DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Says Politics Had Nothing to do With Obama’s Delay of Keystone XL Pipeline Until After 2014 Midterm Elections

LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE …

DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL) was on ‘Meet the Press’ on Sunday spinning like a top. DWS told David Gregory that she does not believe that Barack Obama’s decision to delay the XL Keystone pipeline had nothing to do with politics. HAH! Seriously Debbie, the fact that it is referenced that a decision will be made at the earliest after the 2014 has nothing to do with politics? Sorry, but much like everything with Obama, it has everything to do with politics. This is just another example of Barack Obama kicking the political can of issues down the road and playing partisan politics and putting Democrats ahead of Americans. We know that the Keystone XL pipline construction will create primary jobs and secondary one’s from that. But that does not matter to the Food Stamp president.

DWS discusses Keystone XL Pipeline around the 4:00 mark

DWS went on to say, “It [Keyston XL pipeline] affects multiple states.  What’s also true is that incumbent senators like [Louisiana Democrat] Mary Landrieu understand the issues that are important on the ground in their states to their constituents.” Yes, they do and they do not appear to be happy.

XL_Keystone_Sen_Landrieu comments

This woman has the nerve to talk about Tea party extremists when Democrats and Barack Obama are pandering to the far-left wing environmental wackos in delaying the XL Keystone as even Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) stated, “Today’s decision by the administration amounts to nothing short of an indefinite delay of the Keystone pipeline. The decision’s irresponsible, unnecessary, and unacceptable. By making it clear that they will not move the process forward until there’s a resolution in a lawsuit in Nebraska, the administration is sending a signal that the small minority who oppose the pipeline can tie up the process in court forever.”

Meet the Press Transcript:

DAVID GREGORY: Are you worried, as the party chair, that this shouldn’t be resolved before the election because of the potential impact it could have on vulnerable Democrats?

REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: As a member of Congress who represents hundreds of thousands of people in south Florida, I want to make sure that the right decision is arrived at. And that the president makes that decision carefully and he doesn’t factor politics into his decision, which I don’t think he is.

DAVID GREGORY: Is the issue in the fall a referendum on President Obama?

REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: No, absolutely not. The–

DAVID GREGORY: It’s not?

I suppose the IRS targeting the Tea Party, blaming Benghazi on a video tape and delaying employee mandates for Obamacare were not political either.

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.”

Transcript from Real Clear Politics:

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?

“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.

Live + Same Day Cable News Daily Ratings for Thursday,  February 20, 2014:

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.

CNN_Piers Morgan ratings

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.

The Politico:

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.”

Emperor Barack Obama Says, ‘I Can Do Whatever I Want’

A real look into what Barack Obama truly thinks and believes … Its Good to be King

While visiting Monticello with the French president, President Obama said, “That’s the good thing about being president, I can do whatever I want.” Hmm, you think he is joking, huh? Well, he just made another unlawful change in a law passed by Congress delaying certain employers of the employer mandate until 2016. Is some one going to remind Obama that the federal government of United States of America is composed of three distinct branches: legislative, executive and judicial, whose powers are vested by the U.S. Constitution in the Congress, the President, and the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, respectively. The powers and duties of these branches are further defined by acts of Congress, including the creation of executive departments and courts inferior to the Supreme Court. Just asking?

Remember when Our Founding Fathers created a government of, by and for the American people?

Via the pool report: Monticello:

At 4:45 POTUS and president Hollande walked out from a portico and strolled in Front of your pool with Leslie Bowman, president of the Monticello Foundation. Looking at a terrace she said that Jefferson loved to admire the landscape from there. POTUS said that he’d like to take a look and seemed delighted to “break the protocol”.

“That’s the good thing as a President, I can do whatever I want” he quipped, walking to the terrace with his guest and Ms. Bowman. Pool now in the mansion as the leaders will come and visit Jefferson’s study.

More from Kristinn Taylor at The Gateway Pundit and the comparisons to France’s King Louis XVI and his wife Queen Marie Antoinette.

