[h=2]State Department Slammed for Weak Overseas Security Practices in GAO Report[/h]SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: Morgan Chalfant
July 10, 2015 11:14 am
The U.S. Government Accountability Office released a study Thursday criticizing the State Department’s weak security practices to protect diplomatic personnel and their families overseas.
CNN reported:
GAO discovered that over 50 percent of the 68 diplomatic residences analyzed in the study did not live up to all security standards and that updates to security have been sluggish.
The government office concluded that its findings “raise serious questions about State’s ability to make timely and informed risk management decisions about soft targets.”
The State Department has allocated almost $200 million for security enhancements to residences, schools and other soft targets overseas.
TWEET
John Kerry / AP
BY: Morgan Chalfant
July 10, 2015 11:14 am
The U.S. Government Accountability Office released a study Thursday criticizing the State Department’s weak security practices to protect diplomatic personnel and their families overseas.
CNN reported:
The study cites multiple “vulnerabilities” in high threat areas. The State Department has built many new embassies and consulates, and enhanced security measures at others, since the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania East Africa. But the increased security at U.S. diplomatic posts has made areas where diplomatic personnel and their families congregate, such as residences, schools and churches, more attractive “soft targets” for terrorists.
In its assessment, GAO examined security standards in place in areas of high threat, how the State Department determined risk to such “soft targets” and how the agency dealt with security vulnerabilities. The study identified “a number of gaps or weaknesses” in the State Department’s procedures for conducting risk management in high threat areas.
GAO discovered that over 50 percent of the 68 diplomatic residences analyzed in the study did not live up to all security standards and that updates to security have been sluggish.
The government office concluded that its findings “raise serious questions about State’s ability to make timely and informed risk management decisions about soft targets.”
The State Department has allocated almost $200 million for security enhancements to residences, schools and other soft targets overseas.
[h=2]Hillary Clinton Made More than Bernie Sanders’ Net Worth in One Speech[/h]BY: Andrew Stiles
July 10, 2015 11:31 am
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
Hillary Clinton is trying to make history by becoming one of the oldest and richest Americans to be elected president in the modern era. Bernie Sanders, despite being embarrassingly poor by comparison, is also running for the Democratic nomination.
How rich is Hillary Clinton? Well, in addition to earning (along with Bill) more than $30 million since 2014, Hillary earned more than Sanders’ entire net worth in one speech sponsored by telecom giant Qualcomm.
Sanders reported a net worth of $330,507 in 2013. In October of 2014, Hillary earned $335,000 to speak at a Qualcomm event in San Diego. The tech company, which has donated generously to the Clinton Foundation, has also lobbied the federal government to approve the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. Sanders is firmly opposed to the agreement; so are labor unions and liberal heartthrob Elizabeth Warren. Hillary, meanwhile, has repeatedly failed to take a position, despite having praised the agreement on numerous occasion during her time as Secretary of State.
Several months after the Qualcomm speech, Clinton was paid $150,000 to address the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, an institution that has been the subject of multiple U.S. investigation, and has been accused of helping Enron commit fraud by misleading investors. Clinton’s total haul for those two speeches alone ($485,000) is greater than Marco Rubio’s reported net worth ($443,509 in 2013).
July 10, 2015 11:31 am
SHARE
TWEET
AP
Hillary Clinton is trying to make history by becoming one of the oldest and richest Americans to be elected president in the modern era. Bernie Sanders, despite being embarrassingly poor by comparison, is also running for the Democratic nomination.
How rich is Hillary Clinton? Well, in addition to earning (along with Bill) more than $30 million since 2014, Hillary earned more than Sanders’ entire net worth in one speech sponsored by telecom giant Qualcomm.
Sanders reported a net worth of $330,507 in 2013. In October of 2014, Hillary earned $335,000 to speak at a Qualcomm event in San Diego. The tech company, which has donated generously to the Clinton Foundation, has also lobbied the federal government to approve the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. Sanders is firmly opposed to the agreement; so are labor unions and liberal heartthrob Elizabeth Warren. Hillary, meanwhile, has repeatedly failed to take a position, despite having praised the agreement on numerous occasion during her time as Secretary of State.
Several months after the Qualcomm speech, Clinton was paid $150,000 to address the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, an institution that has been the subject of multiple U.S. investigation, and has been accused of helping Enron commit fraud by misleading investors. Clinton’s total haul for those two speeches alone ($485,000) is greater than Marco Rubio’s reported net worth ($443,509 in 2013).
[h=1]DEMOCRATS RUNNING SCARED FROM ‘SANCTUARY CITY’ POLICIES[/h]
Laura Lean - WPA Pool/Getty Images
by AWR HAWKINS9 Jul 2015152
[h=2]Democrats are abandoning their defense of sanctuary cities in the wake of the recent shooting death of 32-year-old Kathryn Steinle on San Francisco’s Pier 14 by an illegal alien and convicted felon who was released by local authorities.[/h]In fact, Democrats now appear to be at a point where they “will say anything to distance themselves from sanctuary city policies.”
While the media debate Donald Trump and his remarks about Mexicans, Democrats are backing away from the policies that led to Steinle’s murder–along with similar crimes elsewhere. Several cities in California are reportedly reconsidering their policies.
San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra Saunders writes that Hillary Clinton signaled Democrats’ shift on July 7 when asked about San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi’s refusal to hand Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement for deportation.
Clinton said, “The city made a mistake not to deport someone that the federal government strongly felt should be deported. So I have absolutely no support for a city that ignores the strong evidence that should be acted on.”
This is a 180-degree shift from Clinton’s earlier support of sanctuary city policies.
For example, in 2007 Clinton told the late Tim Russert that she did not believe there as was “any choice” but to abide by sanctuary policies. Without them, she suggested, immigrants might not talk to police for fear that they’re “going to be enforcing the immigration laws.’”
