Massive crowd of Jamaica Labor Party supporters at the National Arena…
It appears that the decision by the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) to buy an Internet domain name with the words ‘Portia Simpson Miller’ is part is a political tit-for-tat.
According to the JLP, the People’s National Party had first purchased a domain with the Labourites’ campaign slogan ‘from poverty to prosperity’.
The JLP has released a statement condemning the actions of the PNP.
The JLP statement uses many of the very same words and phrases cited in an earlier release from the PNP bashing the Labourites for buying the domain namewww.portiasimpsonmiller.com.
According to the JLP, it is a cowardly act of desperation to gain traction and relevance to drive traffic to the PNP’s failed policies.
A JLP supporter blows a vuvuzela. — photos by Ian Allen/Photographer
“The party views the PNP’s actions as immoral and unethical and reflective of a party that is bankrupt of ideas that will use the immense popularity of the Poverty to Prosperity tag to seek to shore up its flagging brand”, said a JLP spokesperson in a statement.
The JLP release continued: “Fresh on the heels of a dismal conference on the weekend, the Prime Minister has now clearly resorted to “piggybacking” on the internationally and locally reputable tagline in order to get an audience.”
The JLP said the tagline ‘From Poverty to Prosperity’ was first used by Prime Minister Bruce Golding in 2011 and then by Opposition Andrew Holness in his Budget presentation and other contributions by members in 2014 and 2015.
“I think anyone who is going to establish a Palestinian state and to evacuate territory is giving radical Islam a staging ground against the State of Israel,”
House Speaker John Boehner has invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to a joint session of Congress in February, on the topic of Iran. On the surface, this might seem innocent enough. Israel is a close American ally. Surely he should be welcome in Congress, particularly to discuss an issue that concerns his country.
On the surface, Netanyahu’s speech will be about opposing Obama’s nuclear talks with Iran and supporting Republican-led sanctions meant to blow up those talks.
But there’s more than meets the eye here. Netanyahu is playing a game with US domestic politics to try to undermine and pressure Obama — and thus steer US foreign policy. Boehner wants to help him out. By reaching out to Netanyahu directly and setting up a visit without the knowledge of the White House, he is undermining not just Obama’s policies but his very leadership of US foreign policy. The fact that Netanyahu is once again meddling in American politics, and that a US political party is siding with a foreign country over their own president, is extremely unusual, and a major break with the way that foreign relations usually work.
Netanyahu is trying to actively undermine Obama and unseat the Democrats
Throughout Obama’s tenure, he has clashed with Netanyahu. That is no secret, and it’s nothing new for American and Israeli leaders to disagree, sometimes very publicly. But Netanyahu, beginning in May 2011, adopted a new strategy to try to deal with this: using domestic American politics as a way to try to push around Obama.
During a trip that month to Washington, Netanyahu publicly lectured Obama at a press conference and then gave a speech to Congress slamming the president. That speech, also hosted by Republicans, received many standing ovations for Netanyahu’s finger-wagging criticism of Obama.
At first it appeared that Netanyahu was merely trying to steer Obama’s foreign policy in a direction that he, Netanyahu, preferred. Obama wanted Netanyahu to freeze Israeli settlement growth in the West Bank, for example; Obama has also sought, in his second term, to reach a nuclear deal with Iran that Netanyahu earnestly believes is a bad idea.
Netanyahu’s first responsibility is to Israel’s national interests, not to Obama, so it makes sense that he would push for policies that he thinks are good for Israel.
But in 2011 Netanyahu started going a step further, and appeared to be working to actively remove Obama from power. During the 2012 election cycle, Netanyahu and his government were increasingly critical of Obama and supportive of Republicans, including presidential candidate Mitt Romney, for whom he at times appeared to be actively campaigning. Netanyahu’s criticisms of Obama were so pointed that some of Obama’s opponents cut a campaign ad out of them. It became a joke within Israel that Netanyahu saw himself not as the leader of a sovereign country, but as the Republican senator from Israel.
But trying to unseat a foreign leader is not a joke, especially when that foreign leader is funding your military and guaranteeing your nation’s security.
Netanyahu’s government ramped down this strategy after Obama won; he even gave Obama the world’s most awkward congratulations speech. But throughout Obama’s second term he has once again gradually escalated from trying to influence Obama to actively undermining both the president and his party. The new Israeli ambassador to the US for months would not even bother to meet with National Security Advisor Susan Rice, yet held many meetings with Republican fundraiser Sheldon Adelson. Israel’s foreign policy, in other words, was more focused on undermining the American leadership than working with it.
Republicans, aware that Americans are supportive of Israel, have urged on Netanyahu’s anti-Obama campaign since it began in 2011. Inviting him to speak to Congress that year was shrewd domestic politics, and it will be shrewd legislative politics next month when Netanyahu publicly supports the GOP’s sanctions efforts.
This makes sense within the narrow scope of domestic politics — if you can use something to convince voters your party and its policies are a better choice than your opponents, you use it, even if that something is a foreign head of state. But members of Congress are purportedly supposed to put their country before their party, and siding with a foreign leader over your own president doesn’t seem to do that. Neither does cheering a foreign leader when he lambasts the president of the United States.
More to the point, it was a really significant breach when some conservatives supported Netanyahu’s implicit lobbying on behalf of the Romney campaign. If a foreign country wants to unseat your president, that is generally considered an outrageous breach. But Netanyahu has been invited in, and with the 2016 presidential elections ramping up it appears likely he will be invited in once more to implicitly run against the Democrats.
This speaks, in a very real sense, to just how extreme political polarization has become in Washington.
This sort of practice is bad for America’s ability to conduct foreign policy
To be very clear, this is not just a breach of protocol: it’s a very real problem for American foreign policy. The Supreme Court has codified into law the idea that only the president is allowed to make foreign policy, and not Congress, because if there are two branches of government setting foreign policy then America effectively has two foreign policies.
