Novo

66. dan Obamine administracije - Historija

66. dan Obamine administracije - Historija

Ovim danom dominirao je ekonomski samit G20 u Londonu. Predsjednik je započeo svoj dan sastankom sa južnokorejskim predsjednikom. Zatim je zakazao doručak G20, nakon čega su uslijedile plenarne sjednice i ručak. U poslijepodnevnim satima održane su dodatne sjednice, nakon čega su uslijedili sastanci s čelnicima Saudijske Arabije i Indije.

Većina posmatrača smatra da su sastanci koji su bili posvećeni pomaganju svjetskoj ekonomiji u izbjegavanju globalne depresije bili efikasni. G20 se složila da poveća sredstva Međunarodnog monetarnog fonda za 1,2 triliona dolara.

Predsjednik je potom održao konferenciju za novinare


Karine Jean-Pierre ulazi u istoriju dajući brifing Bijeloj kući

VAŠINGTON (AP)-Karine Jean-Pierre postala je u srijedu prva otvoreno homoseksualna žena koja je održala brifing za Bijelu kuću, a tek druga crnka u istoriji koja je preuzela tu ulogu.

Jean-Pierre, zamjenica glavnog sekretara za štampu Bijele kuće, obavještavala je novinare na avionu Air Force One, ali je u srijedu prvi put prije tribine otišla na televizijski brifing.

"Velika mi je čast što danas stojim ovdje", rekla je Jean-Pierre novinarima na pitanje o svom istorijskom zaokretu. "Jasno je da predsjednik vjeruje da je zastupanje važno i zahvalan sam što mi je pružio ovu priliku."

Judy Smith, koja je bila zamjenica sekretara za štampu predsjednika Georgea H.W. Bush 1991. bila je prva crnka koja je preuzela tu ulogu.

Jean-Pierre se smatra potencijalnim nasljednikom sadašnje sekretarice za štampu Bijele kuće Jen Psaki, koja je javno rekla da namjerava služiti u toj ulozi tek oko godinu dana, a pojavljivanje u srijedu doživljeno je kao svojevrsna audicija za taj posao. Jean-Pierre postavlja zahtjeve za štampu i često se pojavljuje za Bidenovu administraciju na vijestima o kablovskoj televiziji.

“Danas je veliki dan u pres uredu i @WhiteHouse. Moj partner u istini &#[email protected] danas radi svoj prvi potpuni brifing sa govornice i sam stvara istoriju. Ali činiti njenu pravu pravdu znači i prepoznati njen talenat, njenu briljantnost i njen divan duh ”, napisao je Psaki na Twitteru.

U srijedu je, poput Psakijeve i generacija govornika iz Bijele kuće prije nje, Jean-Pierre u velikoj mjeri naslonio na fasciklu punu pripremljenih bilješki i izjava, dok je postavljala pitanja o temama uključujući Olimpijske igre u Tokiju i porijeklo pandemije koronavirusa.

Jean-Pierre, koja je rođena na Martiniku od haićanskih emigranata, a odrasla je u New Yorku, javno je govorila o tome kako su njezina imigrantska iskustva utjecala na njezinu dugu političku karijeru.

"Ja sam sve što Donald Trump mrzi", rekla je u videu za progresivnu organizaciju MoveOn 2018. "Ja sam crnka, ja sam gej, ja sam mama. Oba moja roditelja su rođena na Haitiju. ”

Tokom kampanje 2020. Jean-Pierre je sada bio šef kabineta potpredsjednice Kamale Harris. Prethodno je radila na obje predsjedničke kampanje Baracka Obame, naposljetku je bila nacionalna zamjenica direktora državnog bojišta za kampanju 2012. godine. U međuvremenu, Jean-Pierre je radio u Obaminoj administraciji, služio je kao veza Bijele kuće s Ministarstvom rada, a kasnije i kao regionalni direktor u Uredu za politička pitanja Bijele kuće.

Jean-Pierre je jedan od nekolicine potencijalnih nasljednika Psakija, na listi koja uključuje Symone Sanders, Harrisovu glasnogovornicu, koja je umanjila nagađanja o njenom interesu za tu ulogu. Sanders je u srijedu pokazala podršku Jean-Pierreu putem tvita u kojem joj je čestitala.

„Podići ću svoju šalicu kave tokom brifinga za novinare WH -a u znak proslave reprezentacije, sposobnosti i sjaja. Preci su ponosni ”, napisala je na Twitteru.


Dajući nam svoju e -poštu, pristajete na pregled dnevnih vijesti Marine Corps Times.

"Otrov s kojim su krenuli na ljude ... jednostavno mi je to odvratno", rekao je Saran. Ti pripadnici službe “optuženi su i prijetili im, uništeni su životi ljudi”.

Danas odbori za ispravke vojnih evidencija ne mogu dati pouzdane podatke o broju žalbi koje se odnose na odbijanje vakcinacije protiv antraksa. Kada je Military Times nedavno pitao o slučajevima antraksa, vojska, mornarica i zračne snage mogle su potvrditi samo dva specifična slučaja.

To je uprkos jeziku u prijedlogu zakona o potrošnji na odbranu iz 2001. godine u kojem je Kongres rekao sekretarima za svaku od grana da uspostave sistem za „praćenje, evidentiranje i prijavljivanje razdvajanja pripadnika oružanih snaga“ koji su rezultat odbijanja da učestvuju u vakcini protiv antraksa program imunizacije. "

/> Pfizer vakcina se priprema u klinici za vakcinaciju protiv COVID-19. (Elaine Thompson/AP)

Prije mnogo godina, službene izjave Pentagona ukazivale su na to da je oko 350 vojnika odbilo vakcinu između 1998. i 2000. Najmanje tri desetine njih bili su na vojnom sudu, a stotine ih je napustilo službu kako bi izbjeglo vakcinu, prema izjavama Pentagona iz 2005. godine. najmanje je još 149 vojnika istisnuto iz službe zbog odbijanja vakcine od 2000. do 2004. Ti brojevi nisu uključivali trupe koje su odbile, ali im je bilo dozvoljeno da napuste službu bez kazne ili im je jednostavno dozvoljeno da ne prime hitac i nisu imale posljedice.

Pukovnik vazdušnih snaga u penziji Thomas Rempfer bio je glasni kritičar programa vakcinacije. Napustio je Nacionalnu gardu vazdušne garde Konektikata 1999. godine kao kapetan zbog odbijanja vakcine protiv antraksa, ali je mogao nastaviti karijeru u Rezervatu vazduhoplovstva.

Rempfer i njegov kolega pilot Garde, potpukovnik Russ Dingle predvodili su napore, uključujući svjedočenje Kongresa i tužbe, kako bi se obustavila obavezna vakcinacija sve dok se ne riješi nekoliko velikih problema s programom.

Dingle je umro od raka 2005. godine, Rempfer nastavlja sa zagovaranjem nacrta zakona - u Dinglovo ime da oda počast ulozi pokojnog oficira kao intelektualne inspiracije njihovog zajedničkog rada - koja bi od Pentagona zahtijevala da proaktivno ispravi evidenciju pripadnika službe koji su kažnjeni u bilo koji oblik njihovog odbijanja vakcine protiv antraksa.

U tu svrhu, Rempfer je stvorio web stranicu, Hoping4Justice.org, koja katalogizira ključne dokumente i hronologiju događaja u programu cijepljenja protiv antraksa i nedavni uspjeh nekih pripadnika službe da se njihovi zapisi poprave gotovo dvije decenije kasnije.

"Moraju se uložiti dobro oglašeni napori kako bi se ovim bivšim pripadnicima službe stavilo do znanja da postoji prilika za ispravljanje njihove evidencije", rekao je Rempfer za Military Times.

Prema sudskim spisima, veterani su tražili ispravke evidencije putem svojih odgovarajućih odbora od početka 2000 -ih do najmanje početka 2010 -ih. Nakon što im je to odbijeno, neki od tih veterana su se žalili federalnim građanskim sudovima.

Sudska zabrana 2004. godine zaustavila je vojni program obavezne vakcinacije, proglasivši prethodnih šest godina primjene vakcine nezakonitim.

Ipak, kada su se pojedini veterani žalili na njihove slučajeve na saveznom sudu, sudije su uglavnom odbacile te zahtjeve, priklonivši se presudi Apelacionog suda Sjedinjenih Država za oružane snage koja je odbacila argumente koristeći zabranu iz 2004. godine.

