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!!!
Bi-Partisan Senate Vote Rejects Obama Nominee, Cop-Killer Atty. Debo Adegbile, to Lead the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division
A stinging bi-partisan vote defeat for Barack Obama … Sorry, but actions have consequences.
In a 47 to 52 vote in the US Senate, Republicans were joined by seven Democrats voting to continue a filibuster of Debo Adegbile’s nomination for the influential post, to lead the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.Yes, the same Debo Adegbile, who represented cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, who was found guilty in 1981 of killing police officer Daniel Faulkner and turned the case into a racially-charged political cause-celeb, and, in doing so, went far beyond his duties as a lawyer to zealously represent his client.
As Sen Ted Cruz (R-TX) stated, Those Who Advocate For Cop Killers Aren’t Suited For Leadership at DOJ.
But not too much for Barack Obama to nominate …
Just what we did not need in the Civil Rights department enforcing the nation’s anti-discrimination laws, a lawyer as Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Pat Toomey led the charge against Adegbile’s nomination,“Under Mr. Adegbile’s oversight, LDF lawyers promoted the pernicious myth that Abu-Jamal was an innocent man, that he was framed because of his race.” Unproven allegations of racism reversed a cop-killers sentence. So I guess Barack Obama will call the following Democratic Senators racists and playing Washington politics, Heidi Heitkamp (ND), Joe Manchin (WV), Mark Pryor (AR), Joe Donnelly (IN), John Walsh (MT), Chris Coons (DE) and Bob Casey Jr. (PA), who voted with Republicans to block the nomination of Adegbile.
The Senate rejected President Obama’s nominee to lead the Justice Department’s civil rights division on Wednesday in a stunning 47-52 vote in which seven Democrats abandoned their leadership.
The vote was all the more remarkable for the five Democrats in tough reelection races this year who voted in vain to move Debo Adegbile’s nomination forward.
Their votes now become ammunition for Senate Republicans, who argued Adegbile was unfit to serve because of his legal work in support of Mumia Abu-Jamal, who was convicted of killing Philadelphia
police officer Daniel Faulkner in 1981.
The vote was a stinging defeat for the White House that showed President Obama is politically out of step with some centrist Democrats heading into the midterm elections.
“He represents the best of the legal profession,” and if you like your cop-killing lawyer, you can keep him …
The response from the community agitator … Barack Obama defended his disgusting pick to head up the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. Sorry Mr. President, this sick pick to further politicize the Justice Dept. and push it further left has failed. Even Democrats could not back your pick. Wow, if this is the best of the legal profession, the profession just sunk even lower.
Obama labeled the vote a “travesty” based on “wildly unfair” character attacks.
“Mr. Adegbile’s qualifications are impeccable. He represents the best of the legal profession, with wide-ranging experience, and the deep respect of those with whom he has worked,” Obama said. “As a lawyer, Mr. Adegbile has played by the rules. And now, Washington politics have used the rules against him.”
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.”
Remember When Barack Obama Ridiculed Mitt Romney During 2012 Presidential Debates about Russia … ‘1980s Are Calling to Ask for Their Foreign Policy Back’ … How Do Those “Rose Colored” Glasses Fit There Barack?
Yet another reason why you don’t elect, let alone reelect SNARK or a Campaigner is Chief …
Remember when Barack Obama made the snide, wise-a$$, ridiculing comment during the 2012 presidential debates to GOP candidate Mitt Romney regarding Russia and that the 1980′s want their foreign policy back? And everyone thought Obama was so cute making such a witty comment. So what do you think of Obama’s comments now as Russia and Vladimir Putin have invaded Ukraine. Just curious America, how’s that “Hopey-Changey” stuff working out for ya? Where is your
Moses Obamamessiah now? By the way Barack, how do those rose colored glasses fit?
Fox News’ Bret Baier opened a segment of his show Friday night by flashing back to an October 2012 presidential debate where President Obama ridiculed Republican presidential nominee Romney about his concern over Russia’s “geo-political” threat.
“You said Russia. Not Al Qaida. You said Russia,” Obama said regarding biggest threats. “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because…the cold war’s been over for 20 years.”
Mitt Romney’s intelligent, powerful and correct retort was as follows:
“Russia, I indicated, is a geopolitical foe … and I said in the same paragraph I said and Iran is the greatest national security threat we face. Russia does continue to battle us in the U.N. time and time again. I have clear eyes on this. I’m not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia or Mr. Putin …”
Is it any wonder why at this moment so many Americans wish that had a do-over of the 2012 presidential election and they would not vote for Barack Obama. He has been wrong and an epic failure on everything in be domestic and foreign policy. What else would you expect but snark from an individual who was completely unqualified to be president?
CNN’s Don Lemon Finally Admits the Truth about the Media and Barack Obama, “As a Journalist, You Weigh How Much You Should Criticize the President Because He’s Black.”
