Man Who Shot NYPD Choke-Hold Video, 22-year-old Ramsey Orta, Arrested On Gun Charge.


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!000000000000000000000000000AAAMe

Man Who Shot NYPD Choke-Hold Video, 22-year-old Ramsey Orta, Arrested On Gun Charge.

 

Ramsey Orta appears with the Rev. Al Sharpton at Eric Garner’s funeral on July 23, 2014. (credit: Getty Images)

Ramsey Orta appears with the Rev. Al Sharpton at Eric Garner’s funeral on July 23, 2014. (credit: Getty Images)

 

[NEW UNSEEN VIDEO] NYPD Chokehold Death : Eric Garner Chokehold Death

 

Published on Jul 20, 2014

Another video has surfaced online of Eric Garner, a New York man who died after an NYPD officer put him in a chokehold in broad daylight on Thursday.

 

In the new video, Staten Island resident, 43-year-old Garner, appears unconscious or dead as officers stand around him, keeping him rolled onto his side.

 

Witnesses at the scene remark that police aren’t doing enough to save Garner’s life in the video.

 

article-2698070-1FC83EEC00000578-850_306x423

 

“Now they’re trying to get him an ambulance, after they harassed and slammed him down,” a woman taking the video says. “[The] NYPD harassing people for no reason, he didn’t do anything at all.”

 

Police said Garner “took a fighting stance” and was resisting an arrest for allegedly selling untaxed cigarettes when he suffered a heart attack and died.

 

 
Medical examiners have not yet released an official cause of death.

 

In video obtained exclusively by The New York Daily News, an officer can be seen wrapping his arm around Garner’s neck in a chokehold position and throwing him to the ground.

 

Garner desperately shouts “I can’t breathe!” multiple times before going silent.

 

eric_garner_nypd_kill_jul19

 

In the new video, an emergency medical service worker can be seen taking Garner’s pulse and attempting to talk to him.

 

“Why is no one doing CPR?” a witness at the scene asks.

 

“He’s breathing,” an officer responds back.

 

Mayor Bill de Blasio expressed his condolences, and promised a thorough investigation into the incident. In the wake of Garner’s death, de Blasio has delayed his ten-day Italian vacation.

 

 

 

Man Who Shot Chokehold Video Held on Gun Charge

 

Ramsey Orta appears with the Rev. Al Sharpton at Eric Garner’s funeral on July 23, 2014. (credit: Getty Images)

Ramsey Orta appears with the Rev. Al Sharpton at Eric Garner’s funeral on July 23, 2014. (credit: Getty Images)

 

Published on Aug 3, 2014

The NYPD said Sunday that the man who shot a video of a fatal police chokehold had been arrested on a gun charge.

 

 

 

choke18n-12-web

 

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork/AP) — The man who shot a video of a fatal police chokehold has been arrested on a gun charge, police said.

 

Ramsey Orta, 22, was arrested Saturday night on Staten Island on a charge of criminal possession of a firearm, an NYPD spokesman said.

 

Orta shot the video of an officer using a choke hold to restrain Eric Garner on July 17. Garner died shortly after.

 

Police say an unloaded semi-automatic weapon was recovered from Orta. It was reported stolen in Michigan in 2007.

 

They say Orta is in a hospital being treated for a medical condition.

 

It wasn’t clear if Orta had a lawyer.

 

Rev. Al Sharpton said Orta’s arrest supports his call for the federal government to take over the case. Rev. Sharpton also said this is because the Staten Island district attorney shouldn’t be in the position of prosecuting someone who may be a witness in the Garner case, WCBS 880’s Jim Smith reported

 

Reacting to the arrest, Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association President Patrick Lynch said in a statement, “The arrest of Ramsey Orta for criminal possession of a firearm only underscores the dangers that brought police officers to respond to a chronic crime condition in that community. It is criminals like  Mr. Orta who carry illegal firearms who stand to benefit the most by demonizing the good work of police officers.”

 

Rev. Sharpton went after Lynch’s statement, 1010 WINS’ Roger Stern reported.

 

-9085cf6b274e545d

 

“I don’t know anything Orta said to demonize anyone.  He put out a tape.  The tape speaks for itself and then the medical examiner comes in and corroborates what happened,” Sharpton said. “This has no bearing at all on the case or the movement for justice in the regard to Eric Garner.”

 

Sharpton also pointed out that nowhere in the PBA statement did they deny that officers used a chokehold.

 

“The chokehold is illegal and they’re confessing that they break the law because they can’t handle crime– is that what it sounds like? A confession by the PBA?” Sharpton said.

 

The New York City medical examiner ruled Garner’s death a homicide. The man’s widow and the Rev. Sharpton have called for an arrest in his death.

 

“I knew that was the cause because I saw it,” Orta said after the medical examiner’s ruling. “Now somebody should get charged.”

 

Police said Garner was being arrested for selling illegal untaxed cigarettes, but Orta said Garner had just broken up a fight before officers arrived.

 

“They were just going after him because of his past,” Orta said. “They didn’t witness him sell no cigarettes.”

 

eric-garner-4

 

 

Eric Garner’s death in NYPD chokehold case ruled a homicide.

 

The casket of Eric Garner is carried from his funeral in late July. The death of the 43-year-old man, who was placed in a chokehold by a New York police officer, has been ruled a homicide. (Getty Images)

The casket of Eric Garner is carried from his funeral in late July. The death of the 43-year-old man, who was placed in a chokehold by a New York police officer, has been ruled a homicide. (Getty Images)

 

JAMES QUEALLY, ALANA SEMUELS

 

The controversial death of a New York City man who was placed in a chokehold by police was formally ruled a homicide Friday, a move that will almost certainly place the officers in front of a grand jury and heighten tensions between residents and the police department, city officials and policing experts said.

