The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Wattree's picture

    THE GOSPEL OF WATTREEISM: MY BIBLE IS ONLY ONE PAGE LONG, AND IT HAS ONLY THREE COMMANDMENTS

    By Wattree on Thu, 05/05/2016 - 3:38pm |

    Beneath the Spin * Eric L. Wattree

     
    THE GOSPEL OF WATTREEISM
    .
    MY BIBLE IS ONLY ONE PAGE LONG, AND IT HAS ONLY THREE COMMANDMENTS
    .
    1). LIVE THE BEST LIFE YOU CAN.
    2). HELP OTHERS WHENEVER YOU CAN.
    AND
    3). MIND YOUR OWN DAMN BUSINESS.
    .

    BLACK PEOPLE HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT SLAVERY
    IS A THING OF PAST, BUT OUR MINES ARE FAR FROM FREE

    African Americans were taught the Christian,'faith' while they were tied next to the mules and their mentors were actively engaged in the annihilation of as many as a 100 million Native Americans. So it's obvious that our Black  persecutors didn't believe in their own teachings, and it's easy to understand why.
    .
    The Bible that Christians Worship today was compiled and “blessed” by the Catholic Church, not God. The  "Holy Spirit," Pope Damasus I, at the Council of Rome in 382, issued a decree appropriately called, "The Decree of Damasus," in which he listed the canonical books of both the Old and New Testaments. He then asked St. Jerome to use this canon and to write a new Bible translation which included an Old Testament of 46 books, which were all in the Septuagint, and a New Testament of 27 books. During that time any book that disagreed with the teachings of the Catholic Church was banned, and anyone who challenged those teachings could be tortured and killed. It's almost as though man created God in man's own narrow-minded image instead of the reverse. And isn't it interesting that God tends to have all of the prejudices and shortcomings of man? For example, according to most religious teachings, God is a virulent sexist, just like man, even though he gave women - not man - the ability to create and nurture life. Man tries to explain all of that away to me, but it just doesn't make sense to the mind that I KNOW God gave me. So who and what am I supposed to believe, what man says, or what God has done?
    .
    So the fact is, what Christians call "The Holy Bible," and what Black preachers run around thumpin’ so passionately, wasn’t even put together until nearly 400 years after the death of Christ. Thus, everything in it is hearsay. In terms of years, when the Bible was compiled, they were as far away from the life and times of Jesus Christ as we are away from George Washington. So in reality, they didn’t know fact from fiction, any more than we know whether or not George Washington actually chopped down a cherry tree. It was created as a political document, and it was "blessed" by bigoted White folks to promote their philosophy. And many of the stories in it could have been written by Mother Goose. For instance, if Adam and Eve were the first people on Earth and produced Cain and Abel. Where did the people come from that Cain went to live with after he killed his brother? The Pope obviously didn't think that through very well.  Nevertheless, Black people embrace these myths with such a fierce tenacity that it makes the "faith" of Pat Robertson, Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump pale in comparison.
    .

    So Black people are in dire need of a thorough re-assessment of their attitudes, and those things they take for granted. They also need to educate themselves in all areas of knowledge, in order to gain confidence in their own ability think, because they are worshiping a philosophy that is dedicated to the proposition that they are inferior. Just open your Bible and you won't see nothing but White folks - who were supposed to have been born in the desert.
    .
    As a direct result, as I write, many of us are currently voting for continued White supremacy, because our "Christian" brain-drenching has taught us to believe that "The Lord" wants us too. We're falling all over one another to be the first to vote for a woman whose husband created the most draconian crime bill in the history of the United States and used prisons as an urban housing program for Black people - and, with her full support. So if Black people don’t come to their senses we’re going to end up with a choice between Zig and Zag. Zig is Donald Trump, and Zag is Hillary Clinton. To paraphrase Mort Sahl back in the sixties, the only difference between the two is if Donald ‘Zig’ Trump sees a Black child lying in the street, he’d simply order his chauffeur to run over him. If Hillary ‘Zag’ Clinton saw the kid, she’d also order her chauffeur to run over him, but she’d weep, and go apologize to the NAACP, after she felt the bump.  So where are our brains? I'll tell you where they are - they're still tied up next to that mule in the 18th Century.
    .
    So yes, I’ve developed  my own Gospel, my own truth, and not a word of it comes from the mouth of another man. I pay absolutely no attention to man. I determine God's will not by what man says, but by what God has done. And to atheists, yes, I do believe that God exists, because we exist. For me, God is whatever entity, or process, that is responsible for the existence of the universe, or what we call reality. So, since the universe does exist, that's evidence enough for me that God exists. Thus, if I exist, so does God, even if he, she, or it is simply the universe or nature itself.  Now, that said, as we gaze upon this infinite universe, what evidence do you have that God is not nature itself, and that we are not a part of God?
    .
    So again, yes, I've created my own religion, but unlike the religions of the social manipulators, my religion allows you to stay in bed and hug your wife on Sunday mornings and then spend the rest of the day enjoying your children instead of being mandated to get up and suffer through a paid spoken-word concert by some guy who doesn't know any more about God than you do; and we have no rituals, nor 'Born Again' hypocrites to contend with - you know, those people who use religion as a God-approved pretext to hate or look down their noses at everybody who don't look, think, and act like they do. While we don't wish such people any harm, it is our belief that the world would be a lot better off if many of these 'Born Again' hypocrites (Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Ted Cruz, etc.) wouldn't have been born the first time, and we don't believe that the very human philosopher, Jesus of Nazareth, would approve of such people at all. And finally, there's absolutely no begging in my religion, so there's not a preacher in sight. Thus, my religion is Heaven right here on Earth. We simply focus on trying to become better people, help each other whenever we can, and leave each other alone. And it doesn't take a volume of scriptures to do that, nor a collection plate.
    .
    HOW A KID RAISED IN THE CHURCH CAME TO REJECT CHRISTIANITY
    .