WOW, finally some truth from the liberal MSM admitting there is a bias for Barack Obama.
CNN’s Don Lemon admitted that “as a journalist, you weigh how much you should criticize the president because he’s black.” Really, the color of one’s skin determines whether you should criticize Barack Obama, or not? It’s not bad or failed policy? So by the converse, it id AOK to criticize a white president? Lemon went on to say, “then you have to do it, because you are a journalist.” Um, since when have the journalist of America truly criticized Barack Obama? Am I missing something? Never has a president got more of a pass from the media ever. Had Obama been criticized and vetted as a candidate by the media, he would never have been elected president. But the MSM was all too consumed with have a black man elected. Had the MSM criticized and thoroughly reported on the failures and scandals from Obama’s first term like the economy, disastrous job growth, out of control debt and the truth of Obamacare, he would never have been reelected in 2012. However, they were more concerned with no criticizing a black man.
Wasn’t it Martin Luther King Jr. who said, “I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” So how come the media can’t seem to abide by the words of MLK?
Just a heads up, how do you think the MSM is going to cover Hillary Clinton, the potential first female president? I think we already know the answer.
“As a journalist, you weigh how much you should criticize the president because he’s black.”
DON LEMON: But, Jake, he is the African-American president. He’s an African-American president. He’s a president of all people but, again, he has a responsibility as president to help everyone but he is a black man.
And as I said, he understands the issues that we as African-Americans face more than any other president that we have had. You know, we used to call Bill Clinton the first black president, but I mean, in reality, we know that — we know that was just sort of fun.
But, yes, I think he has more of a freedom. And his — listen, in his first term he didn’t do that much about, you know, gay rights, about gay marriage, whatever, and it started happening in the second term. I said in the beginning that that issue would be a second term issue.
He had to prove himself in the beginning. He had probably more criticism than most presidents because when you are the first of anything, there is a bigger responsibility put on you. He’s a spectacle in a way.
Everyone is being looking to hit him and everyone is looking to punch him, and I understand that, and as a journalist you weigh how much you should criticize the president, because he’s black, what have you, but then you have to do it because ultimately you’re a journalist. Journalists have to, black people have to, white people, Hispanic. We all must hold him to this because, as he said, it is an issue for the country, not just for one demographic.
EXIT QUESTION: President Barack Obama has proved himself? Really? Proved himself to be what, a socialist, authoritarian, imperial president hell-bent on destroying the United States and shredding the US Constitution?
Posted February 28, 2014 by Scared Monkeys
Barack Obama, Blacks, CNN, Community Agitator, Democrat/Obama Propaganda, Discrimination, Epic Fail, Gutter Politics, Media, Media Bias, Minorities, Misleader, Obamacare, Obamanation, Partisan hack, Political Correctness, Politics, Race Card, Racism, Socialist in Chief, WTF, You Tube - VIDEO | 3 comments
Barack Obama, Democrats and their tech folks have managed to “F” up every part of Obamacare from policy to implementation, from coverage to enrollment, but there is one thing you can count on … the IRS coming after you for the Obamacare tax. If there is one thing you can count on with Obama, that is he will find a way to tax you. You laughed at conservatives and the Tea party when the IRS targeted them, just wait until they come after you.
Barack Obama gave an extention to the employer Obamacare mandate, but not to “We the People”. For average, everyday Americans he plans on having the IRS come after you.
Can only imagine how Obama will use the IRS with collecting tax for Obamacare
Agency employs Orwellian term “Shared Responsibility Payment” to describe Obamacare individual mandate tax.
President Obama’s Internal Revenue Service today quietly released a series of Obamacare “Health Care Tax Tips” warning Americans that they must obtain “qualifying” health insurance – as defined by the federal government – or face a “shared responsibility payment” when filing their tax returns in 2015. The term “shared responsibility payment” refers to the Obamacare individual mandate tax, one of at least seven tax hikes in the healthcare law that directly hit families making less than $250,000 per year.
In “Four Tax Facts about the Health Care Law for Individuals” the agency writes:
Your 2014 tax return will ask if you had insurance coverage or qualified for an exemption. If not, you may owe a shared responsibility payment when you file in 2015.
In “The Individual Shared Responsibility Payment- An Overview” the agency warns Americans they must prove they were covered each and every month of the year:
“Piers Morgan Live” Soon to be Piers Morgan Canceled … CNN Gives Low Ratings Show the Axe … Get Ready for his Kicking & Screaming
CNN is giving ‘Piers Morgan Live’ given the boot … Piers Morgan, Not-So Live.
