VP Joe Biden Takes Shot at Clintons in SC … Unraveling of Middle Class Financial Security Began in “the Later Years of the Clinton Administration,” Not Under GWB
Is Biden going to run for Democrat nominee for president in 2016?
Vice President Joe Biden speaking at the VIP Capital City Club event in Columbia, SC took a swipe at the Clinton’s and did the unthinkable for a Democrat, did not blame George W. Bush. Biden said to the group in the key primary state of South Carolina, the unraveling of middle-class financial security began in “the later years of the Clinton administration,” not under George W. Bush.
Vice President Joe Biden gave a closed-door speech Friday to South Carolina Democrats that included a shot at the Clintons.
Biden, a potential 2016 candidate, said the unraveling of middle-class financial security began in “the later years of the Clinton administration,” not under George W. Bush, CNN reported Saturday.
Speaking for more than thirty minutes at the VIP Capital City Club event in Columbia, S.C., he addressed the prominant group of attendees in the key presidential primary state.
In recent months, the vice president has focused on revving up liberals on issues of income inequality, as he prepares for a possible run against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, though many Democrats don’t think he’d run against her.
“He said we have some of the most productive workers in the world, but corporations are more concerned about their stockholders than they are about their employees,” one attendee said. “He talked about how the fruits of labor go to stockholders, rather than to the people who are producing it. That the people making the money in this country are the corporations.”
Another attendee described it as “a stem-winding, almost revival-type speech.”
Hillary Clinton’s State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists … But, Hillary Called the Abduction of the Girls by Boko Haram was “Abominable, It’s Criminal, It’s an Act of Terrorism”
HOW PRESIDENTIAL … Hillary Clinton, I was for not calling Boko Haram terrorists, before I was for it.
Former Secretary of State and 2016 Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has a lot of explaining to do. In the wake of the Muslim Islamist terror group Boko Haram kidnapping nearly 300 girls and threatening to sell them into human sex slavery, Hillary Clinton like many jumped on the bandwagon of outrage. On Wednesday, Hillary Clinton called the abduction of the girls by Boko Haram was “abominable, it’s criminal, it’s an act of terrorism and it really merits the fullest response possible, first and foremost from the government of Nigeria. Clinton went on to say that as Secretary of State she had numerous meetings with Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan and had urged the Nigerian government to do more on counter-terrorism.
Oh contraire mon frère … Hillary Clinton supposedly urged the Nigerian government to do more on counter-terrorism, but as reported at The Daily Beast, Hillary’s State Department refused to brand Boko Haram as terrorists. According to accounts by Josh Rogin, what Hillary Clinton failed to mention was that her own State Department refused to place Boko Haram on the list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2011, after the group bombed the U.N. headquarters in Abuja. The refusal of branding Boko Haram as terrorists came despite the urging of the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and over a dozen senators and congressmen.But of course naming a new group to the terrorist list would have gone against Obama’s reelection talking points that al Qaeda was on the run.
As the folks at Hot Air opines,“Sound familiar? … Now Hillary wants to fight Boko Haram with hashtags. Too bad she didn’t fight them with real resources when she had the chance.”
Under Hillary Clinton, the State Department repeatedly declined to fully go after the terror group responsible for kidnapping hundreds of girls.
The State Department under Hillary Clinton fought hard against placing the al Qaeda-linked militant group Boko Haram on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations for two years. And now, lawmakers and former U.S. officials are saying that the decision may have hampered the American government’s ability to confront the Nigerian group that shocked the world by abducting hundreds of innocent girls.
In the past week, Clinton, who made protecting women and girls a key pillar of her tenure at the State Department, has been a vocal advocate for the 200 Nigerian girls kidnapped by Boko Haram, the loosely organized group of militants terrorizing northern Nigeria. Her May 4 tweet about the girls, using the hashtag #BringOurGirlsBack, was cited across the media and widely credited for raising awareness of their plight.
What Clinton didn’t mention was that her own State Department refused to place Boko Haram on the list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2011, after the group bombed the U.N. headquarters in Abuja. The refusal came despite the urging of the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and over a dozen senators and congressmen.
But of course Clinton’s response to these questions will be, we have 300 girls threatened to be sold into sex slavery, what difference does it make that Boko Haram are terrorists.
After All These Years Monica Lewinsky Writes About Her Affair with President Bill Clinton, “Sure, My Boss Took Advantage of Me, …” (Update: Lynne Cheney Ponders Hillary Clinton’s Involvement in Realease of Article)
Just curious, if some one is taken advantage of, can it really be consensual?
