You may hear a lot of information surrounding the Hillary Clinton email “scandal”, but Hillary For America’s campaign Press Secretary, Brian Fallon, is here to fact check tweets about the controversy.
The emails are NOT a “scandal” … it’s just another GOP “swift-boat” style scheme attempting to sully the character of the currently leading 2016 Democratic presidential contender. George W. Bush and his buddy Karl Rove used an RNC email-server — operated in the White House — and they somehow deleted 22 MILLION emails from that server. Did the GOP cry foul? Nope! George W. Bush’s Secretary of State, Colin Powell, used his own private email while Secretary of State. Has the GOP cried foul? Nope!
They couldn’t destroy her using #Benghazi — there was no conspiracy there. Two investigations proved that. But no, the GOP had to go and create yet another committee to do a more “thorough” investigation of everything “Benghazi.” But it now seems their investigation has failed and scope creep has entered the picture. It’s become a political sham to sully Hillary Clinton, and the GOP is wasting our taxpayer dollars on their trip down their rabid rabbit hole!
- GOP showing ‘double standard’ in demand for Clinton emails
- Secretary of State Colin Powell Also Used Personal Email Account
- The misleading Democratic spin on Hillary Clinton’s e-mails
- That Time Karl Rove Deleted 22 MILLION White House E-Mails And The Media Said Nothing
- State Dept. Spokesman Tells CNN: Hillary Clinton “Was Not Violating Policy” With Personal Email
- Myths And Facts On Hillary Clinton’s Email And Reports Of “Top Secret” Materials
- From Scandal To Farce: What The Clinton Email Coverage Tells Us About The Press
- NY Times Issues Second Major Correction To Botched Report On Clinton’s Emails
August is when members of Congress are supposed to be meeting with their constituents to discuss issues before them. If you get a chance to attend such a meeting, please express your support for the Iran Deal and ask for your Senator’s and Congressman’s support.
As of the date of this post, there are 32 days remaining before Congress must take action on the Iran Deal before them. Even if you don’t get a chance to attend a meeting, you can always pick up your phone and call their offices:
- 60 National Security Leaders Support the Iran Deal, The Iran Project, July 20, 2015
- Letter to the President from over 100 former American Ambassadors on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran’s Nuclear Program, The Iran Project, July 16, 2015
- Americans Strongly In Favor of Iran Deal, Public Policy Polling, July 27, 2015
- The consequences of a bad deal with Iran, Los Angeles Times, July 26, 2015
- Special Editorial: Kill the Deal, The Weekly Standard, April 4, 2015
- Big money and ads clash over Iran nuclear deal, USA Today, July 22, 2015
- 29 U.S. Scientists Praise Iran Nuclear Deal in Letter to Obama, New York Times, August 8, 2015
- 340 US rabbis sign letter urging Congress to support Iran deal, The Times of Israel, August 17, 2015
- Dozens of retired generals, admirals back Iran nuclear deal, August 11, 2015
- 9 Reasons to Support the Iran Deal, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, August 3, 2015
Before you start believing the drivel Republicans are spreading about rising deficits, maybe you need to understand the difference between two terms that are frequently used in error: overall National Debt and the Federal Budget Deficit. Republicans are counting on 93% of the population apparently not understanding that there’s a difference between the two.
Let me start by explaining both terms from a family budget perspective. If you have a monthly income of $1000.oo, but you have bills and expenses of $1,200.00, you have a $200.00 “budget deficit” that most folks will have to carry on a credit card, hoping to pay it off during the upcoming month. If on the other hand, you continue having $200.00 deficits for months on end, the deficit remains at $200, but your household debt begins to rise on that credit card by $200.00 (plus interest) each month. So, in 12 months, the budget deficit is $200, but the household debt is $2400 (plus interest).
Well, the Federal Budget Deficit and the National Debt work the same way, but the Federal Budget Deficit is NOT rising as the Republicans would have you believe. It’s dropping dramatically. Yes, the National Debt is still rising because we still have a budgetary deficit, but the Federal Budget Deficits have dropped dramatically since the end of the 2009 fiscal year:
Now that you better understand the difference between the two terms, the next time your crazy wingnut friend tries to echo the Republican mantra that deficits are rising, please take the time to educate them. If all else fails, please tell them they deserve a lengthy time-out in some dank corner.
