy cold waters of freezing rivers, submerged to remain invisible. They did not go to any such length which might have made their attack hard to detect. They did none of these things, instead they took a bus and then a rickshaw to get to the university. Finding the rickshaw in time perhaps would have been the hardest part of the whole operation. I know, urban transport is a real issue too, but more on that some other time.
So that is how easy it actually was to reach the university. Then pray our dear DG ISPR tell us as to what the presence of the uniformed men at the check posts really amounts to? And what actual deterrence do they provide if they have the vision equivalent to the blind and the competence level of the dead. It is a joke indeed only that this time the joke has gone too far. The questions that have popped out of the walls of the Bacha Khan University are now like the spores burst out in time for fertilizing and these questions will now fertilize the minds of thinking beings everywhere. You will have to face them over and over again and no amount of patriotic songs and documentaries are going to serve as substitute to real answers.
Why is there a thriving illegal arms and ammunition market right next to where the grand military operation is going on? Why is there such sloppy security at all check posts? If all the real master terrorists are comfortably hiding in Afghanistan then tell us what is the point of this operation here? But if all the hard core terrorists have been eliminated according to you then how come there are vibrant groups active, alive and kicking? So much so that the groups have the audacity to produce video massages of the suicide bombers and then release it to the press. In these videos the ‘fidyeens’, the suicide bombers, can be clearly seen as living with their families, training with guns and actually being respected as great warriors by the people around them. If Zarb-e-Zab has succeeded no less than ninety percent then what are these areas where the real killers are well protected and comfortable?
This is not adding up at all and I am not alone in asking these and thousands of other questions. Now everybody wants to know the truth and they will not be satisfied with anything less. It seems as if we are perhaps even more vulnerable now with the renewed threat to our children and very sorry to say, the “good days’ coming soon seems to be a massive hoax.
Pakistan - UNDER A PARTICULAR AGENDA: NAB VICTIMISING PPP LEADERS
The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) is pursuing a political agenda to victimise Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) leaders, alleged Sindh Chief Minister Qaim Ali Shah on Monday.
“The accountability bureau is victimising the PPP,” Shah said in a statement. “It has started a media trial of Sharjeel Inam Memon and other party leaders.”
The CM added that Memon had tendered his resignation from the local government ministry due to personal reasons. “Neither did the PPP ask him to resign nor was there any pressure on the Sindh government to force him to resign,” said Shah, who is also president of the party’s Sindh chapter.
“He is a PPP MPA and central deputy secretary of information and is on leave but unfortunately his name has been put on the exit control list. This is nothing but political victimisation,” claimed Shah, requesting the federal government to intervene in the matter and refrain NAB from taking unilateral action against PPP lawmakers.
Referring to the case initiated by NAB against Memon, the CM said, “These are politically motivated cases”. He added that the inquiry against Memon is biased and his name should be removed from the ECL list without any delay.
https://ppppunjab.wordpress.com/2016/02/09/unfair-targeting-nab-victimising-ppp-leaders-sindh-cm/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)