In an interview with Vanity Fair, Monica Lewinsky writes for the first time about her affair with President Bill Clinton … “It’s time to burn the beret and bury the blue dress.” Lewinsky says that she regrets what happened between herself and President Clinton, but insists it was consensual. However, she also pens that Bill Clinton also took advantage of her … ““Sure, my boss took advantage of me.” Which begs the question, how can something really be consensual when there is a position of authority and that individual takes advantage of it?
It’s rather comical to read responses from the MSM like CNN, Stop judging Monica Lewinsky, stating “they could learn a few things from Monica Lewinsky,” when they were at the top of the list who Lewinsky references when her abuse came in the aftermath that were able to brand her.
Monica Lewinsky writes in Vanity Fair for the first time about her affair with President Clinton: “It’s time to burn the beret and bury the blue dress.” She also says: “I, myself, deeply regret what happened between me and President Clinton. Let me say it again: I. Myself. Deeply. Regret. What. Happened.”
After 10 years of virtual silence (“So silent, in fact,” she writes, “that the buzz in some circles has been that the Clintons must have paid me off; why else would I have refrained from speaking out? I can assure you that nothing could be further from the truth”), Lewinsky, 40, says it is time to stop “tiptoeing around my past—and other people’s futures. I am determined to have a different ending to my story. I’ve decided, finally, to stick my head above the parapet so that I can take back my narrative and give a purpose to my past. (What this will cost me, I will soon find out.)”
Maintaining that her affair with Clinton was one between two consenting adults, Lewinsky writes that it was the public humiliation she suffered in the wake of the scandal that permanently altered the direction of her life: “Sure, my boss took advantage of me, but I will always remain firm on this point: it was a consensual relationship. Any ‘abuse’ came in the aftermath, when I was made a scapegoat in order to protect his powerful position. . . . The Clinton administration, the special prosecutor’s minions, the political operatives on both sides of the aisle, and the media were able to brand me. And that brand stuck, in part because it was imbued with power.”
Karl in particular cited Lewinsky’s reaction to the Diane Blair papers, first reported by The Washington Free Beacon. Hillary Clinton, according to Blair’s documents, referred to the former White House intern as a “narcissistic loony tune” and partially blamed herself for the affair. Lewinsky wrote she found Hillary Clinton’s impulse to blame the “woman” for President Clinton’s transgressions “troubling”
Of course we all remember Bubba and his infamous statement of I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky, not a single time. So in the end, Monica Lewinsky was branded and Bill Clinton is looked upon as the elder statesman of the Democrat party.
EXIT QUESTION: Who finds this a bit too convenient coming out this far away from a potential 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential run in of all magazines, Vanity Fair? Why do I think this article got Hillary’s blessing before it was released to print?
With Hillary Clinton almost assuredly running for president in 2016, Monica Lewinsky‘s Vanity Fair piece today set off a lot of people’s conspiratorial alarm bells, with some suspicion anti-Clinton forces might have been behind it. But on The O’Reilly Factor tonight, Lynne Cheney suggested it might have actually been pushed by Clinton’s team themselves.
“I really wonder if this isn’t an effort on the Clintons’ part to get that story out of the way,” Lynne Cheney said during an interview on “The O’Reilly Factor” Tuesday night. Would Vanity Fair publish anything of Monica Lewinsky that Hillary Clinton wouldn’t want in Vanity Fair?”
Guest host Laura Ingraham responded that the theory “makes perfect sense, and I’m really mad I didn’t think of it first.”
Cheney said that releasing the story in 2014 would allow Clinton to run for president and say the story is “old news” once the 2016 presidential campaign kicks into full gear.
Democrat House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi: Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi … Why aren’t we talking about something else?”
BECAUSE THE FAMILIES OF THE FOUR DEAD AMERICANS DESERVE ANSWERS …
Democrat House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi thinks the murder of four Americans in Benghazi, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, is a “diversion” and “subterfuge.” “SICK. Nancy Pelosi told reporters Thursday when asked about a new cache of recently released emails. “Why aren’t we talking about something else? Or as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would say, “What difference does it make”. I am guessing the parents, families, loved ones and friends of those murdered in Benghazi, Libya do not think it is “subterfuge.”
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi wanted to talk about immigration and the minimum wage at her weekly press conference on Thursday morning — not what she called the newest Republican attack line on the State Department’s response to the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
Asked by reporters more than once about revelations that the White House withheld certain documents from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee after the panel subpoenaed all relevant emails on the matter, the California Democrat threw up her hands.