Rempfer je pisao svakoj administraciji od predsjednika Baracka Obame. On je također izradio nacrt zakona koji će Kongres donijeti i koji bi potisnuo službe da riješe problem. Do sada nijedna nije dobila podršku.

/> Air Force Tech. Sgt. Alexisa Humphrey priprema se za primjenu cjepiva Moderna protiv COVID-19 u zračnoj bazi Kunsan, Južna Koreja, 29. prosinca 2020. (Američke snage Koreje putem Getty Images)

OD SILE KARIJERE DO IZNENADNOG ISPUŠTANJA

Viši vazduhoplovac Jeffrey Bettendorf volio je život u vazduhoplovstvu. Pridružio se prije šest godina, a već je planirao raditi punih 30 godina. Mehaničar svemirske opreme na zemlji, bio je stacioniran u vazduhoplovnoj bazi Travis u Kaliforniji 1998. godine kada je njegova eskadrila čula da će uzeti novu vakcinu protiv antraksa.

Bettendorf je rekao za Military Times da je većina njegovih kolega avijatičara bila nonšalantna o tome, u osnovi gledajući na to kao na "samo još jedan hitac". Ali bio je znatiželjan pa je započeo istraživanje na internetu, gdje je pronašao vladine izvještaje, svjedočenja i grupe koje razmjenjuju materijale o sigurnosnim pitanjima u tvornici za proizvodnju cjepiva, zajedno s mogućim vezama sa Zalivskim ratnim sindromom.

Sastavio je dvije fascikle od 3 inča pune štampanog materijala i zakazao sastanak sa svojim komandantom.

Viši vazduhoplovac nije stigao daleko. Zapovjednik nije ni pogledao registrator. CO mu je rekao da će se, ako ne izvede hitac, suočiti sa smanjenjem ranga, novčanih kazni i dodatne dažbine dok to ne učini.

"Zatim me poslao psihijatru, rekavši da ću odbiti ovu vakcinu, mora da sa mnom nešto nije u redu", rekla je Bettendorf.

Dobio je nepravomoćnu kaznu. U isto vrijeme, neki od njegovih kolega avijatičara izvještavali su o nuspojavama nakon snimanja. Nekoliko mu je reklo da bi i oni voljeli da su to odbili, ali su se bojali posljedica.

Bettendorf je smanjen na E-3 i otpušten 1999. Veći dio sljedeće godine činilo se kao da je svaki dan izvještač u njegovoj kući ili na telefonu želio ispričati svoju priču.

Neko je vrijeme pratio razvoj programa i ono što je radila vojska, ali je na kraju morao odstupiti.

U narednih nekoliko godina tri puta je odlazio u vazduhoplovne snage kako bi popravio svoje podatke, ali nije nigdje stigao.

Bettendorf je rekao da vjeruje da je nakon zabrane iz 2004. godine kojom je zaustavljena obavezna vakcinacija vojska trebala pojačati.

"Čim su dobrovoljni učinili taj program, trebali su se obratiti pogođenim vojnim članovima i ponuditi im natrag ugovore i pustiti ih nazad", rekao je Bettendorf.

/> Gladys George, predsjednica i izvršna direktorica bolnice Lenox Hill, govori medijima o smrti Kathy T. Nguyen od inhalacionog antraksa 31. oktobra 2001. u New Yorku. Ubrzo nakon terorističkih napada 11. septembra, pisma protkana antraksom počela su se pojavljivati ​​u američkoj pošti. Pet Amerikanaca je ubijeno, a 17 im je pozlilo u najgorem biološkom napadu u historiji SAD -a. (Mario Tama/Getty Images)

NA SVOJ PUT DO MORSKOG SLUŽBENIKA, ZATIM JE IZBACIO

James Muhammad je došao u Korpus marinaca nešto kasnije od mnogih svojih vršnjaka, ali je brzo nadoknadio izgubljeno vrijeme.

Muhammad se prijavio 1999. godine sa 24 godine i postao narednik za manje od tri godine nakon što je bio vrhunski izvođač i diplomirao sa počastima na više programa.

Krajem 2001, on je predao paket da postane oficir i avijatičar Korpusa marine. Otišao je na jedno raspoređivanje odmah nakon 11. septembra, planiran je za drugi i željan šanse, rekao je za Military Times.

Zapravo je primio vakcinu protiv gripa nekoliko mjeseci prije nego što je saznao da dolazi vakcinacija protiv antraksa. Ali u međuvremenu je postao svjestan vjerskog edikta protiv cjepiva. Vjerni musliman, suočio se s izborom: Ne poslušati naredbe svojih zapovjednika ili prekršiti vlastita vjerska uvjerenja.

Do tada je Korpus prilagođavao njegova vjerska uvjerenja, dajući mu vremena za obavljanje svakodnevnih molitvi i post tokom perioda obilježavanja. Muhamed je pretpostavio da će dobiti vjersko izuzeće od zahtjeva za vakcinom.

Čak i ako nije dobio hitac, potpuno je očekivao i želio je raspoređivanje sa svojom jedinicom. "Nisam pokušavao dati političku izjavu", rekao je nedavno Muhammad.

Služeći u to vrijeme u Alpha četi, 8. komunikacijskom bataljonu, u kampu Lejeune, Sjeverna Karolina, Muhammad je rekao komandi da odmjerava može li izvesti hitac ili ne i treba li mu više vremena. Ali njegov komandant je rekao da je Muhamed već donio svoju odluku.

Dakle, umjesto raspoređivanja, primanja provizije i letećih krila, zvjezdani narednik krenuo je na vojni sud. Ljudi kojima je vjerovao i poštovao su mu okrenuli leđa.

"Ova odluka je prekinula mnoge odnose", rekao je.

„Kroz vojni postupak i istražni postupak priča se toliko zbunila i izvrnula da su ljudi počeli govoriti poput„ plaši se rata “,„ prigovarač savjesti “,„ gnjavi se “i sve druge vrste likvidacija, od kojih nijedno nije bilo tačno ”, rekao je Muhammad.

/> Vojnici sa 101. vazdušno -desantnom vojskom popunjavaju obrasce za vakcinaciju i testiranje u februaru 2003. u Ft. Campbell, Ky. Svih 20.000 vojnika Fort Campbell -a dobilo je injekcije zbog antraksa, malih boginja i drugih hemijskih i bioloških rizika dok je 101. bio spreman za raspoređivanje. (Rusty Russell/Getty Images)

Suočio se s vojnim sudom u aprilu 2003. Preko svog vojnog advokata rečeno mu je da komanda može zatražiti smrtnu kaznu i da neće imati mnogo prostora da iznese svoj slučaj na osnovu medicinskih ili vjerskih problema. Jedino bi pitanje bilo hoće li prekršiti naredbu.

Muhamed je odlučio da se izjasni o krivici, samo sa laičkim razumijevanjem složenih pravnih pitanja o kojima je riječ. Uhapšen je privatno i odslužio je dio kazne od 60 dana u zatvoru prije nego što se nakratko vratio u svoju jedinicu, a zatim je stavljen na "žalbeno odsustvo", u osnovi neplaćeni status koji čeka rezultate drugih sudskih predmeta koji bi mogli utjecati na odluku u njegov slučaj.

Svi poslovi koje je imao u Jacksonvilleu u Sjevernoj Americi nisu bili zadovoljavajući, jer je tamo bio marinac. Dok je čekao, kuća mu je bila otuđena, morao je prodati automobil i vratio se u područje Washingtona, DC.

Kad je pročitao da savezni sudija izdaje naredbu o prekidu obaveznog programa vakcine, pomislio je da bi to moglo promijeniti sve.

„Svaki dan sam provjeravao svoje poštansko sanduče čekajući da se pismo ili telefonski poziv vrati na aktivnu dužnost, da su shvatili da su pogriješili i da to žele ispraviti“, rekao je. "Ali to pismo ili telefonski poziv nikada nisu stigli."

Nazvao je Washington, D.C., Mornaričko dvorište gdje mu je "dodijeljeno" dok je bio u žalbenom statusu. Nisu imali evidenciju o njemu. Tek godinu dana kasnije pojavio se na njihovom popisu.

Muhamed se žalio na njegov slučaj, ali advokat koji ga je zastupao nije ni spomenuo sudijino naređenje da prekine program. To je tek kasnije saznao čitajući mišljenje suda.

Čini se da je memorandum iz jula 2018. koji je uputio Pentagon da razmotri zahtjeve za ispravke koji uključuju nejednakost ili nepravdu direktno povezan sa Muhamedovim slučajem i priložen njegovom zahtjevu za reviziju.