Moreover, in 2008 “Clinton voted against an amendment to yank some federal funds from sanctuary cities.”
Conservative Republicans have criticized “sanctuary cities” for years. In March, according to the Washington Times, Representative Rick Mulvaney (R-SC) asked ICE director Sarah Saldaña “if it would help if Congress made it mandatory for local governments to cooperate with ICE”–i.e., if it would help to pass the very kind of bill Clinton voted against in 2008. Saldaña responded with, “Thank you. Amen. Yes.”
Saunders leaves readers with this final take on sanctuary cities:
by AWR HAWKINS9 Jul 2015152
[h=2]Democrats are abandoning their defense of sanctuary cities in the wake of the recent shooting death of 32-year-old Kathryn Steinle on San Francisco’s Pier 14 by an illegal alien and convicted felon who was released by local authorities.[/h]In fact, Democrats now appear to be at a point where they “will say anything to distance themselves from sanctuary city policies.”
While the media debate Donald Trump and his remarks about Mexicans, Democrats are backing away from the policies that led to Steinle’s murder–along with similar crimes elsewhere. Several cities in California are reportedly reconsidering their policies.
San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra Saunders writes that Hillary Clinton signaled Democrats’ shift on July 7 when asked about San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi’s refusal to hand Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement for deportation.
Clinton said, “The city made a mistake not to deport someone that the federal government strongly felt should be deported. So I have absolutely no support for a city that ignores the strong evidence that should be acted on.”
This is a 180-degree shift from Clinton’s earlier support of sanctuary city policies.
For example, in 2007 Clinton told the late Tim Russert that she did not believe there as was “any choice” but to abide by sanctuary policies. Without them, she suggested, immigrants might not talk to police for fear that they’re “going to be enforcing the immigration laws.’”
Moreover, in 2008 “Clinton voted against an amendment to yank some federal funds from sanctuary cities.”
Conservative Republicans have criticized “sanctuary cities” for years. In March, according to the Washington Times, Representative Rick Mulvaney (R-SC) asked ICE director Sarah Saldaña “if it would help if Congress made it mandatory for local governments to cooperate with ICE”–i.e., if it would help to pass the very kind of bill Clinton voted against in 2008. Saldaña responded with, “Thank you. Amen. Yes.”
Saunders leaves readers with this final take on sanctuary cities:
Where is the common sense in shielding repeat felons and border jumpers from the consequences of their crimes? There is no need to look outside the city: San Francisco screwed up. Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, the Board of Supervisors and the mayor were so busy crowing about their pro-immigrant credentials, and refusing to differentiate between legal and undocumented, that they forgot voters elect them to keep this city safe.
[h=1]Spend, spend, spend!
Hillary reveals her liberal economic plan – universal pre-K, more student aid, paid family leave and a minimum wage hike[/h]
Hillary Clinton will formally unveil her economic agenda on Monday after three months of 'listening' to the concerns of 'everyday Americans' across the country, and in early voting states in particular.
Among the proposals she's expected to put her weight behind, according to the New York Times, are universal prekindergarten, subsidized child care for working families, paid sick and family leave for new parents, higher education reform and an increase in the federal minimum wage.
She'll also urge businesses to adopt profit-sharing programs for their employees, make a legislative push for more money for medical research and outline her plans to protect more of the nation's 11 million illegal immigrants from deportation.
It's unclear how she'll pay for the programs, estimated to cost billions.
Aides to Clinton said she would propose a tax hike on wealthy Americans and other unspecified cutbacks and loophole closures. They did not go into further detail other than to say, as the Times put it, that they would be substantial.
+6
Hillary Clinton will formally unveil her economic agenda on Monday after three months of 'listening' to the concerns of 'everyday Americans' across the country, and in early voting states in particular. She's pictured here in Iowa City, Iowa, on Monday
Clinton said in an interview this week - the first nationally broadcast sit-down of her campaign - that she had not put her agenda in ink, yet, because she wanted to spend the first 90 days of her candidacy listening to the Americans in small, group settings.
That, she said, is also why she had not been giving interviews and had not held a massive rally since formally announcing her candidacy, with the exception of her kick-off event.
The Democratic candidate insisted in the interview that her sole concern was her own campaign and refused to compare herself to her top primary opponent, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, telling CNN's Briana Keilar, 'everybody has to run his or her own campaign.'
'And I'm going to be telling the American people what I propose, and how I think it will work, then we'll let the voters make up their minds,' she said.
Hillary reveals her liberal economic plan – universal pre-K, more student aid, paid family leave and a minimum wage hike[/h]
- Clinton will formally unveil her economic agenda on Monday after three months of 'listening' to the concerns of 'everyday Americans'
- It's unclear how she'll pay for the programs, estimated to cost billions
- Aides say she will propose a tax hike on on wealthy Americans and other unspecified cutbacks and loopholes closures
- Left-wing groups have hounded Clinton, and the rest of the Democratic field, to 'think big' and embrace 'bold' progressive ideas
- Progressive group Democracy For America admits that a liberal agenda will be costly: 'Washington has a lot of resources available to them, and it's all an issue of priorities,' though, it said
Hillary Clinton will formally unveil her economic agenda on Monday after three months of 'listening' to the concerns of 'everyday Americans' across the country, and in early voting states in particular.
Among the proposals she's expected to put her weight behind, according to the New York Times, are universal prekindergarten, subsidized child care for working families, paid sick and family leave for new parents, higher education reform and an increase in the federal minimum wage.
She'll also urge businesses to adopt profit-sharing programs for their employees, make a legislative push for more money for medical research and outline her plans to protect more of the nation's 11 million illegal immigrants from deportation.