 

Eric Garner, 43, died after being placed in a chokehold that caused him to suffer neck and chest compressions during his arrest two weeks ago in the Tompkinsville section of Staten Island, according to findings released by the New York City medical examiner’s office. Garner’s weight, chronic asthma and cardiovascular disease were listed as contributing factors.

 

On July 17, officers approached Garner and questioned him. He was believed to be selling untaxed cigarettes, a charge on which he had been arrested several times previously. Videos of the incident show that Garner repeatedly said he had done  nothing wrong and asked the officers to leave him alone. As police tried to make an arrest, one of the officers placed his arm across Garner’s throat and wrestled him to the ground. Garner can be heard repeatedly saying, “I can’t breathe,” while another officer presses his head against the sidewalk.

 

Two officers, Daniel Pantaleo and Justin D’Amico, face an internal investigation in connection with Garner’s death. Pantaleo was placed on modified duty, meaning he was stripped of his gun and badge, while D’Amico was placed on desk duty.

 

la-afp-getty-sharpton-meets-with-family-members-of-20140719

 

“My administration will continue to work with all involved authorities, including the Richmond County district attorney, to ensure a fair and justified outcome,” New York Mayor Bill de Blasio said in a statement.

 

Patrick Lynch, the president of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assn., issued a statement in support of Pantaleo and D’Amico, noting again that Garner’s poor health and his refusal to submit to arrest may have played a role in his death.

 

“We believe, however, that if he had not resisted the lawful order of the police officers placing him under arrest, this tragedy would not have occurred,” Lynch said.

 

“When the medical examiner rules a case a homicide by chokehold, and the entire world has seen a video of … the chokehold, the case is going before the grand jury.” - Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York City chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union

 

Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York City chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the medical examiner’s findings would almost certainly result in Pantaleo facing a grand jury. A spokesman for the NYPD declined to comment.

 

“This case has to go before the grand jury,” she said. “When the medical examiner rules a case a homicide by chokehold, and the entire world has seen a video of the people responsible for the chokehold, the case is going before the grand jury.”

 

Garner’s family was expected to speak out Saturday during a rally in Harlem alongside the Rev. Al Sharpton and National Action Network members.

 

From 2009 to 2013, the police department received 1,022 complaints of officers using chokeholds, according to data tracked by the city’s Civilian Complaint Review Board. But very few, just 1 out of 50 in the first six months of this year, have been substantiated, records show. Chokeholds are a violation of department policy, Police Comissioner William J. Bratton has said.

 

Garner’s death is the latest wedge driven between New York City’s police and its residents. In recent years, for example, the department has been accused of unfairly targeting minorities through its stop-and-frisk program.

 

For New York’s freshman mayor, who loudly decried such tactics and promised police reform, the incident leaves him in a bind.

 

la-apphoto-arrest-struggle-death-jpg-20140719

 

 

“‘Broken windows’ is diametrically opposed to the overall political project that De Blasio says he’s engaged in,” said Alex S. Vitale, a professor of sociology at Brooklyn College and the author of a book on New York City policing. “But Bratton is still committed to this ‘broken windows’ approach.”

 

The actions of the Richmond County Dist. Atty. Daniel Donovan will also play a major role in determining the long-term effect of Garner’s death.

 
The NYPD has been implicated in a number of high-profile deaths and beatings, including those of Amadou Diallo, Sean Bell and Anthony Baez. Officers were acquitted of state criminal charges in each case, although Officer Francis Livoti was later convicted of violating Baez’s civil rights after placing him in a chokehold in 1994.

 

Vitale said if Donovan brings minimal charges against the officers involved, it could ignite a firestorm similar the ones that followed the Diallo and Bell verdicts.

 

Lieberman and other experts said that Garner’s death and Friday’s ruling will place increased scrutiny on recent promises made by De Blasio and Bratton to reform the department and retrain officers.

 

“It should be chastening to the police department that what the world saw on video was deemed homicide by the medical examiner,” Lieberman said. “The need for thorough and effective retraining of police officers in New York City is essential.”

 

article-2697344-1FC1EC2900000578-355_306x423

 

obamabottomheader

 

An Interview With The President: Barack Obama Talks To The Economist.


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!00000000000000000000baker

obama

 

AS HE prepares to host a summit in Washington, DC, that will bring together leaders from across Africa, how does Barack Obama see the continent’s future (see article)? Does he feel let down by Vladimir Putin? Could he have designed a more elegant health-care law? And why don’t more business leaders admit that they have lunch with him?

 

In his cabin aboard Air Force One, returning to Washington from Kansas City, where he had been speaking about economic policy, the president talked with John Micklethwait, editor-in-chief of The Economist, and Edward Carr, our foreign editor. The prompt for the interview was the Africa summit, but the conversation ranged widely through the emerging world, China and Russia and the principles underlying his foreign policy. It ended with a lengthy riposte to those, including The Economist, who have criticised the White House for its treatment of business. Mr Obama was unusually relaxed and contemplative, buoyed by the recent economic numbers and looking towards his legacy as well as the mid-term elections and his wrangles with Congress.

 

Because the interview took place on board a plane with three people hunched round a microphone, the sound quality is less than perfect. You can listen to edited highlights of the president’s thoughts on Africa, Russia,China, multilateralism and American business, or listen to the full interview here. A full transcript, lightly edited for clarity, is available below.

 

Barack Obama talks to The Economist

 

Published on Aug 2, 2014

An interview with the president. The Economist’s editor-in-chief and foreign editor talked to Barack Obama aboard Air Force One on August 1st, 2014 as he returned to Washington from Kansas City. The conversation ranged widely through the emerging world, China and Russia and the principles underlying his foreign policy. It ended with a lengthy riposte to those, including The Economist, who have criticised the White House for its treatment of business. You can listen to the full interview here or view the transcript via our website: The Economist.