The idea is that the US government needs to be a single unified entity on the world stage in order to conduct effective foreign policy. Letting the president and Congress independently set their own foreign policies would lead to chaos. It would be extremely confusing for foreign leaders, and foreign publics, who don’t always understand how domestic American politics work, and could very easily misread which of the two branches is actually setting the agenda. (This confusion, by the way, is exactly what some Republicans are hoping to create in Iran with new sanctions.)
Republicans who never rises and clap for their own President gives Netanyahu several standing ovations
This could also allow a foreign country to play those two branches off of each other. That’s in part what Netanyahu is attempting to do here, and it’s working. The Obama administration did not even find out about Netanyahu’s planned visit to Washington until Boehner announced it. The Republicans are attempting to run a foreign policy that’s separate from the actual, official US foreign policy.
One more anti-Obama speech from Netanyahu on the floor of Congress is not going to break US foreign policy, of course. But it’s troubling that Republicans are willing to breach such an important principle for some pretty modest short-term gains. See original story here:John Boehner’s outrageous plan to help a foreign leader undermine Obama
‘m not missing in action, Portia declares … says she has no problems in the PNP
KINGSTON, Jamaica – Officials within the Opposition Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) have reportedly purchased the domain name www.portiasimpsonmiller.com, upsetting the ruling People’s National Party (PNP).
The PNP in a release this morning characterized the move as a cowardly act of desperation to gain traction and relevance to drive traffic to the JLP’s own website.
“The party views the JLP’s actions as immoral and unethical and reflective of a party that is bankrupt of ideas that will use the immense popularity of the prime minister to seek to shore up its flagging brand,” the release said.
“Fresh on the heels of a dismal tour in the United States, the Opposition Leader has now clearly resorted to ‘piggybacking’ on the internationally and locally reputable name of the party leader and prime minister in order to get an audience,” the PNP expressed.
Both parties are currently in campaign mode as talks of a general election later this year fill the air.
The PNP recently held its annual conference, where Party Leader and Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller touted the record of nine passed IMF tests while listing accomplishments of 60,000 jobs under the Jamaica Emergency Employment Programme (JEEP).
Meanwhile, the JLP says it is oiling its election machinery and is ready for the opportunity to give all Jamaicans the chance to live in a country where they all can live, work, do business and raise children in prosperity. See story here:JLP’s purchase of website in PM’s name upsets PNP
KINGSTON, Jamaica – President of the People’s National Party Portia Simpson Miller apparently left no stones unturned during her address at the 77thPNP annual conference as she reeled off the accomplishments of her administration since taking office.
The party leader and prime minister detailed what she called progress in education, economy, health, labour and several other sectors while speaking to the faithful at the National Arena in Kingston, today.
She used the platform to send a clear message to the Opposition, Jamaica Labour Party, and in no uncertain terms told them to “shut up” because the PNP’s record shows performance, management and leadership.
“I hear some people say nothing is happening, we are not generating employment. What were you doing when you held the position that I am now in?” Simpson Miller charged.
Among the achievements listed, was the creation of 60,000 jobs under the Jamaica Emergency Employment Programme (JEEP).
“I will be the first to tell you that the employment levels are not yet where we want them to be, there are still too many persons unemployed, including our youth,” said Simpson Miller. “One thing is clear, we are moving in the right direction.”
The party president said the PNP is securing a better future for Jamaica.
She insisted that business confidence has improved, while also praising Finance Minister Dr Peter Phillips for his handling of the economy. Simpson Miller said the country is attracting foreign direct investment.
“…Those who say we are doing nothing, come talk to me, because when you were here, you left nothing for us to show that you did,” she continued.
Simpson-Miller charged: “Don’t talk to us about progress. Don’t talk to us about work. We are workers, we are performers; we get the job done.”
The party president said in her more than 90-minute presentation that the party stands on its record of performance and renews its mission to move Jamaica “forward, onward and upward”.
“If it is a mountain, we have climbed it,” a jubilant Simpson Miller said. “If it is a river, we have crossed it.
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman argued Friday that all the GOP debate on Wednesday proved is that the current field of Republican candidates is dangerously out of touch with reality, and is more than willing to lie about it in order to win an election. By way of proof, he noted that the only candidate who didn’t spout “economic fantasies” was Donald Trump, and the only one seemed “remotely sensible” on foreign policy was Rand Paul — both of whom aren’t electable for a host of other reasons. Indeed, he said, the entire field should be “scary” not just to Democrats, but to moderate Republicans, because it’s impossible to tell what they actually believe.
The real revelation,” Krugman wrote,
was the way some of the candidates went beyond expounding bad analysis and peddling bad history to making outright false assertions, and probably doing so knowingly, which turns those false assertions into what are technically known as “lies.”
For example, Chris Christie asserted, as he did in the first G.O.P. debate, that he was named U.S. attorney the day before 9⁄11. It’s still not true: His selection for the position wasn’t even announced until December.
Mr. Christie’s mendacity pales, however, in comparison to that of Carly Fiorina, who was widely hailed as the “winner” of the debate… Read more here :Fantasies and Fictions at G.O.P. Debate
SMITH… if crime problem is not corrected, the economy will be going nowhere
THE Opposition Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) has called on Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller to speak to the nation about the escalating crime situation when she addresses the public session of the People’s National Party’s (PNP) 77th Annual Conference in Kingston on Sunday.
“We haven’t heard from the prime minister [who] is the chairman of the security council and she, in her own right, ought to be speaking to the nation and giving the citizen some level of comfort. I heard the chairman of the PNP at a press conference recently, saying that at the PNP’s conference this coming Sunday [we will have] the prime minister speaking to a great extent on the economy. Well I’m demanding of her to speak to the crime situation in Jamaica, because if that is not corrected the economy will be going nowhere,” Opposition spokesperson on national security, Derrick Smith stated at a press conference at the JLP’s Belmont Road, Kingston headquarters yesterday.