As reported at The Politico, CNN is canceling Piers Morgan’s low rated 9pm show. The 3 year experience to replace Larry King Live has crashed and burned badly with a prime time show that got consistently low ratings. CNN stated that the show could end as early as next month. It probably could not happen soon enough as “Piers Morgan Live” is simply unwatchable. So who will be next up for CNN to take on Megyn Kelly on Fox News and Rachel Maddow at MSNBC at 9PM? Some seem to think Bill Weir. All we know for now is that Piers Morgan is out … good riddance to bad rubbish!
The below video is exhibit 1 of the reason why Piers Morgan’s show has been canceled. Guests Dana Loesch and Scottie Hughes own Morgan in the gun debate so much so at the very end the CNN host winds up in a snit … “It makes me sick”. Actually Piers, your show made many more sick and the reason why no one watched it0 One last thing … Bu-bye!!!
CNN President Jeff Zucker has decided to bring an end to Piers Morgan’s low-rated primetime show, network sources told POLITICO on Sunday. “Piers Morgan Live” could end as early as next month, though Morgan may stay with the network in another role.
Morgan, a former British tabloid editor, replaced Larry King in the 9 p.m. hour three years ago, prior to Zucker’s tenure as president. His show earned consistently low ratings, registering as few as 50,000 viewers in the 25-to-54 year-old demographic earlier this week.
“CNN confirms that Piers Morgan Live is ending,” Allison Gollust, head of CNN communications, told POLITICO on Sunday after an earlier version of this post was published. “The date of the final program is still to be determined.”
Earlier on Sunday, Morgan told The New York Times that the show had “run its course” and that he and Zucker “have been talking for some time about different ways of using me.” Sources who spoke to POLITICO said the decision to end the show was Zucker’s.
Check out the unbelievable, consistent low ratings of Piers Morgan. It is hard to believe they stuck with him this long. The funny part is I have watched more shows of American Greed on CNBC than Piers.
As The Other McCain opines, this is the “first smart move that network has made in years.” I could not agree more. The money line comes from The Guardian that emphasize the following comments from the New York Times article that Morgan was a square peg in a round hole. Really, after all this time CNN finally figured out that a liberal Brit going against the United States Constitution and the First Amendment was a bad thing? God figure.
“It’s been a painful period and lately we have taken a bath in the ratings,” Morgan told the New York Times, which first broke news of the CNN decision on Sunday.
“Look, I am a British guy debating American cultural issues, including guns, which has been very polarizing, and there is no doubt that there are many in the audience who are tired of me banging on about it.”
LOL, remember when Piers Morgan told CBS News during his book tour that, “I will be taken out of CNN kicking and screaming. I absolutely love it. It’s a fantastic network. It’s a great news place to be.”
They Have No Shame … Susan Rice Says She Has No Regrets Over Initial Benghazi Interviews, ‘Patently False’ That I Misled American People (VIDEO)
Doubling Down … Softball interview with NBC’s ‘Meet the Press’ … National Security Adviser Susan Rice says she has no regrets on Benghazi interview following the death of four Americans.
Oh what tangled webs we weave when we practice to deceive. The Obama administration is simply incapable of telling the truth. National Security Adviser Susan Rice, when asked this Sunday on ‘Meet the Press,’ said that she had no regrets with what she said on five Sunday network talk shows in misleading the America public is saying the Benghazi attack was based on a video tape rather than a terror attack. Rice claims that it is “settled science” that the Obama administration had done nothing wrong. Rice stated some of the information turned out not to be correct, “but the notion that somehow I or anybody else in the administration misled the American people is patently false. And I think that that’s been amply demonstrated.” HA, this from the Obama administration that said, if you liked your insurance plan, you can keep your insurance plan, PERIOD! I am sensing a pattern.
No regrets, really? The reason why she is not Secretary of State Rice and is only the National Security Adviser is because of those lies. Of course an all too in the tank bias media was no where to be found as David Gregory asked no follow up questions to contradict her “Alinky” comments.
Yeah, not a smidgen of corruption whatsoever.
National Security Adviser Susan Rice said Sunday she has no regrets about her now-infamous round of TV interviews in 2012 about the the attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya.
Rice, appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” said that nobody in the Obama administration intended to mislead the American people when she appeared on Fox, ABC, CNN, NBC and CBS in 2012 shortly after the attacks.
Asked by host David Gregory if she had any regrets about the interviews, Rice replied: “No.”
“Because what I said to you that morning, and what I did every day since, was to share the best information that we had at the time,” Rice said. “The information I provided, which I explained to you, was what we had at the moment. It could change. I commented that this was based on what we knew on that morning, was provided to me and my colleagues and, indeed, to Congress, by the intelligence community. And that’s been well validated in many different ways since.”
“That information turned out, in some respects, not to be 100 percent correct,” she acknowledged. “But the notion that somehow I or anybody else in the administration misled the American people is patently false. And I think that that’s been amply demonstrated.”
FCC Cancels Media Survey Amid Allegations of Trying to Regulate The News and Trample First Amendment Freedom of the Press Rights
Hero of the Week … whistler-blower FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai.