— OpEd by Bernie Sanders, Candidate for U.S. President and sitting Senator from VT
Climate change is an unprecedented planetary emergency. If we don’t act aggressively now to combat it, there will be major and painful consequences in store later: rising oceans that inundate coastal areas, bigger superstorms like Hurricane Sandy, worsening droughts, out-of-control wildfires, historic floods that come year after year, rising food prices, and millions of people displaced by climate disasters. It’s not a future any of us wants to imagine.
But despite how difficult the problem is, the basics of how we should respond to it are actually not that complicated: we need to keep fossil fuels in the ground, and move to 100 percent renewable energy — and we need to act immediately.
That’s why I cannot understand why some Democratic presidential candidates have refused to take a stand against the Keystone XL Pipeline. Keystone XL would transport millions of gallons of some of the dirtiest oil on the planet — oil that scientists tell us we simply cannot burn if we want to stop the worst impacts of climate change. As former NASA scientist James Hansen has said, building Keystone XL would mean “game over” for the climate.
A decision on Keystone XL could come at any moment, and that’s why it’s so important you make your voice heard through our campaign today.
It’s no big surprise that in recent years, most major Republican politicians have chosen to deny that climate change even exists. Republicans in Congress have collectively received millions of dollars in campaign contributions from fossil fuel interests who directly profit from stonewalling action on climate, at the expense of the climate and of humanity. Politicians who deny climate change is real, despite an overwhelming scientific consensus, are as morally bankrupt as those who helped Big Tobacco conceal the truth about the health effects of smoking, evading responsibility for years.
But in some ways, it’s even more disappointing to see Democratic politicians, who understand that climate change is real and profess to care about action on climate, equivocate on an issue as clear-cut as Keystone XL.
A study released by the scientific journal Nature just a few months ago found that if we want to keep global warming below the internationally agreed-upon safe upper limit of two degrees Celsius, we need to reduce all production of the Canadian tar sands — the kind of oil that Keystone XL would transport — to “negligible” levels. In other words, there is simply no scenario where we can address climate change in a real way and also allow this pipeline to go forward.
Stopping the Keystone XL pipeline is not the only thing we must do to address climate change. Ultimately, we need to leave all fossil fuels in the ground and move to a 100 percent renewable energy economy.
That’s why I also oppose oil drilling in the Arctic, support the fossil fuel divestment movement, and have sponsored legislation in Congress to bring solar energy to ten million rooftops in America. As a result of these positions, and my long record in support of the environment, I was recently honored to receive the endorsement of Friends of the Earth.
To win the important environmental victories we so urgently need, it will take a coordinated grassroots movement fighting to take our country and our climate back from the fossil fuel industry billionaires. It was a grassroots movement — of Nebraska ranchers, Native American communities, and climate change activists — that managed to hold off Keystone XL for years, despite the conventional wisdom that the pipeline was a done deal. I’m proud to have stood with those activists in their fight from the very beginning.
No doubt, a number of you have heard a RW friend or three remarking that “the Civil War was not fought over slavery.” Saying “it ain’t so” doesn’t make it true that it was something else. In a mere 5 minutes, Colonel Ty Seidule, who is professor and Head of the Department of History at the United States Military Academy at West Point makes it clear that the Civil War WAS, indeed, fought to preserve the South’s “peculiar institution of slavery.”
Take a moment to watch and listen:
“Was the American Civil War fought because of slavery? More than 150 years later this remains a controversial question.
Why? Because many people don’t want to believe that the citizens of the southern states were willing to fight and die to preserve a morally repugnant institution. There has to be another reason, we are told. Well, there isn’t.
The evidence is clear and overwhelming. Slavery was, by a wide margin, the single most important cause of the Civil War — for both sides. Before the presidential election of 1860, a South Carolina newspaper warned that the issue before the country was, “the extinction of slavery,” and called on all who were not prepared to, “surrender the institution,” to act. Shortly after Abraham Lincoln’s victory, they did.
he secession documents of every Southern state made clear, crystal clear, that they were leaving the Union in order to protect their “peculiar institution” of slavery — a phrase that at the time meant “the thing special to them.” The vote to secede was 169 to 0 in South Carolina, 166 to 7 in Texas, 84 to 15 in Mississippi. In no Southern state was the vote close.