Smith said the national security ministry must also give the country a status report on the effectiveness of the crime-fighting strategies that have been announced over the past few months. This, he said, should include information on the get-the-guns campaign and the use of CCTV in some town centres.
“We have not been hearing from the minister. Last year at this time he was gloating about the 16 per cent decrease over the previous years and speaking to smart policing. Well, I would like to hear what he has to say about the type of policing that we are experiencing now,” which he described as “horrendous”.
The Opposition spokesman also demanded an update on the results being reaped under the various pieces of legislation, such as the anti-gang laws, which were pushed through Parliament as a part of the conditionalities of the Government’s deal with the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Read more here :Opposition wants PM to address crime at PNP conference
HANOVER, Jamaica – Three men were reportedly shot dead last night in Lucea, Hanover.
Reports reaching OBSERVERONLINE are that the three were at a shop in First Hill shortly before 11:00pm when masked men walked up and fired shots. The identities of the men have not yet been ascertained. The police’s Corporate Communications Unit (CCU) confirmed the incident but said they were unable to provide details at this time. See Jamaica Observer for more on this story :Masked men murder 3 in Hanover
As the élite media casts about for ways to understand and explain the rise of Donald Trump, they may find outsize historical precedents (as Politico did when it asked 13 historians to name “the closest antecedent to Trump”), or cite Richard Hofstadter’s “Paranoid Style” (as the New Yorker, CNN and Salon did — even while TNR’s Jeet Heerwarned against Hofstadter’s influential misreading of populism to explain him), or simply scratch their heads in wonder. But if the media — especially the dominant élite media — really wants to know who’s responsible for Trump’s rise, one place they should start looking is right in their bathroom mirrors. I know, I know. Trump is a clownish figure far removed from the sort of seriousness they strive to cultivate. Surely they can’t be blamed for him, right?
Wrong. Here’s why: As Congress returns, there’s a looming threat of yet another government shutdown. Once unthinkable, then disastrous when Gingrich introduced them, shutdown threats have become a part of normal politics in the Obama era, thanks in large part to “balanced” journalism, which has helped to reframe them as normal, if perhaps a little bit risky — and therefore, a bit titillating. With a large part of the GOP buying into this fantasy view of how politics works, they were at first content to vent their hatred primarily on President Obama and congressional Democrats, but now their anger has widened to the entire political class — which is actually well deserved, in a way. But it’s not just the GOP politicians who egged them on who are to blame — the “balanced” media played a starring role as well.
Shutdowns are not the only aspect of this story — there’s the dramatic increase in the use of the filibuster, for example — but they are arguably the most extreme form that destructive obstructionism can take. They are also one of the most dramatic — and virtually unprecedented prior to the 1990s. They also involve a kind of psychological regression, back to a more immature state. After all, the essential nature of the shutdown is a refusal to engage in normal give-and-take, the sort of thing most of us learn in kindergarten, if not before. As one indication of this, pollsters even took to asking the public who was acting more adult or more like a “spoiled child.” When the whole political system gets pulled for years in the direction of government-by-temper-tantrum — and the media treats it as perfectly normal — it really should not be so surprising when an intemperate blowhard like Trump suddenly shows up to steal the show.
The “balanced” media has promoted this dysfunction around government shutdowns in at least three distinct ways: First, the media presents the shutdown shorn of historical context, with no indication of how radical, novel or one-sided it is, or of how it relates to a broader range of related radical and novel right-wing strategies, or to the dramatic underlying rightward shift of the GOP in Congress (House/Senate) since 1980. This has the effect of dramatically reducing the cost of introducing new, destabilizing and downright destructive political strategies.
Second, the media adopts a “balanced” approach to reporting on the prospects of a shutdown, and the shutdown itself. It seeks to place blame on both sides (see, for example the Media Matters research report, “What The Media’s False Equivalence Misses About the Government Shutdown Threat“), regardless of how inaccurate this is. This falsely balanced reporting works in favor of the absolute worst actors — always giving them the “benefit of the doubt,” and against those who are most public-minded, adopting a stance of jaded cynicism, regardless of whether they’ve done anything to deserve it. Third, the media “balances” any residual negativity that the shutdown perpetrators might be left with stories intended to cast the other party — the Democrats – in an equally bad light. The media’s months-long obsession over problems with the Obamacare website filled this function perfectly.
Although it began even earlier, shutdown talk began to flower immediately after the 2010 midterms, and ramped up through a series of threats, and near-shutdowns over the next two-plus years (see detailed timeline here), until Republicans finally did shut the government down for two weeks in October 2013, over a doomed attempt to defund Obamacare before it could go into effect. The public reaction was extremely negative, even though the media’s “balanced” coverage strove to give Obama and the Democrats an equal amount of blame (some relevant headlineshere). At the time, I wrote a story identifying “nine distinct bodies of evidence”contradicting the “both sides did it” narrative:
(1) The longstanding GOP fixation on shutting down the government.
(2) The GOP’s creation of the shutdown crisis by blocking the budget reconciliation process.
(3) The emergence and evolution of the incoherent Ted Cruz/Tea Party plan to force a shutdown over ‘Obamacare’.
(4) The record of prominent Republican politicians and others who repeatedly warned against forcing a government shutdown.
(5) The contrary historical record of some Republicans downplaying the severity of the shutdown.
(6) The record of drastic Democratic budget concessions embodied in the “clean continuing resolution” which House Republicans rejected.
(7) The polling evidence that only GOP base voters are opposed to political compromise — and are indifferent to crisis.
(8) Evidence that GOP base intransigence drives policy.
(9) The framework of American legislative history.
There were stories here and there in the press touching on all of the above, but because of the ideologically driven commitment to “balance,” they were kept isolated and atomized, never consolidated into a coherent picture of what was actually going on at the time. And for good reason: the GOP wanted a shutdown, and the public overwhelmingly did not.