 

 

 

The Economist: Our starting point, on Africa, is we think Africa is the next big emerging opportunity. You don’t have to convince us at all that the narrative has changed, that this is a completely new thing. And we’ve been writing about that a lot. But it strikes me that in Africa you have an opportunity. You have Lagos, an amazing place, full of entrepreneurs, but you also have northern Nigeria, where you’ve got threats aplenty. I look back at American foreign policy in the past—at emerging Asia. Asia came out, but America really guided it—Kissinger went to China, he helped move it. Do you think America is up for Africa? Do you think America is able to guide it through the next period?

 

Barack Obama: I think America is not going to do it alone, but I think America can be central in moving Africa into the next stage of growth and integrating it into the world economy in a way in which it’s benefitting the people of Africa and it’s not just a source of natural resources.

 

And there are a couple of reasons why I think America can be central in this process. First of all, American companies continue to be an enormous force in the global economy, and in talking to US companies, there is a real recognition of opportunity there. Secondly, I do think that the American traditions of transparency, accountability, rule of law, property rights are ingredients that are critical to unlocking Africa’s future. Third, America was, and continues to be, an economy based on ideas, and as we move deeper into the 21st century, our emphasis on developing human capital is something that Africa very much wants and we’re good at it.

 

And finally, what’s fascinating about African development is the opportunities that they have to leapfrog certain technologies and skip certain phases of development, and we are very good at the technologies that allow countries to potentially leapfrog development. So a classic example being in the telecommunications sector. We invented smartphones and there are smartphones everywhere in Africa.

 

The Economist: They’re very good at doing mobile money, though, aren’t they? They’re much better at banking than—

 

Mr Obama: Well, when we were out the last time—I started in Senegal during my tour, and talking to small farmers about how they’re now getting weather reports, market reports, information on the latest seed technologies, all through their smartphone—those are the kinds of things that we excel at. And to meet a woman who started off with a small plot, who’s able to leverage that into a thriving—still small, but profitable operation, those are the kinds of things that I think we can do better than just about anybody else.

 

The Economist: Your second point about what the US has to bring in, in terms of governance—of course, one of the big factors in Africa and the economy’s emergence has been Chinese investment. And they bring a different model. They don’t have governence. Is that something that—on the other hand, is that a problem for you? Is that something that you need to confront, or is—actually, at this stage, just the capital and the foreign direct investment all that really matters?

 

Mr Obama: My view is the more the merrier. When I was in Africa, the question of China often came up, and my attitude was every country that sees investment opportunities and is willing to partner with African countries should be welcomed. The caution is to make sure that African governments negotiate a good deal with whoever they’re partnering with. And that is true whether it’s the United States; that’s true whether it’s China.

 

And I do think that China has certain capacity, for example, to build infrastructure in Africa that’s critical. They’ve got a lot of capital and they may be less constrained than the United States is fiscally in helping roads get built and bridges and ports. On the other hand, China obviously has a need for natural resources that colours their investments in a way that’s less true for the United States.

 

And so my advice to African leaders is to make sure that if, in fact, China is putting in roads and bridges, number one, that they’re hiring African workers; number two, that the roads don’t just lead from the mine to the port to Shanghai, but that there’s an ability for the African governments to shape how this infrastructure is going to benefit them in the long term.

 

And one of the interesting things we talked about at what was then a G8 summit—the one in Northern Ireland—was how the G7 countries could assist African governments who do have natural resources to build in transparency mechanisms that ensured any infrastructure and any architecture for extraction, in fact, redounded to the benefit of the populations.

 

The Economist: The other advantage the Chinese have is they don’t have Congress. Well, they have a congress but it’s somehow more compliant, to use your word this morning. We could both agree that one of the great things would be to have more free trade in Africa if you could push people. But you face the danger that Congress may give up on the Export-Import Bank and may also get in the way of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). These could frustrate your policy.

 

Mr Obama: There’s no doubt that—

 

The Economist: You’d rather be a dictator. (Laughter.)

 

Mr Obama: Let’s just make sure that we note that that was not my quote. (Laughter.)

 

There is no doubt that a thread has emerged in the Republican Party of anti-globalisation that runs contrary to the party’s traditional support for free trade. How the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) became targets for Tea Party wrath is a little strange to me. But I do think there remains a consensus within the American business community that ultimately we benefit from trade. I am confident that we can get AGOA reauthorised and refined, given the lessons learned from the first round of AGOA. And the truth is that the amount of trade between the United States and Africa is so small relative to our overall economy that in no way should it be perceived as a threat.

 

I am more concerned about the prospect, for example, that Ex-Im was not reauthorised because I think it will hurt US companies. I’m less concerned about its impact on Africa because I guarantee you that there will be German companies and Chinese companies and Indian companies who rush to fill that void. So when you’re talking about a continent with six of the ten fastest-growing economies, we would be cutting off our nose to spite our face to not be engaged and not to encourage strong trade relations. And the business community understands that.

 

Now, one thing that I want to make sure we emphasise, that multilateral institutions emphasise, and that African governments emphasise is not just trade with the advanced economies but intra-African trade. It is easier now to send a shipment of goods from Nairobi to Amsterdam than it is to send those goods to many parts of Africa. And that is an impediment to trade.

 

You mentioned Asia as a model. Part of what Asia was able to do was not simply open up markets to the West for cheaper goods, it was also able to foster homegrown businesses in Asia with regional markets that gave an opportunity for businesses to get better, to develop better products, to in some ways avoid competition on the global scale right away. Essentially, you can operate off-Broadway before you open the show on Broadway.