Krajem 2019. godine dobio je prve dobre vijesti nakon dugo vremena.

Odbor se složio i preuredio vrijeme briga iz njegovog DD-214, vratio mu čin i davao zaostale beneficije. Sjedište marinskog korpusa izdalo mu je drugu medalju za dobro ponašanje i dovršilo njegovo časno otpuštanje.

U međuvremenu, Muhammed je sa suprugom dobro živio, odgajao djecu, pokrenuo posao, postao civilni pilot i bio na nekoliko pozicija u organizacijama zasnovanim na zajednici. Ali bile su mu potrebne godine da s vršnjacima podijeli da je bio u vojsci ili da se ponovo poveže sa kolegama veteranima.

O Toddu Southu

Todd South je pisao o kriminalu, sudovima, vladi i vojsci za više publikacija od 2004. godine i proglašen je finalistom Pulitzera 2014. za koautor projekta o zastrašivanju svjedoka. Todd je veteran marinaca u Iračkom ratu.


Je li Trumpova administracija učinila nešto pozitivno?

Naravno da moram započeti ovaj post sa obaveznim odricanjem odgovornosti da prezirem Trumpa i gotovo sve njegove administratore, nemaju kamion sa Republikanskom strankom, te ću glasati za Bidena/Harrisa u novembru. Rekao sam ove stvari dovoljno često da čitaoci trebaju znati gdje stojim, ali za ovakav post moram to ponoviti. (Neki & e#8217m još uvijek nazivaju “alt-righter ” nekim lošim e-poštom.)

Postoje neki ljudi ili mediji koji preziru Trumpa čak i gore od mene, ako je to moguće, i nikada ne bi priznali da bi njegova administracija mogla postići nešto pozitivno. HuffPost je jedno od ovih sajtova.

Ali u protekle četiri godine mogu navesti tačno tri stvari koje je Trumpova administracija učinila i koje smatram pozitivnim postignućima. Prvi je čin same administracije i gotovo se sigurno nije dogodio na Trumpovu inicijativu. Drugi je sporazum između dvije zemlje o kojem je administracija (a možda i Trump, iako sam sumnjiv) možda imala ruku. Treći je izražavanje podrške djelovanju demokratije nasuprot diktaturi u Venecueli. Ne mogu više da mislim. Vaš posao čitatelja je ili kritizirati moje izbore, ne ostavljajući pozitivna postignuća ove administracije, ili ih dodati, opravdavajući zašto je vaš dodatak bio pozitivan čin.

1.) Promjena odredbi Naslova IX za fakultete i univerzitete. Ovdje možete pročitati moje postove o ovim promjenama i zašto mislim da su pozitivne. (Oni osiguravaju pravednije donošenje presuda u optužbama za nedolično ponašanje na fakultetima i univerzitetima.) U anketi se većina čitalaca prešutno složila s odredbama izmjena, posebno novom upotrebom “ jasnih i uvjerljivih dokaza ” standarda umjesto “prisutnost dokaza ” standard koji promovira Obamina administracija, ali samo poslije krivični sudovi su istražili optužbe. Ove promjene došle su iz Trumpovog Odjela za obrazovanje, na čelu s Betsy DeVos.

2.) Sporazum između Ujedinjenih Arapskih Emirata i Izraela o normalizaciji odnosa. Ovaj sporazum ne samo da smanjuje napetosti između dvije zemlje, već pokazuje da arapska zemlja može napredovati u uspostavljanju mira s Izraelom, već je, što je najvažnije, Izrael pristao da odmah prestane s planovima za aneksiju dijelova Zapadne obale. Za mene je ovo znak nade da bi se Izrael čak mogao odreći kontrole nad većim dijelom Zapadne obale, što je apsolutno kritično ako postoji mir između Izraela i Palestine i posredovanje u rješenju dvije države, što žarko žarko prihvaćam želja. Ali palestinske vlade su odbile ovaj sporazum, koji je zasigurno posredovan uz pomoć američkog State Departmenta, pa iako mislim da je ovo uglavnom dobar sporazum, zaista ne vjerujem da će promovirati mir između Izraela i Palestine. Kao i uvijek, očajavam zbog takvog mira.

3.) Podržavanje Juana Guaida umjesto diktatora Nicolasa Madura na mjestu predsjednika Venecuele, nakon čega je uslijedio embargo i podignuta optužnica protiv Madura zbog “narko-terorizma ”) (da ne spominjem slanje humanitarne pomoći koja je blokirana). Ovo je bila izričita Trumpova izjava, i iako to što kažete da ne podržavate demokratiju ne računa mnogo, a Maduro i dalje ostaje na vlasti, nakon te izjave uslijedili su opipljivi i, po mom mišljenju, pozitivni postupci.


Obama/Biden -ov glavni direktor za raznolikost koji je predsjednika Trumpa uporedio s Hitlerom vraćen je na posao nakon što istraga nije pokazala problem s njegovim tvitovima

Nabavite sjajnu Patriot Gear danas! Platite samo S & ampH za većinu artikala!

Bidenov bolesni i odvratni 'glavni oficir za raznolikost' u vojsci, Richard Torres-Estrada, vraćen je na svoju poziciju. Bajdenova banda, koja pokušava našu vojsku učiniti bezvrijednom, slabom i probuđenom, ponovo je sretna.

Evo jednog od tvitova Torres-Estrade:


Prvo smo izvijestili o ovom krajnje lijevom besramnom hakovanju u martu:

Nekoliko dana kasnije izvijestili smo da je Torres-Estrada preraspoređen do istrage:

Američka komanda za specijalne operacije vratila je u četvrtak svog šefa različitosti nakon što je istraga zaključila da nije prekršio nijednu politiku Ministarstva odbrane u nizu kontroverznih postova na Facebooku.

Richard Torres-Estrada imenovan je u martu za načelnika Odjela za raznolikost i#038 Zapovjedništva za posebne operacije SAD-a (USSOCOM) Ministarstva odbrane, ali je ponovo dodijeljen čeka istragu protiv njega aktivnosti na društvenim mrežama, koji je uključivao post u kojem se tadašnji predsjednik Donald Trump poredi s Adolfom Hitlerom.

Istraga je pokazala da postovi Torres-Estrade ne krše pravila Ministarstva odbrane (DO) i da bi se mogao vratiti svom poslu, izvijestio je Military Times u četvrtak.

"Gospodin. Torres-Estrada nastavio je dužnosti načelnika Odjela za raznolikost i#038 inkluziju za zapovjedništvo za posebne operacije Sjedinjenih Država nakon što je istraga o okolnostima njegovog zapošljavanja pod vodstvom zapovjednika USSOCOM-a zaključila i nije utvrđeno kršenje zakona ili propisa Ministarstva odbrane, Ken McGraw je to rekao u petak u izjavi Daily Caller News Foundation.


Najnovija WaPo priča tvrdi da je Putin direktno naredio Rusiji da se miješa u američke izbore

Washington Post danas je objavio priču, "Obamina tajna borba da kazni Rusiju zbog Putinovog izbornog napada", da je Obama upozoren od CIA -e da je Putin izdao naredbu da "porazi ili barem ošteti demokratsku kandidatkinju, Hillary Clinton, i pomogne u izboru" njen protivnik, Donald Trump. "

Vremensku liniju priče koju je izvijestio WaPo sažeo sam na sljedeći način (navodnici ukazuju na direktan jezik iz Wapovog članka):

1. Wikileaks je 22. jula objavio DNC Leaks.

2. Krajem jula, šef DNI -a, James Clapper, na konferenciji u Aspenu, izrazio je zabrinutost zbog mogućeg miješanja Rusije u američke izbore, ali je izjavio da američka obavještajna zajednica nema dovoljno dokaza za "" pozivanje na pripisivanje " u vezi s ruskom odgovornošću za navodno rusko hakiranje DNC -a, RNC -a i naknadnim objavljivanjem DNK curenja od strane WikiLeaks -a.

3. U jednom trenutku, direktor CIA -e Brennan sazvao je tim obavještajnih stručnjaka iz CIA -e, NSA -e i FBI -a koji su radili isključivo na utvrđivanju u kojoj se mjeri Rusija miješa u američke izbore. WaPo priča ne ukazuje na to da li je to učinjeno nakon ili prije izvještaja CIA -e poslanog Obami.