It's unclear how she'll pay for the programs, estimated to cost billions.
Aides to Clinton said she would propose a tax hike on wealthy Americans and other unspecified cutbacks and loophole closures. They did not go into further detail other than to say, as the Times put it, that they would be substantial.
+6
Hillary Clinton will formally unveil her economic agenda on Monday after three months of 'listening' to the concerns of 'everyday Americans' across the country, and in early voting states in particular. She's pictured here in Iowa City, Iowa, on Monday
Clinton said in an interview this week - the first nationally broadcast sit-down of her campaign - that she had not put her agenda in ink, yet, because she wanted to spend the first 90 days of her candidacy listening to the Americans in small, group settings.
That, she said, is also why she had not been giving interviews and had not held a massive rally since formally announcing her candidacy, with the exception of her kick-off event.
The Democratic candidate insisted in the interview that her sole concern was her own campaign and refused to compare herself to her top primary opponent, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, telling CNN's Briana Keilar, 'everybody has to run his or her own campaign.'
'And I'm going to be telling the American people what I propose, and how I think it will work, then we'll let the voters make up their minds,' she said.
Clinton said that after she released her economic priorities next week she'd be willing and ready to debate on them.
Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, has already offered up a 12-point economic plan that, much like Clinton's soon-to-be released agenda, is sure to leave fiscal conservatives and the business wing of the Republican Party fuming.
A fundamental pillar of his platform is the dissolution of big banks. 'If it's too big to fail, it's too big to exist. That's the bottom line,' reads a petition on his campaign site.
'I am prepared to break up the large financial institutions because I think Wall Street has too much power — she has not been clear on that,' Sanders said during an appearance on CNN's New Day this morning.
But the independent senator said that he's likewise he's not 'going to be beating [Clinton up and attacking her in personal ways.'
'I like her. We have differences of opinions on issues and that’s where my focus will be,' he said.
+6
Clinton said in an interview this week - the first nationally broadcast sit-down of her campaign - that she had not put her agenda in ink, yet, because she wanted to spend the first 90 days of her candidacy listening to the Americans in small, group settings
Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, has already offered up a 12-point economic plan that, much like Clinton's soon-to-be released agenda, is sure to leave fiscal conservatives and the business wing of the Republican Party fuming.
A fundamental pillar of his platform is the dissolution of big banks. 'If it's too big to fail, it's too big to exist. That's the bottom line,' reads a petition on his campaign site.
'I am prepared to break up the large financial institutions because I think Wall Street has too much power — she has not been clear on that,' Sanders said during an appearance on CNN's New Day this morning.
But the independent senator said that he's likewise he's not 'going to be beating [Clinton up and attacking her in personal ways.'
'I like her. We have differences of opinions on issues and that’s where my focus will be,' he said.
+6
Clinton said in an interview this week - the first nationally broadcast sit-down of her campaign - that she had not put her agenda in ink, yet, because she wanted to spend the first 90 days of her candidacy listening to the Americans in small, group settings
Clinton is expected on Monday to unveil a wide-reaching agenda that is rooted in the progressive principles that Democrats supporting Sanders have urged Clinton to make the foundation of her campaign as she runs for president in 2016.
Groups like Democracy for America and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee have hounded Clinton, and the rest of the Democratic field, to 'think big' and embrace 'bold' progressive ideas.
After Clinton's first major speech as a candidate, her June 13 address from Roosevelt Island in New York City, PCCC co-founder Adam Green expressed disappointment in her remarks.
'This was mostly a typical Democratic speech -- much better than the direction Republicans offer America, but not the bold economic vision that most Americans want and need,' he lamented.
'That said, if Hillary Clinton represents the center of the Democratic Party right now, this speech shows that the center of gravity in the Democratic Party is changing -- moving away from corporate Democrat priorities and toward populist ideas.'
Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont and Democratic candidate for president in 2004, told the New York Times several weeks later criticism of Clinton 'was always talking about these issues, but not with the same rhetoric.'
'And that’s because her base has moved left and the country has moved the left. I think she can be more of who she is,' he said.
Gene Sperling, the director of the National Economic Council under Bill Clinton who returned to fill the same role in Barack Obama's administration and has since left government service, told the Times in an interview for its piece previewing Hillary Clinton's speech today that her expected shift in rhetoric is a reflection of the current political environment.
'I think the issues of economic inequality and middle class economic insecurity have become more serious and longstanding, and as a result are demanding bigger responses,' he said.
+6
Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, has already offered up a 12-point economic plan that, much like Clinton's soon-to-be released agenda, is sure to leave fiscal conservatives and the business wing of the Republican Party fuming
Charles Chamberlain, executive director of Democracy for America, told DailyMail.com that Clinton's speech will likely 'be a further step forward for understanding what the moment is now.'
'Economic populism,' he said, is the key to connecting with Americans of all income levels and political ideologies across the entire country.
It would appear that candidates on both sides of the political spectrum have come the understand that, he said.
'They understand that Wall Street has rigged the system. They understand that big corporations are getting away with whatever they want.
'And what's great is it looks like Hillary understands that, too, and is working to build a platform and a program that she's pushing for that puts the reigns of the economy back in the hands of the American people, the middle class,' he said.
Chamberlain readily admitted that progressives' legislative agenda is likely to be costly.
'Washington has a lot of resources available to them, and it's all an issue of priorities,' though, he said.
For starters, Chamberlain said Congress could do away with corporate and tax giveaways and stop offering bailouts and trade deals that 'help top 1% but they still cost us a ton of money but they just cost us a ton of money.'
The types of reforms that Clinton is expected to push 'are all an investment that actually get put right back into the economy,'he said.
'So it's a win-win to send the money on a program like childcare,' whereas when you spend the money on a bailout, that's a 'reactionary' policy that doesn't help middle class Americans, he said.