 

And so the more we can do to also encourage intra-African trade, the better. And we’re experimenting with that with the East Africa Trade Initiative that we are helping Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda and other countries move forward on—synchronising their regulatory schemes, reducing some of the bureaucracy and paperwork between borders, planning for joint infrastructure, planning for joint power generation.

 

We’re really excited about Power Africa as a potential transformative effort—the idea that we can double the amount of electricity in sub-Saharan Africa, which can transform everything from businesses to schools.

 

And there are a whole bunch of different models for generating power. In some cases, particularly in rural areas, if we’re building a small power plant, the key is going to be making sure that Kenya and Tanzania, for example, have some sort of cooperative agreement, so that like the Tennessee Valley Authority, it’s helping a region and you’ve got enough customers to justify the economics of the investment. That’s the kind of effort that, again, I think America can play a unique role in.

 

The Economist: The other bit where it could play a unique role is security. I mean, you are the main provider. I’ve seen a couple of European leaders recently who’ve said that they think that you see African security as their area, as their backyard, they should be dealing with it. Is that fair or is that the wrong way to depict it? That you would be prepared to expend blood and treasure to help create this new Africa in the same way as America did for Asia?

 

Mr Obama: It’s interesting. The US security presence is always a source of ambivalence everywhere in the world. If we’re not there, people think we’re neglecting them. If we’re there, then they think we’re militarising a region. Right now I think we got it about right. Our theory is that we very much need to partner with African countries, first and foremost, and regional African organisations.

 

And one of the main topics in the summit will be finding ways to strengthen peacekeeping and conflict-resolution efforts by Africans. There are certain countries that carry a very heavy load when it comes to peacekeeping and conflict resolution. And for us to engage in the African Union and ECOWAS to find ways to improve their capabilities so that they are able to police their own neighbourhood can make a huge difference.

 

We also think that we need to have a much more intentional, explicit plan for NATO to engage with African countries and regional organisations, not because the United States is not prepared to invest in security efforts in Africa, but rather to ensure that we are not perceived as trying to dominate the continent. Rather, we want to make sure that we’re seen as a reliable partner. And there are some advantages to some European countries with historical ties being engaged and taking advantage of relationships—

 

The Economist: So France might be able to—

 

Mr Obama: France—the Francophone countries—obviously is going to be able to do certain things better than we can. And one of the things we want to make sure of, though, is that when the average African thinks about US engagement in Africa, I don’t want them to think that our only interest is avoiding terrorists from spilling out into the world stage. Rather, we want them to see the partnership as comprehensive, and security being one part of our broader agenda.

 

The Economist: Can I push you a bit on that—using Africa as an example for a thing about general foreign policy? You worked really hard on this idea of getting responsible powers to work together. And I suppose as you look back, you might say the two problems you’ve had are, first, dealing with people who aren’t rational or are extremely difficult to deal with—like Mr Putin—or secondly, the problem is allies who aren’t prepared to put stuff in. And South Africa would seem to be emblematic of other new emerging powers. You’ve got South Africa, you’ve got Indonesia, you’ve got India. A lot of things you’ve tried to get them to back, they haven’t. And why do you think that is? Is that a phase they’re going through? What’s changing?

 

Mr Obama: Well, look, there’s no doubt that a robust, interventionist foreign policy on behalf of certain principles, ideals or international rules is not a tradition that most countries embrace. And in the 20th century and in the early stages of the 21st century, the United States continues to be the one indispensable power that is willing to spend blood and treasure on that. And part of my job has been to try to persuade countries that the United States will always shoulder a greater burden than others, but we still cannot do it alone given the complexity and
interconnectedness of today’s world.

 

So when it comes to South Africa, we recognise a suspicion they may have about meddling too much in the affairs of Zimbabwe, for example. But my argument to them would be, ultimately, as a key regional power, if they fail to invest in the kind of international order or regional order that helps ordinary Zimbabweans thrive, then they’re going to have an immigration problem—which they already do. That, in turn, is going to put more pressure on them and their economies. And ultimately, those chickens will come home to roost.

 

I think there’s a recognition that that may be the case, but I think there’s still a worry on the part of many regional powers that if they are too meddlesome then they’re also exposing themselves to criticism from the outside. And so there’s a little bit of a north-south, traditional, non-aligned culture that dates back 20, 30 years that may take some time and may require a new generation of leadership to discard so that they can move forward in a more effective way.

 

The Economist: It’s kind of depressing, because you don’t see those powers, not even regionally, but globally, standing up to clear abuses and unravelling of the norms. And, in fact, you see countries like China creating a BRICS bank, for instance—institutions that seem to be parallel with the system—and potentially putting pressure on the system rather than adding to it and strengthening it. Now, China you can understand. But India, Brazil, South Africa—those are countries that really belong in the system, that benefit from the system.

 

Mr Obama: Well, this is why I say there may be some generational shifts that need to take place. I mean, if you think about a Brazil, an India, a South Africa, much of the leadership in those governments came of age when those countries had very different attitudes towards the global economic system. To their credit, they have made incredible adjustments. If you think about somebody like former Prime Minister Singh of India really dragging this massive, incredibly complicated but incredibly innovative society kicking and screaming into the world marketplace, and below him, though, you’ve got an entire bureaucracy that was trained in thinking that—

 

The Economist: By the British? (Laughter.)

 

Mr Obama:—well, but also that may have been schooled by economists who were experts on dependency theory but not necessarily on how are we going to unleash innovation.

 

The Economist: What’s their incentive to learn?

 

Mr Obama: So there will be time I think for that to happen. Their incentive is that—is what you just identified—they benefit from the global system.

