I am usually the first person to give police officers the benefit of the doubt. Their job is often dangerous, thankless and lacking proper compensation. Their successes and sacrifices often do not make the news, while their failures are highly scrutinized. I always plead with people to preserve the innocent until proven guilty mentality with the police officers, as they do with any other person accused of criminal conduct.
Having said that, the evidence presented by the police department regarding the events of this past Friday night surrounding the death of Terence Crutcher in Tulsa Oklahoma is overwhelmingly damning. One simply cannot defend a team of officers that do not communicate as to who is the lead in approaching the perceived threat and who is in the role of a backup. Furthermore, the use of deadly force by a police officer should be the last resort and not a coercive instrument of compliance.
Terence Crutcher, aged 40, was returning from class at a Community College. He was attempting to educate himself and make his family proud, when his vehicle broke down. Shortly thereafter, Terence lost his life. At best, this was Police officer's incompetence and negligence. At worst, this was racial discrimination and a lack of value for a man's life.
Based on the information given by the Tulsa police department, officer Betty Shelby arrived at the scene first and found Terence looking intoxicated and unresponsive to her questions. After questioning Terence regarding his ownership of the vehicle and receiving no response, Terence raised his hands high in the air and proceeded to walk away from officer Shelby's vehicle toward his own. By this time, the police team responding to the dispatch call arrived at the scene and Terence continued to walk toward his SUV with his hands still in the air. When he arrived at his vehicle, Terence was seen to either lean against his vehicle or put his hands on the vehicle. Because of his unresponsive, and allegedly unpredictable behavior, officer Tyler Turnbough deployed his taser. At the same time, officer Betty Shelby discharged her firearm and fatally shot Terence.
While officer Tyler Turnbough correctly deployed his taser, in accordance with a non-compliant individual who is perceived as a threat, officer Betty Shelby acted irrationally by using deadly force. The released video and audio can confirm Terence's and the police movements as described by the Tulsa police department. The released video and audio cannot confirm whether or not Terence was intoxicated or unresponsive. What we know for certain is that he did not have a weapon on him or in his vehicle, he did not move toward officers in a threatening manner and he was killed in the process. The video also disproves Shelby's attorney defense that Terence was reaching into the vehicle, because the window on the driver's side of the vehicle is clearly seen as rolled up from the helicopter camera. Lastly, the audio from the helicopter contains a female voice saying 'that looks like a bad dude', which shows that Terence's appearance played into the assessment of at least one officer.
In the name of transparency, the Tulsa police department released video from the dash cam of the second police cruiser, as well as video and audio from the helicopter. I applaud the Tulsa police department for transparency in doing so. However, if you really want to uphold transparency, do so in prosecuting officer Betty Shelby to the fullest extent of the law. You have the responsibility to the people whom you serve - the people of Tulsa Oklahoma.
Tuesday, September 20, 2016
Sunday, September 11, 2016
In Defense of the Anthem
Today we celebrate the 15th anniversary of a terrible act of terrorism on American soil - the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001. Nearly three thousand people lost their lives, because a group of Islamic Extremists took action based on a hateful intolerant ideology and their lack of respect for life.
One of the most memorable and enduring images in the aftermath of those attacks was the torn flag that remained at Ground Zero. The entire nation came together and mourned with symbols of remembrance and American patriotism front and center. We recognized, that despite our differences, we were all Americans and all share in the road to healing from this tragedy.
That message was not lost in the world of sports. The teams of usually hated rivals came together in a show of solidarity with sports teams singing the Star Spangled Banner and America The Beautiful together. They didn't merely 'go through the motions', they showed solidarity with all Americans who recognized and mourned the loss.
This level of solidarity is more important than ever today, with certain groups in our society more entrenched than ever. These groups show layers of division that cannot conceive of a point of view other than their own righteous cause. Furthermore, anyone who dares challenge those views is vilified to the greatest extent of their fact-stretched under-informed opinions. Fifteen year later, we stand more divided than I ever recall in recent history.