Going into the shutdown, a Quinnipiac poll released on Oct. 1 found American voters rejecting it by more than a 3 – 1 landslide: 72 – 22 percent. While Gallup had recorded a very modest peak of congressional approval for the year at 19 percent in early September, before the shutdown drama began, it dropped to 11 percent in early October in the middle of the shutdown, and 9 percent in early November—the lowest level ever recorded by Gallup in 39 years of polling the measure.
Even with the intense gerrymandering that the GOP has implemented after the 2010 midterms, there was some serious talk that they could lose control of the House in the 2014 midterms as a result. But immediately after the shutdown ended, attention shifted to severe problems with the Obamacare website, and within a few weeks, the media managed to “balance” things out so thoroughly that few can even recall how badly damaged the GOP was as a result of the shutdown.
Numerous polls have shown that a majority of Americans assign a larger share of blame for the shutdown to congressional Republicans, who tried to tie government funding provisions to defunding the Affordable Care Act….
Fifty-four percent of Americans now oppose Republican control of the House, according to a CNN-ORC poll released on Monday. And a series of pollscommissioned by progressive advocacy group Moveon.org and conducted by Public Policy Polling released in batches over the last several days indicate Democrats may have enough momentum to take back the House.
Democrats only need to lock up 17 additional seats in the November 2014 midterm elections to secure a House majority. The new polls show the recent government shutdown may cause as many as 37 Republicans to lose their House seats next year.
PPP pollsters surveyed 61 Republican-held congressional districts around the country from Oct. 1 through Oct. 18. They concluded that “Democrats not only have an opportunity to take back the House of Representatives next year, but that they could win a sizable majority if voter anger over the shutdown carries into 2014.”
Republicans will likely find this third round of surveys to be the most alarming yet, given that the new results show substantial Republican vulnerability in many districts that were not even supposed to be close. Incumbent Republicans trail generic Democrats in 15 of the 25 districts we most recently surveyed. This means generic Democrats lead in 37 of 61 districts polled since the beginning of the government shutdown.
In short, the GOP had severely damaged itself, and stood a very real chance of losing control of the House in the 2014 midterms. The shutdown strategy had proved itself to be a disaster. It should have thoroughly discredited all who had argued for it, and all the thinking that led to it. That’s the clear lesson that should have been drawn. But then the “balanced” media got to work, and all the the above was swiftly negated — not just forgotten — by media’s “balanced” shift of attention to the problems with the Obamacare website.
To be clear, those problems were absolutely real — but they were also clearly technical problems, rather than problems of policy or political philosophy. The political media, however, treated the GOP’s government shutdown and the Obama administration’s website problems as virtual mirror images of one another — an act of narrative creation that became a self-fulfilling prophecy. The short-term result of that was that it protected the GOP from suffering any consequences for the shutdown. In the 2014 midterms, this meant not only holding the House, but taking over the Senate as well.
Karma, however, is a bitch. The long-term results are now showing up in the form of the Trump campaign’s dominance, and the crumbling of more “mainstream” “responsible” conservatives — not just Jeb Bush, but the entire suite of governors and ex-governors, who’ve averaged a total of just 27 percent in the last five polls tracked at Huffington Post, compared to 50 percent for Trump, Carson and Fiorina, the three candidates who’ve never held office before. If the GOP electorate has largely rejected experienced politicians in favor of these three — and Trump most of all — then a very good part of the reason is that they’ve repeatedly been promised success through confrontation, force of will and purity of intention, and they’ve been repeatedly frustrated instead.
The party itself and its various allies are partly to blame for this, of course. In the timeline linked to above, Think Progress noted:
In November of 2010, GOP leaders informally polled the incoming freshman and were surprised to discover that “all but four of them said they would vote against raising the ceiling, under any circumstances.” This response was the result of what the Washington Post described as a “natural outgrowth of a years-long effort” by GOP recruiters to build a new majority with uncompromising anti-tax, anti-spending candidates and it effectively hamstrung Republican leaders from accepting any kind of budgetary compromise from the Obama administration.
But the media is responsible as well, with its insistence on a false and misleading form of “balance,” which gave Republicans an enormous edge in the short run, but never enough to actually achieve the impossible goals they had promised their base. The “balanced” media never pointed out the disconnect —in the short run, that would have helped the Democrats, so of course we couldn’t have that. So, instead, this “balanced” coverage removed all cost for the GOP’s extremism: They didn’t have to be for anything, they could just be against, and not suffer any consequence for the pain they caused. But, at the same time, they didn’t accomplish any of the impossible things they had promised.
Which is why Donald Trump is so popular now. He benefits both from the base’s unrealistically raised expectations, and from the leadership’s failure to meet them. The “balanced” media deserves a good deal of credit for both.
Sen. Bernie Sanders blasted MSNBC and Comcast for canceling Ed Schultz and removing one of the few voices for working Americans from television. In a statement Sen. Sanders (I‑VT) said:
By: Jason Easley. Sen. Bernie Sanders blasted MSNBC and Comcast for canceling Ed Schultz and removing one of the few voices for working Americans from television. In a statement Sen. Sanders (I‑VT) said:
We live in a time when much of the corporate media regards politics as a baseball game or a soap opera. Ed Schultz has treated the American people with respect by focusing on the most important issues impacting their lives. He has talked about income and wealth inequality, high unemployment, low wages, our disastrous trade policies and racism in America.
I am very disappointed that Comcast chose to remove Ed Schultz from its lineup. We need more people who talk about the real issues facing our country, not fewer.
At a time when a handful of large, multi-national corporations own our major media outlets, I hope they will allow voices to be heard from those who dissent from the corporate agenda.