'Sure, these program cost money,' Chamberlain said, but the reality is that the U.S. could attain that revenue by raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy.
'The bottom line is this is about priorities. What America do we want to live in? Do we want an America that supports the middle class? Or do we want an America that just supports the richest one percent all the time?'
+6
Sanders was once seen a non-serious candidate - but his ability to pack auditoriums, like this one in Portland, Maine, on Monday, has Clinton taking notice. Her wide-reaching agenda will likely be rooted in the progressive principles that Democrats supporting Sanders have urged her to make the foundation of her campaign
Included in Sanders' economic plan, according to CNN, is a 'progressive tax system' that's based on one's 'ability to pay.'
And speaking of ability to pay, Sanders says he wants to double the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour.
Income 'inequality is worse now than at any other time in American history since the 1920s,' he states on his website. 'Today, the top one-tenth of 1 percent of our nation owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent combined.'
In his capacity as a United States senator, has introduced a bill called The College for All Act that is designed to make college more affordable by lowering the interest rates on student loans and creating an option for graduates to refinance already existing federal loans at lower rates.
He plans to fund the measures with a 0.5% tax on stock trade and a 0.1% tax on bonds. He'd also introduce a nominal fee on derivatives. All told, the tax plan, he says, will generate $300 billion in new revenue.
Clinton is also expected to endorse a debt-free college push on Monday, as well.
Former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley, who is also seeking the Democratic nomination, this week released a higher education plan that he claims will make college 'debt-free,' as well. On his website, he does not say how he'll pay for his plan, either.
'To her credit, Hillary Clinton has mentioned debt-free college multiple times on the campaign trail, and Americans await a bold policy speech on debt-free college in the near future,' PCCC co-founder Adam Green said in a statement earlier this week.
+6
Meanwhile, Jeb Bush, the ex-governor of Florida who is the front-runner for the GOP nomination, said this week that he believes that 'people need to work longer hours' in order for the U.S. to turn its economy around. He's been hit hard for it and tried to clarify his remarks on Wednesday in New Hampshire, but it didn't help much
+6
Clinton hit back at him with the above tweet. Among the proposals she's expected to put her weight behind on Monday to help middle class Americans is subsidized child care and a higher minimum wage
Meanwhile, Jeb Bush, the ex-governor of Florida who is the front-runner for the GOP nomination, said this week that he believes that 'people need to work longer hours' in order for the U.S. to turn its economy around.
Bush said he wants to see economic growth of four percent a year, which 'means we have to be a lot more productive, workforce participation has to rise from its all-time modern lows,' he said.
'People need to work longer hours and, through their productivity, gain more income for their families. That's the only way we're going to get out of this rut that we're in.'
After taking heavy criticism for his remarks, made to the Union Leader newspaper in New Hampshire during an interview with its editorial board, Bush claimed at an event that his words were being taken 'out of context.'
'You can take it out of context all you want, but high sustained growth means people work 40 hours rather than 30 hours and that by our success they have disposable income for their families to decide how they want to spend it rather than standing in line and being dependent upon government,' he said.
Democrats are calling it his 'Mitt Romney 47 percent moment' and are holding it up as evidence that, Bush, who is wealthy, is 'out-of-touch' with financial situations of average Americans.
'I mean how much longer does he want people to work? Does he want them to work 47 percent harder? Does he think that people are just lazy, sitting on their backs not doing anything?' DFA's Chamberlain told DailyMail.com.
Chamberlain said he knows 'working mothers out there, working two jobs, barely seeing their own children, because they're desperately trying to raise enough money to keep the lights on and put food on the table.'
'We need an America' that invests in the middle class 'rather than just putting all the money at top' and giving it to the wealthiest people, like Jeb Bush, he charged.
Groups like Democracy for America and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee have hounded Clinton, and the rest of the Democratic field, to 'think big' and embrace 'bold' progressive ideas.
After Clinton's first major speech as a candidate, her June 13 address from Roosevelt Island in New York City, PCCC co-founder Adam Green expressed disappointment in her remarks.
'This was mostly a typical Democratic speech -- much better than the direction Republicans offer America, but not the bold economic vision that most Americans want and need,' he lamented.
'That said, if Hillary Clinton represents the center of the Democratic Party right now, this speech shows that the center of gravity in the Democratic Party is changing -- moving away from corporate Democrat priorities and toward populist ideas.'
Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont and Democratic candidate for president in 2004, told the New York Times several weeks later criticism of Clinton 'was always talking about these issues, but not with the same rhetoric.'
'And that’s because her base has moved left and the country has moved the left. I think she can be more of who she is,' he said.
Gene Sperling, the director of the National Economic Council under Bill Clinton who returned to fill the same role in Barack Obama's administration and has since left government service, told the Times in an interview for its piece previewing Hillary Clinton's speech today that her expected shift in rhetoric is a reflection of the current political environment.
'I think the issues of economic inequality and middle class economic insecurity have become more serious and longstanding, and as a result are demanding bigger responses,' he said.
+6
Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, has already offered up a 12-point economic plan that, much like Clinton's soon-to-be released agenda, is sure to leave fiscal conservatives and the business wing of the Republican Party fuming
Charles Chamberlain, executive director of Democracy for America, told DailyMail.com that Clinton's speech will likely 'be a further step forward for understanding what the moment is now.'
'Economic populism,' he said, is the key to connecting with Americans of all income levels and political ideologies across the entire country.
It would appear that candidates on both sides of the political spectrum have come the understand that, he said.
'They understand that Wall Street has rigged the system. They understand that big corporations are getting away with whatever they want.
'And what's great is it looks like Hillary understands that, too, and is working to build a platform and a program that she's pushing for that puts the reigns of the economy back in the hands of the American people, the middle class,' he said.