So while these groups may see the Anthem or the Flag as a symbol of oppression, many others see them as a sign of hope and memory for those we have lost. Immigrants, such as myself, see these as a symbol of a new life within the adopted country. Servicemen and women see them as a means of pride and paying homage to their fallen friends and those who came to serve before them.
When a protest is made against the Anthem or the Flag, the individuals who do this drive the divisions between the people who respect and honor these patriotic tenets and themselves. If you are serious about bringing awareness to your cause and swaying the opinion of others, your primary purpose is to attract support for your cause. When you protest the Anthem or the Flag, you are automatically driving a significant portion of American people away from the cause you are promoting, before anyone has a chance to hear the message.
In essence, you are defeating your own cause from the very beginning. People tend to confuse popularity for effectiveness in this era of social media and hype. While this campaign has enjoyed great popularity, it's effectiveness has been negligible and even counter-productive for the aforementioned reasons.
Just because you have the freedom to do something, doesn't mean it is a good idea. In the words of Henry DeSalvo from Big Trouble: "There isn't any rule that says I can't come over here and fart on your entree. But I don't do it. And do you know why? Because it would be bad manners"
One of the most memorable and enduring images in the aftermath of those attacks was the torn flag that remained at Ground Zero. The entire nation came together and mourned with symbols of remembrance and American patriotism front and center. We recognized, that despite our differences, we were all Americans and all share in the road to healing from this tragedy.
That message was not lost in the world of sports. The teams of usually hated rivals came together in a show of solidarity with sports teams singing the Star Spangled Banner and America The Beautiful together. They didn't merely 'go through the motions', they showed solidarity with all Americans who recognized and mourned the loss.
This level of solidarity is more important than ever today, with certain groups in our society more entrenched than ever. These groups show layers of division that cannot conceive of a point of view other than their own righteous cause. Furthermore, anyone who dares challenge those views is vilified to the greatest extent of their fact-stretched under-informed opinions. Fifteen year later, we stand more divided than I ever recall in recent history.
So while these groups may see the Anthem or the Flag as a symbol of oppression, many others see them as a sign of hope and memory for those we have lost. Immigrants, such as myself, see these as a symbol of a new life within the adopted country. Servicemen and women see them as a means of pride and paying homage to their fallen friends and those who came to serve before them.
When a protest is made against the Anthem or the Flag, the individuals who do this drive the divisions between the people who respect and honor these patriotic tenets and themselves. If you are serious about bringing awareness to your cause and swaying the opinion of others, your primary purpose is to attract support for your cause. When you protest the Anthem or the Flag, you are automatically driving a significant portion of American people away from the cause you are promoting, before anyone has a chance to hear the message.
In essence, you are defeating your own cause from the very beginning. People tend to confuse popularity for effectiveness in this era of social media and hype. While this campaign has enjoyed great popularity, it's effectiveness has been negligible and even counter-productive for the aforementioned reasons.
Just because you have the freedom to do something, doesn't mean it is a good idea. In the words of Henry DeSalvo from Big Trouble: "There isn't any rule that says I can't come over here and fart on your entree. But I don't do it. And do you know why? Because it would be bad manners"
The Day we call 9/11
It was on this morning 15 years ago, that I awoke just after losing my
grandmother Fira the day before 09.10.2001 and still in mourning. I was
awoken by a phone call from our friends from Israel, asking if everyone
is fine and what is going on in New York?
Still groggy from coming back after a viewing the night before, I turned on the television to see one of the world trade center towers in heavy smoke. As I was on the phone, I stopped talking and just listened to the newscast, occasionally translating over the phone. Then a plane came in and hit the second tower, and we all now knew for certain that this wasn't just some accident - it was a concerted terrorist act by a group of people who don't value life, not even their own.