“Diversion, subterfuge. Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. Why aren’t we talking about something else?” Pelosi asked.
“If you all want to sit around and talk about Benghazi, you can sit around and talk about Benghazi,” she said in her closing remarks. “The fact is that’s a subterfuge and they don’t want to talk about jobs, growth, immigration reform, voting rights, you name it.”
Ralph Nader Says … Impeach Barack Obama, Congress Does Not Have the Guts to Do It & He Would Be Oppose to a Hillary Clinton Presidential Bid
Wow, even I can agree with Nader on some of these points. Here is actually five things I agree with political activists and 5 time presidential candidate Ralph Nader on … although maybe not all for the same reasons. Hmm, wonder if Nader will run again in 2016 and be that outside the mainstream candidate that will potentially take votes away from a Republican or Democrat presidential candidate.
One, Barack Obama should be impeached. I think enough is enough. This president has lied, mislead, covered up and had one too many scandals to last us a century of presidents. Barack Obama is making Richard Nixon look like he is next in line to be Sainted. Republicans have been worried about photo ID to prevent voter fraud when it appears that the current occupant of the White House committed the greatest voter fraud ever perpetrated on the American people with IRS-gate and intentionally misleading Americans for political purposes with Obamacare and Benghazi-gate.
Two, the Congress does not have the guts to do it because it’s abdicated its own responsibility under the Constitution. That’s true, they are gutless, including current GOP Speaker of the House.
Three, Hillary Clinton should not run for president in 2016. This is not what America needs after what will be 8 disastrous years of Obama. Not only has she done nothing positive with her political track record, she also has much to answer to when it comes to Benghazi … but of course, what difference does it make.
Four, It would be amazing if politicians actually acted for the good of the country and not themselves and their political power. Imagine a job policy that was actually conclusive to getting people back to work and employers wanting to employ them? Imagine an energy policy that made the United States energy independent? Imagine actually proving a healthcare insurance solution to Americans that actually worked and was sustainable?
Five, Jeb Bush should not run for president in 2016. Two people are enough from one family to be president out of 350 million. America was not mean to be a monarchy, that’s what we fought a Revolutionary War to get away from. Also note to #3 above, one spouse is also enough, with regards to Hillary running as well. I think we have enough other candidates out of millions of Americans to chose from.
What if Washington politics were no longer defined by partisan gridlock but instead by a cross-party alliance that forged solutions? The alliance would be unstoppable.
That’s the premise of the new book “Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State” by longtime political activist and five-time presidential candidate Ralph Nader, who contends that such a left-right alliance is not just the stuff of imagination but is actually emerging.
When it comes to the current president, Nader said that Obama has violated the Constitution on several occasions and should be impeached.
“Oh, most definitely,” Nader said when asked if Congress should bring forward articles of impeachment against Obama. “The reason why Congress doesn’t want to do it is because it’s abdicated its own responsibility under the Constitution.”
Nader said the president’s use of military force in Libya has been his most “egregious violation of the Constitution.”
Imagine being on a job interview and asked about your accomplishments to be considered for the job and you got nothing …
Thus was the case for Hillary Clinton when Thomas Friedman asked her what do you see as your biggest accomplishment on the job as stated by Salon political writer Steve Kornacki to the MSNBC Hardball audience. Hoe is it possible that even Hillary Clinton herself was “flummoxed” when asked about her accomplishments?
“So Joan, you know, this isn’t just a case of State Department spokesperson being caught off guard one day. This is something that sounds like Hillary herself has not fully come up with a way to articulate. Republicans clearly think this is something they can hit her with in 2016.”
Hmm, how’s it going in Syria, Libya, North Korea, Iran or Russia? Maybe Hillary should have said the Russian reset button, the powder keg that now is the Middle East or Benghazi … but I guess what difference does it make.
Hillary Clinton “Flummoxed” When Questioned About Accomplishments
State Department spokeswoman can’t name Hillary Clinton’s diplomatic achievements … and neither can Hillary Clinton!
State Department Press Secretary Jen Psaki was flummoxed, too, when asked about a 2010 State Department Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) that summarized then-Secretary Clinton’s goals and accomplishments.
‘Can you, off the top of your head, identify one tangible achievement that … resulted from the last QDDR?’ asked an Associated Press reporter during the daily briefing.
‘I am certain that those who were here at the time, who worked hard on that effort, could point out one,’ Psaki replied through a forced smile.
‘I’m sure there are a range of things that were put into place that I’m not even aware of,’ she offered moments later.
‘I won’t hold my breath,’ the reporter shot back
There no business like “shoe” business.