Chamberlain readily admitted that progressives' legislative agenda is likely to be costly.
'Washington has a lot of resources available to them, and it's all an issue of priorities,' though, he said.
For starters, Chamberlain said Congress could do away with corporate and tax giveaways and stop offering bailouts and trade deals that 'help top 1% but they still cost us a ton of money but they just cost us a ton of money.'
The types of reforms that Clinton is expected to push 'are all an investment that actually get put right back into the economy,'he said.
'So it's a win-win to send the money on a program like childcare,' whereas when you spend the money on a bailout, that's a 'reactionary' policy that doesn't help middle class Americans, he said.
'Sure, these program cost money,' Chamberlain said, but the reality is that the U.S. could attain that revenue by raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy.
'The bottom line is this is about priorities. What America do we want to live in? Do we want an America that supports the middle class? Or do we want an America that just supports the richest one percent all the time?'
+6
Sanders was once seen a non-serious candidate - but his ability to pack auditoriums, like this one in Portland, Maine, on Monday, has Clinton taking notice. Her wide-reaching agenda will likely be rooted in the progressive principles that Democrats supporting Sanders have urged her to make the foundation of her campaign
Included in Sanders' economic plan, according to CNN, is a 'progressive tax system' that's based on one's 'ability to pay.'
And speaking of ability to pay, Sanders says he wants to double the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour.
Income 'inequality is worse now than at any other time in American history since the 1920s,' he states on his website. 'Today, the top one-tenth of 1 percent of our nation owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent combined.'
In his capacity as a United States senator, has introduced a bill called The College for All Act that is designed to make college more affordable by lowering the interest rates on student loans and creating an option for graduates to refinance already existing federal loans at lower rates.
He plans to fund the measures with a 0.5% tax on stock trade and a 0.1% tax on bonds. He'd also introduce a nominal fee on derivatives. All told, the tax plan, he says, will generate $300 billion in new revenue.
Clinton is also expected to endorse a debt-free college push on Monday, as well.
Former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley, who is also seeking the Democratic nomination, this week released a higher education plan that he claims will make college 'debt-free,' as well. On his website, he does not say how he'll pay for his plan, either.
'To her credit, Hillary Clinton has mentioned debt-free college multiple times on the campaign trail, and Americans await a bold policy speech on debt-free college in the near future,' PCCC co-founder Adam Green said in a statement earlier this week.
+6
Meanwhile, Jeb Bush, the ex-governor of Florida who is the front-runner for the GOP nomination, said this week that he believes that 'people need to work longer hours' in order for the U.S. to turn its economy around. He's been hit hard for it and tried to clarify his remarks on Wednesday in New Hampshire, but it didn't help much
+6
Clinton hit back at him with the above tweet. Among the proposals she's expected to put her weight behind on Monday to help middle class Americans is subsidized child care and a higher minimum wage
Meanwhile, Jeb Bush, the ex-governor of Florida who is the front-runner for the GOP nomination, said this week that he believes that 'people need to work longer hours' in order for the U.S. to turn its economy around.
Bush said he wants to see economic growth of four percent a year, which 'means we have to be a lot more productive, workforce participation has to rise from its all-time modern lows,' he said.
'People need to work longer hours and, through their productivity, gain more income for their families. That's the only way we're going to get out of this rut that we're in.'
After taking heavy criticism for his remarks, made to the Union Leader newspaper in New Hampshire during an interview with its editorial board, Bush claimed at an event that his words were being taken 'out of context.'
'You can take it out of context all you want, but high sustained growth means people work 40 hours rather than 30 hours and that by our success they have disposable income for their families to decide how they want to spend it rather than standing in line and being dependent upon government,' he said.
Democrats are calling it his 'Mitt Romney 47 percent moment' and are holding it up as evidence that, Bush, who is wealthy, is 'out-of-touch' with financial situations of average Americans.
'I mean how much longer does he want people to work? Does he want them to work 47 percent harder? Does he think that people are just lazy, sitting on their backs not doing anything?' DFA's Chamberlain told DailyMail.com.
Chamberlain said he knows 'working mothers out there, working two jobs, barely seeing their own children, because they're desperately trying to raise enough money to keep the lights on and put food on the table.'
'We need an America' that invests in the middle class 'rather than just putting all the money at top' and giving it to the wealthiest people, like Jeb Bush, he charged.
[h=2]Company That Dodged Iran Sanctions Gave to Clinton Foundation[/h]Vahid Alaghband claims not to remember donation
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: Alana Goodman
July 10, 2015 1:18 pm
A businessman whose company was accused of selling 747s to Iran in violation of U.S. sanctions is also a major donor to the Clinton Foundation, the Daily Beast reportedFriday.
Vahid Alaghband’s company Balli Aviation Ltd. pled guilty to multiple counts stemming from the allegations and was ordered to pay $2 million in criminal fines and $15 million in civil fines, according to the Beast.
The company contributed between $10,000 and $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation and Alaghband describes himself as a member of the Clinton Global Initiative on his company’s website:
SHARE
TWEET
AP
BY: Alana Goodman
July 10, 2015 1:18 pm
A businessman whose company was accused of selling 747s to Iran in violation of U.S. sanctions is also a major donor to the Clinton Foundation, the Daily Beast reportedFriday.
Vahid Alaghband’s company Balli Aviation Ltd. pled guilty to multiple counts stemming from the allegations and was ordered to pay $2 million in criminal fines and $15 million in civil fines, according to the Beast.