While calls were made about not singling out Islam, but Islamic extremists/terrorists; the videos on the web, as well as journalist reports, showed Muslim countries' ordinary citizens celebrating and rejoicing at the tragic barbaric act and its aftermath. What's more, we witnessed our own country's Muslim citizens celebrating the destruction and devastation. In this one swept moment, the ordinary Muslim citizens supported their extremists' actions. I'm certain there were other instances, but his one was documented.
If you want respect and tolerance, the least you can do as a human being is show some respect for human life and a tragedy like that. The most would be denouncing the actions of the terrorists and sending heartfelt condolences to the victims' families. What separates us from terrorists is our conscience that respects each others' lives. A terrorist has no conscience like that, and therefore ceases to be human. When you rejoice at the actions of a terrorist, you are closer to that terrorist than to the rest of humanity.
Still groggy from coming back after a viewing the night before, I turned on the television to see one of the world trade center towers in heavy smoke. As I was on the phone, I stopped talking and just listened to the newscast, occasionally translating over the phone. Then a plane came in and hit the second tower, and we all now knew for certain that this wasn't just some accident - it was a concerted terrorist act by a group of people who don't value life, not even their own.
While calls were made about not singling out Islam, but Islamic extremists/terrorists; the videos on the web, as well as journalist reports, showed Muslim countries' ordinary citizens celebrating and rejoicing at the tragic barbaric act and its aftermath. What's more, we witnessed our own country's Muslim citizens celebrating the destruction and devastation. In this one swept moment, the ordinary Muslim citizens supported their extremists' actions. I'm certain there were other instances, but his one was documented.
If you want respect and tolerance, the least you can do as a human being is show some respect for human life and a tragedy like that. The most would be denouncing the actions of the terrorists and sending heartfelt condolences to the victims' families. What separates us from terrorists is our conscience that respects each others' lives. A terrorist has no conscience like that, and therefore ceases to be human. When you rejoice at the actions of a terrorist, you are closer to that terrorist than to the rest of humanity.
Monday, September 5, 2016
"The Lobster" Review
Upon a friend's recommendation I watched a critically acclaimed movie, The Lobster, tonight with my favorite doctor. I liked the movie, but found it to be heavy handed and overly critical of modern society, relationship standards in particular.
The beginning of the movie will open up the viewers to a heartfelt disappointment from the main protagonist's point of view, coupled with an additional burden of having the clock started on him to find a new partner, as well as hunt fellow men and women in the process.
It doesn't take the viewer long to figure out that the popular society norm is for neither men nor women to ever be alone. Moreover, the wrinkle is to find some common disposition between the two partners. The main character finds himself in a remediation camp (hotel), whose goal is for him to either find a suitable match or be turned into an animal of his choice.
He witnesses two other men approach their predicament differently. One is willing to lie in order to forge a relationship, while the other appears to be resigned that there's no hope and time will run out. After the main character's attempt to get in line with societal norms falls apart, he runs out into the wild and meets up with the rebel group of loners.
The loners represent the counterculture group. They are the polar opposite of the accepted society norm, but just as stringent in their rules of remaining separate with no emotions or actions relating to another person. He cannot conform to this group either, as he finds a woman that represents his match, while also 'luckily' having the same disposition as him. Soon, their relationship is exposed to the leader of the group who proceeds to disable the main character's love interest.
Upon learning of his love's fate, he does everything he can for her to provide a better quality of life. But he knows that they can't remain in this counterculture group. Therefore, one night they execute an escape plan into the city. Their plan is to rejoin the popular accepted society as a couple. There's just one problem, they are no longer equals in their disposition. The movie ends with the main character faced with a choice - whether or not to disable himself in order to make him and his love interest equal.