Oh the Hypocrisy … Hollywood Producer Harvey Weinstein Promises Not to Make Any More Bloody Violent Movies … Still Promising New Film With Meryl Streep that Will Make NRA Wish They Weren’t Alive

Harvey Weinstein tells CNN host Piers Morgan that he would no longer make bloody, gory, violent movies. Hey Harvey, I think the damage has been done. Weinstein has made a career and a lucrative living out of making what he claims he will no longer do. Of course it all depends on how one defines “bloody, violent” movies.

Suddenly Harvey Weinstein has had an epiphany and after making a living producing extremely and ultra-violent  movies including ‘Kill Bill,’ ‘Scream,‘  ‘Scream 2,’ ‘Scream 3,’ ‘Halloween‘, ‘Halloween 2‘, ‘Halloween: Resurrection‘, ‘Pirannah 3D‘,  ‘Django Unchained‘, ‘Kill Bill Vol. 1 & 2′,  ‘Pulp Fiction’  and maybe one of the most bloody with gratuitous violence movie ever, ‘Rambo’ in war-torn Burma. But now he is ready to turn over a new leaf and warns he will make a Meryl Streep movie that will make NRA ‘wish they weren’t alive’.

 

Check out the works and the hypocrisy of Harvey Weinstein

Warning: Adult language and violence – Scene from Pulp Fiction, Ezekiel 25:17

Warning: Beyond violent – Rambo 4 (probably one of the most violent, bloody scenes ever)

Warning: More gratuitous violence – Scream deaths

Hillary Clinton’s Hit List: She Kept a File of Sinners and Saints … A Special Circle of Clinton Hell Reserved for People Who Endorsed Obama over Hillary

So Democrats, are you on Hillary’s Hit List?

This morning The Politico writes about Hillary Clinton’s hit list. Who would possibly believe that some one so warm, kind and compassionate like Hillary Clinton could have a “hit list” for paybacks against individuals who abandoned her in favor of Barack Obama for the Democrat nomination in the run up to the 2008 presidential election and thus devastating her life-long political aspirations of becoming president? Hell hath no fury like a Hillary scorned. According to the Politico, those that stabbed the Clinton’s in the back after all the fundraising and political favors. Individuals were rated on a scale of 1 to 7, where 7 was considered Hilary’s “SH*T” list.  Interestingly enough, then, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), who would succeed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State in the Obama administration, was among those who received a “7″. The list also contained, the late and former Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy.

For Hillary it is all about 2016 and her ambition to be president at all cost.

Hit List

As one of the last orders of business for a losing campaign, they recorded in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet the names and deeds of members of Congress. They carefully noted who had endorsed Hillary, who had backed Obama, and who had stayed on the sidelines—standard operating procedure for any high-end political organization. But the data went into much more nuanced detail. “We wanted to have a record of who endorsed us and who didn’t,” a member of Hillary’s campaign team said, “and of those who endorsed us, who went the extra mile and who was just kind of there. And of those who didn’t endorse us, those who understandably didn’t endorse us because they are [Congressional Black Caucus] members or Illinois members. And then, of course, those who endorsed him but really should have been with her … that burned her.”

For Hillary, whose loss was of course not the end of her political career, the spreadsheet was a necessity of modern political warfare, an improvement on what old-school politicians called a “favor file.” It meant that when asks rolled in, she and Bill would have at their fingertips all the information needed to make a quick decision—including extenuating, mitigating and amplifying factors—so that friends could be rewarded and enemies punished.

Their spreadsheet formalized the deep knowledge of those involved in building it. Like so many of the Clinton help, Balderston and Elrod were walking favor files. They remembered nearly every bit of assistance the Clintons had given and every slight made against them. Almost six years later, most Clinton aides can still rattle off the names of traitors and the favors that had been done for them, then provide details of just how each of the guilty had gone on to betray the Clintons—as if it all had happened just a few hours before. The data project ensured that the acts of the sinners and saints would never be forgotten.

7

There was a special circle of Clinton hell reserved for people who had endorsed Obama or stayed on the fence after Bill and Hillary had raised money for them, appointed them to a political post or written a recommendation to ice their kid’s application to an elite school. On one early draft of the hit list, each Democratic member of Congress was assigned a numerical grade from 1 to 7, with the most helpful to Hillary earning 1s and the most treacherous drawing 7s. The set of 7s included Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), as well as Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Baron Hill (D-Ind.) and Rob Andrews (D-N.J.).