The company contributed between $10,000 and $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation and Alaghband describes himself as a member of the Clinton Global Initiative on his company’s website:
One of the two counts against Balli Aviation was that it “conspired to export three Boeing 747 aircraft from the United States to Iran,” according to a Justice Department statement, without first obtaining the necessary export licenses from the U.S. government. The company then used its Armenian airline subsidiary to buy the 747s with financing obtained from Mahan Air, Iran’s largest private airline, which is thought by the State Department to be controlled by former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.
In 2011, the Treasury Department sanctioned the airline for “providing financial, material and technological support to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF),” or the expeditionary arm of the Islamic Republic’s praetorian military division, now heavily active in both Syria and Iraq. At the time, the Treasury Department accused the Qods Force of “secretly ferrying operatives, weapons and funds” on Mahan flights.
On the Clinton Foundation website, Alaghband’s company is listed as a donor in the $10,001 to $25,000 bracket. Moreover, on the website for Balli Real Estate, a property investment and development subsidiary also based in the UK, his personal bio describes him as a member of the Clinton Global Initiative.
When contacted by the Daily Beast, Alaghband denied that he was ever a member of CGI and said he did not recall donating to the Clinton Foundation.In 2011, the Treasury Department sanctioned the airline for “providing financial, material and technological support to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF),” or the expeditionary arm of the Islamic Republic’s praetorian military division, now heavily active in both Syria and Iraq. At the time, the Treasury Department accused the Qods Force of “secretly ferrying operatives, weapons and funds” on Mahan flights.
On the Clinton Foundation website, Alaghband’s company is listed as a donor in the $10,001 to $25,000 bracket. Moreover, on the website for Balli Real Estate, a property investment and development subsidiary also based in the UK, his personal bio describes him as a member of the Clinton Global Initiative.
Future scandals abound (the Foundation, Benghazi, State Dept, emails/server et al). Even without all of that look at the obvious. She has nothing in common with the middle class. She did not even do equal pay for those women that worked under her. Whitewater, her brothers, and scores of those that surround and support her. She has more baggage than Obama. Obama's baggage was not exposed until after he took office but Hillary's can be found any and every where. Anyone who simply succumbs to the notion that she is destined to be the next President is part of the problem. Who wants a liar in charge of the country you live in, someone who cannot even define transparency. I am not buying in to the Democratic kool aid that she is a shoe in. Intelligent people know better and if you know better and still want her then you simply don't get it and you never will. Party lines have become more like mine fields and common ground is an island in the sky. All I can say is anyone but Hillary, Dem, Rep, or Independent.
Russ I hear you but with all due respect Obama got a 2nd term. Think about that. How could a man so incompetent get elected again?
Simply put, A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
-- George Bernard Shaw
And as of now there are more Paul’s than Peter’s.
Look at The Grannies economic plan (Thanks SB)
Spend, spend, spend!
Hillary reveals her liberal economic plan – universal pre-K, more student aid, paid family leave and a minimum wage hike.
Clinton will formally unveil her economic agenda on Monday after three months of 'listening' to the concerns of 'everyday Americans'
It's unclear how she'll pay for the programs, estimated to cost billions
Aides say she will propose a tax hike on wealthy
Americans and other unspecified cutbacks and loopholes closures
Left-wing groups have hounded Clinton, and the rest of the Democratic field, to 'think big' and embrace 'bold' progressive ideas
Progressive group Democracy For America admits that a liberal agenda will be costly: 'Washington has a lot of resources available to them, and it's all an issue of priorities,' though, it said
The Paul’s are giddy with anticipation of the gravy train continuing. So her baggage is invisible to them. Mo free shit is all they can see.
Who wants a liar in charge of the country you live in? Apparently more people than you think. Exhibit A. Barack Hussein Obama.
Willie said it best, elections have become meaningless.
Elections indeed have become meaningless. All these establishment Republicans care about is power: Big Government is fine, so long as WE control it!
I can't keep up with Washington corruption anymore, nor can I stomach the impotence of our leaders who swore an oath to stop it.
This is truly the government the founders warned us about.
I can't keep up with Washington corruption anymore, nor can I stomach the impotence of our leaders who swore an oath to stop it.
This is truly the government the founders warned us about.
Guys it is all about the turnout. I do not see any Obama fervor surrounding Hillary. Obama's win was not as big the second time around either and even I was not that sure about Romney. I will not concede that elections are worthless until this one has concluded. Don't give up guys that's what the Dem's want. If Trump goes Independent then Hillary will win I think.
Bernie Sanders is leading 18-29 year olds by double digits
High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/934b9daa-2720-11e5-9c4e-a775d2b173ca.html#ixzz3fgXH8wfQ
[h=1]Clinton’s stumbles fray Democratic nerves[/h]
Megan Murphy in Washington
©AP
Tactical blunders. A strained relationship with the media. An insurgent rival drawing enormous crowds.
For Hillary Clinton, the past few weeks of her 2016 presidential campaign have brought back uncomfortable memories of her failed bid in 2008.
[h=3]More[/h]
[h=4]ON THIS STORY[/h]
[h=3]Sign up now[/h]
FirstFT is our new essential daily email briefing of the best stories from across the web
Three months in to what should be one of the best funded, best organised campaigns in history, Mrs Clinton has been unable to draw a line under a series of controversies, or to generate the kind of grassroots enthusiasm that will be crucial to maintaining momentum in the gruelling months ahead.
As she prepares to outline her economic vision for the country in a high-profile address on Monday in New York, Mrs Clinton’s team is betting that a rollout of popular, middle-class friendly policies such as paid sick leave and universal prekindergarten provision will help to reset the debate.
But her rockier-than-expected start continues to unnerve some long-time allies and Democratic donors, who view the rise of rival Bernie Sanders, the 73-year-old self-proclaimed socialist who has galvanised progressives, as a symptom, rather than a cause, of so-called “Clinton fatigue.”