The way I see it, the movie takes a vicious Kubrickesque swing with a baseball bat at what is accepted and not accepted in modern standards of dating and single lifestyles. There are two crude side points made by the author that are a direct critique of the accepted societal myths. One is the use of a child to resolve marital difficulties, which is obviously counter-intuitive. Second is that true happiness is more important than the happiness or well being of your partner, which is true to a degree. However, unless the partner is mentally disturbed, it is not a life or death situation. While I don't see the modern society as polarized or as radical as the movie portrays, it does bring a valid point of what acceptance by culture and counterculture today requires.
The movie's lack of resolution at the end is a rendered judgment upon society - that even though the main character has successfully fled both groups, he still remains a slave to the societal norms that seek a similar disposition between him and his love interest.
I give the movie a 4 out of 5 thumbs up! The movie is funny and contains a number of noteworthy performances. But while the satire is very nicely set up and executed, the societal critique that it deals is only partially justified and is usually not exercised to the abstracted extent.
The beginning of the movie will open up the viewers to a heartfelt disappointment from the main protagonist's point of view, coupled with an additional burden of having the clock started on him to find a new partner, as well as hunt fellow men and women in the process.
It doesn't take the viewer long to figure out that the popular society norm is for neither men nor women to ever be alone. Moreover, the wrinkle is to find some common disposition between the two partners. The main character finds himself in a remediation camp (hotel), whose goal is for him to either find a suitable match or be turned into an animal of his choice.
He witnesses two other men approach their predicament differently. One is willing to lie in order to forge a relationship, while the other appears to be resigned that there's no hope and time will run out. After the main character's attempt to get in line with societal norms falls apart, he runs out into the wild and meets up with the rebel group of loners.
The loners represent the counterculture group. They are the polar opposite of the accepted society norm, but just as stringent in their rules of remaining separate with no emotions or actions relating to another person. He cannot conform to this group either, as he finds a woman that represents his match, while also 'luckily' having the same disposition as him. Soon, their relationship is exposed to the leader of the group who proceeds to disable the main character's love interest.
Upon learning of his love's fate, he does everything he can for her to provide a better quality of life. But he knows that they can't remain in this counterculture group. Therefore, one night they execute an escape plan into the city. Their plan is to rejoin the popular accepted society as a couple. There's just one problem, they are no longer equals in their disposition. The movie ends with the main character faced with a choice - whether or not to disable himself in order to make him and his love interest equal.
The way I see it, the movie takes a vicious Kubrickesque swing with a baseball bat at what is accepted and not accepted in modern standards of dating and single lifestyles. There are two crude side points made by the author that are a direct critique of the accepted societal myths. One is the use of a child to resolve marital difficulties, which is obviously counter-intuitive. Second is that true happiness is more important than the happiness or well being of your partner, which is true to a degree. However, unless the partner is mentally disturbed, it is not a life or death situation. While I don't see the modern society as polarized or as radical as the movie portrays, it does bring a valid point of what acceptance by culture and counterculture today requires.
The movie's lack of resolution at the end is a rendered judgment upon society - that even though the main character has successfully fled both groups, he still remains a slave to the societal norms that seek a similar disposition between him and his love interest.
I give the movie a 4 out of 5 thumbs up! The movie is funny and contains a number of noteworthy performances. But while the satire is very nicely set up and executed, the societal critique that it deals is only partially justified and is usually not exercised to the abstracted extent.
Sunday, September 4, 2016
Colin Kaepernick
An NFL quarterback named Colin Kaepernick decided to sit during the national anthem in a preseason game last week, while the rest of his teammates stood to honor the nation and the flag. The act has drawn both support and condemnation immediately. As a professional athlete, hearing your national anthem is routine at sporting events and is done to honor the country and the people who have served to protect it since its inception.
In a statement given to reporters after the game, he explained that he will not honor the flag in a country that oppresses black people and people of color. He went on further to say that this is bigger than football and that there are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder. He went on to say that if football and endorsements are taken away from him, he will know that he made the right decision.