Hillary Clinton has been ducking questions on Benghazi for years, let alone many others, now she appears to be getting practice for her 2016 presidential run. An unnamed woman, who was not credentialed to be in attendance at an event that Hillary Clinton was the keynote speaker for, threw a shoe at the former first lady, US Senator and Secretary of State. The shoe was thrown by a blond woman in a blue dress (pic of woman), who raised her hands as if under arrest as she was hustled out of a meeting room at Mandalay Bay casino resort. She will obviously be facing criminal charges. The woman in the blue dress that is.
A woman threw what appeared to be a shoe at the former secretary of state in Las Vegas, but the potential presidential contender moved out of the way, then joked about it, according to reports.
Clinton was a keynote speaker at a scrap recycling conference where the incident occurred. A woman was arrested on suspicion of throwing the object, according to The Associated Press and local press accounts.
Mark Carpenter, a representative for the organization hosting the event — the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries — stressed that the woman “was not affiliated with our organization and was not credentialed for this event.”
“Our staff denied her access before she later rushed past security,” he continued in a statement. “An ISRI staffer then stopped her as she approached the stage. She was then handed over to law enforcement.”
Reuters – Hillary attempted some off the cuff jokes after the incident.
“Is that somebody throwing something at me?” Clinton asked, according to the Review-Journal. “Is that part of Cirque du Soleil?”
The newspaper quoted Clinton as saying, “My goodness, I didn’t know that solid waste management was so controversial.”
Imagine this … There have now been more people arrested, captured and held responsible for a show throwing incident at Hillary Clinton than the killing of 4 Americans in Benghazi. UNREAL.
Hillary Clinton’s Top Selling Point for 2016 Presidential Election is not Any Accomplishments, Its Being First Female President
What a resounding reason to qualify or vote for Hillary Clinton to be president in 2016 … Hmm, How did that same “being first” work out with Obama?
According to a recent Gallup poll, the “best or most positive” reason to vote for Hillary Clinton is that she would be the first female president. Huh? So after all the years of politics behind her, 18% said the best reason to vote for her is just because she would be the first woman president. Just curious America, how did that little social experiment work electing Barack Obama the first black president? Hmm? Just 9% said it would be because of Hillary’s experience and foreign policy experience [can you say Benghazi, Iran, Russia reset and Middle East burning], while just 3% said she was the most qualified and capable, and 3% said healthcare reform [how did Hillary Healthcare work out?] and 2% said because of the economy.
So all America has to look forward to is a Democrat 2016 campaign of “War on Women” as we have been through six years of anyone who dares say anything negative about Obama’s policies is a racist. Isn’t enough, enough?
However, “nothing” scored 27% as the “best or most positive” reason to vote for Hillary Clinton and another 22% had no opinion or no clue. I guess this can explain why so many DNC individuals can’t name one thing that she has done. How can some one who was first lady of Arkansas from 1983 – 1992, was the first day of the United States from 1993 – 2001 [remember a Hillary said in 1992, "I'm not sitting here, some little woman standing by my man, like Tammy Wynette." ... "Baking cookies and making tea (VIDEO)".], US Senator fro New York from 2001 – 2009, and Secretary of State from 2009 – 2013 and the greatest reason why she should be elected president is because she would be the first woman. ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!
Seriously America, one of the main reasons why Barack Obama was elected president, other than GWB fatigue, a poor RINO Republican candidate and a poor economy was that he would be the first black president. That is of course if you discount Bill ‘Bubba’ Clinton. Wake the hell up!!! I do not care what party some one is from, your reason for voting for them can’t be because they are the first of anything. No one we can’t get qualified people in the White House.
2016 Presidential Thoughts, RUN BERNIE , RUN … Vermont Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders Says He’d Make a Better President Than Hillary Clinton
RUN BERNIE … RUN!!! WILL HILLARY HAVE A CHALLENGE FROM THE LEFT?
In an interview with Time, the senator from the Socialist Republic of Vermont, Bernie Sander (VT-
IS), had much to say on a wide range of issues like the legalization of marijuana, social security, and Barack Obama’s job as president; however, the biggest news was when Sanders said that he would make a better president than Hillary Clinton. When asked who would make a better president, Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, he said … Bernie Sanders. Will the Independent socialist, who caucuses with Democrats in the Senate be the thorn in Hillary’s 2016 presidential election side? The Independent Socialist Senator said he “liked Hilliary” and she is a “very, very intelligent person”. However, Sanders said there needs to be a leader “to wage a political revolution in this country which brings millions of people into the political process to stand up and fighting for their rights in a way that we have not seen right now,” and Hillary Clinton was not the leader of that movement.