“We are worried about him, sure. He will be a serious force for the campaign, and I don’t think that will diminish,” Jennifer Palmieri, the Clinton campaign’s communications director,” acknowledged this week.
Aides have been quick to brush off speculation about the kind of disquiet that plagued her 2008 bid. Mrs Clinton started her campaign with huge advantages over the rest of the Democratic field, and her move to position herself as a liberal champion reflects an astute assessment of how issues such as income inequality and wage stagnation have risen up the national agenda.
Mr Sanders may be drawing huge crowds in progressive, predominantly white enclaves such as Madison, Wisconsin and Portland, Maine, but he will struggle to close the gap with Mrs Clinton with the more moderate Democrats that make up the majority of the primary electorate across the country, polls show.
We are worried about [Bernie Sanders, below], sure. He will be a serious force for the campaign, and I don’t think that will diminish- Jennifer Palmieri, Clinton communications director
Among women and nonwhite voters in particular, Mrs Clinton holds an advantage she shows little sign of relinquishing, having prioritised policies such as expanding protections for unauthorised immigrants and improving the affordability of child care to help women back into the work force.
Her campaign raised an impressive $45m over its first three months, three times the size of Mr Sanders’ war chest, and she has built an army of volunteers across key early battleground states such as Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.
Her message has been sharper and more disciplined than it was in 2008, casting herself as a warrior for the middle class and her Republican rivals as out of touch and out of date on issues such as same-sex marriage, healthcare access and gun control laws.
What has surprised some advisers from her 2008 campaign has been her failure to sidestep some basic tactical errors, given those advantages.
A social media storm over her campaign’s decision to rope off reporters like farm animals during an Independence day parade in New Hampshire was followed this week with an awkward nationally televised interview with CNN, where a stiff Mrs Clinton struggled to respond to claims that many voters do not trust her and blamed the “rightwing” for fomenting imaginary scandals.
©AFP
That lack of responsiveness may only exacerbate voters’ concerns that she is not being forthright on issues such as her use of a personal email server during her tenure as secretary of state and whether foreign oligarchs inappropriately courted her favour by making big donations to the Clintons’family charitable foundation, those close to her have warned.
“Painful to watch,” said one.
Some insiders are pushing for changes that would allow for a fuller discussion about what talking points her team is using to respond to attacks before they are put out. While Mrs Clinton’s social media team has been effective at crafting a friendlier, more down-to-earth image through outlets such as Instagram and Twitter, they have urged her to drop her reflexive defensiveness with the press corps.
And in spite of the early speed bumps, many senior Democrats are calling for calm. Mrs Clinton is still polling ahead of Republican rivals such as Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor, and Florida senator Marco Rubio.
In fact, some of her strongest support this week came from a surprising source: Daniel Pfeiffer, the former senior adviser to President Barack Obama who helped to vanquish her campaign in 2008.
“While Clinton’s campaign to date hasn’t been perfect, she is doing exactly what she needs to do to ensure that she is the Democratic nominee,” Mr Pfeiffer said in an article.
“A lot can change in the coming months, but at this point in the race, everyone should stop all the bed-wetting.
[h=1]Clinton’s stumbles fray Democratic nerves[/h]
Megan Murphy in Washington
Tactical blunders. A strained relationship with the media. An insurgent rival drawing enormous crowds.
For Hillary Clinton, the past few weeks of her 2016 presidential campaign have brought back uncomfortable memories of her failed bid in 2008.
[h=3]More[/h]
[h=4]ON THIS STORY[/h]
- Clinton says email controversy ‘blown up’
- Global Insight Rivals show sands shifting under Clinton
- Bush campaign fundraising pulls in $114m
- Maine event shows value of small donors
- Clinton raises record $45m for campaign
- Clinton breaks from 2008 with new vision
- Team Clinton reins in defender-in-chief
- Clinton tries to draw line under email saga
[h=3]Sign up now[/h]
Three months in to what should be one of the best funded, best organised campaigns in history, Mrs Clinton has been unable to draw a line under a series of controversies, or to generate the kind of grassroots enthusiasm that will be crucial to maintaining momentum in the gruelling months ahead.
As she prepares to outline her economic vision for the country in a high-profile address on Monday in New York, Mrs Clinton’s team is betting that a rollout of popular, middle-class friendly policies such as paid sick leave and universal prekindergarten provision will help to reset the debate.
But her rockier-than-expected start continues to unnerve some long-time allies and Democratic donors, who view the rise of rival Bernie Sanders, the 73-year-old self-proclaimed socialist who has galvanised progressives, as a symptom, rather than a cause, of so-called “Clinton fatigue.”
“We are worried about him, sure. He will be a serious force for the campaign, and I don’t think that will diminish,” Jennifer Palmieri, the Clinton campaign’s communications director,” acknowledged this week.
Aides have been quick to brush off speculation about the kind of disquiet that plagued her 2008 bid. Mrs Clinton started her campaign with huge advantages over the rest of the Democratic field, and her move to position herself as a liberal champion reflects an astute assessment of how issues such as income inequality and wage stagnation have risen up the national agenda.
Mr Sanders may be drawing huge crowds in progressive, predominantly white enclaves such as Madison, Wisconsin and Portland, Maine, but he will struggle to close the gap with Mrs Clinton with the more moderate Democrats that make up the majority of the primary electorate across the country, polls show.
We are worried about [Bernie Sanders, below], sure. He will be a serious force for the campaign, and I don’t think that will diminish- Jennifer Palmieri, Clinton communications director
Among women and nonwhite voters in particular, Mrs Clinton holds an advantage she shows little sign of relinquishing, having prioritised policies such as expanding protections for unauthorised immigrants and improving the affordability of child care to help women back into the work force.