It is rare to see a sitting U.S. Senator blast a network for a programming decision, but it is also rare that a network makes such a blatantly pro-corporate decision as the one that MSNBC has made. The cancelation of Ed Schultz means that one of the only populist voices for blue collar liberalism will be taken off the air. The decision to replace Schultz’s voice with that of NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd made MSNBC’s new direction obvious.
They don’t get much more corporate than Chuck Todd. MSNBC could have replaced Schultz with a wide variety of journalists, but the network intentionally chose to replace an anti-corporate voice with a man who owes his career to not rocking the boat and doing the bidding of his corporate bosses.
Who is going to stand up to the corporations and speak out for workers on television after Schultz is gone? Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes are off doing their intellectual wonk thing that doesn’t pay much attention to the concerns of ordinary working people. The rest of the MSNBC lineup that isn’t named Joe Scarborough is rumored to up for cancelation. The voice of Ed Schultz is going by Chuck Todd and his band of Republican guests who spout Beltway talking points.
The cop who was captured on video clashing with a civilian deejay, at a dance he was assigned to lock off, is now facing a probe by the Police High Command. The cop, who was seen in his uniform belting out dancehall lyrics much to the delight of thepatrons, has been hauled up by his superiors who have expressed concern about his behaviour. His superiors were alerted to his deejaying exploits via a video which was posted on social media last week. The video has been viewed more than 50,000 times. His impromptu performance was rewarded as patrons including children were seen throwing money at him as he showed off his lyrical prowess. He is facing internal charges of misconduct and soliciting money and could be slapped with at least five other charges.
Norman Grindley Myrie … was approved by the PNP’s National Executive Committee following a recommendation by the leadership of the Olympic Gardens division.
Shanique Myrie, the Jamaican woman who won her free movement case against Barbados has now been approved by the People’s National Party (PNP) to represent the Olympic Gardens Division in St Andrew in the next local government elections.
PNP General Secretary Paul Burke says Myrie was approved by the PNP’s National Executive Committee following a recommendation by the leadership of the political division. “The Regional Executive Committee came with the name and there was no objection,” said Burke. However, he notes that all positions will be under review until the day of nomination for the elections. In June, when she submitted her application, Myrie told The Gleaner that she has always wanted to enter representational politics to make a change in the lives of residents “neglected” by their political representatives. “It’s a Labourite seat and in my community, the people hardly get anything and many kids, older people need help. I want to make a change”, said Myrie. The Jamaica Labour Party’s Christopher Townsend currently represents the Olympic Garden’s Division in the Kingston and St Andrew Corporation. Local government elections which were due by June 30 this year, have been delayed by up to December 29, 2016. Story originated here :PNP Approves Shanique Myrie For Olympic Gardens Seat
KINGSTON, Jamaica (JIS) – Cabinet has awarded a contract valued at US$771,000 to American firm, Armor Express, for the provision of protective equipment for the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF). The items include 1, 500 ballistic vests, 1, 000 ballistic helmets and 500 helmet shields. Speaking at Wednesday’s Jamaica House press briefing at the Office of the Prime Minister in Kingston, Minister with responsibility for Information, Senator Sandrea Falconer, said the acquisition of these pieces of equipment is critical for the safety and protection of police personnel. She informed that the funds have been budgeted for in the recurrent budget for 2015⁄16.
“The provision and distribution of these critical security equipment to police personnel will provide personal protection and reduce serious injuries while on duty,” she noted. Falconer said JCF statistics show that between 2012 and 2014, a total of 38 police personnel were injured on duty. She said it is important that the police are equipped and protected to face challenges on the job. The last purchase of ballistic vests for the JCF was made in 2013. Headquartered in Central Lake, Michigan, Armor Express designs, develops, manufactures and distributes a full line of high performance hard and soft body armour, helmets and other accessories for law enforcement, military, correctional and other tactical personnel. See story here : Gov’t approves contract to outfit cops with protective gear
WASHINGTON — Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Tea Party Republicans came together Wednesday to denounce a landmark foreign policy deal that is quickly becoming a major 2016 campaign issue: the Iran nuclear agreement. “We are led by very, very stupid people,” Trump told several hundred Tea Party members gathered on the west lawn of the U.S. Capitol, calling the Iran deal “incompetently” negotiated. Saying Iran will not honor its commitment to forgo nuclear weapons, Cruz told the crowd that the Iran deal represents “the single greatest national security threat facing America.” Cruz, a Texas senator, noted that the deal eliminates economic sanctions on Iran, providing it millions of dollars to finance terrorist activities, and effectively making the Obama administration “the world’s largest financier of radical Islamic terrorism.” Both Republican candidates made campaign pitches as part of their anti-agreement speeches.
Trump pledged to negotiate better agreement on a variety of topics, from trade to foreign policy. “We will have so much winning if I get elected, that you may get bored with winning,” the New York businessman said at one point. For his part, Cruz, a senator from Texas, said “a new president” will confront Iran over its misbehavior. Obama and aides said the agreement — in which the U.S. and allies reduce sanctions as Iran gives up the means to make nuclear weapons — is the best way to prevent the Tehran régime from obtaining a nuclear arsenal. White House officials said Cruz and other speakers at the rally are using false arguments to defame the agreement.
Opponents “have gone to great lengths to derail this deal,” said White House spokesman Eric Schultz. “They’ve done so by using many of the same arguments that date back to the 2002 decision to invade Iraq.” The Tea Party rally came the same week that Obama secured enough congressional voters to block Republican attempts to void the Iran agreement. While Cruz and other speakers denounced Obama’s push for the agreement, they also sought to put pressure on Republican congressional leaders to somehow stop the deal from going into effect. In a Senate floor speech earlier Wednesday, Cruz said the “terrible deal” with Iran “will not stop a virulently anti-American and anti-Israeli régime from getting a nuclear bomb.” Several hundred opponents of the agreement gathered in 90-plus-degree weather to hear Cruz, Trump, and other Tea Party leaders denounce the Iran nuclear deal as members of the House and Senate debated it. Earlier in the day, former secretary of State and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton endorsed the agreement.