4. Početkom kolovoza, direktor CIA -e John Brennan poslao je posebni izvještaj predsjedniku Obami i četvorici viših pomoćnika (uključujući savjetnicu za nacionalnu sigurnost, Susan Rice) da je CIA primila obavještajne podatke da je Putin direktno naredio ruskoj sajber kampanji da "poremeti i diskreditirati američku predsjedničku utrku. " Na kraju se spisak službenika uprave koji poznaju izvještaj CIA -e proširio na potpredsjednika Bidena i druge. Raice i/ili savjetnica za nacionalnu sigurnost Lisa Monaco sazvali su sastanke na kojima su se sastali Brennan, Clapper, AG Lynch i direktor FBI-ja Comey kako bi razgovarali o obavještajnim podacima koji podržavaju rusku cyber kampanju za ometanje izbora.

5. Druge obavještajne agencije nisu odmah prihvatile zaključke CIA -e. NSA je posebno izrazila zabrinutost zbog činjenice da je izvor kritičnih informacija koje potkrepljuju te navode došao iz određene zemlje. Ta država nije navedena u WaPo -ovom izvještaju.

6. Prije odlaska na godišnji odmor u Martha's Vinyard 6. avgusta, Obama je "naložio svojim pomoćnicima da traže načine da odvrate Moskvu i nastave tri glavna puta: Od američkih obavještajnih agencija zatražite procjenu visokog povjerenja o ulozi i namjeri Rusije da pojača sve ranjivosti" u državnim izbornim sistemima i traže dvostranačku podršku od čelnika kongresa u izjavi u kojoj se osuđuje Moskva i pozivaju države da prihvate saveznu pomoć. "

7. Dana 15. avgusta, Jeh Johnson, sekretar za unutrašnju sigurnost, održao je konferencijski poziv sa brojnim državnim zvaničnicima kako bi izneo svoju ideju da se državni glasački sistemi proglase "kritičnom infrastrukturom" i dobiju saveznu zaštitu sajber bezbednosti. Naišao je na otpor nekih zvaničnika, uključujući državnog sekretara Gruzije, republikanca Briana Kempa, koji je izrazio sumnju da su obavještajni podaci neispravni i da je to pokušaj saveznih zvaničnika da povrijede prava država.

8. Početkom septembra, Johnson, Comey i Monako sastali su se u septembru sa 12 ključnih članova Kongresa, uključujući i više rukovodstvo obje strane kako bi im otkrili ove podatke. Sastanak nije prošao dobro. Demokrate su htjele da se informacije objave u javnosti, a republikanci to nisu učinili, na osnovu tvrdnje da bi upozorenje "javnost da su izbori napadnuti unaprijedilo cilj Rusije da ruši povjerenje u sistem". Mitch McConnell, lider većine u Senatu, također je izrazio "skepticizam da su obavještajni podaci uistinu podržali tvrdnje Bijele kuće".

9. U septembru, a kasnije i telefonskim pozivom 31. oktobra, Obama je Putinu poslao poruke u kojima ga upozorava da se ne miješa u američke izbore. Putin je odgovorio da je ova tvrdnja neistinita i zatražio je dokaz. Ipak, neki zvaničnici Obamine administracije izjavili su da vjeruju da je Rusija odustala od opsežnijih kibernetičkih mjera kako bi "sabotirala" stvarni proces glasanja nakon Obaminih upozorenja.

10. "Dana 22. septembra, dvije kalifornijske demokrate - senatorka Dianne Feinstein i zastupnik Adam B. Schiff - učinile su ono što nisu mogle natjerati Bijelu kuću. Oni su izdali saopćenje u kojem je jasno rečeno da su naučili na obavještajnim brifingima da je Rusija usmjeravala kampanju za podrivanje izbora, ali nisu govorili čemu tome. " Otprilike tjedan dana kasnije, "" McConnell i drugi čelnici kongresa "izdali su saopćenje u kojem su izdali oprezno saopćenje koje je ohrabrilo zvaničnike državnih izbora da osiguraju da su njihove mreže" zaštićene od napada ". U priopćenju se ne spominje Rusija i naglašava se da će se zakonodavci "usprotiviti svakom nastojanju savezne vlade" da zadire u državne vlasti.

11. Obami je savjetovano da izrekne vrlo kaznene sankcije kako bi kaznio Ruse i "urušio" njihovu ekonomiju, ali je odlučio da ništa ne učini do izbora, u decembru, kada je izrekao mnogo blaže sankcije i naredio povlačenje jednog broja ruskih diplomata iz zemlje.

12. Dana 6. januara 2017. godine, DNI, NSA i CIA objavili su svoju 25 -stranicu deklasifikovanu procjenu ruskog miješanja u izbore 2016. godine. Nigdje u tom izvještaju ne piše da je Putin direktno odgovoran za bilo koju kibernetičku kampanju Rusije da utiče na američke izbore.

WaPo priča iznosi nekoliko tvrdnji koje ja ocjenjujem hiperboličnim. Na primjer, pročitajte sljedeće odlomke:

U političkom smislu, uplitanje Rusije bilo je zločin stoljeća, neviđen i uglavnom uspješan destabilizirajući napad na američku demokraciju. Bio je to slučaj za čije rješavanje nije trebalo gotovo nikakvo vrijeme, pa je do Kremlja došlo putem kibernetičke forenzike i obavještajnih podataka o Putinovoj umiješanosti. Pa ipak, zbog različitih načina na koji su Obama i Trump postupili po tom pitanju, čini se da se Moskva neće suočiti s proporcionalnim posljedicama. [. ]

Do proboja CIA -e došlo je u fazi predsjedničke kampanje kada je Trump osigurao nominaciju za GOP, ali se i dalje smatrao dalekim korakom. Clinton je imao jake prednosti u velikim anketama, a Obama je očekivao da će vlast prenijeti na nekoga ko je služio u njegovom kabinetu.

Obavještajni podaci o Putinu bili su izvanredni na više nivoa, uključujući i podvig špijunaže.

Predlažem da pročitate cijeli članak radi potpune slike WaPo -ove istrage.

Napominjem da niko do sada nije otkrio ništa o ovom izvještaju CIA -e u avgustu 2016. godine, više od 10 mjeseci nakon što je CIA navodno obavijestila Obamu da je Putin direktno odgovoran za kibernetičku kampanju Rusije da poremeti naše izbore. Članak takođe dolazi iz izvora The Washington Post, čiji vlasnik, Jeff Bezos, ima ugovor sa CIA -om vrijedan 600 miliona dolara. Učini od toga šta hoćeš.

Za mene je najvažnije otkriće informacija sadržano u ovom članku sljedeće:

Uprkos obavještajnim podacima koje je CIA proizvela, druge agencije su sporije prihvaćale zaključak da je Putin lično vodio operaciju i da želi pomoći Trumpu. "Bilo je definitivno uvjerljivo, ali nije bilo definitivno", rekao je jedan visoki zvaničnik uprave. "Trebalo nam je više."

.

Čovjek se mora zapitati zašto je ime zemlje kojoj NSA -in šef nije vjerovao isključeno iz WaPo članka. Smatram da je to zabrinjavajuće, iako sumnjam da će to mnogi primijetiti, budući da je duboko zakopano u priči i da na njega osim ovog jedinog primjeta ne primjećuju novinari koji su autorizirali priču. Još jedna stvar koja vas tjera da idete "Hmmmmm."


66. dan Obamine administracije - Historija

Senator Gary Peters (D-MI) Intervjuiran o izvještaju sa detaljnim sigurnosnim propustima tokom Kapitolske pobune 6. januara Obama zvuči uznemiren zbog stanja demokratije u Americi Obama: "Pokušao sam" ispričati priču o rasi u SAD-u kao predsjednik. Emitovano 8-8: 30a ET

Emitovano 8. juna 2021 - 08:00 ET

OVO JE RUSH TRANSKRIPT. OVA KOPIJA MOŽDA NE BUDE U KONAČNOM OBLIKU I MOŽE SE AŽURIRATI.

JOHN AVLON, VEĆI POLITIČKI ANALITIK CNN -a: Zatim je došlo do sramnog glasanja republikanaca koji su se usprotivili dvostranačkoj komisiji za istragu napada na Capitol Hill 6. januara, čak i od onih senatora koji su o tome govorili samo nekoliko dana prije.

Dakle, čak i ako današnji kineski prijedlog zakona prođe, nažalost postoji mali racionalni razlog za nadu u račun o infrastrukturi s 1 bilijunom dolara nove potrošnje, a kamoli da liči na sve što liči na federalna glasačka prava, dok crvene države probijaju ograničenja birača. A Mitch McConnell već kaže da je plan demokrata transparentno osmišljen tako da propadne. To govori.

