Jimmy Kimmel Used Democrat Talking-Points

Here is more from THE DAILY CALLER:

…Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s office offered Jimmy Kimmel “technical guidance” to assist the talk show host in his vendetta against Republicans’ most recent attempt to repeal and replace Obamacare.

Schumer’s office “provided technical guidance and info about the bill, as well as stats from various think tanks and experts on the effects of [Graham-Cassidy],” a source familiar with their conversations told the Daily Beast….

 

 

Democrat Policies Coming Home to Roost

THE HILL notes that Schumer is concerned… I wonder if this same concern swept over him with Clinton?

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he is concerned by Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s request for resignations from 46 U.S. attorneys appointed by former President Barack Obama.

“I’m troubled to learn of requests for resignations from the remaining U.S. attorneys, particularly that of Preet Bharara, after the President initiated a call to me in November and assured me he wanted Mr. Bharara to continue to serve as U.S. attorney for the Southern District [of New York],” he said in a statement Friday.

“While it’s true that presidents from both parties made their own choices for U.S. Attorney positions across the country, they have always done so in an orderly fashion that doesn’t put ongoing investigations at risk,” Schumer added. “They ask for letters of resignation but the attorneys are allowed to stay on the job until their successor is confirmed.”

“By asking for the immediate resignation of every remaining U.S. Attorney before their replacements have been confirmed or even nominated, the President is interrupting ongoing cases and investigations and hindering the administration of justice.”….

You don’t think firing 93-U.S. Attorneys was putting “ongoing investigations at risk”?

Pelosi about GOP health bill:

➤ “…The American people and Members have a right to know the full impact of this legislation before any vote in Committee or by the whole House.”

Pelosi on Obama-Care:

➤ “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”

Are Democrats serious right now!

Sen. Chuck Schumer’s “Race-Card” Backfires!

Here is a portion of the article “The Sage” was referring to, via THE AMERICAN SPECTATOR (2006):

Charles Schumer trying to tar Samuel Alito as a racist because of membership in some club? Don’t make me laugh. The fact is that Charles Schumer came to power as a New York State Assemblyman in 1974 by virtue of an overtly racist scheme that he created and sold to a naive neighborhood in Brooklyn, New York. He convinced them that he would use his power to rid their area of black people. And who is my source for this serious accusation? Me.

Yes, me. I was there.

“My sin I recall today…” It has been my decision, a very conflicted one to be sure, not to publish this information these past many years. My silence was motivated by my loyalty to my former neighbors, who went along with this nefarious stratagem. In the end, the plan did not come to fruition, either because Schumer tried unsuccessfully, or because the whole thing was a con on his part to gull gullible voters. A skilled researcher might do well to check the Assembly archives to see if he actually laid the groundwork for the plan.

Here is the background. The Flatbush section of Brooklyn includes a subsection known as Midwood. This stretches from E. 1st Street on the west to E. 35th Street on the east, from a southernmost point at Ave. U to Ave. H on the north. This entire segment is populated by whites, mostly Italians and Jews, with a recent influx of Slavic immigrants. Right smack dab in the middle of this box is a series of apartment houses on Avenue K, from E. 12th to E. 15th Street, whose tenants are almost 100% black.

There existed (and to an extent still exists) a fear, perhaps a paranoia, that this cluster of black people in the heart of the neighborhood was rendering it “unsafe.” Although I do not recall any publicized cases of robberies or other crimes occurring around those buildings, there was a strong perception that this represented a pocket of criminality in the midst of this otherwise mild-mannered urban conclave. It always struck me as a silly bit of mythology; I used to play basketball in the public parks with the fellows who lived there and did not find them particularly threatening.

Then the word went out that there was a plan to evict all the blacks. A local political kingmaker set up a round of meetings with community groups to introduce them to a recent Harvard grad, Charles Schumer, who had fashioned a solution to this nagging problem. Although I was only 16 years old at the time, I was entering Brooklyn College and had long been a confirmed political junkie. Being that young, I was more or less invisible to the adults who were engaged in these momentous matters, so I was able to slip into one of these sessions unhampered.

What Schumer explained to these audiences was as follows. If they elected him to the State Assembly, he would put forth a bill that would create a set of provisions, ostensibly to “help” the underprivileged urban blacks. It would identify those apartment buildings on Ave. K as being in a state of some dilapidation, requiring an extensive facelift and revamping of the apartments. I don’t recollect with certainty if ownership would be assumed by the State itself or one of those “community rehabilitation organizations” that served as the instrument of choice for soaking up large sums of government money for the stated purpose of redeveloping slums.