I don't see a big deal with Colin not standing for the anthem, since it is not required by the league and there's no requirement by the sporting venue, nor the personnel serving the sporting event. You don't want to stand, you don't stand. As long as your teammates are alright with you doing your own thing while the rest of the team stands for the anthem and the team unity is not defined by this act, you're not hurting anyone.
But here are the reasons why this entire episode stinks of opportunism. In 2015, he lost his starting job with the San Francisco 49ers after a long string of underwhelming performances. This followed his request to be traded during the off-season. Without a resolution to the request, during the preseason friction with the management has increased and questions about his future in the NFL became a lot more pronounced. Fighting just to stay on the team, the situation did not look good.
A statement like the one he made during last week's preseason game's national anthem was sure to raise eyebrows and make any decision on Kaepernick's future by the 49ers a lot more scrutinized, if in fact the franchise were to decide to release him. By taking the civil rights stand, his place on the team became secure, at least as a backup quarterback for the time being. No franchise would take a chance at alienating a large portion of its fans by cutting a player who took a civil rights stand.
The civil rights issues he has addressed didn't just occur during this off-season. They have been front and center in every publication and social media site for the past three years. Yet he made no recorded mention in the media with this respect and did not provide anything that could be construed as a distraction to his team until his own future in football was on the line.
Well known NBA athletes like Dwayne Wade, Chris Paul, LeBron James and Carmelo Anthony made more powerful and more effective civil rights statements in the same arena during this year without refusing to stand for the national anthem. Anthony stood proudly for the anthem, as it played during the Olympics in Rio, as he and team USA won the gold. But then again, these athletes didn't have to assure themselves of a roster spot.
Whoever Colin Kaepernick's Public Relations agent is, I believe they are doing a bang-up job of keeping him employed... for now.
In a statement given to reporters after the game, he explained that he will not honor the flag in a country that oppresses black people and people of color. He went on further to say that this is bigger than football and that there are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder. He went on to say that if football and endorsements are taken away from him, he will know that he made the right decision.
I don't see a big deal with Colin not standing for the anthem, since it is not required by the league and there's no requirement by the sporting venue, nor the personnel serving the sporting event. You don't want to stand, you don't stand. As long as your teammates are alright with you doing your own thing while the rest of the team stands for the anthem and the team unity is not defined by this act, you're not hurting anyone.
But here are the reasons why this entire episode stinks of opportunism. In 2015, he lost his starting job with the San Francisco 49ers after a long string of underwhelming performances. This followed his request to be traded during the off-season. Without a resolution to the request, during the preseason friction with the management has increased and questions about his future in the NFL became a lot more pronounced. Fighting just to stay on the team, the situation did not look good.
A statement like the one he made during last week's preseason game's national anthem was sure to raise eyebrows and make any decision on Kaepernick's future by the 49ers a lot more scrutinized, if in fact the franchise were to decide to release him. By taking the civil rights stand, his place on the team became secure, at least as a backup quarterback for the time being. No franchise would take a chance at alienating a large portion of its fans by cutting a player who took a civil rights stand.
The civil rights issues he has addressed didn't just occur during this off-season. They have been front and center in every publication and social media site for the past three years. Yet he made no recorded mention in the media with this respect and did not provide anything that could be construed as a distraction to his team until his own future in football was on the line.
Well known NBA athletes like Dwayne Wade, Chris Paul, LeBron James and Carmelo Anthony made more powerful and more effective civil rights statements in the same arena during this year without refusing to stand for the national anthem. Anthony stood proudly for the anthem, as it played during the Olympics in Rio, as he and team USA won the gold. But then again, these athletes didn't have to assure themselves of a roster spot.
Whoever Colin Kaepernick's Public Relations agent is, I believe they are doing a bang-up job of keeping him employed... for now.