 

I mean, ironically, today, if India, Brazil, Indonesia—these emerging countries are to succeed and to absorb very young populations that are seeing what’s possible through the internet and have ambitions of the sort that their parents and grandparents never had, the only way to meet those expectations is to dive head first into a global system that is organised, that is fair, that is transparent. And that means that these emerging powers have to be partners in underwriting that order.

 

Another way of thinking about it is, is that the post-World War II order was necessarily a creation of the United States. There had been times where the United States took advantage of that post-World War II order to extend the reach of its companies and to extend the reach of its products, but now it really belongs to everybody. It’s an ecosystem that’s been built for everyone.

 

And when we look at something like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, for example, yes, we think it’s good for the United States, but we also think it’s good for a country like Vietnam who, in the absence of these kinds of rules, is going to have a very difficult time negotiating with its giant neighbour and getting decent terms of trade. We think it’s going to be good for a country like Malaysia that has an interest in maintaining navigation and freedom of movement in the South China Sea.

 

And I do think that what’s happening in the ASEAN countries and their concerns about the Chinese posture on maritime issues is instructive. You’ve seen many of those countries say, we want great relations with China, we don’t want to have to choose between China and the United States; on the other hand, we don’t want to be bullied just because we’re small.

 

The Economist: Because that is the key issue, whether China ends up inside that system or challenging it. That’s the really big issue of our times, I think.

 

Mr Obama: It is. And I think it’s important for the United States and Europe to continue to welcome China as a full partner in these international norms. It’s important for us to recognise that there are going to be times where there are tensions and conflicts. But I think those are manageable.

 

And it’s my belief that as China shifts its economy away from simply being the low-cost manufacturer of the world to wanting to move up the value chain, then suddenly issues like protecting intellectual property become more relevant to their companies, not just to US companies.

 

One thing I will say about China, though, is you also have to be pretty firm with them, because they will push as hard as they can until they meet resistance. They’re not sentimental, and they are not interested in abstractions. And so simple appeals to international norms are insufficient. There have to be mechanisms both to be tough with them when we think that they’re breaching international norms, but also to show them the potential benefits over the long term. And what is true for China then becomes an analogy for many of the other emerging markets.

 

The Economist: What about the people who are just outright difficult? Russia being the obvious example at the moment. You tried to “reset” with Russia. Angela Merkel spent the whole time telephoning Vladimir Putin. To what extent do you feel let down almost personally by what’s happened?

 

Mr Obama: I don’t feel let down. We had a very productive relationship with President Medvedev. We got a lot of things done that we needed to get done. Russia I think has always had a Janus-like quality, both looking east and west, and I think President Putin represents a deep strain in Russia that is probably harmful to Russia over the long term, but in the short term can be politically popular at home and very troublesome abroad.

 

But I do think it’s important to keep perspective. Russia doesn’t make anything. Immigrants aren’t rushing to Moscow in search of opportunity. The life expectancy of the Russian male is around 60 years old. The population is shrinking. And so we have to respond with resolve in what are effectively regional challenges that Russia presents. We have to make sure that they don’t escalate where suddenly nuclear weapons are back in the discussion of foreign policy. And as long as we do that, then I think history is on our side.

Anything on the US economy? I noticed the occasional cover story saying how unfriendly to business we are.

 

The Economist: Yes, tell us about that. We see a lot of business people and they do complain about regulation.

 

Mr Obama: They always complain about regulation. That’s their job. Let’s look at the track record. Let’s look at the facts. Since I have come into office, there’s almost no economic metric by which you couldn’t say that the US economy is better and that corporate bottom lines are better. None.

 

So if, in fact, our policies have produced a record stock market, record corporate profits, 52 months of consecutive job growth, 10m new jobs, the deficit being cut by more than half, an energy sector that’s booming, a clean-energy sector that’s booming, a reduction of carbon pollution greater than the Europeans or any other country, a housing market that has bounced back, and an unemployment rate that is now lower than it was pre-Lehman—I think you’d have to say that we’ve managed the economy pretty well and business has done okay.

 

There are always going to be areas where business does not want to be regulated because regulations are inconvenient.

 

The Economist: When you look at things like Dodd-Frank and health-care reform—both of which we supported in principle—that they could have been much simpler?

 

Mr Obama: Of course. This goes back to the old adage of Churchill—democracy is the worst form of government except for all the alternatives. (Laughter.) It’s messy.

 

And so could we have designed a far more elegant health-care law? Of course. Would I have greatly preferred a blank canvas in which to design financial regulations post-2008 and consolidated agencies and simplified oversight? Absolutely. But the truth of the matter is, is that we saved the financial system. It continues to be extraordinarily profitable. And essentially, what we did was to provide an additional cushion so that if and when people make bad decisions with large sums of money—which they inevitably do—the risks to the system are reduced.

 

And on health care, as messy as the whole process has been, here’s what I know—that we have millions of people [insured] who didn’t have insurance before, and health-care inflation is the lowest it’s been in 50 years, for four consecutive years, corresponding to when we passed the law.

 

So my belief is that if, in fact, we can see a reduction in some of the political temperature around Obamacare or around Dodd-Frank, then it’s an iterative process. We can go back at it and further refine it, learn lessons from things that aren’t working as well, make it simpler, make it better. That does require, though, an attitude on the part of Congress, as well as on the part of the business community, that says you don’t just get 100% of what you want.