    I was recently in a discussion with a gentlemen on religion and he asked me, "You say you believe in God, and you seem to have Christian values, so why do you say you're not a Christian?" My answer was very simple - because God blessed me with common sense, and while I do have values, they're nothing like those that I've seen from so-called Christians, or any other religions. So while I believe in God, I make it a point to keep the word of man out of anything that has to do with my spirituality.  Again, for me, God is whatever force is responsible for creating what we call reality - period. That's all I have to know, and that's all I have to contemplate.
    .

    An individual's organized religious beliefs are merely an accident of birth, and a form of socialization. The very same man, who was born in Georgia, and who was raised to be a devout Christian, would more than likely be a devout Muslim if he'd been born in Iran, a devout Jew if he'd been born in Israel, or a devout Buddhist if he'd been born in China. So organized religion is nothing more, or nothing less, than a form of socialization, and it has absolutely nothing to do with God. In fact, religion is anti-God, because you can trace nearly every form of narrow-mindedness, hatred, and bigotry, directly back to man's religious beliefs. White supremacy is predicated on the belief that "God" caused a White Scandinavian to be born in the desert to lead mankind to the "Promise Land." That has a fundament impact on our thinking. It suggests that White skin is Godly. But the fact is, if Jesus had been White, they wouldn't have had to crucify him, he would have died of sunburn. But once you can get people to believe in walking dead men and talkin' snakes, you can get them to believe in anything - and they have.
    .
    Thus, man uses religion to try to make himself feel special, as though he has some special connection to God, so by its very nature organized religion is discriminatory, not only toward other groups, but other creatures. From their point of view, it's not that they hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like themselves - it's just that God does. So their religious beliefs are used to both make themselves feel superior, and also, to validate their hatred and distrust of others unlike themselves.  But from my point of view, since God created all things, what makes man think that God loves him any more or less than he does a parakeet?  Thus, religion is nothing more than a reflection of man's arrogance.
    .
    That's why a person's religious beliefs are nearly inseparable from his or her political beliefs.  Many Christians don't believe in global warming, equality among people, that Jesus was Black (not that it matters, since he was just another insightful man, and nothing else), or that the Bible didn't prohibit the wholesale slaughter of up to 100 million native Americans, tying Black people up next to the mules, killing 6 million Jews, or dropping two atomic bombs on the innocent civilians of Japan. Christians claim that they did these things in the name of God, it was their "Manifest Destiny."  What they do believe in, however, is quietly allowing, and even supporting, the ascent of a nasty, bigoted, and un-Godly man like Donald Trump. Many Christians believe that Trump came into our midst as a result of the will of God, which is complete nonsense, but their religious delusions and myths justify their hatred, anger, bigotry, and greed.
    .
    Thus, religion is invariably used to validate the most malevolent part of man's nature. It allows his hatred, selfishness, and greed to be written off as God-approved, and with respect to Black people, it allows our apathy to be written off as justified - "All we have to do is sit and wait, because God is coming to our rescue." That was the position taken by many in the Black clergy who criticized Martin Luther King. They said his activity was stirring up unnecessary animosity toward the Black community, and that all he had to do was be patient and things would work themselves out. 
    .

    In that regard, what about Black people - why do they embrace this nonsense, and in many cases, even more passionately than Whites?
    .

    Black people tend to be such devout Christians because they've been taught, first by slave masters, and then by rich, slick-talking Black preachers, that God's going to deliver justice upon them "by-and-by."  But what they don't understand is, God did his part when he gave us a brain, so "God helps those who help themselves." That's the way of nature - God made birds to fly, fish to swim, and man to think. So you either do what you were created to do, or you perish - period. That's a fundamental law throughout the universe for all things that exist.  If a planet drifts to close to it's parent star, it's over, and that's it. So as Black people, we are not going to be able to pray ourselves out of our current condition; we're going to have to think our way out of it, or we're not going to survive, because that's what God created man to do - think, not conjure up stories about a walking dead man coming to our rescue.  Dead men don't walk, and snakes don't talk in this universe - at least in our part of it. That's just not the way things work, and if you believe that it does, or even can work that way, you have more faith in what man says, than what God has done.
    .
     
    But what makes people so passionate about their religion is it allows them to believe what's convenient for them to believe. That's why in spite of the atrocities that has been committed by this so-called "Christian nation" that have been listed above, we have Americans walking around with tears in their eyes talking about "God bless America."  Such people represent a monument to man's capacity to delude himself.  If we do an objective assessment of the atrocities committed by the United States in its relatively short existence, it will become immediately clear that this has been the most brutal and un-Godly nation in the history of humanity. Our historic record would make one think that the United States was founded by a cult of Devil worshipers - and this comes from a man who loves America. But I love what it can become, not what it is, or what it has been. So if we are ever to truly become the nation that our founding documents lie so eloquently about, it is a must that we begin to think clearly, and stop believing in talkin' snakes. 
    .​

    ​​​  HOW STUPID CAN YOU GET!!!? 

    Ephesians 6:5-9 says, "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ." Those are not my values - and for so-called "good Christians" to simply sit back and say, "We're praying on it" don't fly with me, because they’ve been "praying on it" for centuries now. That's one of the major reasons that Black people are in such dire straits - we're spending more time worshipping the philosophy of bigots than we are educating ourselves, and as a direct result, we've become "bligots" ourselves.

    PORTRAIT OF AN IDIOT
     

    .
     