The FCC blinked and has canceled the media survey and plans to evaluate the coverage of media outlets in the Obama’s administration to attempt to violate the First Amendment and Freedom of the Press. As stated at the Washington Examiner, the First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …” However, under the Obama administration, the Federal Communications Commission was planning to send government contractors into the nation’s newsrooms to determine whether journalists are producing articles, television reports, Internet content, and commentary that meets the public’s “critical information needs.” As per The Obama Administration, of course. The very agency that controls the licensing for the media was now going to inspect them for content and whether they were telling the correct stories. UNREAL. The now canceled study was known at the FCC as “the CIN Study” was never put to an FCC vote, it was just announced. Imagine that. Why does this reek of IRS-gate? Or AP-gate? But in an act of conscience and bravery, FCC commissioner Ajit Pai came forward and brought the story to the public’s attention in a Wall Street Journal column last week.
First FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai brings the scheme to light and the FCC removed some of the controversial questions
The Federal Communications Commission cancelled a plan to evaluate the coverage of major media outlets Friday after a tidal wave of media criticism alleged the agency was attempting to influence and regulate the news media industry.
“In the course of FCC review and public comment, concerns were raised that some of the questions may not have been appropriate,” the agency said in a statement Friday. “Chairman Wheeler agreed that survey questions in the study directed toward media outlet managers, news directors, and reporters overstepped the bounds of what is required.”
However, despite the fact that the FCC had to pull the plug on this survey because of the negative attention and anti-First Amendment look of this attempt by the government to regulate the media, FCC Chair Wheeler said that it was not an attempt to do so. Sure it wasn’t, so then why cancel the study … hmm? Who backs of an attempt to limit the media unless you were caught red-handed? But instead, they continue to dent what their real intentions were. America needs to wake up … the Obama administration is as lawless as it gets.
Despite a response letter from FCC Chair Tom Wheeler saying the study was not an attempt to force news organizations into changing their coverage, the agency conceded the battle and Wheeler called for the removal of the questions entirely.
“Any suggestion that the FCC intends to regulate the speech of news media or plans to put monitors in America’s newsrooms is false,” the statement said. “The FCC looks forward to fulfilling its obligation to Congress to report on barriers to entry into the communications marketplace, and is currently revising its proposed study to achieve that goal.”
Click here to watch VIDEO – screen grab from Fox News, ‘On the Record’
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: Does President Obama really think no one at FOX will see a government spy in our newsroom? Tonight, an FCC commissioner goes ON THE RECORD and blows the whistle on a plan to install spies in newsroom. They call it something else, like a monitor. But no one is that stupid. We know what they are trying to do.
The FCC commissioner who blew the whistle is here to go ON THE RECORD. Commissioner Ajit Pai joins us.
Nice to see you, sir.
AJIT PAI, FCC COMMISSIONER: Thanks for having me.
VAN SUSTEREN: So your op-ed blew the whistle on this. What is it the FCC wants to do and why you wrote your op-ed?
PAI: The FCC is proposing to do what it is calling a Critical Information Needs, or CIN, study. They will send researchers into newsrooms across the country, television and broadcast and newspapers, to try to figure out why they cover the stories they do. They have identified eight categories of news they think news people should be covering. Some of the questions they ask were highly technical. They are asking reporters, for example, have you ever wanted to cover a story and were told you can’t do so. As I looked into the study design, I got concerned about what it implicated for our First Amendment values. That’s why I wrote it in the “Wall Street Journal.”
VAN SUSTEREN: What’s been the response by the other members of the FCC?
PAI: I haven’t talked to all my colleagues, but I am pleased to report, tonight, the chairman of the FCC, Tom Wheeler, instructed the contractor, who will be doing the study, to remove questions from the study relating to news philosophy and editorial judgment. That’s a positive step but the devil is in the details when it comes to the actual study as implemented
Charles Krauthammer on FCC Newsroom Study, “As If the IRS, & the EPA, and NLRB Haven’t Done Enough Damage, the FCC Now Has to Trample on What Rights are Remaining.”
THE LAWLESS OBAMA ADMINISTRATION CONTINUES TO SHRED THE CONSTITUTION …
Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer weighs in on the FCC ‘Newsroom Study’ that should make people cringe at the lengths that the Obama administration is going to trample on the rights of “We the People”. Krauthammer said on ‘Special Report’ that these types of actions is what takes place in Moscow and Kiev, not the United States.
A proposed FCC study that would send government researchers and monitors into newsrooms to learn why organizations select to cover the stories that they do does not sit well with Charles Krauthammer. He said the government’s stated “critical information need” for such a examination reminds him of something that would take place in Moscow and Kiev.
“As if the IRS, and the EPA, and NLRB haven’t done enough damage, the FCC now has to trample on what rights are remaining.”