 

The business community does have broader responsibilities to the system as a whole. And although the general view today is that the only responsibility that a corporate CEO has is to his shareholders, I think the American people generally sense—

 

The Economist: Do you really think that’s true? Because when I talk to corporate CEOs, that’s one of their complaints. If you ask for a complaint about the White House, they’ll say it is the attitude. Every CEO nowadays is involved in nine different social responsibility things—it’s ingrained in most public—

 

Mr Obama: Well, I think—here’s what’s interesting. There’s a huge gap between the professed values and visions of corporate CEOs and how their lobbyists operate in Washington. And I’ve said this to various CEOs. When they come and they have lunch with me—which they do more often than they probably care to admit (laughter)—and they’ll say, you know what, we really care about the environment, and we really care about education, and we really care about getting immigration reform done—then my challenge to them consistently is, is your lobbyist working as hard on those issues as he or she is on preserving that tax break that you’ve got? And if the answer is no, then you don’t care about it as much as you say.

 

Now, to their credit, I think on an issue like immigration reform, for example, companies did step up. And what they’re discovering is the problem is not the regulatory zealotry of the Obama administration; what they’re discovering is the dysfunction of a Republican Party that knows we need immigration reform, knows that it would actually be good for its long-term prospects, but is captive to the nativist elements in its party.

 

And the same I think goes for a whole range of other issues like climate change, for example. There aren’t any corporate CEOs that you talk to at least outside of maybe—no, I will include CEOs of the fossil-fuel industries—who are still denying that climate change is a factor. What they want is some certainty around the regulations so that they can start planning. Given the capital investments that they have to make, they’re looking at 20-, 30-year investments. They’ve got to know now are we pricing carbon? Are we serious about this? But none of them are engaging in some of the nonsense that you’re hearing out of the climate-change denialists. Denialists?

 

Eric Schultz (deputy press secretary): Deniers.

 

The Economist: Deniers.

 

Mr Obama: Deniers—thank you.

 

The Economist: Denialists sounds better. (laughter.)

 

Mr Obama: It does have more of a ring to it.

 

So the point, though, is that I would take the complaints of the corporate community with a grain of salt. If you look at what our policies have been, they have generally been friendly towards business, while at the same time recognising there are certain core interests—fiscal interests, environmental interests, interests in maintaining stability of the financial system—where, yes, we’re placing constraints on them. It probably cuts into certain profit centres in their businesses. I understand why they would be frustrated by it, but the flip side of it is that they’d be even more unhappy if the global financial system unravels. Nobody has more of a stake in it than them.

 

Last point I’ll make on this: If you look at what’s happened over the last four or five years, the folks who don’t have a right to complain are the folks at the top. Where we have made less progress than I would like, and is my obsession since I came into office and will continue to be my obsession until I leave office and afterwards, is the broader trend of an increasingly bifurcated economy where those at the top are getting a larger and larger share of GDP, increased productivity, corporate profits, and middle-class and working-class families are stuck. Their wages and incomes are stagnant. They’ve been stagnant for almost two decades now. This is not a phenomenon unique to the United States, but it is global.

 

And this to me is the big challenge: How do we preserve the incredible dynamism of the capitalist system while making sure that the distribution of wealth and incomes and goods and services in that system is broadly based, is widely spread?

 

And the reason I’m concerned about this is not in any way a punitive notion. Oftentimes, you’ll hear some hedge-fund manager say, ‘Oh, he’s just trying to stir class resentment’. No. Feel free to keep your house in the Hamptons and your corporate jet, etc. I’m not concerned about how you’re living. I am concerned about making sure that we have a system in which the ordinary person who is working hard and is being responsible can get ahead and are seeing modest improvements in their life prospects, if not for themselves, then certainly for the next generation.

 

And I believe that that’s the big challenge, not just for the United States, but that’s the big challenge for everybody.

 

And we got to go because we’re all parked. Alright?

 

The Economist: Thank you.

 

Mr Obama: That was a good conversation. I enjoyed it.

 

 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

TheObamaCrat SoapBox™: The Illegitimate Presidency Of Barack Hussein Obama.


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!000000000000000000000000000AAAMe

smallobamaflag21 (1)

 

From Think Progress:

 

Think Tank ‘Analyst’ Says ‘Being Hung, Drawn, And Quartered Is Probably Too Good’ For Obama

 

 

A senior policy analyst from an immigration-restrictionist think tank wants to see President Barack Obama not just impeached, but publicly executed, he told a sympathetic audience last week. During a talk at a Tea Party organization in Sebring, Florida, Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) analyst Stephen Steinlight said that Obama’s supposed executive overreach couldn’t be reined in by a lawsuit and that “being hung, drawn, and quartered is probably too good for him,” Imagine 2050 first reported. He then joked that Obama’s head should be on a skewer.

 

Talking with members of the Highlands Tea Party, Steinlightsaid that Boehner’s lawsuit against Obama to faithfully execute the law would not prevent the President from taking executive action on immigration.

 

Anti Immigration Bigot Says Brutal Execution “Too Good” for Pres Obama

 

 

“There’s no court that will stop Obama from doing anything,” Steinlight said to members of the Highlands Tea Party. “And we all know, if there ever was a president that deserved to be impeached, it’s this guy. Alright? And I wouldn’t stop. I would think being hung, drawn, and quartered is probably too good for him. But you know, this man who wants to rule by the use of a pen, a telephone, let us not forget his teleprompter … the fact is that it would backfire very badly and we’ve got to be grownups and accept that we can’t have everything we want, you know, [like] his head on a skewer.”

 

Highland Tea Party members could be heard applauding and laughing in the background. Steinlight also alluded to the child migrant situation, saying that many of them are gang bangers and that “there are a lot more like them.”

 

According to his biography on the CIS website, Steinlight previously provided expert testimony on immigration for the Judiciary Committee of the United States. The work of his organization, CIS, is heavily cited by conservatives like Sen Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA).

 

This is not the first time that Steinlight has made inflammatory comments — he once advocated banning Muslim immigration and said that immigration reform is a psychotic plot against America.

 

Thank you Think Progress.