If Iran cheats, Clinton said that as president she would “not hesitate to take military action” to block Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. All the Republicans oppose the Iran deal. The Tea Party rally, however, brought together two Republican presidential candidates in Cruz and Trump who have spoken well of each other in an otherwise fractious race. Jeb Bush and other Republican White House hopefuls have criticized Trump, who leads early Republican polls. Cruz has not, saying the media only wants GOP candidates to fight among themselves.
The crowd booed not only mentions of President Obama, but also Republican congressional leaders John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. Another Republican presidential candidate also spoke at the rally: Former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore, who said the agreement will not stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions. “The deal is not the end of the Iranian danger,” he said. “It is the beginning.” Tea Party members chanted “U‑S-A,” waved flags, and held up signs assailing various politicians during the rally that featured more than a dozen speakers. Echoing long-standing Tea Party protests, people at the rally criticized politicians from both parties for refusing to stand up to Obama and his Iran deal, and attacked the news media for whitewashing the potential impact of the agreement. Daryl Brooks, 45, who drove down from Trenton, N.J., to join the mid-day rally, said he wanted politicians within the U.S. Capitol building and beyond to “feel watched” as they considered the Iran agreement.
Many of these people protesting have no clue what’s in the deal beyond what they are told by those with the bull-horn.
“We want the Obama administration to know that we’re all watching and we’re out here,” Brooks said. Brooks said he opposes the Iran deal because the general public has not been given enough information on the details. He said the Obama administration is ignoring protests by the Israeli government, while “the Iranian president and the people want to destroy Israel.“Barb Bullock, 63, from Delaware, said the media is also partly to blame for the lack of transparency surrounding the Iran agreement. “I don’t think the press is doing enough or paying enough attention to the deal,” Bullock from Delaware said. “We get treated like children and they don’t tell us the bad things about the deal just the good things. We want the details we want what’s actually in the deal.” Bullock said she’s written letters to her congressional representative but received only a “form response,” so she wanted to express her protest in person. Some Tea Party members said they realize the Iran agreement will go into effect, but wanted to make their voices heard.
Rose Prescott — dressed from head-to-toe in red, white, and blue, and carrying a punching bag depicting President Obama — said “we know it’s a done deal,” but Congress needs to listen to the critics. “We will never vote for these politicians who voted yes again,” she said. “I want to show the world that we want to be represented.” Not all at the rally opposed the Iran agreement. Michael Avender, 20, a student from Northeastern University and representative from CODEPINK, an anti-war group at the rally to support the Iran deal, said he was hoping to engage with people at the protest to start a conversation and promote peace. “We’re trying to initiate dialogue with people… but people aren’t listening. They just hear what the extremists are saying,” he said.
Just under 500 murders have been recorded across rural parishes this year, surpassing the figure reported for the metropolitan areas. According to the latest Periodic Serious and Violent Crime Review released by the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF), 470 murders were reported across the 11 police divisions spread across rural parishes between January 1 and last weekend. This is a 44 per cent jump when compared with the 326 murders reported in rural parishes over the corresponding period last year. The St James Police Division led the way with 144 reported murders this year, followed by the Clarendon Police with 86. By contrast, the eight police divisions located in Kingston, St Andrew, and St Catherine recorded 356 murders over the same eight-month period this year, 114 less than were reported across rural parishes. This represents a one per cent decline when compared with the corresponding period last year.
HOTSPOTS
The St Catherine North Police Division, which covers some of the most volatile areas of Spanish Town, and the St Catherine South Police Division led the way with 86 and 58 reported murders, respectively. Overall, the statistics show that up to Sunday, a total of 826 murders have been reported this year, a 20 per cent spike when compared with the 686 murders recorded over the corresponding period last year. At the same time, the JCF figures show that other categories of serious crimes are on the decline. As an example, the data revealed that shootings are down two per cent, robberies declined 10 per cent, break-ins are down 26 per cent, and rapes declined by 24 per cent. A breakdown of the statistics shows that apart from St Elizabeth and St Mary, the other nine rural police divisions reported an increase in murders. Five of the eight metropolitan police divisions reported a decline in murders.
Police walk through the community of Mud Town yesterday after gunmen attacked and shot dead a pastor during a prayer meeting.
THERE was gloom in Mud Town, St Andrew, yesterday as residents mourned for Pastor David Roper, who was shot dead while conducting a prayer meeting at his Greater Work Revival Mission Church about 9:30 Wednesday night. The churchman, known by his fellow community members as Brother Sam, is the brother of incarcerated gang leader, Joel Andem, the once reputed leader of the feared Gideon Warriors Gang. Police reported yesterday that armed criminals crept onto the grounds of the premises, entered the church and pumped bullets into the pastor. “The pastor was preaching and while talking on the mike we just heard the loud explosions,” said one community member. The resident said minutes after the shooting the bullet-riddled body of the pastor was found at the foot of the altar. His plaid shirt was soaked in blood and the mike on which he delivered his message lay a few metres away from his outstretched hand. Police sources said at least 12 spent shell casings were removed from the scene. Yesterday, police said they increased their presence in the area while launching a search for those responsible for the attack that sent shock waves through the small community. The increase in police numbers, however, provided little comfort for residents in the area who said the killing has left them in fear for their lives. “Right now we living in fear is as if we don’t want night to come down because we do not know who could be next,” said one resident. And she was not alone. “Right now we [are] worried. If the man them can shoot a pastor what would they do to me who is a regular resident,” said another resident. Yesterday, a group of policemen were seen slowly making their way up the dusty track in the community, sections of which were fenced off with zinc. Andem was in 2005 sentenced to 20 years imprisonment for shooting with intent and illegal possession of a firearm.