Q. Who do you think would make a better President, Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders?
Bernie Sanders. So you’re asking your question more direct. [Laughter] And I think in this particular moment when the problems facing this country are so severe, when we have seen class warfare being waged by the billionaires against the working families of America, when we have seen the billionaire class use its money in an unprecedented way for its political purposes to let more right wing extremists, I think we need people in leadership roles in the House and the Senate and governors’ chairs, in the White House, who are prepared to stand up and say, ‘You know what? This country belongs to all of the people: the waiters and the waitresses who are trying to make it on low incomes, they have a right to see their kids go to college and all people, that the United States is going to join the rest of the industrialized world in guaranteed health care to all people as a right and not any longer be the only country, major country on earth that does not guarantee that right, that all kids regardless of income have the right to a college education, that we need a tax system which in fact makes it very clear that the wealthy and large corporations are going to start paying their fare share of taxes, that we’re going to have real campaign finance reform so that the Koch brothers and other billionaires cannot buy elections, that we’re going to overturn Citizens United.’ Do you think that’s Hillary Clinton’s agenda? I don’t think so.
There is no truth to the rumor that when asked about a Sanders 2016 presidential run, Hillary said … What difference does it make!
But is Sanders really willing to run for president? More importantly as Liberland asks,” he big question is whether Sanders runs as an independent, which he is, or as a Democrat, a party with which he caucuses, but with which he many differences.” If Sanders runs as either, it will be problematic for Hillary Clinton and Democrats. If Sanders runs in the Democrat primary, Hillary will be forced to move to the LEFT to attract the base.If Sanders runs as an Independent in the general election, he will siphon the far Left vote from an establishment Hillary Clinton. We say Run Bernie, Run!!!
Personally, I agree with 0.000527% of Bernie Sanders’ agenda; however, I will give him his due and that he is an unabashed, self-proclaimed socialist. Because he stands by his beliefs and policies, no matter how wrong I think they might be, I give him kudos for standing by his socialist principles. However, after saying what he did about the need for a political revolution and Hillary not being the standard bearer of that movement, I would cry foul and bullsh*t if now Sanders did not run and instead sat back and got in line behind Hillary Clinton like a good establishment Democrat.
The reality is, these days Bernie Sanders probably represents more of what the Democrats are all about these days than Hillary Clinton. Vermont don’t stop there, let’s add former Green Mountain Gov. Howard Dean back for another run as well … YEEHAAA!!!
Rutgers Faculty Approves Resolution to Rescind its Invitation to Condoleeza Rice to Speak at Commencement
THE LIBERAL INDOCTRINATION OF AMERICA’S COLLEGES …
Liberal, duplicitous Rutgers faculty looks to rescind the university’s original invitation to former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice to speak at their Commencement. Condi is just to Republican to speak at Rutgers, according to the libs in the faculty. Get a load of the reason why the liberal elite at Rutgers do not want Condi to speak at the commencement. One professor said, “She was intimately involved in a campaign that was a manipulation. Whether she was aware of it or not. Our students are being manipulated to deliver a political point.” Another said, “an honorary Doctor of Laws degree should not honor someone who participated in a political effort to circumvent the law.” Hmm, I guess that also means that Hillary Clinton (Benghazi) and Barack Obama (Obamacare and his entire presidency) would be deemed the same as not fitting the criteria to speak at a Rutgers commencement? Add the entire Obama administration since the Rutger’s profs added, “whether some one was aware of it or not.” Who are these two face, elitist, liberal moon-bats kidding. Sadly, they are
teaching indoctrinating our children.
Hey Rutgers lib profs … talk to the hand
The Rutgers University New Brunswick Faculty Council approved a resolution yesterday urging the university’s Board of Governors to rescind its invitation to Condoleeza Rice to speak at commencement.
The Board of Governors voted earlier this month to award an honorary Doctor of Laws degree to Rice, who served as Secretary of State under President George W. Bush. She will be paid $35,000 for her commencement address.
But the faculty council cited her war record and her misleading of the public about the Iraq war as reasons for their opposition.
“Condoleezza Rice … played a prominent role in (the Bush) administration’s effort to mislead the American people about the presence of weapons of mass destruction,” according to the resolution. And she “at the very least condoned the Bush administration’s policy of ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ such as waterboarding,” it said.
“A Commencement speaker… should embody moral authority and exemplary citizenship,” it continued, and “an honorary Doctor of Laws degree should not honor someone who participated in a political effort to circumvent the law.”