The residents would then all be relocated into government or government-subsidized housing in other areas while the apartments were being renovated. At the end of the process, the individual apartments would be redefined as co-ops or condominiums to be sold to private owners. Although on paper the current tenants would be given priority for the right to purchase the newly upgraded condos, we could be sure that — ha, ha, ha — the blacks would not be able to raise the cash required, which would be not inconsiderable……

Hillary Clinton Joins DNC Chair In Obfuscating Terms (+ Chuck Schumer)

Gateway Pundit notes the following about the above:

The Right Scoop reports:

In a completely softball interview with “Hardball” host, ironically, Chris Matthews, Hillary awkwardly side-stepped his question on what the difference is between being a socialist and being a Democrat.

Democrats claim Reagan wouldn’t be accepted in today’s Republican Party. Do they really think JFK would be accepted by today’s Democrats? Fat chance.

Remember this question to the DNC head?

HotAir connects the obfuscation…

By this time, Chris Matthews must be panicked. When he asked DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz to explain the difference between Democrats and socialists, the MSNBC host expressed considerable angst that the party’s leading officer couldn’t do so. “I used to think there was a big difference,” Matthews lamented at the time.

Fast forward five months. Matthews posed the question to the party’s leading candidate for its presidential nomination, and … Hillary Clinton couldn’t explain it either.

Is “Take Back Our Country!” Racist? ~ If You’re Republican

If saying “take back our country” is racism in disguise… what does this mean for the Democrats in the above video?

A slightly longer version can be found here. The first point I want to make, via NewsBusters, is that Democrats used (and use) the phrase “take our country back.” For instance:

“Taking Back America” Wasn’t Racist Until Liberals Stopped Saying It

In declaring his run for the presidency, Howard Dean told a crowd in Burlington, Vermont, “You have the power to take our county back!” A little more than half a year later, when Dean was ousted from the Democratic primary, he said the same thing once again. Nine days later, he again said “I’ll be doing everything that I can to make sure that John Kerry and John Edwards take this country back.”

In fact, Howard Dean was such a fan of the phrase, he even wrote two books incorporating it into their titles: “You Have the Power: How to Take Back Our Country and Restore Democracy in America” and “Winning Back America“. From whom? He doesn’t say. But clearly he’s a racist.

As is Hillary Clinton. In a stunning show of racial bigotry, Clinton opened her 2008 run for president by declaring the she would “take our country back.”

Chuck Schumer: also a racist. After the 2006 midterms, he stated: “We really care about taking our country back… So far, sooo good.”

Prominent Democratic strategists James Carville and Paul Begala are also racists. They coauthored a book in the run-up to the last presidential election titled “Take It Back: A Battle Plan for Democratic Victory.”

And how about the racist Katrina vanden Hevuel, editor of the far-left, near-bankrupt magazine The Nation. She’s also a racist for penning a book titled “Taking Back America“.

Liberal talk show host Thom Hartmann also cannot restrain his racist views. The title of his book, “We the People: A Call to Take Back America” is clearly rooted in bigotry…

…read more…

Hard To Find Videos ~ Found

I have to say that Marooned in Marin did a bang up job in keeping these videos available, in one place!

So the question becomes, if it is racist for the T.E.A. Party… why is it not for Democrats? Breitbart points out the obvious (as did NewsBusters)… lying about racial incidents in our electronic age is getting harder-and-harder:

…Don’t forget that the big story occupying the news cycle the weekend of March 20, 2010 was that racist Tea Party protesters in Washington DC yelled the “N-Word” at civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis as he walked across the mall to the capitol building that sunny afternoon.  The story led all the cable shows, the Sunday shows and was the main lede in every print column about the historic events that weekend.  

The media repeated the lie without ever asking a single question of the dubious man who made the audacious claim, Rep., Andre Carson.  Only one man dared to question the bogus tale, Andrew Breitbart.  He offered $10,000 to the United Negro College Fund for any evidence of the slander. He upped it to $100,000. Nothing. 

The Congressional Black Caucus didn’t want to talk about it anymore.  They had done their job.  They had distracted the media. They had gotten their president’s signature piece of legislation passed. Nothing to see here, move along.  

Andrew didn’t let it go.  He found four individual videos that proved Carson’s tale was a lie. The media ignored it. They still do….

…read more…