SANTACRUZ, St Elizabeth – The St Elizabeth police are reporting that two farmers were killed and three other people were injured when a lone gunman opened fire on a group playing dominoes at a shop in Bypass district, New Market, north west St Elizabeth late Wednesday. Those killed have been identified as Jason Taylor also known as Kutchi, 2 and Jason Daley, also called Gego, both 24-year-old farmers of the community. Police say a 50-year-old farmer was shot in his right hand, while another farmer, 23 years old, was shot in his neck and a 33-year-old woman was shot in her right shoulder.They are nursing injuries in hospital. Garfield Myers: See story here. Five shot in St Elizabeth, two farmers dead
Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly (Credit: Reuters/Micah Walter/AP/Douglas C. Pizac)
The continuing decline of public sector jobs at local, state, and federal levels is having an abysmal economic impact on African Americans, for whom steady, stable government employment opportunities have provided a sure path into the middle class. The New York Times reported yesterday that “roughly one in five black adults works for the government, teaching school, delivering mail, driving buses, processing criminal justice and managing large staffs.” Because Black people hold a disproportionate number of government jobs, cutbacks that affect everyone hit Black communities even harder. In many ways that goes without saying. When America sneezes, Black America gets the flu. But I want to suggest that something even more sinister animates this swift pivot in the country away from an investment in public goods and services. It is not simply that Black people are victims of a numbers game. Rather, there has been a wholesale P.R. campaign on the part of those on the right to associate all public goods and services, from public schools to public assistance, with the bodies of undeserving people of color, particularly Blacks and Latinos.
Any discussion of welfare or public assistance in this country is rife with dog whistles from the right toward the lower elements of their base, who in Pavlovian fashion, respond to code words about welfare and public assistance by conjuring images of the undeserving Black and Brown poor. In his new book “How Propaganda Works,” Yale philosopher Jason Stanley argues that while a “liberal democratic culture… does not tolerate explicit degradation of its citizens,” there are “apparently innocent words that have the feature of slurs, namely that whenever the words occur in a sentence, they convey the problematic content. The word welfare …conveys a problematic social meaning.” I am suggesting that the word “public” in our political discourse is becoming just such a tool of political propaganda as well.
While we don’t explicitly degrade public institutions, those institutions are, in practice, seen as less valuable, worthy, rigorous, and prestigious. In places as disparate as New York City and Tuscaloosa, Alabama, the problem of severe segregation in public schools has been well-documented. When economic means permit, white families tend not to educate their children in racially diverse schools. Public schools are viewed as cauldrons of poor learning and social dysfunction; and white people, whenever possible, exercise the prerogative to keep their children out of these environments. That seems reasonable, but it is unreasonable to except that other people’s children should have to learn in these kinds of environments either. The current circus that is the education reform debate in this country demonstrates a point that Stanley makes: “The usurpation of liberal democratic language to disguise an antidemocratic managerial society is at the basis of the American public school system as it was restructured between 1910 and 1920.” In other words, we have a publicly stated belief in the importance of good public education to our democracy, but this masks a variety of ways in which public schools become tools of social control; and, in this moment in particular, that perpetuates the creation of a Black and Brown underclass.
The tough reality about integration is white bodies are tethered to economic resources. Schools that have large populations of white children are not failing schools. When white gentrifiers move into urban areas, they seemingly bring nice restaurants, better policing, and better schools with them. The narrative attached to Black bodies is the opposite. The presence of Black bodies are seen as a drain on resources, particularly since the presence of Black people in neighborhoods tends to make those neighborhoods less desirable, driving down property values. One recent expose about racist housing practices in Brooklyn demonstrated that white people routinely ask not to live in places with too many Black people.
To the extent that our Civil Rights-era narrations of the racial divide persist, it seems that neither Black people nor white people ever invested fully in the idea of integration. Black communities in some respects fared better under segregation, because there were Black-owned business, students taught by Black teachers who believed in their inherent capability to learn, and more class integration within Black neighborhoods. Still, this was an inherently limited universe for many Black people. Thus, they aspired to white institutions and to racial integration in some ways as a means of access to a fairer redistribution of resources. Separate, Civil Rights era activists concluded, was inherently unequal.
Meanwhile, white people both then and now never fully bought into the idea of racial integration either. Beyond sentiment and rhetoric, we have only to look at the idea of racial integration in practice. If schooling, housing, and worship practices in the 21st century are any indicator, we are as segregated as ever, and that has everything to do with a continuing practice among white Americans to segregate where they live, raise families and send their children to school. While many young white gentrifiers tell themselves they are chasing culture and diversity, in many ways, they are simply re-segregating neighborhoods, by shifting the color of who lives there from Brown to white. What gentrifiers seem not to have figured out is that they are being eaten alive by their own system, because their white bodies drive up property values and then price them out of the very neighborhoods they want to live in.
I am pointing to these practices in this larger argument about the way the notion of “public” has become a tool of propaganda in order to suggest a couple of things: One, racialized practices and racism still occur even when there is no identifiable racial discourse being deployed. And, two, these examples suggests that racialized bodies are tethered to material resources. So when the right argues that we privatize each and every facet of American life, this is at base about an attempt to segregate resources. But it is not accounted for by a purely Marxist analysis, which would suggest that this was about class and not race. In this country, our class structure is tethered to a racialized hierarchy, in which Black people in particular exist as a perpetual underclass.
A hallmark of American democracy has been an investment in a robust form of public life, good public schools, sufficient public services, active participation in our democracy. But we are a country where a significant segment of our citizenry has always been perfectly willing to erode long-held democratic principles in service of maintaining a racial hierarchy. The Civil War is only the most extreme example.