    THE CONVERSION

    .
    "Come here nigga and let me teach yo crazy, animal ass about the Lord. The first thing you got to learn is to Love thy Neighbor . . . especially me."
    .
    "Yes sir, Massa. Why would anybody not love you, Sir? You so good to me, Massa. Anybody don't love you needs to have dey ass beat real good, Massa."
    .
    "Shut up, nigga. I'm talkin'."
    .
    "Listen, you been blessed already, and you don't even know the Lord. The Lord made it where you don't have to worry 'bout a thing. I feed you, I put clothes on yo nasty ass, and I give you a shed to sleep in, and all you have to do is whatever the hell I tell you to. Do you know how blessed you are?"
    .
    "Oh, indeed I do, Massa. You take good care of me. I's so happy."
    .
    "Now, listen real good 'cause dis impotant. God said, thou shalt not steal from me, thou shalt not kill (unless I tell you to), thou shalt not stick another coon's wife (unless we tryin' to make some mo niggas), and nigga, whatever you do, thou shalt not even look like you want to stick a white woman, or we gon lynch yo black ass. You here me, nigga?"
    .
    "Oh yes, Massa. We know dat! But Massa, I thought you said thou shalt not kill?"
    .
    "Dat means people, fool - real people! Dat don't go for niggas. God wants us to keep you in yo place."
    .
    "Dat's right, Massa. We sho gotta keep niggas in dey place. No tellin' what a happen if we let dese niggas git loose. God so smart."
    .
    "I said shut up, nigga, and listen to the word."
    .
    "The next thing you got to learn is, whatever happens on this plantation is God's will bein' done. And if you listen to me, you'll get to live like I do when you die and go to Heaven."
    .
    "Live like you, massa? A nigga ain't got no business livin' dat good. What a Po nigga like me gon do with all this? You know I ain't got sense enough to run nothin' like this."
    .
    "Just shut up, nigga!" When you dead you gon get some sense - the lord gon give it to you. The Lord can do anything, even give sense to a nigga. And he gon give you all the other niggas you gon need to help you in the fields, too."
    .
    "Massa, you so good to me! Thank you for tellin' me all dis. I'm gon be a good nigga - the best nigga you ever seened. Look, I'm gon pray for you right now, and thank the Lord for givin' me so good a massa."
    .
    "Shut up and get up off your knees, ya dumb nigga! The fields need tendin'! You pray to the Lord on your own time. God don't won't you talkin' to him when you s'pose to be workin'."
    .
    "A couse, Massa. What I been thinkin'? I's so dumb. I don't know why you put up with me, Sir."
    .
    "How many times I got to tell you to shut the hell up, nigga?"
    .
    "Yes Sir, I's a shuttin', Massa. I's a shuttin', right now."
    .
    "Now get yo ass out there in that field and let's get some work done around here . . . Oh, and Toby, have yo woman meet me in the barn. I need to tell her 'bout the Lord too."
    .
    "Yes sir, Massa."
    .
    "And another thing, Toby, if my momma come a lookin', tell her I'm playin' in my tree house."
    .
    "Why you gon go fibbin' to yo momma, Mr. Tommy? She knows you like to sit wit Lou Ann."
    .
    "Just shut up, nigga, and do what I said! And tell Lou Ann to wear that pretty dress I like, cause we gon be talkin' 'bout the Lord, so it's gon be like chuch."
    .
    "Yes Sir, Mr. Tommy." . . . "Whaaaaaaat a friend we have in Jeeeeesus . . ."
    .
    I PUT A SPELL ON YOU
     

    .

    Eric L. Wattree
    Http://wattree.blogspot.com
    [email protected]
    .
    Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

    Comments

    When did Bernie do his great Negro outreach, was it before or after he hooked up with Cornel West?


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 05/05/2016 - 5:02pm

    Why is "negro outreach" so important to you RMRD?  Why don't you simply judge candidates based on their stated policy positions, their votes, and their successes and failures?  I am Jewish but I don't expect (don't even want) candidates "reaching out" to me based on what they perceive I, as a Jew, might hope they would do.  Clinton "reached out" to Jews at AIPAC and it only made me more certain that I am right to support her opponent.


    by HSG on Thu, 05/05/2016 - 9:09pm

    If Sanders is only aware of economic inequality and ignores racial issues, his programs are unlikely to have universal impact

    Racial justice was not a major part of his initial campaign. That changed after encounters with Black Lives Matter.

    Sanders now includes racial justice on his campaign website.

    https://berniesanders.com/issues/racial-justice/

    Economics alone will not address the core of issues black people face. 

    Sandra Bland died in jail despite having a job.

    Sanders came to the black community only when he needed votes. He has done nothing but talk while in Congress and as I repeatedly note, after doing nothing in college, he wanted a Primary challenge to Barack Obama. He is not trusted.

     


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 05/05/2016 - 9:43pm

    You specifically mentioned how important outreach is. Now you're complaining all he did was talk. Isn't outreach talk? As usual Sanders can do nothing right and Clinton can do no wrong.


    by HSG on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 7:47am

    Hal, we have been through this before. He reached out when he needed votes. Prior to that, he thought that Obama should have been challenged. He was shaken by Black Lives Matter.

    Hillary did work to repair the damage that occurred during the campaign against Obama. She got the CBC PAC, the mothers of children killed by police, and the Mayor of Flint on her side. Sanders has Cornel West.

    What we hear from Sanders surrogates and supporters is that CBC members caved to the power of the Clintons. These are the same CBC members who supported Obama over Clinton. Sanders supporters are so blinded by their love for Bernie that everybody who doesn't support Sanders must be a coward. That is simply pathetic.

    The thing about Bernie is that he knows that he cannot get his proposals passed. His tax hike plan to fund his ideas will fail. Instead of facing reality, he sends his minions out to demonize his opposition.The fact is that the majority of the CBC voted against the TPP, for example. Only 3 CBC members voted in favor of TPP.The CBC has opposed Obama on issues, but was never delusional enough to suggest a Primary challenge.

    I don't trust Sanders. 

    Let us consider campaign finance as it exists. Sanders wants the Democrats to disarm and only accept private donations. In the next breath he places blacks in ghettos and says poor people don't vote. If he truly believes these things, where does he expect campaign funding to come from for minority candidates under the current system?

    I think Sanders focus on economic inequality blinds him to the impact of some of his ideas.

    Can Sanders do any right? Possibly, but not much.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 8:28am


    Bernie and Jane Sanders reaching out with John Lewis in March 2015 at the 50th Anniversary of the Selma March before Sanders announced he was running for President.  Hillary Clinton was in Miami at a Clinton Global Initiative conference.

    Does the fact that you only praise Clinton for her actions even when she stiffed the 50th Anniversary March prove she can do no wrong in your eyes?


    by HSG on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 8:43am

    The photo- op does nothing to negate the fact that Sanders campaign funding plan would be a disaster for minority candidates. It does nothing to counter his Primary challenge suggestion.