Her campaign raised an impressive $45m over its first three months, three times the size of Mr Sanders’ war chest, and she has built an army of volunteers across key early battleground states such as Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.
Her message has been sharper and more disciplined than it was in 2008, casting herself as a warrior for the middle class and her Republican rivals as out of touch and out of date on issues such as same-sex marriage, healthcare access and gun control laws.
What has surprised some advisers from her 2008 campaign has been her failure to sidestep some basic tactical errors, given those advantages.
A social media storm over her campaign’s decision to rope off reporters like farm animals during an Independence day parade in New Hampshire was followed this week with an awkward nationally televised interview with CNN, where a stiff Mrs Clinton struggled to respond to claims that many voters do not trust her and blamed the “rightwing” for fomenting imaginary scandals.
That lack of responsiveness may only exacerbate voters’ concerns that she is not being forthright on issues such as her use of a personal email server during her tenure as secretary of state and whether foreign oligarchs inappropriately courted her favour by making big donations to the Clintons’family charitable foundation, those close to her have warned.
“Painful to watch,” said one.
Some insiders are pushing for changes that would allow for a fuller discussion about what talking points her team is using to respond to attacks before they are put out. While Mrs Clinton’s social media team has been effective at crafting a friendlier, more down-to-earth image through outlets such as Instagram and Twitter, they have urged her to drop her reflexive defensiveness with the press corps.
And in spite of the early speed bumps, many senior Democrats are calling for calm. Mrs Clinton is still polling ahead of Republican rivals such as Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor, and Florida senator Marco Rubio.
In fact, some of her strongest support this week came from a surprising source: Daniel Pfeiffer, the former senior adviser to President Barack Obama who helped to vanquish her campaign in 2008.
“While Clinton’s campaign to date hasn’t been perfect, she is doing exactly what she needs to do to ensure that she is the Democratic nominee,” Mr Pfeiffer said in an article.
“A lot can change in the coming months, but at this point in the race, everyone should stop all the bed-wetting.
Fox News analyst and former judge Andrew Napolitano recently posted a Washington Times op-ed called "Hillary's Secret War," in which he declares with certainty that Hillary Clinton "provided material assistance to terrorists and lied to Congress in a venue where the law required her to be truthful." Gadzooks!
After reading the transcript of an interview with a a lawfully licensed American arms dealer named Marc Turi, as well as emails to and from the State Department and congressional officials while Hillary was Secretary of State.
In 2011, Turi received approval from the Departments of State and Treasury to sell "hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of arms to the government of Qatar, which then, at the request of American government officials, were sold, bartered or given to rebel groups in Libya and Syria."
Napolitano states that Clinton "obtained permission from President Obama and consent from congressional leaders in both houses of Congress and in both parties to arm rebels in Syria and Libya in an effort to overthrow the governments of those countries."
Many of those rebels were terrorist groups who are our sworn enemies. "There was no congressional declaration of war, no congressional vote, no congressional knowledge beyond fewer than a dozen members, and no federal statute that authorized this."
When Sen. Rand Paul asked Clinton at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Jan. 23, 2013, whether she knew about American arms shipped to the Middle East or anywhere else, she denied any knowledge. But at that time, she and her State Department political designee, Andrew Shapiro, had authorized thousands of shipments of billions of dollars' worth of arms to U.S. enemies to fight her secret war. Among the casualties of her war were U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three colleagues, who were assassinated at the American consulate in Benghazi, by rebels Mrs. Clinton armed with American military hardware in violation of American law.
This secret war and the criminal behavior that animated it was the product of conspirators in the White House, the State Department, the Treasury Department, the Justice Department, the CIA and a tight-knit group of members of Congress. Their conspiracy has now unraveled. Where is the outrage among the balance of Congress?
Hillary Clinton lied to Congress, gave arms to terrorists and destroyed her emails. How much longer can she hide the truth? How much longer can her lawlessness go unchallenged and unprosecuted? Does she really think the American voters will overlook her criminal behavior and put her in the White House where she can pardon herself?
Why yes and I think so too.
After reading the transcript of an interview with a a lawfully licensed American arms dealer named Marc Turi, as well as emails to and from the State Department and congressional officials while Hillary was Secretary of State.
In 2011, Turi received approval from the Departments of State and Treasury to sell "hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of arms to the government of Qatar, which then, at the request of American government officials, were sold, bartered or given to rebel groups in Libya and Syria."
Napolitano states that Clinton "obtained permission from President Obama and consent from congressional leaders in both houses of Congress and in both parties to arm rebels in Syria and Libya in an effort to overthrow the governments of those countries."
Many of those rebels were terrorist groups who are our sworn enemies. "There was no congressional declaration of war, no congressional vote, no congressional knowledge beyond fewer than a dozen members, and no federal statute that authorized this."
When Sen. Rand Paul asked Clinton at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Jan. 23, 2013, whether she knew about American arms shipped to the Middle East or anywhere else, she denied any knowledge. But at that time, she and her State Department political designee, Andrew Shapiro, had authorized thousands of shipments of billions of dollars' worth of arms to U.S. enemies to fight her secret war. Among the casualties of her war were U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three colleagues, who were assassinated at the American consulate in Benghazi, by rebels Mrs. Clinton armed with American military hardware in violation of American law.
This secret war and the criminal behavior that animated it was the product of conspirators in the White House, the State Department, the Treasury Department, the Justice Department, the CIA and a tight-knit group of members of Congress. Their conspiracy has now unraveled. Where is the outrage among the balance of Congress?
Hillary Clinton lied to Congress, gave arms to terrorists and destroyed her emails. How much longer can she hide the truth? How much longer can her lawlessness go unchallenged and unprosecuted? Does she really think the American voters will overlook her criminal behavior and put her in the White House where she can pardon herself?
Why yes and I think so too.