Alexander Stephens of Georgia, the Confederacy’s Vice President clearly articulated the views of the South in March 1861. “Our new government,” he said, was founded on slavery. “Its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, submission to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.” Yet, despite the evidence, many continue to argue that other factors superseded slavery as the cause of the Civil War.
Some argue that the South only wanted to protect states’ rights. But this raises an obvious question: the states’ rights to what? Wasn’t it to maintain and spread slavery? Moreover, states’ rights was not an exclusive Southern issue. All the states — North and South — sought to protect their rights — sometimes they petitioned the federal government, sometimes they quarreled with each other. In fact, Mississippians complained that New York had too strong a concept of states’ rights because it would not allow Delta planters to bring their slaves to Manhattan. The South was preoccupied with states’ rights because it was preoccupied first and foremost with retaining slavery.
Some argue that the cause of the war was economic. The North was industrial and the South agrarian, and so, the two lived in such economically different societies that they could no longer stay together. Not true.
In the middle of the 19th century, both North and South were agrarian societies. In fact, the North produced far more food crops than did the South. But Northern farmers had to pay their farmhands who were free to come and go as they pleased, while Southern plantation owners exploited slaves over whom they had total control.
And it wasn’t just plantation owners who supported slavery. The slave society was embraced by all classes in the South. The rich had multiple motivations for wanting to maintain slavery, but so did the poor, non-slave holding whites. The “peculiar institution” ensured that they did not fall to the bottom rung of the social ladder. That’s why another argument — that the Civil War couldn’t have been about slavery because so few people owned slaves — has little merit.
Finally, many have argued that President Abraham Lincoln fought the war to keep the Union together, not to end slavery. That was true at the outset of the war. But he did so with the clear knowledge that keeping the Union together meant either spreading slavery to all the states — an unacceptable solution — or vanquishing it altogether.
In a famous campaign speech in 1858, Lincoln said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” What was it that divided the country? It was slavery, and only slavery. He continued: “I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free… It will become all one thing, or all the other.” Lincoln’s view never changed, and as the war progressed, the moral component, ending slavery, became more and more fixed in his mind. His Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 turned that into law.
Slavery is the great shame of America’s history. No one denies that. But it’s to America’s everlasting credit that it fought the most devastating war in its history in order to abolish slavery.
As a soldier, I am proud that the United States Army, my army, defeated the Confederates. In its finest hour, soldiers wearing this blue uniform — almost two hundred thousand of them former slaves themselves — destroyed chattel slavery, freed 4 million men, women, and children from human bondage, and saved the United States of America.
I’m Colonel Ty Seidule, Professor and Head, Department of History at the United States Military Academy, West Point for Prager University.”
Twenty-nine of our nation’s top scientists have written to President Obama in support of the negotiated nuclear agreement between the P5+1 countries and Iran, which calls for Iran to curb its nuclear program and allow inspections in return for an end to sanctions. And just in case you didn’t know, six of those twenty-nine are Nobel Prize winning scientists. Click the document icon below to read the letter posted in a NYT article:
— from the White House
The U.S. and our international partners have secured the strongest nuclear arrangement ever negotiated. Thanks to the nuclear deal — formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — the world can verifiably prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
It’s an historic deal. It’s vital to our national security and that of our allies, like Israel. It’s also very detailed and can seem a bit complicated. So if you’re looking to dive deep into the details, here are five things you should explore to better understand why this deal will ensure Iran’s nuclear program will remain exclusively peaceful moving forward.
Watch This: President Obama’s speech at American University
Fifty-two years ago, President John F. Kennedy delivered a speech at American University on the importance of peace in the nuclear age. This week, President Obama returned there to do the same. He outlined exactly what’s in the Iran deal and what’s at stake should Congress reject it.
Print This: A packet of everything on the Iran deal
Looking for a deep dive into the specifics of the JCPOA? Want to know what security officials, nuclear scientists, and other experts have to say about it?
Share This: A few FAQs on the Iran deal
As the President has said, there’s a lot of misinformation and falsehoods out there about what exactly is in the deal and how it will work.
Read This: The enhanced text of the Iran deal
You can read all 159 pages of the Iran deal with comments from the people who negotiated it and who will implement it.
Find it on Medium — then share it with everyone who wants to dig into the specifics of the way the deal provides unprecedented transparency to monitor Iran’s nuclear fuel cycle, the robust verification regime, and more.