Istina je da je većini republikanaca lakše suprotstavljati se nego predlagati nove politike. Ne mogu izbaciti veliku laž jer su Trumpove pritužbe dnevni red GOP -a. Današnje glasanje nudi rijedak primjer da dvostranačina još nije potpuno mrtva. No, činjenica da je prijedlog zakona protiv Kine bio toliko težak podsjetnik je da je impuls opstrukcije, nažalost, najbliža stvar koju republikanci izgleda imaju vladajućoj filozofiji.

I to je vaša provjera stvarnosti.

BRIANNA KEILAR, SJENIKA CNN -a: Zdravo, ja sam Brianna Keilar zajedno s Johnom Bermanom. Ovog NOVOG DANA, upravo objavljeni dvostranački izvještaj o napadu 6. januara čak se i ne bavi ulogom Donalda Trumpa u pobuni. Pa zašto ne? Jedan od senatora iza njega trenutno stoji i razgovara s nama.

Osim toga, bivši predsjednik Barack Obama iskren je u pogledu rase, pobune i republikanaca koji prihvataju veliku laž o izborima 2020.

JOHN BERMAN, SJENOVAČICA CNN -a: Predsjednik Biden odlazi na ovonedeljno prvo putovanje u inostranstvo. Šta će se dogoditi kada lično upozna Vladimira Putina? Generalni sekretar NATO -a pridružuje nam se uživo.

I nova borba Jane Fonda. Legendarna glumica i aktivistica govori nam zašto se uhvatila za metež i pridružila se demonstrantima s porukom za predsjednika Bidena. KEILAR: Dobro jutro gledateljima ovdje u Sjedinjenim Državama i oko njih

svijet. Utorak je, 8. juna. Više sigurnosnih propusta i zapanjujući obavještajni propusti doveli su do pobune na Kapitoliju. Ovo je prema izvještaju dvostranačkog Senata o smrtonosnim pobunama 6. januara. Ovaj izvještaj prikazuje zabrinjavajući prikaz kritičnih pogrešnih komunikacija i nečuvenih upozorenja u danima, sedmicama, pa čak i mjesecima koji su prethodili napadu na Kapitol. Takođe detaljno opisuje zašto je odgovor organa reda 6. januara bio toliko haotičan.

BERMAN: Dakle, izveštaj je takođe značajan po onome što ne obrađuje. Ne ispituje se uloga Donalda Trumpa u neredima. Zapravo, demokrati u Senatu čak su izbjegavali koristiti riječ "pobuna" za opisivanje pobune.

KEILAR: Hajdemo sada razgovarati s demokratskim senatorom Garyjem Petersom iz Michigana. He is the chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. He and his staff co-authored this report.

Good morning to you, Senator Peters. We're certainly grateful to have you on this morning to talk about this new report. What is the main takeaway to you in this report that shows Capitol police, they actually had a lot of intelligence about planning ahead of the insurrection?

SEN. GARY PETERS, (D-MI): Well, it does show there were a lot of failures that led to the breach of the Capitol, which is what this report was really focused on. It was limited in scope so that we could have concrete recommendations that could then be provided to the Capitol police as well as other federal agencies to make sure that we never see an attack on the Capitol like we saw on January 6th.

We looked at the fact that we had intelligence agencies that, despite the fact this was happening real time on social media, it was widely known that it would be a very likely violent crowd coming to Washington, D.C., they did not put out intelligence warnings that would have informed local officials as to how to adequately prepare. Those failings need to continue to be examined. We will do that in the Homeland Security committee that I chair.

It's also clear that there wasn't the kind of attention necessary to domestic terrorism and the rise of domestic terrorism and how that can lead to the kind of event that we saw January 6th. But then there was not adequate preparation by the Capitol police, clearly a failure of leadership.

I want to be clear, the men and women of the Capitol police that were out there defending the Capitol, and the men and women in the Capitol, and, quite frankly, our democracy, did heroic actions and paid a very large physical price as a result of this violent attack. But leadership failed. There wasn't adequate equipment. There wasn't adequate training. There wasn't adequate protocols when it came to getting the National Guard to respond to help the police on the Capitol grounds. So it was a host of issues. We have over 20 recommendations. The idea of the report is that these are things that can be taken up quickly and corrections can be made quickly.

KEILAR: As you mentioned, it was limited in scope. And you did interview many, many police officers. You interviewed officials.

But this was very limited in scope. It was also limited in its description of what happened on January 6th. Why not describe what happened accurately as an insurrection? If you don't call it what it is, do you risk fueling the downplaying of what was an insurrection?

PETERS: Well, it was an insurrection, and I've said that repeatedly and will continue to say that. It was very clear. The facts show that. The report is just focused on the security, but that's why we need a commission. That's why I strongly support having a commission to really delve into why we got to the point where you had this crowd show up to engage in an insurrection, an attempt to stop the constitutional counting of the electoral votes. That's what a commission does. It would look into all those factors. Our focus here was just to get some recommendations that could be immediately implemented. The quicker those are implemented, the better.

KEILAR: But you're going to not get a commission. It has failed in Congress, right? So you're not going to get that. And I get it, you're trying to use these immediate recommendations and put them to purpose, trying to protect the Capitol, trying to protect lawmakers and police as well. But do you -- I guess, do you, without this examination of the big lie, without the root causes, do you worry that more needs to be done, and that this, without the commission, is actually incredibly important but doesn't accurately describe what happened? Did you have Republicans who said, look, we're not going to go along with this if you call it an insurrection?

PETERS: That wasn't discussed. I call it an insurrection. We wanted to focus just on --

KEILAR: I want to be clear on this. It wasn't written up in the report. So aside from quote, we're saying if someone referred to it as an insurrection, it's in a quote. But in terms of the staff that authored this report, why did they decide to pull that punch, to not call it an insurrection?

PETERS: I think we just wanted to focus on what the actual facts were related to what happened on the Capitol grounds and the violence, and what were security breaches. And why wasn't there adequate planning for security.

But I think you're absolutely right. We have to go beyond this. This is not the end all. And folks who say now that we have this report, move on. As one of the folks putting this report together, I will say, no, that has never been the intent of this report. It is focused just on individual security recommendations that we hope will be implemented, but there's no question we have to look broadly at what led to this. And part of that is the rise of violent extremist groups.

I think what was telling to me with the intelligence community, they said they weren't able to put out a warning because they weren't sure whether or not this was related to violence or if it was free speech. Why were they questioning the credibility of what we were all seeing on the Internet? This was a moment for us, a singular event. And I say it's similar to what we saw 9/11 where we had this attack on our soil, foreign terrorists that attacked our soil. It really was a wake-up call for the intelligence community and the silos that existed, that they weren't talking together like they should. And we realized that foreign terrorism just doesn't occur in foreign countries. It can actually happen in our homeland. And that's what happened on January 6th. Now we have domestic terrorism.

KEILAR: I do want to ask you about this, Senator, but it's hard to imagine a 9/11 report of any kind, limited in scope or not, that didn't refer to terrorism, right, that didn't call this a terrorist attack. Are you saying there were absolutely no ground rules from Republicans about what you could or could not say to get them to participate? Are you saying this was entirely -- you say it's an insurrection, but you don't in the report. Are you saying that was entirely your decision then?

PETERS: No, the ground rules that we would focus on just the facts of what happened on the Capitol grounds that day, and look at security breaches.

KEILAR: But that's a fact, that it's an insurrection.

PETERS: It is. It is a fact, and you can stipulate that. And I think that's widely known. What we were looking at is what were specific incidents that we could then come up with recommendations in terms of training, in terms of equipment, in terms of intelligence sharing, in terms of how you can get a National Guard to respond more quickly, because this could happen again. And we want to make sure that we have those preparations in place now.

But that in no way should preclude a broader discussion of what is happening in this country and what we saw from the former president. It was clear in all of that intelligence that was coming through on social media, it was clear what was motivating folks, and that was the fact that the president was falsely saying that the election was stolen, and he was putting out the big lie. And it wasn't just the president. It was a lot of elected officials, many who work in the Capitol that continue to spread that which contributed to bringing those folks there. That was clear.

We wanted to deal with how do we make sure the Capitol itself will be stronger in the future regardless of what may happen in putting in the right security protocols.

KEILAR: Yes, and we thank you so much for joining us to talk about this. Your report is revelatory. There are important details in there for making sure that this doesn't happen again. Senator Peters, appreciate it.

KEILAR: And just ahead, reaction from a former top Obama adviser. Plus, the former president talks about race in America. He talks about the right-wing media stoking fear.