As those on the right bellyache about the cultures of poverty that cause Black folks to rely too heavily on government, no one ever seems to admit that there has never been any possibility of Black freedom or equal opportunity in this country without strong federal government intervention. Black people have a long history of working in government because the federal government was the first place to call for mass desegregation of employment opportunities. In fact, the first March on Washington Movement, begun in 1941 by Pullman Porter A. Philip Randolph, was designed to force Franklin D. Roosevelt to desegregate federal employment in all federal agencies and among those who had federal contracts. In 1942, FDR obliged Randolph rather than risk a march on Washington, by creating the Fair Employment Practice Committee (FEPC).
Combatting racial segregation, and the racialized segregation of resources, has only happened in this country with strong federal intervention. So when the right continues to weaken federal government on all matters related to the social safety net, they deliberately rollback the pathways by which African Americans have procured access to middle class.
In 2013, the median net wealth for a white family was $142,000. The median net wealth for a Black family was $11,000. Black families have lost more than half their collective net wealth since 2008. As we are continually confronted with the stark and continuing reality of a rapidly disappearing Black middle class, while politicians continue to speak in “efficient” terms about the need to shrink government, it’s hard not to conclude that this was the goal all along. Story originated here: Segregationists never went away: We just call them “small-government conservatives” now
Earlier this week, just before bed, an old high school debate teammate, a white man that I once loved affectionately as a younger brother, posted on my Facebook wall, “Do you have sympathy on police officers who are killed on duty?” Though we have been Facebook friends for a number of years, it has also been literal years since our last significant interaction via the site. This was a curious question that seemed forthrightly accusatory in its tone.
Driven, I suspect, by the killing of Texas Deputy Darren Goforth last Friday, my old friend’s question says much to me about the quotidian ways that otherwise well-meaning white people misunderstand racial discourse in this country. Like many Americans, I watched horrified last week as news unfolded of Vester Lee Flanagan’s cold-blooded execution of a newscaster and a cameraman in Virginia. Then, just two short days later, the news that Shannon J. Miles, a Black man with a previously documented history of mental illness, had executed Deputy Goforth made my heart stop.
These killings of white people are tragic and inexcusable. That should be said without equivocation. But after I affirmed this same fact to my old friend, I asked him, “What would make you think I think otherwise?” That same night on CNN, I watched Dr. Marc Lamont Hill debate the Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke, also an African American man. The chief was there to affirm remarks made by Harris County Sheriff Ron Hickman about how “anti-cop” rhetoric from the Black Lives Matter Movement had led to the killing of Deputy Goforth. Sheriff Clarke pointed to the killing of Officers Liu and Ramos in New York last year and the killing of Deputy Goforth, proclaiming it a “pattern.”
How is it that two mentally ill Black men targeting police officers constitutes a pattern, but the killing of Walter Scott, the killing of Samuel Dubose, and the killing ofJonathan Ferrell, all by police while they were clearly unarmed and committing no crimes, add up to a collection of unrelated, isolated incidents? How is it that the random acts of two mentally unstable Black men who had no formal or informal relationship with the Black Lives Matter movement constitute a trend, but the two dozen police killings of unarmed Black citizens again remain a collection of unfortunate but isolated incidents?
In the case of both Samuel Dubose and Walter Scott, we have police officers on tape killing Black men in cold blood, and then we have evidence of those officers and their colleagues blatantly lying about what occurred. This is also true of Christian Taylor in Texas. This is also true in the recent case of two police officers who were fired after video evidence proved they concocted an entire story about anti-cop rhetoric to get out of doing their jobs. If two points make a line, then how many incidents of police caught lying in cases that involve the lethal use of force do we need in order to acknowledge that there’s a pattern?
Let me be clearer. By “we” I don’t mean me. I mean the “We” that was originally included in “we the people.” How many incidents will constitute a pattern for them?
To be clear, the Black Lives Matter Movement is not an anti-cop movement. It is a movement that vigorously and voraciously opposes the overpolicing of Black communities and the state-sanctioned killing of unarmed Black people (and, yes, all people) by the police. It is a movement that insists on holding police accountable for their violence and that will hold police to a higher standard precisely because the state gives police the right to use lethal force. With more power comes more responsibility.
But here’s the thing: White people know this. Conservative Black people who insist on speaking about the rule of law and the issue of Black-on-Black crime know this. This is basic. They know that these young people don’t want to kill cops. They want the cops to stop killing them. That was as true in 1988 when NWA released their hit song, “Fuck Tha Police,” and it remains true today, as protestors blast rapper Boosie’s similarly titled song at protests. Yet, the release of “Straight Outta Compton” this summer has led to increased police presence in movie theaters, even as we have watched the trial of white male Aurora movie shooter James Holmes.
How deeply emotional must one be to hear a group sing a song that is a critique of the police terrorizing communities and hear the song to be saying that these same communities want to terrorize police? How deeply emotional must one be to deliberately disregard the unspoken “too” at the end of every proclamation that “Black lives matter”? We are all entitled to our feelings, no matter how fucked up and misguided they are. But white people’s feelings become facts in a system of white supremacy and these “facts” are used to guide social policy. Story originated here :Black America’s “gaslight” nightmare: The psychological warfare being waged against Black Lives Matter
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept All”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit "Cookie Settings" to provide a controlled consent.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
Opponents “have gone to great lengths to derail this deal,” said White House spokesman Eric Schultz. “They’ve done so by using many of the same arguments that date back to the 2002 decision to invade Iraq.” The Tea Party rally came the same week that Obama secured enough congressional voters to block Republican attempts to void the Iran agreement. While Cruz and other speakers denounced Obama’s push for the agreement, they also sought to put pressure on Republican congressional leaders to somehow stop the deal from going into effect. In a Senate floor speech earlier Wednesday, Cruz said the “terrible deal” with Iran “will not stop a virulently anti-American and anti-Israeli régime from getting a nuclear bomb.” Several hundred opponents of the agreement gathered in 90-plus-degree weather to hear Cruz, Trump, and other Tea Party leaders denounce the Iran nuclear deal as members of the House and Senate debated it. Earlier in the day, former secretary of State and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton endorsed the agreement.