Follow This on Twitter: @TheIranDeal
Want updates on the Iran deal in realtime?
Follow @TheIranDeal for live fact-checks, news updates, and exclusive insights on the significance of this historic deal — along with the next steps we need to take to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and avoid another conflict in the Middle East.
As Congress moves through its 60-day review period of the deal, stay tuned for more updates on this important diplomatic achievement.
The first Democratic debates since 2008, when then-senator Barack Obama battled Clinton and others for the nomination.
Press Release: Hillary for America
During the first debate last night, we heard the second-tier GOP candidates lay out an agenda both out of date and out of touch with the needs of everyday Americans. Here are some of the examples of what Republicans running for President view as their most important job:
- Break up families and put them at risk of deportation
- Allow discrimination against LGBT Americans
- Limit access to women’s health care
- Let Wall Street write its own rules again
Unfortunately, the lower-tier candidates are not the exception; they are the rule. Here’s where the Republicans in the main event stand on those very same issues:
Scott Walker: Opposes a path to citizenship.
Mike Huckabee: Said he would repeal President Obama’s executive action on immigration and opposes a path to citizenship.
Ben Carson: Proposes giving undocumented immigrants a path to 2nd class status, denying them access to all but the least wanted jobs.
Ted Cruz: Said “I think a path to citizenship for those who are here illegally is profoundly unfair…”
Marco Rubio: Voted three times to block President Obama’s executive actions on immigration.
Rand Paul: Introduced legislation that could lead to the deportation of 4 million undocumented immigrants including DREAMers.
Chris Christie: Thinks a path to citizenship is “pandering” and has said he would immediately reverse President Obama’s executive action on immigration.
John Kasich: His administration is suing to stop President Obama’s executive actions on immigration.
Donald Trump: Opposes marriage equality.
Jeb Bush: Said he does not believe in a constitutional right to marriage equality, calling traditional marriage a ‘sacrament.’
Ted Cruz: Stated the Supreme Court’s decision was “among the darkest hours our nation,” called for a constitutional amendment that would subject Supreme Court justices to periodic judicial elections and said that Texas County Clerks should be able to op-out of issuing same-sex marriage licenses.
Marco Rubio: Disagreed with the Supreme Court’s ruling and reaffirmed his belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Rand Paul: Argued after the Supreme Court decision that the time has come to get government out of recognizing marriage altogether.
John Kasich: Said he was disappointed with the Supreme Court’s decision and reiterated his belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Donald Trump: Supports shutting down the government to defund Planned Parenthood.
Jeb Bush: Said he would sign an extreme abortion ban bill without exceptions for rape and incest.
Scott Walker: Just signed a 20-week abortion ban with no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. Infamously said rape victims are “most concerned” about pregnancy “in the initial months.”
Ben Carson: Compared legal abortion to the practice of ‘heathen’ human sacrifices by ancient civilizations
Marco Rubio: Wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade.
Rand Paul: Has stated quite simply that he “will always vote for any and all legislation that would end abortion.” Paul introduced personhood legislation that could outlaw commonly used forms of birth control and opposes exceptions for rape and incest.
Chris Christie: Has described himself as “unapologetically” pro life.
John Kasich: Signed a 20-week abortion ban without an exception for life or health of the mother. He also mandated medically unnecessary restrictions on abortion that have led to the closing of women’s health clinics.
Wall Street Reform (Dodd-Frank)
Donald Trump: Criticized Dodd-Frank. [Fox News’ Your World with Neil Cavuto, 9/19/13]
Jeb Bush: Said, “We should repeal” Dodd-Frank.
Scott Walker: Said “It’s time to repeal #DoddFrank.”
Ben Carson: called Dodd-Frank and the CFPB “one of the latest massive expansions” of government and said the CFPB was “the ultimate example of regulatory overreach, a nanny state mechanism asserting its control over everyday Americans.” Carson pointed to the CFPB as “exactly the sort of agency I plan to rein in.”
Ted Cruz: Said “We need to repeal Dodd-Frank.”
Rand Paul: cosponsored legislation to repeal Dodd-Frank.
Chris Christie: Criticized Dodd-Frank.
For more on the GOP’s out of touch and out of date agenda for Americans, check the Hillary for America rapid response activity on The Briefing here.