BERMAN: Also, exclusive new audio of Rudy Giuliani pressuring Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden. And just in this morning, new plans to reunite migrant families separated at the southern U.S. border.

BERMAN: Former President Obama sounding the alarm about the state of democracy in the United States, pointing out that after the January 6th insurrection, members of Congress were still perpetuating the big lie about election fraud.

BARACK OBAMA, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: My hope is, is that the tides will turn, but that does require each of us to understand that this experiment in democracy is not self-executing. It doesn't happen just automatically. It happens because each successive generation says these values, these truths we hold self-evident. Ovo je važno.

We're going to invest in it and sacrifice for it and we'll stand up for it, even when it's not politically convenient.

BERMAN: Joining me now is Ben Rhodes. He serves as deputy national security adviser during the Obama administration. He's also the author of "After the Fall: Being American in the World We've Made."

And, Ben, it's really interesting because those comments from your former boss, from the former president about democracy and the United States where he says the guardrails have come off, really mirror what you write about extensively in your book which is a little bit of a dark look at what the world has become and the prospects for democracy going forward.

So once the guardrails are off here and around the world, what are the prospects really for getting them back on?

BEN RHODES, FORMER OBAMA WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Well, I think the first step is understanding what's happening. And there's a playbook that's been pursued around the world, and that's what I talk about in my book. And the starting point for me as I was talking to a democracy activist in Hungary which has transitioned from a democracy to autocracy in about a decade.

And I said, well, how did that happen in your country? And he said, well, it's simple. Viktor Orban, our prime minister, was elected on a right wing populist backlash to the financial crisis. He redrew parliamentary districts to entrench his party in power, changed the voting laws to make it easier for his supporters to vote, packed the courts with kind of far right judges who will back him, enriched some people on the outside who then bought the media and turned into a propaganda machinery, put people in an alternative reality and wrapped it up in an us versus them national bow, us being the real Hungarians, them being immigrants, George Soros, liberal elites.

And you listen to that, and you think, well, what's happened here in the United States is not so dissimilar from what's happening all around the world right now. We have to understand the starting point to pushing back is understanding that this is the playbook that's being run by people who want to take the machinery of democracy and use it for their own purposes which is to entrench themselves in power.

BERMAN: And people who were doing things that perhaps they haven't done before or at least they haven't done claiming that they are, in fact, democrats, small "D".

And I mention that because and CNN obtained this audio exclusively of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, the president's lawyer, making that phone call to Ukrainian officials asking for an investigation into Joe Biden.

I just want to play some of that here.

RUDY GIULIANI, FORMER TRUMP PERSONAL LAWYER: If he could say something like that, on his own, in conversation, it would go a long way -- it would go a long way with the president to solve the problems.

BERMAN: And again, as you hear that, Rudy Giuliani's own voice, I wonder if you can overlay what your write about which are your concerns about the guardrails on democracy.

RHODES: Well, I think what's so chilling about this, John, when you hear something like that is, that's not normal. That's not something that would have happened ten years ago. What's essentially happened is any basic boundary or norm for how we conduct ourselves in this democracy has fallen by the wayside when you have -- let's face it, you know, there a lot of listeners who may not agree with my views on the size of government or national security policies, and that's fine, but we all accept that there's certain principles, certain things you don't do.

And weaponizing American foreign policy to dig up dirt on your political opponents is a whole new ball game, just as we see voter suppression laws kicking into a different gear in this country in an effort to entrench kind of minority rule of the majority.

So, again, I think the starting point, as my former boss, President Obama, said, is for people to be aware of that and to recognize that these issues aren't settled. We can't assume that democracy is going to be there for us in the next generation. Each generation faces a particular kind of competition where people have to mobilize, they have to step up, they have to unify, and they have to show that they will put democratic values ahead of other interests. And that's the moment that we're in in this country and around the world. BERMAN: So West Virginia Democratic Senator Joe Manchin seems to be

willing to bet that the future of the world is safe because he thinks he can convince ten Republican senators to vote with him on key issues.

What do you think of the fate that Joe Manchin is putting in that?

RHODES: Well, look, I wish -- I wish he was right, John. But we have over a decade of lived experience. That's not going to happen.

You know, I came into the White House in 2009 with President Obama. That's what we wanted to do. You know, we weren't talking about being partisan. We were talking about red states and blue states coming together.

And what we got is an increasingly intransigent Republican Party moving more and more to the extremities on these issues. And I think what has to happen in response is, look, if Joe Manchin is not going to back HR-1, S-1, this comprehensive bill to get at voting rights in democracy, then the administration has to find ways to break that into pieces and get as much as it can through Congress.

And failing that, people have to mobilize at the local level and put pressure on local and state officials. This is going to be a long, drawn out and definitional struggle for Americans, for democracy in the next two years and four years and beyond.

BERMAN: Very last question. On China, if you were deputy national security adviser and it turned out that coronavirus leaked from a lab in China and the Chinese, if not covered it up, certainly didn't reveal that information to the world, how would you punish China?

RHODES: Well, I think, first of all, we have to get to the bottom of this to prevent future coronaviruses. You know, there's an imperative -- a public, global public health imperative to deal with this.

I think more broadly when you look at this, you know, China has been country that wanted to have all the benefits of the international system, of organizations like the WHO, without playing by the rules and increasingly undermining those rules. And so I think you have to look at not just sanctions but what are the terms under which China is participating in an international architecture that it benefits from?

But what I'd also like to see because this is something I look at in my book is, we have to elevate their human rights abuses. The kind of mentality that might lead them to not be transparent about the origins of COVID is the same mentality that says they can do whatever they want to a million Uyghurs who are in concentration camps or the Hong Kong protesters who I spent time with my book.

And I think it's time that the United States elevates those types of issues in our relationship and shows that they're -- we're going to go to the mat on those things in the same way we've gone to the mat on trade disputes in the past. This stuff is life or death in the case of COVID, and it's life or death for democracy in terms of what we're seeing emanating from China on a host of other issues.

BERMAN: Ben Rhodes, the book is "After the Fall" -- thank you so much for joining us this morning.

BERMAN: All right. More from President Obama up next. A story about what happened when he talked about race as president.

KEILAR: And Jane Fonda joins protesters in a showdown over a pipeline. She'll tell us why when she joins us live.

BERMAN: Former President Barack Obama in an exclusive new CNN interview says talking about race as the country's first black president was something he and his advisers had to think about carefully.

OBAMA: Look, I tried. I think I told a lot of stories. You take a look at the speeches I gave in Selma and the speech I gave during the campaign about Reverend Wright and that whole episode.

And, you know, each and every time I tried to describe why it is that we are still not fully reconciled with our history. But the fact is that it is a hard thing to hear. It's hard for the majority in this country of white Americans to recognize that, look, you can be proud of this country and its traditions and its history and our forefathers and yet it is also true that this terrible stuff happened and that, you know, the vestiges of that linger and continue.

And the truth is that when I tried to tell that story, oftentimes, my political opponents would deliberately not only block out that story but try to exploit it for their own political gain. I tell the story in the book about the situation where Skip Gates, a Harvard professor, trying to get into his own house, gets arrested and I'm asked about it.

I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say number one, any of us would be pretty angry. Number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home.

Subsequent polling showed that my support among white voters dropped more precipitously after that -- that should have been a minor trivial incident than anything else during my presidency.

ANDRESON COOPER, CNN HOST: That's extraordinary.

COOPER: It gives a sense to the degree of which these things are still, you know, they're deep in us. And, you know, sometimes unconscious. But I also think that there are certain right wing media venues, for example, that monetize and capitalize on stoking the fear and resentment of a white population that is witnessing a changing America.

BERMAN: Let's bring in Abby Phillip, anchor of "INSIDE POLITICS SUNDAY" and CNN senior political correspondent.

So interesting to hear the former president basically say, look what happened when I tried. Look what happened in that moment with the lowest of low bars. You know, when Skip Gates was arrested for trying to get into his own house, look what happened when I spoke out about that and how can you ask how I feel my discussions of race were during my presidency.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, you get a sense that he recognizes that the standards have changed since he was in office. There was a tip toeing around race when Obama was president, in part because he was the first black president. He was trying to make sure that he made white America as comfortable as possible, and they learned the hard way.


Sadržaj

Origins Edit

Children's Day began on the second Sunday of June in 1857 by Reverend Dr. Charles Leonard, pastor of the Universalist Church of the Redeemer in Chelsea, Massachusetts: Leonard held a special service dedicated to, and for the children. Leonard named the day Rose Day, though it was later named Flower Sunday, and then named Children's Day. [3] [4] [5]

Children's Day was first officially declared a national holiday by the Republic of Turkey in 1920 with the set date of 23 April. Children's Day has been celebrated nationally since 1920 with the government and the newspapers of the time declaring it a day for the children. However, it was decided that an official confirmation was needed to clarify and justify this celebration and the official declaration was made nationally in 1929 by the founder and the President of the Republic of Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. [6] [7] [8]

Global Adoption Edit

International Children's Day was first proclaimed in Geneva during the World Conference on Child Welfare in 1925. On 4 November 1949, 1 June was established as the International Day for Protection of Children by the Women's International Democratic Federation in Moscow. [1] Since 1950, 1 June is celebrated as Children's Day in many Communist and post-Communist countries.

In 1954, Children's Day was proclaimed by the United Kingdom to encourage all countries to institute a day, firstly to promote mutual exchange and understanding among children and secondly to initiate action to benefit and promote the welfare of the world's children. That is observed to promote the objectives outlined in the Charter and for the welfare of children. On 20 November 1959, The United Nations adopted the Declaration of the Rights of the Child. [9] World Children's Day is celebrated on 20 November to commemorate the Declaration of the Rights of the Child by the UN General Assembly on 20 November 1959. [2]

Recent Initiatives Edit

In 2000, the Millennium Development Goals outlined by world leaders to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS by 2015. Albeit this applies to all people, the primary objective is concerning children. [9] UNICEF is dedicated to meeting the six of eight goals that apply to the needs of children so that they are all entitled to fundamental rights written in the 1989 international human rights treaty. [10] UNICEF delivers vaccines, works with policymakers for good health care and education and works exclusively to help children and protect their rights. [10]

In September 2012, the Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon of the United Nations led the initiative for the education of children. [11] He firstly wants every child to be able to attend school, a goal by 2015. [11] Secondly, to improve the skill set acquired in these schools. [11] Finally, implementing policies regarding education to promote peace, respect, and environmental concern. [11] Universal Children's Day is not just a day to celebrate children for who they are, but to bring awareness to children around the globe that have experienced violence in forms of abuse, exploitation, and discrimination. Children are used as laborers in some countries, immersed in armed conflict, living on the streets, suffering by differences be it religion, minority issues, or disabilities. [12] Children feeling the effects of war can be displaced because of the armed conflict and may suffer physical and psychological trauma. [13] The following violations are described in the term "children and armed conflict": recruitment and child soldiers, killing/maiming of children, abduction of children, attacks on schools/hospitals and not allowing humanitarian access to children. [13] Currently, there are about 153 million children between the ages of 5 and 14 who are forced into child labor. [14] The International Labour Organization in 1999 adopted the Prohibition and Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour including slavery, child prostitution, and child pornography. [14]

A summary of the rights under the convention on the Rights of the Child can be found on the UNICEF website. [15]

Canada co-chaired the World Summit for children in 1990, and in 2002 the United Nations reaffirmed the commitment to complete the agenda of the 1990 World Summit. This added to the UN Secretary-General's report We the Children: End-of Decade review of the follow-up to the World Summit for Children. [16]

The United Nations children's agency released a study [17] referencing the population increase of children will make up 90 percent of the next billion people. [18]

The officially recognized date of Children's Day varies from country to country.

Children's Day is celebrated on 1 June in former Soviet Union states (including Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan) as well as other former or current communist states (Albania, Angola, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Ethiopia, East Germany, Kosovo, Laos, Mongolia, Montenegro, Mozambique, Mainland China, North Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, Tanzania, Vietnam and Yemen, and to the lesser extent in Israel due to the migration of its Soviet Jewish population). This includes 25 countries which regained independence from USSR, seceded from Yugoslavia Federation, as well as Czechoslovakia and Ethiopia after their respective splits. [19]

World Children's Day is celebrated on 20 November to commemorate the Declaration of the Rights of the Child by the UN General Assembly on 20 November 1959. [2]

This section lists some significant examples, in order of date of observance.


Where’s Barack?

I was in my fifth grade classroom at PS 117 in Briarwood, New York City when my mother came to take me home and we proceeded to watch 4 days of television reliving the horror. https://elementaryschools.org/directory/ny/cities/jamaica/ps-117-j-keld-briarwood-school/360010002437/

Fast forward to my next favorite, Bill Clinton, when I was a thirty-something adult and should have taken a more active interest in politics but really didn’t. I liked Clinton for his brains, dashing appearance, musical abilities and the fact that he was on the right side or rather the left side of the political aisle. And now looking back on it he had the brains to marry Hillary. https://www.clintonlibrary.gov/

My absolute favorite so far, perhaps not counting our current POTUS who I think has great heart and talent, is Barack Obama. Obama raises the bar on class to a level most people could not reach if they planted a beanstalk. And it’s not like they (the GOP) did not try to knock him down to play in the mud with them. https://news.yahoo.com/republicans-strain-dent-biden-without-033049689.html

But he never took the bait. Even when he could have, or should have. However there are no shoulds. His successor tweeted himself off Twitter and got banned from Facebook. So hostility is not the answer. Obama was forever a gentleman.

“Obama’s low-key demeanor is sometimes strategic. He doesn’t display rage over ISIL beheadings because he believes stoking public fury creates pressure for rash military overreactions. He released an anodyne statement that whitewashed Fidel Castro’s history of repression because he didn’t think a thundering denunciation of a dead dictator would further his goals in Cuba. Even when Republicans have trashed him personally—or threatened to force his government into a catastrophic default on its debt, or refused to even consider his Supreme Court nominee—he has tried to maintain a willing-to-compromise, above-the-fray public posture, in part because he thought it was good politics to highlight GOP intransigence. But even when it’s not strategic, low-key and above-the-fray is how Obama rolls. He’s a measured, professorial, hyper-rational guy. He genuinely believes most people are good at heart and open to factual persuasion. He’s not comfortable fulminating or tweet-ranting or shaking his fists for the cameras. His rhetorical weapons of choice against Democratic critics as well as Republican opponents have been logic, dry sarcasm, and persistent whining.”

So what is this dignified man doing now when he is no longer POTUS – though in my mind he will always be President?

Well he is not completely in the shadows – thank goodness!

Perhaps not being POTUS gives him license to speak out a bit more forcefully against his adversaries which is what he did on Anderson Cooper on Monday night, June 7. https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/obama-slams-gop-not-holding-071239769.html

“Former President Barack Obama appeared on an Anderson Cooper 360 special on Monday, where he slammed the Republican Party for its unwillingness to push back against former President Donald Trump ’s soft stance on Russian meddling in the 2016 election, Trump’s remarks following the violence in Charlottesville in 2017, and the election lies that led to the January 6 insurrection.”

“The degree to which we did not see that Republican establishment say, ‘Hold on. Time-out. That’s not acceptable. That’s not who we are.’ But rather be cowed into accepting it,” Obama said, “and then finally culminating in January 6th.”

“Obama went on to call out right-wing media outlets for creating racial fear and resentment, and making money from it.”

“I think that there are certain right-wing media venues, for example, that monetize and capitalize on stoking the fear and resentment of a white population that is witnessing a changing America, and seeing demographic changes,”Obama said, “and do everything they can to give people a sense that their way of life is threatened, and the people are trying to take advantage of them, and we’re seeing it right now.”

And in that same segment Obama called out the dangers of cancel- culture. Go Barack! https://news.yahoo.com/obama-dangers-cancel-culture-130732826.html

In backing up a bit, in 2019 the Obamas officially became residents of Martha’s Vineyard. https://www.mvtimes.com/2019/12/04/welcome-obamas-marthas-vineyard/

“Former President Barack Obama is now officially a resident of Martha’s Vineyard, after having closed on the Edgartown estate of Boston Celtics owner Wyc Grousbeck.”

“The Obamas, long enamored with Martha’s Vineyard, have been speculated about as buyers on the Island for years.”

And closer to home in Los Angeles The Santa Monica – Malibu Unified School District has named a new facility after the Obamas which will open this fall 2021 with 100 ninth grade students. The inspiration that both Obamas have proven to be and continue to be in the realm of education, learning, and inclusion is what inspired the naming.

“The Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District Board of Education approved naming the new facility which will house Olympic High School, the new project-based learning pathway and other programs to the “Michelle and Barack Obama Center for Inquiry and Exploration” at a special board meeting on May 30 in Santa Monica, according to the SMMUSD press release.”