Thursday, June 30, 2016
Brexit and Inevitability
By now the global media outlets, as well as true journalists, have had a full week to digest the fallout from the people of the United Kingdom saying 'no more' to their subordination to the European Union rules and regulations - the popular vote known as Brexit. True Democracy isn't pretty, but it is definitive. That is because it shows that you cannot abandon the people at large and expect them to support the status quo when important decisions are on the line. Yes, once in a while the people will kick the establishment in the ass for not paying attention to them. That's what True Democracy is about.
The people in charge wanted Great Britain to stay within the European Union organization, because it would have been great for the banks who count debts as assets, for the political class that sheers money from kickbacks & sweetheart deals, and for the businesses that depend upon cheaper labor via freedom of movement clause. All the while, the small guys who catch fish, grow crops, etc. would be subjected by the impractical homogenized collective farm style rules that make it all but impossible to earn a living wage. Oh and the kicker - to continue to fund the European Union's financial debt, the United Kingdom's citizens were forced to "contribute" via public funds to prevent the giant ticking debt time bomb that is the EU from going off one more cycle.
A lot of people from the Remain camp have accused the Leave campaign advocates of using fear and racism to get the people to vote. They have accused them of having no plan, no leadership and no clue. However, take the following points into the consideration. One, did the Remain campaign wave a financial doomsday flag of fear in front of all the British citizens? Second, does the status quo need a plan to continue doing things the same as they were before? Lastly, if they were any kind of effective leaders, why were they unable to convince the European Union to compromise and provide common sense regulations for its people?
If you look objectively, the incompetence in leadership is glaringly evident on both sides of the Brexit vote. However if I were a British citizen, I would choose to go independently with my Incompetent and British-centric leadership; rather than continuing with Incompetent Euro-centric leadership that gets taken advantage of by the European Union collective farm system and is unable to effectively protect the interests of their own country's people.
Over a long enough timeline, the will of the people cannot be suppressed in an environment where the average person is taken advantage of by their government. By vote or by blood, it is inevitabe. Any drastic change such as this is bound to have growing pains - that is also inevitable. But nothing worthwhile is ever achieved without that initial failure.
I thank the people of Great Britain for showing the rest of the world what a direct Democracy looks like - leaving leadership in fear of the people, not the other way around. The rest of the world governments that neglect their people are officially on notice as of this vote.
The people in charge wanted Great Britain to stay within the European Union organization, because it would have been great for the banks who count debts as assets, for the political class that sheers money from kickbacks & sweetheart deals, and for the businesses that depend upon cheaper labor via freedom of movement clause. All the while, the small guys who catch fish, grow crops, etc. would be subjected by the impractical homogenized collective farm style rules that make it all but impossible to earn a living wage. Oh and the kicker - to continue to fund the European Union's financial debt, the United Kingdom's citizens were forced to "contribute" via public funds to prevent the giant ticking debt time bomb that is the EU from going off one more cycle.
A lot of people from the Remain camp have accused the Leave campaign advocates of using fear and racism to get the people to vote. They have accused them of having no plan, no leadership and no clue. However, take the following points into the consideration. One, did the Remain campaign wave a financial doomsday flag of fear in front of all the British citizens? Second, does the status quo need a plan to continue doing things the same as they were before? Lastly, if they were any kind of effective leaders, why were they unable to convince the European Union to compromise and provide common sense regulations for its people?
If you look objectively, the incompetence in leadership is glaringly evident on both sides of the Brexit vote. However if I were a British citizen, I would choose to go independently with my Incompetent and British-centric leadership; rather than continuing with Incompetent Euro-centric leadership that gets taken advantage of by the European Union collective farm system and is unable to effectively protect the interests of their own country's people.
Over a long enough timeline, the will of the people cannot be suppressed in an environment where the average person is taken advantage of by their government. By vote or by blood, it is inevitabe. Any drastic change such as this is bound to have growing pains - that is also inevitable. But nothing worthwhile is ever achieved without that initial failure.