    For the record, about 100 members of Congress participated in the March including several Republicans. 

    http://time.com/3736502/selma-congress/

     


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 8:52am

    You said Sanders never reached out until he was running for President and was scared by BLM.  This proves that claim false right?


    by HSG on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 9:02am

    Hal, according to your rant, 100 members of Congress reached out to the black community that day.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 9:08am

    Is there some reason that you can't answer my specific questions?  I'm assuming it's because the answers demonstrate that your criticisms of Bernie are unfair and unfounded and they also show that for you Hillary Clinton can do no wrong.  Am I right?


    by HSG on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 5:18pm

    "Stiff", eh? How about "planned 6 months before". Sorry don't have the transcript available.

    Press Releases

    Clinton Global Initiative to hold Oceans: A CGI Action Network Meeting in Boston in March 2015

    September 22, 2014 
     

    The first CGI meeting of its kind will bring together leaders from business, government, civil society and philanthropy to address ocean conservation

    New York, NY – President Bill Clinton, Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Chelsea Clinton announced today that the Clinton Global Initiative will hold its first Action Network Meeting regarding oceans in March, 2015 in Boston, Massachusetts.

    “We are excited that CGI is hosting Oceans: A CGI Action Network Meeting,” said President Clinton. “Maintaining the health and resilience of our oceans is a critical environmental challenge, and leaders from across the globe will come together in Boston next year to address this very important task. We look forward to seeing how the CGI model will encourage the large-scale cooperative solutions needed in ocean conservation.”

    ...


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 8:57am

    Of course the CGI - raising billions of dollars - is more important than commemorating one of the most iconic events of the civil rights movement.  Last I checked, Clinton could have flown from Miami to Selma in 90 minutes by chartered plane. 


    by HSG on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 9:04am

    Hal, Obama did not attend Tavis Smiley's State of the Black Union Conference because he didn't need the photo- op. Hillary attended, because she needed to be there.

    Hillary didn't need to be at the 50th anniversary March because she already had a relationship with the CBC and the black community. Sanders came along with 99 other Congress for the photo- op.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 9:12am

    Sanders wasn't running for President when he went to Selma.  If Elizabeth Warren had announced she was running over the ensuing two months, Sanders would have stayed out.

    Does the fact that you are excusing Clinton's failure to attend the milestone anniversary march mean she can do no wrong in your eyes?


    by HSG on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 5:14pm

    "Maintaining the health and resilience of our oceans is a critical environmental challenge, and leaders from across the globe will come together in Boston next year to address this very important task. We look forward to seeing how the CGI model will encourage the large-scale cooperative solutions needed in ocean conservation."

    So now you don't like the ocean, just because the Clintons are trying to protect it? I bet if Bernie was doing this, you'd be wearing a vial of ocean water around your neck.

    #FAIL

    Agenda here. Probably affects many people of color, those in poverty, and developing nations of minimal resources globally.

    Perhaps if they had an anti-fracking-by-the-ocean session, some people's heads would split in two - to protest, to embrace, to protest, to embrace....


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 9:21am

    I thought the Clinton Foundation was just a front for two corrupt politicians.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 9:36am

    I thought it was George's band after Funkadelic. Waddaya mean you don't inhale? I musta got the wrong motherfucking house.... hey, maybe instead of turn the white house black they'll make it purple. Did you know the T Heads wrote Burning Down the House after seeing PFunk? Was what the audience was chanting for an encore


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 4:36pm

    Hillary doesn't care about the oceans. She's just pandering to get an endorsement from the Atlantic and the Pacific. The Pacific wasn't gonna endorse her because she's too hawkish but the big Tuna corporations paid it off. The Pacific Ocean endorsement was huge, or at least the Pacific Ocean is huge.


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 5:42pm

    "In her 2008 bid for the White House, Hillary Clinton cast herself as a blue-collar Democrat who was unabashedly pro-coal, a stance that helped her beat opponent Barack Obama easily in primaries in states that produced or were reliant on coal."  http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-coal-idUSKCN0QE0U...  Last I checked, global warming was a thing in 2008 and coal was then, if it isn't now, the biggest contributor to this grave existential threat.

    From Grist.org April 2015:

    1. [Clinton's] family’s charitable foundation takes lots of oil money. Big oil companies like ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips have given millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation, as have Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich nations in the Middle East. Thursday brought the latest exposé on this issue from the International Business Times, which reports on donations from Pacific Rubiales, a Canadian oil company accused of human rights violations in Colombia. Pacific Rubiales’ founder, Frank Giustra, now sits on the Clinton Foundation’s board. IBT reports, “After millions of dollars were pledged by the oil company to the Clinton Foundation — supplemented by millions more from Giustra himself — Secretary Clinton abruptly changed her position on the controversial U.S.-Colombia trade pact. Having opposed the deal as a bad one for labor rights back when she was a presidential candidate in 2008, she now promoted it, calling it ‘strongly in the interests of both Colombia and the United States.’” A cynic would say oil companies are buying influence with the Clintons without being subject to campaign finance laws. A Clinton defender would point out that the foundation gives away this money, it isn’t going into Hillary Clinton’s pocket or her campaign account.
    1. She has supported offshore oil drilling. In 2006, Clinton sided with Republicans and against climate hawks like Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) by voting in favor of a bill opening new Gulf Coast areas to offshore oil drilling. Obama has opened up many areas for offshore oil drilling, and it’s possible Clinton would do the same.

    But yeah she's a friend of our oceans.  The best you can say about her is she's better than the Republicans.


    by HSG on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 5:55pm

    Thanks for responding to my very important comment. I know you can't respond to everyone and every issue. I'm grateful that you decided to prioritize my comment. But you didn't respond to any of the points I made. How do you explain the endorsement from both the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean? I realize that the Gulf of Mexico hasn't endorsed Hillary but as the name implies, it's not actually an ocean. But the Gulf of Mexico has not endorsed Sanders either. I really think I should get some credit for admitting that the Tuna corporations might have influenced the Pacific Ocean's endorsement.


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 6:37pm

    "Thanks for responding to my very important comment. I know you can't respond to everyone and every issue. I'm grateful that you decided to prioritize my comment."

    You are most welcome O-K.


    by HSG on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 7:08pm

    I am really tired of you and other Bernie supporters demonizing the Clinton  Global Initiative.  It does very important work for health, the environment, and simply helping people get on their feet who had nothing.  Yes, it takes money to do this. Yes, they have fundraisers, and yes, they get the money because he was a President and she is known for her good works and achievements.  They also get money because smart people with money who want to contribute prefer to give their fortunes to organizations that they feel confident in actually doing what they say they will do.


    by CVille Dem on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 11:05am

    The more I hear Sanders and his supporters, the more pro-Hillary I become. Everyone who disagrees with them are said to be paid-off or not truly Progressive. The bottom line is that the Clintons have done more good than Bernie ever will.

    Bernie talks a good game but that is all he has. He will be on Rachel Maddow again tonight. I doubt he will be pressed to detail how he will get things accomplished with his tax hikes that will never get through Congress. I tend to focus on black issues, but I realize that Sanders has no plans when it comes to other citizens. He will win West Virginia based on rhetoric. He cannot answer how he will bring jobs to the area or deal with the drug issue.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bernie-sanders-day-west-virginia-reflects...

    The sad truth is that fracking has made coal too costly and technology using mountain top coal mining has resulting in a massive loss of coal mining jobs. Sanders campaign is all talk.

     


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 11:20am

    Here are Sanders supporters shutting down a speech Hillary was giving in California

    http://thedailybanter.com/2016/05/bernie-sanders-supporters-stopped-a-hi...


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 2:17pm

    How did I demonize the CGI?  Please provide one quote.  I did make an error.  I wrote "raising billions of dollars" to characterize Clinton's activity in Miami at the time of the 50th Anniversary March.  That was flat out wrong.  The CGI's annual budget doesn't approach a billion dollars.  Moreover, I have no evidence that Hillary was in Florida to fundraise.

    The event in Miami was hosted by Bill and Chelsea and was part of the CGI University which educates people about global challenges.  I have no idea why Hillary couldn't have been in Selma on March 7 with John Lewis and the Sanderses among many others.  Hillary is not listed as a host of the CGI University conference.  She did participate in one event on March 7 in Miami - the closing conversation - that began at 5:30 pm.

    People began marching across the Pettus Bridge early that morning according to the Washington Post.  Both George W. Bush and President Obama were among the marchers.  Obama spoke.  Clinton could have marched across before noon and had oodles of time to make it to Miami for the "closing conversation".


    by HSG on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 5:37pm

    You wrote, when you were stating that Hillary didn't attend a particular march:

    Of course the CGI - raising billions of dollars - is more important than commemorating one of the most iconic events of the civil rights movement.  Last I checked, Clinton could have flown from Miami to Selma in 90 minutes by chartered plane. 

    Anyone with half a brain realizes what you meant -- she was more interested in raising money than going to an event about a historical memorialization of civil rights.

    Yes!  We all have to make choices.  Hillary's bonafides are just fine, and she has the endorsements to prove it.   Now you say she wasnt at the CGI event, but who cares?  It is also important to the future of our planet to do the things CGI is committed to.  

    Your comments indicate that raising BILLIONS (to help the planet survive the onslaught of Climate Change, hideous despots, serious health issues and poverty) is somehow self-aggradising, or suspect.  

    You can say that you never said the words, but you are acting like Eddie Haskell again.  We all know that you repudiate the Clinton Global Initiative, which has done more for Global Progressive causes that Bernie has even dreamed of.  He has done nothing.


    by CVille Dem on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 5:50pm

    How was I demonizing the CGI?  It's a non-profit that relies upon fund-raising.  I didn't say it does anything bad with the money that Clinton raises for it.  I corrected my error with respect to its budget and whether she was even fundraising while in Miami.  Personally, I don't make much out of the fact she didn't attend the 2015 Selma anniversary march.  I brought it up as a direct rebuttal to RMRD's repeated claims that Sanders never reached out to the black community until he needed support from African-Americans during his Presidential run and also to support my claim that as far as RMRD is concerned, Clinton can do no wrong.


    by HSG on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 5:59pm

    On another note CVille you accused me on another blog of skewing the results of the Indiana primary and at a third one of lacking all objectivity.  In response, I provided several examples where I have criticized Sanders.  I then asked you two questions.

    -------------------

    Question 1: How did I skew results CVille? 

    Question 2:  You write about me: "you are loyal to the point that you have no objectivity left."  But you are the one who defends Clinton come hell or high water right?  You are the one who attacks Sanders at the drop of a hat and accepts every slam on him as justified regardless of how bogus, right?  I'm the one who's written about how his gun votes were wrong and harmful right?   I'm the one who agrees he should do more to help progressive candidates right? I've conceded he should have released his complete tax returns for the past ten years, right?

    So who exactly isn't objective here CVille?

    -----------------

    Could you please show me the consideration of answering these two questions?


    by HSG on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 6:08pm

    1.  It was some time ago that I made the comment about skewing the results, and frankly I thought it was obvious at the time, and I don't recall the particulars.

    2.  Your objectivity -- well, I have to admit in this case my opinion is subjective.  I cannot comprehend how you can possibly imagine that the political goals Bernie is running on are remotely possible.  After 50+ votes to repeal the (non-governmentally managed) health plan that has given millions of people who couldn't afford it before (calling it socialistic!), how in the world could he realistically claim to be able to sell this country on Universal Health Care?  Have you READ the negatives?  Free College?  Have you looked at the 30+ Republican governors' proposed budgets, which deny Medicare Expansion? They are all about reducing taxes on the wealthy and cutting benefitsl  

    They currently hold 2 houses of Congress, which Bernie doesn't seem to care about.   Why?  Because he is selfish and pure (narcisistic), and he is lovin" the Money and adoration!

    So, yes, I am calling you out on your lack of objectivity.   However, it is so obvious that I will not continue this absurdity.

     


    by CVille Dem on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 7:38pm

    CVille - the question I posed was regarding your objectivity not mine.  You attack Sanders at every opportunity even on bogus grounds.  For example, you claimed falsely that he doesn't have any idea how to break up the big banks.  Isn't that an example of your lack of objectivity?

    Regarding my objectivity, I have enumerated on several occasions areas where I believe Sanders is mistaken or wrong.  That shows I have at least some objectivity.  Can you provide examples where you have been willing to take Clinton to task.

    Regarding my allegedly skewing results.  You wrote in direct response to my comment to PP regarding the Indiana primary that I skewed results.  I asked you how I did so.  You replied at length to the post where I asked you to explain how I skewed results but did not identify one allegedly untrue or misleading statement I had made.  The thread is here.  You can find the comment at issue by searching for "skewing".  http://dagblog.com/link/hillary-wins-0-spent-20628

    If you are going to insult me or criticize my posts or words, you have a duty to set out the specific rationale underlying your criticism and to acknowledge error if you cannot meet that duty.   You will note that when I challenge or dispute your words, or PP's, or RMRD's, or O-K's, or NCD's, or whoever's, I set out in block quotes the statement with which I take issue and then explain as well as I can why that statement is wrong.

    You may find this exercise tedious.  You, like others here who constantly bash me personally, may be irritated by my insistence that you defend your words and retract them when they prove hollow and false.  Too bad.  This site is about intellectual discussions.  When intellectuals are proven wrong, they admit error and may even change their beliefs.


    by HSG on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 7:57pm

    And yet both John Lewis and Jim Clyburn have endorsed Hillary.  It's good that Bernie and Jane were there, but a photo-op is still just a photo-op.


    by Ramona on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 9:23am

    The point I make is that Sanders was reaching out to the African-American community before he announced he was running for President notwithstanding RMRD's claim that Sanders did not do so.


    by HSG on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 5:24pm

    He attended a gathering attended by a hundred other Congressmen. Were they all doing outreach?


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 6:18pm

    1) Does the fact that you misrepresented the CNN article's conclusion about the investigation into Clintons' email server practice show Clinton can do no wrong in your eyes?

    2) If Clinton was relying on a private server because of fears the State Department's email was not secure, why didn't she take steps to make it more secure?


    by HSG on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 7:12pm

    Here's a second article from CNN. Nothing to see here.

    http://thedailybanter.com/2016/05/heres-why-cnns-report-clearing-hillary...

    Keep on whining

    Edit to add

    I would avoid the fact that your "outreach" statement too if I were you, it is complete nonsense.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 7:34pm

    US Embassy officials in Haiti in 2009 working for Hillary Clinton successfully pressured the Haitian government not to raise the minimum wage to about .62/hour.  The minimum wage hike was strenuously opposed by US-based companies Hanes and Levi's.  How do you feel about this?  If you refuse to condemn Clinton's actions through her subordinates, doesn't that show that no matter how bad she is, as far as you're concerned she can do no wrong?


    by HSG on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 7:36pm

    Still avoiding your nonsense about outreach.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 7:35pm

    RMRD - you expect me to answer your questions at the drop of a hat but you refuse to answer mine.  Okay fine.  I have nothing to hide of course because I'm right and when a candidate I support is wrong, I have no trouble admitting it.  Your problem is you back a candidate who has done many many very bad things.  You can't starting acknowledging them because there are so many and if you leveled with yourself, you would have to admit you were wrong to support her over Sanders.

    Regarding Sanders at the Pettus Bridge, of course it was outreach.  Civil rights are important for all Americans but are critical to African Americans.  By marching across the bridge with his wife and hero John Lewis, Bernie Sanders was telling America that he believes civil rights for African-Americans is essential and he was reaching out to African-Americans including John Lewis to assure them that he is on their side.

    Okay, now I answered your question please answer mine.

    1) Does the fact that you misrepresented the CNN article's conclusion about the investigation into Clintons' email server practice show Clinton can do no wrong in your eyes?

    2) If Clinton was relying on a private server because of fears the State Department's email was not secure, why didn't she take steps to make it more secure?


    by HSG on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 7:43pm

    See the new CNN article. There is no e vidence of wrongdoing.

    100 people reached out to the black community. Nice to know.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 8:00pm

    I explained very clearly how you misrepresented the CNN article.  Let's try again.  Here's the link to my response to which you have failed to reply.  Here's the relevant portion for your assistance:

    --------

    You write: "CNN reports that the FBI did not find evidence that Hillary Clinton broke the law with her email server."

    The actual words from the article you cite are quite a bit different: "The investigation is still ongoing, but so far investigators haven't found evidence to prove that Clinton willfully violated the law the U.S. officials say."

    . . .

    RMRD - would you say the misleading quote you provided demonstrates Clinton can do no wrong in your eyes, even though you've claimed I'm the one who sees no evil in Bernie?

    by HSG on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 8:56pm

    Has the FBI found any evidence of wrongdoing? Will the FBI charge her with a crime. For a non-lawyer, there is no evidence of a crime.

    Edit to add:

    Here is the analysis of one lawyer who says that Hillary did not commit a crime. There is no evidence that she lied to the FBI. 

    From the article

    The reality as I see it is one that won’t entirely satisfy either side — that based on what we know today, she likely did violate government procedures and rules, but not the law

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/analysis-hillary-clinton-commit-crime-bas...

     


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 9:24pm

    rmrd, this is relating to a link you posted recently. Rather than go look for it I'll just respond again here. The link was to Politifact which had rated Clooney's statement that most of the money raised at his fundraiser went to down-ballot Democrats. They now rate it half true but by my reading they gave every benefit of doubt to the proposition. 

     

     


    by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 10:47pm

    Do you believe that no money goes downstream?

    What fundraising option would you have a candidate in an urban area, unable to self fund his/her campaign?

     

     


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 11:30pm

    The most Hillary could get from Clooney's fundraiser is $2700 per individual and then only if they hadn't already given her that limit. That's the law. By some technical bit of paperwork an individual could give $350 thousand at that fundraiser. But even after these legal shinanigans that the Supreme Court decided was legal and that republicans do all the time Hillary could still only get $2,700 per individual. A large amount was moved to the DNC. We don't know yet how the DNC will end up spending that money. Some could be spent by the DNC to support Hillary. I suspect that much of it will be spent for state elections.

    There are only a few powerhouse fundraisers. Sanders is one and I haven't read anything about him funding anything but himself. He spent more money than any other primary candidate, republican or democrat. But he wasn't always a fundraising powerhouse. In prior senate races he got several hundreds of thousands of dollars from the DSCC which got most of its money from Goldman Sacs, Wall Street etc.

    I like Al Franken but he's not a fundraising powerhouse. Elizabeth Warren is. She raised a couple of hundred thousand for Franken. I'd like to see Feingold back in the senate. He's not a great fundraiser. Warren raised a couple hundred thousand for him. Grimes isn't my favorite but she had a chance of beating McConnell. Warren raised a couple of hundred thousand for her.

    Warren is great, better than Sanders in every single way. She's raised millions but even she doesn't have the fame to fund raise for all the democratic candidates. She focuses on the senate in republican leaning states. Mostly she tries to flip republican senate seats blue. She also spends a lot of time campaigning in those states where Obama isn't a plus for the candidate.

    What is a lowly senate candidate or house candidate to do if their name isn't Elizabeth Warren? When Sanders wasn't famous his answer was take the Wall Street money after it's been laundered through the DSCC.


    by ocean-kat on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 12:35am

    Here is an analysis of the CNN article from the Daily Banter.

    http://thedailybanter.com/2016/05/fbi-clinton-email-server-no-laws-broken/

    They conclude that there is nothing to see here.


    by rmrd0000 on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 12:03am

    Language is complex when we go beyond chit chat. Each word has a dozen words that mean about the same thing. It's not  as objective as a simple definition. Connotations and a subjective interpretation play their part in higher level discourse. The subtle differences between synonyms is at times or in part whether they denote a set or subset.

    You seem to see an expression of support as the same as outreach. I can't say that your subjective interpretation is incorrect but I see a difference. Expressions of support are good. A major politician or celebrity attending an Earth Day celebration will bring added attention from the media and help to get our message to a larger audience. I appreciate that expression of support but I wouldn't call it outreach to the environmental community. I expect much more from a politician for me to consider them truly supportive of the community.

    All outreach might be considered an expression of support but I would not consider all expressions of support outreach. Outreach is the first step in the beginning of a dialog. In the beginning stages of that dialog I'd expect the politician to spend a lot of time listening to the concerns of the community. Understanding and seeking common ground comes before finding ways to work together.

    This is why I wouldn't consider Sanders expression of support by attending the ceremony on the Pettus Bridge, however admirable, as outreach to the black community.


    by ocean-kat on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 5:18am

    Thanks O-K.  I think Bernie was reaching out since he didn't issue a statement or tweet support, he actually was on the ground at the event in Selma.  To me, that's reaching out.


    by HSG on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 10:42am

    As did 90 other Congressmen


    by rmrd0000 on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 10:45am

    From your article

    However, the cables do not contain conclusive evidence that the State Department actively pressured Haiti to block the increase nor do they prove that Clinton personally played a role.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 7:40pm

    RMRD - According to Snopes, Hillary's State Department reacted to the ultimately approved minimum wage hike of $3/day in garment manufacturing and $5/day in other industries  with displeasure: "Still the US Embassy wasn't pleased. A deputy chief of mission, David E. Lindwall, said the $5 per day minimum “did not take economic reality into account” but was a populist measure aimed at appealing to “the unemployed and underpaid masses.”"

    If Clinton did not agree with Lindwall's position, shouldn't she have fired, or at least disciplined, him for taking the side of sweatshop owners and failing to show compassion for the "unemployed and underpaid masses"?   Instead, she honored him with the "State Department's Baker-Wilkins Award for Outstanding Deputy Chief of Mission in 2010."

    It's an ugly record of American power ruthlessly suppressing a populist uprising calling for what exactly?  Communism? Nationalization of assets? Slaughter of the elites? 

    None of those things.  61 cents per hour minimum wage.  A measly 61 cents per hour for sweatshop workers and Hillary Clinton rewarded the guy who helped stop it.


    by HSG on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 2:32pm

    What we have is sources that disagree. Your bias leads you to select the one that confirms your opinion of Hillary. This is not surprising. An article from NPR antes that raising the minimum wage in Haiti could have resulted in the factories moving to another country. Haitian factories make low-skilled, white t-shirts. Because there were low skills, they were vulnerable. The link provides context.

    http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2011/06/10/137064161/would-a-5-a-day-m...

    Dominican textile workers share Hispaniola with Haiti, but have skills that are more competitive worldwide.​

    The linked article notes that the US supported building of an industrial park. That park has fallen far short of expectations. The failure occurs in the background of political turmoil. The minimum wage is supposed to be about $6.85 a day, but most factories only pay $4.65 per day, barely enough to pay for a month's food. Housing around the factory is abysmal and costly.

    http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/9/10/a-glittering-industrialp...

    Everything that the United States has touched in Haiti backfired. I do not believe that the problem is due to Hillary Clinton alone.

     


    by rmrd0000 on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 1:05pm

    RMRD - there is no dispute among the sources.  There is no dispute that officials working for Clinton at the State Department intervened to prevent Haiti from raising wages paid to garment factory workers.  There is no dispute that one of her point men received a commendation for his work in stopping the hike.  Nobody is saying it's Hillary Clinton's fault alone but she was the Secretary of State when this happened.  Doesn't she bear some responsibility?

    You correctly note that everything we have done in Haiti has backfired.  Isn't that more evidence that the intervention by Clinton's State Department was wrong?  After all, the people of Haiti decided they wanted to raise the minimum wage.  Clinton interfered with their self-determination right?

    If there was concern that factories would pull out, then shouldn't Clinton have been pushing for alternative investments in Haiti and direct aid?

    Does your unwillingness to criticize Clinton for the egregious actions by the agency she headed show that she can do no wrong in your eyes?


    by HSG on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 2:31pm

    Hal, you are a fanatic. You cannot be reasoned with. I admit that I find your repeated pleas for Clinton criticism amusing. United States policy in Haiti has been a failure since our first interactions with the country. You are trapped by hatred of Hillary Clinton. You ask why Hillary did not attempt something different than suppressing wages. I pointed out the industrial park. The park failed. 

    The Dominican Republic sits next door, but has better wages and industry. The solution to Haiti's problem is to become a more attractive site for higher skilled industry. I see no easy way for that to happen given the turmoil in Haiti. I'm certain that you feel that Bernie has a magic solution and that Hillary is the ultimate evil.

    I don't spend time criticizing Clinton because I think that there is more context to things she has done than you realize. Also, I am getting humor from your responses.

    What is Sanders/your magical solution to Haiti?

     


    by rmrd0000 on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 4:21pm

    RMRD - you call me a fanatic because I argue it was wrong for Clinton's State Department to overrule the will of the Haitian people who voted for a $5/day minimum wage for textile workers.  Wouldn't you say your argument demonstrates that 1) you are the fanatic and 2) Clinton can do no wrong in your eyes?

    I will now answer your question even though you never answer mine noting I don't know what if anything Sanders proposes for Haiti.  So here are some commonsense proposals for Haiti.

    1) Don't reverse hikes in minimum wage that the people vote for.

    2) Provide much higher levels of humanitarian aid with a focus on food, shelter, healthcare, and education.  At the same time, when/if we dump food into Haiti we need to guarantee farmers a decent return on their agriculture.

    3) Push corporations in Haiti to pay a decent wage, to treat workers with respect, and to promote from within.

    4) Urge land reform with individuals and villages allotted land for agriculture which they can use to grow crops they choose and which they can sell.

    5) Consider reparations/direct payments to each Haitian since the US remains directly responsible for the harm.

    Please let me know what you think might work even better.


    by HSG on Sun, 05/08/2016 - 10:02am

    See below


    by CVille Dem on Sun, 05/08/2016 - 9:46am

    I call you a fanatic because you see Clinton as the problem. Haiti has no easy solutions as C'Ville notes below.I provided you with an analysis of why raising the minimum wage may have resulted in plant closings. The situation is complex. I have no easy answers. Creating high skilled workers would be a start but that means changing decades of a poor educational system.


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 05/08/2016 - 11:50am

    You write: "I call you a fanatic because you see Clinton as the problem."

    Please adduce one quote that shows I see Clinton as "the problem" not as part of the problem.

    Are you willing to acknowledge that Hillary Clinton is part of the problem and that she made the problem worse?


    by HSG on Sun, 05/08/2016 - 12:01pm

    Do you disagree with any of my recommendations?  Do you have any of your own?  Does the fact that you cannot credit me in any way demonstrate that you are a fanatic?

    RMRD - every time you call me names I will continue to respond by pointing out your words and posts demonstrate that you are projecting on me the discomfort you feel when confronted with the obvious holes and weaknesses in your arguments.  If you wish me to stop, respond directly to my points with evidence or acknowledge that I am right.  Do not insult me or attribute negative qualities to me.  I am sick of it.  Do not call me a fanatic. Do not say that I cannot see any bad in Bernie Sanders.

    Thank you for your consideration.


    by HSG on Sun, 05/08/2016 - 12:06pm

    Oh you get me thinking about 5 ideas, but all these ideas are boring or will become boring....

    The repubs just nominated T-Rump

    Think about it!

    Although I am sure that the Donald has 'Black Friends'! hahahahha

    Just remember Eric, we have had an African American in office as President of the United States of America.

    For almost 8 years and no matter what this great man requested as far as legislation, the repubs said:

    FUCK YOU.

    And they all promised to make him a one term President.

    AND THE MOTHERFUCKERS LOST!

    I know the repubs have always hated him and always voted against him and..

    BUT HE WON AND ALL THESE BASTARDS ARE PISSED. 

    hahahha

    ​AND NOW WE HAVE THE NEW ADOLPH WITH HIS GOD AND BIBLE AND....

    That is all i GOT.

     

    It is always funnier  when you win!


    by Richard Day on Thu, 05/05/2016 - 10:06pm

    Hal, you have some good suggestions but Haiti is a mess and money doesn't seem to be the answer. Between 10 and 13 billion dollars have gone to Haiti since the earthquake. The U.S. was the biggest doner. See this:  

    http://www.cgdev.org/blog/haiti-quake-four-years-later-we-still-dont-kno...

    I have spent quite a bit of time in that part of the world, and on many of the other islands the people doing construction and other similar work are often Haitians.  A huge opportunity was lost when the money just got poured into a sieve (and probably into off-shore accounts).  If the money had been used well, the Haitians themselves would have rebuilt their infrastructure and gotten trained in trades allowing them to become independent and attract business to the island. 

    I know contractors from Charlottesville, where I live who went there to build homes and work on general infrastructure.  They were isolated from the population while they were building by police.  I know medical people who went too.  They were told not to teach people; only provide medical care.

    i don't know what the answer is except for Haitians to root out the corrupt; and they are too beat down to do that, it seems. I don't have an appetite for "regime changing," but it would be nice if they could somehow do it themselves. I guess we could do the same thing we did in 1915 - 1934 when we occupied the country, but that was hardly a success.  Since then they have flirted with Democracy, only to lose it to coup after coup.

    As I said, it is a mess.  If every Haitian could just get a stipend, and help with building themselves a home, and training in a trade, instead of pouring billions into the pockets of corrupt "leaders" it might help.  Also if companies could get incentives for starting up there it would be a start. 

    It's complicated.


    by CVille Dem on Sun, 05/08/2016 - 10:13am

    Thanks CVille.


    by HSG on Sun, 05/08/2016 - 10:17am

    Excellent analysis. The easy way out is to say this is Hillary's fault. If stipends are given out, the Haitian government could not be the distribution source because funds may go missing. We would be talking about a form of occupation by the United States.


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 05/08/2016 - 10:45am

    Does Hillary bear any responsibility when her agency stymies a referendum to raise textile workers wages at the behest of multinational corporations that profit from sweatshop labor paid sweatshop wages?

    Does your unwillingness to criticize Clinton demonstrate that you are 1) a fanatic 2) unwilling to see any bad in Hillary Clinton?


    by HSG on Sun, 05/08/2016 - 12:00pm