 

0000000000000000000000000001soapbox

 

I usually don’t give space on my blog to dumbfuckery…but the incident listed above goes to a bigger issue some racist caucasian AmeriKKKans seem to have with our twice duly elected President Of The United States, Barack Hussein Obama.

 

I’ve heard many of these racist caucasian AmeriKKKans say that Barack is not a legitimate POTUSA. That opinion is solely based on Barack’s skin tone. See, no Negro can legitimately hold the highest office in “their” land if he is not caucasian or male. Sad and pathetic I know, but this mindset is an All AmeriKKKan thought process. If you’re white, you’re alright. If you’re brown, stick around. If you’re Black, you don’t exist.

 

The threats to our President of The United States Of ALL America are so numerous that it is humorous. I would wager that in the history of Presidents, none of the past 43 have ever had such blatant hatred directed toward this office…..or the office holder. But then again racism is a disease. Any disease must be removed by surgery or medicine, before it kills the body’s cell structure. The structure of America is terminal.

 

To say that Barack Hussein Obama’s Presidency is not legal, is illegitimate or goes against the U.S. Constitution simply because he is a Black man doing whats best for every American, whether you voted for him or not….is as asinine as believing you can stop him from using his powers of Executive Order/Action just because you don’t like his Executive Orders/Actions, by suing him. Barack is the 44th POTUSA. Barack has implemented The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

 

ALL You dumbass racist caucasian TeaTardedRepubliCANT Pseudo-Freudian, Psycho-Sexual, Pro-caucasian, Pro-Racist, Anti-LGBTQA1, Anti-Feminist, Reich Wing GOPretender Conselfishservative, NRA-Gun Loving, Nut Bag, bottom feeding, racist, ass backwards, white supremacists, Koch Brothers & A.L.E.C. controlled morons, greedy, wealthy, caucasian, special interest groups, asshole Party Members, can dig up all the federal judges you can find to say “defund ObamaCares”…..remember they are members of the Judicial Branch of government. They have no authority over the Legislative Branch of government, or what The Executive Branch of government does, especially the Office of The President.

 

High school Civics, 101.

 

So, in closing, for all you morons, idiots, racist & dumbasses…..your will was defeated twice in elections that put this guy………..

 

BkKs05aCQAAS5aK

 

………….in your White Man’s House. Get over yourselves. Racism is not going to win out this time around. The man pictured above is more intelligent, more street smart, more savvy and much more qualified than you guys. So stop with this bullshit not the “real President” garbage. Barack Hussein Obama IS the real deal.  He’s the best damn POTUSA in my lifetime. His First Lady, and their daughters, are the best ever to occupy the White House. Even the Mother-In-Law is spectacular. Jealous much?

 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

New Adult Swim Comedy: The Spirit Of The Most High — Black Jesus.


By Jueseppi B. The Militant Negro

By Jueseppi B. The Militant Negro

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bs6zYl9CcAA9On5

 

Black Jesus Expanded Trailer | Black Jesus | Adult Swim

 

Published on Jul 18, 2014

Get ready to feel The Spirt of the The Most High — Black Jesus — a new comedy from the creator of The Boondocks. Premieres Thursday, August 7th, at 11p ET on [adult swim].
http://www.facebook.com/BlackJesus

 

 

About Black Jesus:
Black Jesus is a half hour live-action scripted comedy series on Adult Swim from Peabody award-winning creator Aaron McGruder (The Boondocks, Red Tails) and Mike Clattenburg (Trailer Park Boys). The series finds Jesus living in present day Compton, CA on a daily mission to spread love and kindness throughout the neighborhood with the help of his small but loyal group of downtrodden followers. Check out the latest from Black jesus on AdultSwim.com.

 

About Adult Swim:
Adult Swim is your late-night home for animation and live-action comedy. Enjoy some of your favorite shows, including Robot Chicken, Venture Bros., Tim and Eric, Aqua Teen, Childrens Hospital, Delocated, Metalocalypse, Squidbillies, and more. Watch some playlists. Fast forward, rewind, pause. It’s all here. And remember to visit http://AdultSwim.com for all your full episode needs. We know you wouldn’t forget, but it never hurts to make sure.

 

The 1st Trailer for Aaron McGruder’s New Adult Swim Series ‘Black Jesus’ Will Likely Ruffle a Few Feathers

 

And if it didn’t, it certainly wouldn’t be an Aaron McGruder series, would it?

 

Adult Swim has announced their new half-hour live-action scripted comedy “Black Jesus” from writer/producer, Aaron McGruder (“The Boondocks”), will premiere on Thursday, August 7th at 11pm (ET/PT).

 

The series finds Jesus living in present day Compton, CA on a daily mission to spread love and kindness throughout the neighborhood, with the help of his small but loyal group of downtrodden followers.

 

The series stars newcomer Gerald “Slink” Johnson as “Black Jesus.”

 

Charlie Murphy, Corey Holcomb, John Witherspoon, Kali Hawk, Andra Fuller, Antwon Tanner, Andrew Bachelor, Angela Gibbs, and Valenzia Algarin round out the starring cast.

 

McGruder is executive producer through his 5 Mutts Productions, along with director Mike Clattenburg, LEG’s Norman Aladjem, John Bravakis and Stu Schreiberg, with Robert Wise and Meghann Collin.

 

10410558_585304351580596_3866433110115746724_n

download

10495107_589158707861827_1640117999089087911_n

 

 

Slide Show Time……

 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

TheObamaCrat SoapBox™: Immigration.


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!0000000000000000000baker1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BryZHaMCMAIHFE6

 

I have been quiet during this entire immigration issue in The United States Of AmeriKKKa, basically because it’s an embarrassment to watch fellow Americans act so dumbass about a land their forefathers murdered to steal, then claim as their own.