Yet even a 7 didn’t seem strong enough to quantify the betrayal of some onetime allies.

When the Clintons sat in judgment, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) got the seat closest to the fire. Bill and Hillary had gone all out for her when she ran for Senate in 2006, as had Obama. But McCaskill seemed to forget that favor when NBC’s Tim Russert asked her whether Bill had been a great president, during a Meet the Press debate against then-Sen. Jim Talent (R-Mo.) in October 2006. “He’s been a great leader,” McCaskill said of Bill, “but I don’t want my daughter near him. VIDEO”

The book by Amie Parnes and Jonathan Allen is called “HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton.”

UPDATE I: I could not agree more than with Jammie Wearing Fool who says that this jit list most likely goes back decades. Amen brother. An excel spreadsheet? More likely a Tera-byte hard drive of enemies.

NFL Hall of Famer Jim Brown Gives President Barack Obama a Grade of “C”

Wow, Jim Brown doesn’t think Obama is the one we have been waiting for, doesn’t think he is a special kind of person … So much for ‘Hope & Change”.

Jim Brown, NFL Hall of Famer and arguably the greatest running back of all time had a few choice words for President Barack Obama while on the Arsenio Hall show. Never at a loss for words and a man that speaks his mind whether you agree with him or not I have always respected the man because of his convictions and never beating around the bush. During his appearance he was asked what he thought of Barack Obama, his response most likely shocked many libs and blacks. As reported at The Politico, Jim Brown said, “I like him as a human being, but somehow it seems like he’s over his head or maybe he underestimated the system of government we had. [...] I give him a ‘C.”

Asked by Arsenio Hall for his thoughts on President Barack Obama, legendary football player Jim Brown expressed his disappointment in a man he once campaigned for in Ohio.

“That’s a difficult one,” said Brown. “I like his family. I like him as a human being. But somehow it seems like he’s over his head.”

Brown said he’d give the president a “C” grade and added that “maybe underestimated the system of government.”

Jim Brown and I agree, this is the reason why you don’t elect a “community agitator” and someone who has no qualifications to do the job, president. What is also interesting is even Jim Brown calls Obama a partisan.

Full comments:

“When you ask me that, that’s a difficult one. I like his family. I like him as a human being, but somehow it seems like he’s over his head or maybe he underestimated the system of government we had. When Kennedy couldn’t get the Civil Rights Bill passed he was the big liberal. Lyndon Johnson came in and got it passed and he was a conservative and a Southerner. Sometimes in politics, to get something done, it takes a special kind of knowledge and a special kind of person, but it doesn’t always follow the party lines. Obama was elected by the people, and I was glad that barrier was broken down. I did, along with my wife, campaign for him in Ohio because that was a key state. If I had to say does he rate an ‘A’ or does he rate a ‘D,’ it would be very difficult. I give him a ‘C.’”

Personally, I think Jim Brown went a bit easy on his friend, maybe a first in Brown’s career, but for Obama to get a “C”, he would have to be average. Barack Obama is not average, he is well below average and at this point gets a “D” and if Obamacare, the economy and the Middle East continue in uncertain turmoil, it will be changed to an ‘F”.

Harry Reid, the Senate Democrats, Barack Obama & Joe Biden’s Nuclear Hypocrisy … Senate Goes Nuclear with Democrat Party Vote 52-48

Partisan Democrats end 225 years of precedent … Democrats just striped the protection of “We the People” who are in the minority.

Democrats were against it, before they were for it …

Yesterday, Democrats broke 225 years of precedent, when the U.S. Senate voted along Democrat partisan line 52-48 to invoke the so-called nuclear option allowing confirmation for most presidential nominees by simple majority. Some Democrats split with the party and voted against the change; however, the 52 votes were all of the Democrat party. Hmm, isn’t how we got Obamacare? What this does is  the Senate voted to severely limit the use of the filibuster, one of the few tools a minority party has in our representative democracy. This was nothing more than a “Naked Power Grab.”  As Dana Milbank writes, Congress wasn’t broken before, it certainly is now. What Reid (D-NV) and his fellow Democrats effectively did was take the chamber of Congress that still functioned at a modest level and turn it into a clone of the other chamber, which functions not at all. They turned the Senate into the House.

Hypocrisy Meter

The Senate vote Thursday to lower the barriers for presidential nominations should make it easier for President Obama to accomplish key second-term priorities, including tougher measures on climate change and financial regulation, that have faced intense opposition from Republicans in Congress.

The move to allow a simple majority vote on most executive and judicial nominees also sets the stage for Obama to appoint new top officials to the Federal Reserve and other key agencies — probably leading to more aggressive action to stimulate the economy and housing market. And it frees Obama to make changes to his Cabinet without the threat of long delays in the Senate before the confirmation of nominees.

Laura Ingraham discuses the “nuclear option” on ‘The O’Reilly Factor’.

What complete Democrat HYPOCRISY!!!

Remember when Senate Barack Obama said he was against the “Nuclear” option in 2005? So why the sudden change of heart Obama? Maybe because as we saw with Obamacare, you are just a lair. Hmm, did Obama also run in 2012 on the notion that “if you like the rules of the US Senate you can keep them’? What a frigging hypocrite.

HMM, WHAT CHANGED. REPUBLICANS THREATENED IT, BUT NEVER WENT THRU WITH IT. OBAMA HAS TRULY DESTROYED THIS COUNTRY AND ITS GOVERNMENT.

The Gateway Pundit has more on Harry Reid and Dems Overturn 1806 Senate Rule & Pass ‘Nuclear Option.’

Senator Barack Obama in 2005 against the nuclear option

Senator Joe Biden in 2005 against the nuclear option. Take a good listen at what Biden says when he was in the minority.

Obama says this is not what the Founders intended … compilation of numerous Democrats who were against it, before they were for it.

Joe Biden calls it a “naked” power grab and says, “you will not be in the majority forever”.

Former Obama Adviser David Plouffe Says on ABC’s ‘This Week’ … Republicans Running On An Anti-Obamacare Platform In 2014 & 2016 is An “Impossibility”

Is it any wonder that if Barack Obama only surrounded himself with political advisers like this why Obamacare has been such a mess both in implementation and policy.

Former Barack Obama adviser David Plouffe appeared on ABC’s ‘This Week’ on Sunday and showed us once again that “Denial” is not just a river in Egypt. Plouffe actually said that it was an “impossibility” for the political notion that the GOP would run on an anti-Obamacare platform in 2014 and 2016. Wanna bet? For some reason Plouffe, Obama and his minions think that the issue Americans are upset is because they can’t log on to the “glitchy” web site, Healthcare.fail. Wishful thinking. The problem is that Americans were purposely lied to for political purposes so to pass Obamacare and 5+ million Americans to day find themselves with a canceled insurance plan when they were told they could keep it if they liked it. Sorry Dems, you will pay a dear price for lying and them ramming Obamacare down the throats of Americans in a 100% partisan vote. There is a reason why Americans no longer trust Obama and Democrats will feel the effects.

But even when caught with defending the indefensible, the Obamacare just continues to spin.

David_Plouffe

Simply amazing he can make such comments and keep a straight face

“But where could we be in four or five months?” Plouffe continued. “Hopefully the website is working fine and people are enrolling for health care. Hopefully, we won’t have another Washington dysfunction—which is one of the reasons people are upset, it’s not just health care—and we pass a budget and move forward, and the economy continues to strengthen. So we could be in a much different place three, four months from now. No doubt this is challenging time, but I think you have to have some perspective here. The story could change.”

“The political notion that next year’s election, or 2016, the Republican platform is going to be getting rid of health care?” Plouffe continued. “Millions of people will be signed up. It’s an impossibility.”

← Previous PageNext Page →

Support Scared Monkeys! make a donation.

 
 
  • NEWS (breaking news alerts or news tips)
  • Red (comments)
  • Dugga (technical issues)
  • Dana (radio show comments)
  • Klaasend (blog and forum issues)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Close
E-mail It