I thank the people of Great Britain for showing the rest of the world what a direct Democracy looks like - leaving leadership in fear of the people, not the other way around. The rest of the world governments that neglect their people are officially on notice as of this vote.
Sunday, March 20, 2016
Hillaryous Liar
Hillary Clinton may well become the Democratic Party's nominee for the President of the United States. And while we have been verbally bombarded enough to accept that the political version of reality includes a certain degree of bending the truth, the amount of straightforward lies told by the former secretary of state Hillary Clinton is astounding and obliterate that standard entirely.
The plethora of events in her life around politics support the fact that she is a pathological liar. She lies to achieve a certain political objective every time. And we have witnessed these lies in plain view over her entire career. Some highlights of these spectacular lies are listed below, starting with the most recent, and ending with her unethical role in the Watergate proceedings. The lack of ownership of what she says and inability to fact-check is truly remarkable. Yes, Hillary, you are a natural politician - you have learned to shamelessly lie in order to get what you want.
1) Hillary Clinton's claim that she didn't know where Bernie Sanders was, when she was trying to push forward the healthcare reform in 1993 and 1994, when not only was he standing right behind her, but she also turned around and thank him directly in a speech.
2) Hillary Clinton's claim that while Bernie Sanders criticizes Bill Clinton and Barak Obama, while he doesn't criticize George W. Bush. That was a flat out lie, which Sanders struck down with "I gather Secretary Clinton hasn’t listened to too many of my speeches".
3) Hillary Clinton's use of personal email account for official business purposes. As the Secretary of State, she has undoubtedly had a lot of classified information pass through her email account. Which is why it is important to use the official email account which comes with all the security protections - so that no classified information may fall in the wrong hands. Her action is currently under Federal investigation, for which she may very well get indicted; unless she greased the wheels of the Federal investigators like she has of the Democratic super-delegates. Her excuse for using the private email account instead of an official one is that her predecessors were doing the same thing and that it is no big deal. Hypocrisy runs rampant in her logic. If it is no big deal, Hillary, then why did you send out a notice to all of your staff stating to only use their official email accounts when you took office?
4) Hillary Clinton's responsibility on the Benghazi tragedy. As the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton lobbied for a reduced military presence around the American embassy in order give the impression to Libyan people that the United States. But in that office, her primary allegiance should be to the American people and to keep the American people safe. Just as she has in much of her career, she has put the interests of foreigners ahead of her own countrymen. As a result of the diminished security around the embassy, American lives were lost. However, when asked about her role, she decided to play dumb and say that decisions about the security of the embassy compound were made by other individuals.
5) Hillary Clinton's "Clinton Foundation" is a Slush Fund. She and her husband have consistently boasted about how much good this non-profit organization provides. However, the figures just don't add up. When you bring in $140 million dollars in donations and only pay out $9 million in aid, while spending the rest on payroll, administration fees, conferences, flights, etc.; you're helping yourself first and foremost. While not directly on the foundation's payroll, the Clintons do receive free flights and other perks that fall into the administration fees category. Lying to the American public is natural for Hillary, but when you do it under the guise of aiding charities and noble causes, that's downright disgusting and fraudulent.
.
.
.
999) Hillary Clinton was dishonest and unethical from the very beginning. Forging political relationships with Ted Kennedy's campaign team and lying to skew the rules in his favor at the sake of due process in the investigation of Richard Nixon's actions leading up to the Watergate scandal. While working on the Watergate investigation in 1974, the lawyer who shared an office with her, John Labovitz, came to the Chief of Staff of the House Judiciary Committee to report Hillary Clinton for "her erroneous legal opinions and efforts to deny Nixon legal counsel". Upon further investigation, that same Chief of Staff who supervised Hillary Clinton, came to the conclusion that she "engaged in a variety of self-serving unethical practices in violation of House rules". That lie was also politically motivated - she was doing everything in her power to aid Ted Kennedy's potential bid for the White House.
So when you head to the polls in the Primary, remember that we have no idea what self-interests Hillary will bring with her to the White House. But we can be certain of one thing - it will be primarily a self-serving tenure at the expense of the American people.
The plethora of events in her life around politics support the fact that she is a pathological liar. She lies to achieve a certain political objective every time. And we have witnessed these lies in plain view over her entire career. Some highlights of these spectacular lies are listed below, starting with the most recent, and ending with her unethical role in the Watergate proceedings. The lack of ownership of what she says and inability to fact-check is truly remarkable. Yes, Hillary, you are a natural politician - you have learned to shamelessly lie in order to get what you want.
1) Hillary Clinton's claim that she didn't know where Bernie Sanders was, when she was trying to push forward the healthcare reform in 1993 and 1994, when not only was he standing right behind her, but she also turned around and thank him directly in a speech.
You have to admit, this is pretty funny.LIKE our page at Groopspeak for more!
Posted by Groopspeak on Saturday, March 12, 2016
2) Hillary Clinton's claim that while Bernie Sanders criticizes Bill Clinton and Barak Obama, while he doesn't criticize George W. Bush. That was a flat out lie, which Sanders struck down with "I gather Secretary Clinton hasn’t listened to too many of my speeches".
3) Hillary Clinton's use of personal email account for official business purposes. As the Secretary of State, she has undoubtedly had a lot of classified information pass through her email account. Which is why it is important to use the official email account which comes with all the security protections - so that no classified information may fall in the wrong hands. Her action is currently under Federal investigation, for which she may very well get indicted; unless she greased the wheels of the Federal investigators like she has of the Democratic super-delegates. Her excuse for using the private email account instead of an official one is that her predecessors were doing the same thing and that it is no big deal. Hypocrisy runs rampant in her logic. If it is no big deal, Hillary, then why did you send out a notice to all of your staff stating to only use their official email accounts when you took office?
4) Hillary Clinton's responsibility on the Benghazi tragedy. As the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton lobbied for a reduced military presence around the American embassy in order give the impression to Libyan people that the United States. But in that office, her primary allegiance should be to the American people and to keep the American people safe. Just as she has in much of her career, she has put the interests of foreigners ahead of her own countrymen. As a result of the diminished security around the embassy, American lives were lost. However, when asked about her role, she decided to play dumb and say that decisions about the security of the embassy compound were made by other individuals.
5) Hillary Clinton's "Clinton Foundation" is a Slush Fund. She and her husband have consistently boasted about how much good this non-profit organization provides. However, the figures just don't add up. When you bring in $140 million dollars in donations and only pay out $9 million in aid, while spending the rest on payroll, administration fees, conferences, flights, etc.; you're helping yourself first and foremost. While not directly on the foundation's payroll, the Clintons do receive free flights and other perks that fall into the administration fees category. Lying to the American public is natural for Hillary, but when you do it under the guise of aiding charities and noble causes, that's downright disgusting and fraudulent.
.
.
.
999) Hillary Clinton was dishonest and unethical from the very beginning. Forging political relationships with Ted Kennedy's campaign team and lying to skew the rules in his favor at the sake of due process in the investigation of Richard Nixon's actions leading up to the Watergate scandal. While working on the Watergate investigation in 1974, the lawyer who shared an office with her, John Labovitz, came to the Chief of Staff of the House Judiciary Committee to report Hillary Clinton for "her erroneous legal opinions and efforts to deny Nixon legal counsel". Upon further investigation, that same Chief of Staff who supervised Hillary Clinton, came to the conclusion that she "engaged in a variety of self-serving unethical practices in violation of House rules". That lie was also politically motivated - she was doing everything in her power to aid Ted Kennedy's potential bid for the White House.
So when you head to the polls in the Primary, remember that we have no idea what self-interests Hillary will bring with her to the White House. But we can be certain of one thing - it will be primarily a self-serving tenure at the expense of the American people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)