“The new Michelle and Barack Obama Center for Inquiry and Exploration is the name of the facility that will house Olympic High School, the new project-based learning pathway, the adult education school, Off Campus Learning Center and the future Capstone program, all under one roof at 721 Ocean Boulevard in Santa Monica — the current location of Olympic High School, the press release said.”

Kudos to the SMMUSD for this honor to the Obamas and an innovative learning environment. Stay tuned as we continue to report on Where’s Barack? as news comes up.


Post-Riot Political Bickering Raises a Question About Trump That We Should Have Asked of Obama

Last week some ridiculous but ultimately dangerous hooligans cheering on President Donald Trump rushed the U.S. Capitol in a riot. Five people, including a Capitol Police officer and a protester shot by law enforcement officers, died. It was a tragic, dark day for our nation – although one we might have seen coming after Democrats and the national media excused left-wing riots for months and refused to take Trump supporters’ concerns about election integrity seriously.

But the incident opened an interesting question.

As authorities grappled with restoring order, President-elect Joe Biden weighed in on Trump’s role.

“The words of a president matter, no matter how good or bad that president is,” the Democrat said, in criticizing comments Trump made before the melee ensued.

“At their best, the words of a president can inspire. At their worst, they can incite,” added Biden, who then urged Trump to “fulfill his oath and defend the Constitution and demand an end to this siege.”

Biden, in his words, not so subtly suggested that Trump was responsible for instigating the riot, even though the president made no call for violence, and the rioters involved were a small fraction of the tens of thousands who turned out to protest the Electoral College certification.

But based on what Biden said, here’s a question for those who want Trump tossed out of office and possibly prosecuted for his comments before rally-goers became rioters:

When do we arrest Barack Obama?

In July 2016, Micah Johnson, an Army veteran who was black, parked along the street in downtown Dallas. Armed with a high-powered rifle, Johnson opened fire on cops escorting Black Lives Matter protesters demonstrating against police violence against black Americans.

Five cops died, seven other people were wounded.

Dallas police noted that Johnson was a fan of the New Black Panther Party, whom he had connected with through Facebook. When asked about a motive, Chief David Brown said Johnson told negotiators during a stand-off that he was “upset about the recent police shootings,” referring to incidents of black men dying at police hands in Minnesota and Louisiana.

“The suspect said he was upset at white people. The suspect stated he wanted to kill white people, especially white officers.”

As the Bible of the left, The New York Times, characterized it, “The shooting was the kind of retaliatory violence that people have feared through two years of protests around the country against deaths in police custody, forcing yet another wrenching shift in debates over race and criminal justice that had already deeply divided the nation.”

What happened in the two years before Johnson started pulling the trigger?

Well, in November 2014, grand juries in Missouri and New York declined to return indictments against white police officers who had been involved in the deaths of two black men, Michael Brown and Eric Garner, respectively.

When the Garner case was announced, Obama said, “When anybody in this country is not being treated equally under the law, that is a problem.”

In early January 2015, NBC News reported that Obama had been more frequently using the word racism in comments – “a term he has used sparingly in the past when describing conditions in America today – to describe the challenges blacks and other minorities face.”

NBC noted Obama had said repeatedly that racial discrimination was “embedded deeply in society,” and had described conditions, such as income inequality between whites and blacks, as a “legacy of Jim Crow.”

In April 2015, after the death of Freddie Gray, a black man, during an arrest in Baltimore, Obama said America needed to do some “soul searching.” “This has been going on for a long time,” he said. “This is not new, and we shouldn’t pretend that it’s new.”

At an appearance a month later, Obama said, “That sense of unfairness, powerlessness, people not hearing their voices, that’s helped fuel some of the protests that we’ve seen in places like Baltimore, Ferguson and right here in New York.”

In June 2015, after a deranged white supremacist shot and killed nine worshipers at a black church in South Carolina, Obama told a podcaster, “It is incontrovertible that race relations have improved significantly during my lifetime and yours, and that opportunities have opened up, and that attitudes have changed. That is a fact.”

“What is also true,” he added, “is that the legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination in almost every institution of our lives — you know, that casts a long shadow. And that’s still part of our DNA that’s passed on. Nismo izliječeni od toga. ” When he was asked what “it” is, Obama answered, “racism.”

Speaking at the NAACP annual conference in July 2015, Obama maintained that differences in education and health care were “a legacy of hundreds of years of slavery and segregation, and structural inequalities that compounded over generations.”

“Partly it’s a result of continuing, if sometimes more subtle, bigotry,” he said. But, he added, it was the “criminal justice system in America” that harbored “a long history of inequity” and remained “particularly skewed by race and by wealth, a source of inequity that has ripple effects on families and on communities and ultimately on our nation.”

On July 7, while in Poland, Obama commented on the incidents of police slayings of black men in Minnesota and Louisiana.

“All of us as Americans should be troubled by these shootings, because these are not isolated incidents. They’re symptomatic of a broader set of racial disparities that exist in our criminal justice system,” said Obama, who argued that “change has been too slow.”

The then-president pointed out:

“African Americans are 30 percent more likely than whites to be pulled over. After being pulled over, African Americans and Hispanics are three times more likely to be searched. Last year, African Americans were shot by police at more than twice the rate of whites. African Americans are arrested at twice the rate of whites. African American defendants are 75 percent more likely to be charged with offenses carrying mandatory minimums. They receive sentences that are almost 10 percent longer than comparable whites arrested for the same crime.”

“If you add it all up,” Obama continued, “the African American and Hispanic population, who make up only 30 percent of the general population, make up more than half of the incarcerated population. … And when incidents like this occur, there’s a big chunk of our fellow citizenry that feels as if because of the color of their skin, they are not being treated the same. And that hurts. … We should be able to step back, reflect, and ask ourselves, what can we do better so that everybody feels as if they’re equal under the law?”

The next day, Micah Johnson killed five cops in Dallas.

On many occasions in making these comments, Obama was careful to acknowledge that police officers have a tough job, work hard, face dangers rarely seen by the rest of us and try to be fair. He also has denounced the violence perpetrated by many in the names of some of the people killed in these incidents.

Yet for nearly two years, rarely, if at all, did Obama suggest that the people who wound up entangled with police in these situations were responsible for their actions.

Instead, Micah Johnson and millions of other black Americans heard the nation’s first black president tell them time and time and time again – much like Trump complaining about “stolen” or “rigged” elections – that racism and bigotry were an integral “part of our DNA” and a feature of “the system” – even though Obama had reached the pinnacle of that system by convincing tens of millions of white Americans to vote for him twice.

In the aftermath of the attack, the conservative Investors Business Daily asked in an editorial if Obama, like Trump now, had incited Micah Johnson to open fire.

“At every opportunity, he’s taken pains to foment public anger when a cop kills a black person — often long before the facts are known — while issuing little more than terse statements when police are targeted by killers,” the paper said.

“So is Obama to blame for the Dallas killings? No, not directly. Only the murderer who pulled a trigger, along with those who might have helped plan and execute the attack, are to blame. But by the standards of responsibility constantly being propagated by the left — who tried to pin Rep. Gabby Giffords’ shooting on Sarah Palin and the terrorist attack at a gay nightclub in Florida on Christian conservatives — he shares in the blame. Rather than call for calm and racial healing, Obama’s rhetoric has only served to inflame animosity, fuel anger and, arguably, help justify those extremists who believe that, like Obama, ‘change has been too slow.’”

On the other hand, as Republicans at the 2016 GOP national convention sought to cast Obama was the villain, Roll Call columnist Jonathan Allen wrote, “Of course, Obama is not to blame for police being ambushed, nor is he responsible for terrorist attacks in Europe. He doesn’t condone either. He has spoken out about both types of killing far too often.”

In a separate interview, Congressman G.K. Butterfield, a North Carolina Democrat and chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, said, “If someone goes in a building and assassinates five police officers, they are a terrorist and they are not a part of the Black Lives Matter movement. Let’s be intelligent enough to separate the issues we are debating today.”

Fast forward to today and the controversy surrounding Trump and Capitol riot, and both teams could just swap jerseys.

Biden is right. The president’s words do matter. And those of a divisive, grievance-mongering Democrat should not be judged differently than those of a divisive, grievance-mongering Republican. One standard would not be just helpful it’s necessary.

Thus, if you now want Trump held accountable by the criminal justice system for five deaths the destruction at the Capitol, the question is: when do we arrest Obama for five deaths in Dallas?


Pogledajte video: President Obama (Novembar 2021).

Video, Sitemap-Video, Sitemap-Videos