 

Jon Stewart Rips Republican Paranoia Over Refugee Children

 

 

 

I listened to a news report this morning that told me the Governor of the state I vote in, Iowa, has made a public statement that immigrant children are NOT welcome in “His” state of Iowa.

 

Just sit back and read along……

 

Terry Edward Branstad (born November 17, 1946) is an American politician who is the 42nd Governor of Iowa, in office since January 2011. Branstad was also the 39th Governor of Iowa from 1983 to 1999, and he was President of Des Moines University from 2003 to 2009. He is a member of the Republican Party. Branstad is the longest-serving governor in Iowa history, and the second-longest serving governor in U.S. history.

 

In his 2010 political comeback, Branstad won a three-way primary election for the Republican nomination to run for governor in the general election. He faced incumbent Governor Chet Culver, a Democrat, and four third party candidates on November 2, 2010. He won the general election in November, defeating Culver by 52.9% to 43.1%.

 

Branstad entered the 2010 race as the front runner for both the primary and general elections. Independent polling in 2009 indicated that his approval ratings hovered in the 70% range. He was widely seen as the front runner for the Republican nomination, and had wide leads in aggregate polling against the scandal-ravaged Governor Culver. He won the Republican primary with 50.4% of the popular vote, 9.5 percentage points ahead of his nearest competitor.

 

On January 15, 2014, Branstad officially launched his re-election campaign for what would be an unprecedented sixth four-year term as Iowa governor, which would also make him the longest-serving governor in U.S. history (breaking the record held by George Clinton of New York, who served 21 years from 1777 to 1795, and from 1801 to 1804).

 

Now I know the above stuff is boring, but here is where it gets interesting………

 

Early life

Born to a Norwegian-American Lutheran farming family in Leland, Iowa, Branstad received his undergraduate degree from the University of Iowa and his law degree from Drake University Law School.  After getting his undergraduate degree, he was drafted and served in the United States Army from 1969 to 1971, serving as an MP (Military Police), and was awarded the Army Commendation Medal for meritorious service; he once recalled that he arrested actress Jane Fonda for coming onto post at Arlington National Cemetery, where she was planning to attend an anti-war protest. In 1989, he was named an honorary member of Alpha Gamma Rho Fraternity at Iowa State University.

 

Allow me to repeat that, in case you missed the facts…..Born to a Norwegian-American Lutheran farming family in Leland, Iowa. Mr. Branstad is himself an immigrant based on the fact that his parents were/are Norwegian, as were his grandparents. The name Branstad is NOT Native Americans, so Mr. Branstad himself is an immigrant.

 

As the opening graphic states, unless your heritage, culture or lineage is Native American, YOU ARE AN IMMIGRANT.

 

One doesn’t even have to learn the history of America during the systematic slaughter and incarceration of the Native American people to know America is NOT the home of the brave or the land of the free…..unless you happen to be wealthy, caucasian and male. America and Americans raped, killed, slaughtered, murdered and enslaved an entire culture to acquire this land that current day protesters claim as “their land.”

 

These disgusting asshats who wrap themselves in the American flag, are themselves immigrants.

 

Protesters Block Buses Carrying Illegal Immigrants Into California

 

Published on Jul 2, 2014

California Protesters Surround Border Patrol Station Over Over Surge Of Illegal Immigrants

 

 

 

BREAKING NEWS UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS ARRIVE IN MURRIETA CALIFORNIA PROTESTERS 7/1/2014 HD

 

 

 

Native American Shuts Down Immigration Protest

 

Published on Feb 10, 2013

“A Native American man criticized protesters at an Arizona rally against illegal immigration, calling them the real “illegals” for invading his country and killing Native Americans when Europeans first settled on US soil.

 

“You’re all f*cking illegal. You’re all illegal,” the Native American man yelled at the protesters, who had gathered in Tucson, Arizona to demonstrate their opposition to illegal immigration by Central and South Americans. “We didn’t invite none of you here. We’re the only native Americans here.”*

 

A Native American man protested an anti illegal immigrant protest in Arizona by pointing out the protestors hypocrisy. “Get on with your bogus arguments. We’re the only legal ones here.”

 

 

 

‘You’re all illegal!’ Native American confronts ‘anti-illegal immigration’ protesters

 

Published on Feb 7, 2013

Native American confronts ‘anti-illegal immigration .

 

 

 

Murrieta Immigration Rally black americans debating July 4th

 

Published on Jul 7, 2014

A group of black Americans speak out in Support of protecting our women and children in America before worrying about the rest of the world (Raw News Video Unedited). This occurred at the Murrieta California Border Patrol Station July 4th, 2014. Debate starts around the 1:40 mark in the video. Language not approvable for younger children. Their are people chanting trying to drown out all debate and discussion. Reporter Ernie White.

 

 

 

Br59AT8CUAAjWhN

Br5ZnxaCAAErwwx

 

Have AmeriKKKans lost their minds? Have Black Americans become the new “House Negros” Malcolm X warned us about, beggin for table scraps from massa’s table for recognition & acceptance? Black Americans should be the very last race of humans agreeing with dumbass caucasians on immigration issues. Have you new-age Negroes forgotten from whence YOUR ancestors came?

 

This scenario is a made for TV movie straight from the land of irony…..

Screaming, frothing at the mouth, flag waving AmeriKKKan immigration protesters standing in front of buses that contain groups of undocumented “CHILDREN” as the buses attempt to deliver these “CHILDREN” to immigration reception centers. The signs saying , “go home”, “we don’t want you here”, “this is OUR land.” Do you see the irony? Do you see the dumbfuckery?

 

Just to be clear, so there is no misunderstanding……

 

BryZHaMCMAIHFE6

0000000000000000000000Forrest-Gump

 

 

 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 233,555 other followers

%d bloggers like this: