Wednesday, April 6, 2016

New York Rag Slanders Sanders

Over the past 13 months in the State of New York (see the interactive chart below), Bernie Sanders has gone from being down 46.1% to Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary to being down only 10.4% — and the establishment Democratic Party political machine is getting pissed!

That is quite a remarkable feat for a relatively unknown Independent Senator from the small State of Vermont — especially when one considers that he's been running against a world-known former two-term First Lady, a two-term New York Senator, and one-term Secretary of State — and a woman who has had the full might and backing of the most powerful political machine in the history of the world, including the full support of the most politically biased self-serving corporate media that ever was (who is only second to Pravda).

Last night as Wisconsin was voting, CNN reported: "The Clinton campaign has been watching these Wisconsin results come in, and the delegate race of course is tight there, but the reality is they're running out of patience. So they're going to begin deploying a new strategy, it’s going to be called Disqualify him, defeat him and then they can unify the party later. [Count me out. You can't insult and lie about my candidate, treat him like garbage, and then insult me, and then later ask for my vote. Ain't no way!]

So now, because yesterday Bernie Sanders just won the State of Wisconsin by a healthy double-digit margin over Hillary Clinton (see the exit polls from the Wisconsin election here), and because the next Democratic primary debate between Sanders and Clinton is scheduled 9 days later in Brooklyn New York on April 14th, and because the New York Democratic primary takes place 5 days later on April 19th, a New York City newspaper (whose owner, Mortimer B. Zuckerman, supports Hillary Clinton) just came out today with an horrendous cover that wrongfully depicts Senator Bernie Sanders' stand on gun control.

The New York Rumble begins — and the New York Daily News' propaganda machine is now in full gear...

New York Daily News Propaganda

Assuming that the audio and transcript is not edited from the New York Daily News (from an April 1, 2016 interview by the Editorial Board of Bernie Sanders in the offices of the newspaper in downtown Manhattan), the cover grossly exaggerates Bernie Sanders' position on gun control — that Hillary Clinton is also now using on the campaign stump (Related text below):

Daily News: Do you think that the discussion and debate about what defines a legal product, what should be a legal product, hence AR-15s, these automatic military-style weapons...which is the grounds of this suit at the moment is that this should have never been in the hands of the public.

Sanders: Well, you're looking at a guy...let's talk about guns for one second. Let’s set the record straight because of… unnamed candidates who have misrepresented my views. You're looking at a guy who has a D, what was it, D minus voting record from the NRA? Not exactly a lobbyist for the NRA, not exactly supporting them. But it's interesting that you raised that question. If you'll remember this, if you were in Vermont in 1988 [gestures to Vermonter in the room], three people were running for the United States Congress. We have one seat, Vermont. Two of them supported assault weapons. One candidate, Bernie Sanders, said, in 1988, "No, I do not support the sale and distribution of assault weapons in this country." I lost that election by three points. Came in second. And that may have been the reason, that I was opposed by all of the gun people, okay? So to answer your question, I do not believe, I didn't believe then and I don't believe now that those guns should be sold in America. They're designed for killing people.

Daily News: So do you think then, with that in mind, that the merits of the current case are baseless?

Sanders: It's not baseless. I wouldn't use that word. But it's a backdoor way. If you're questioning me, will I vote to ban assault weapons in the United States, yeah, I will.

A post at Wall Street on Parade on April 6, 2016 wraps it up very well: "Bernie Sanders won Wisconsin on honesty and inspiration, but got shamed on the cover of the New York Daily News."

And there was also this today...

Rep. Elizabeth Esty

MSNBC had on the air Hillary Clinton supporter Rep. Elizabeth Esty to comment on Bernie Sanders' remarks to the New York Daily News about suing gun manufacturers. As usual, MSNBC (just like CNN) didn't have anyone from the Sanders camp to debate the Clinton supporter. Sanders doesn't believe we should sue gun makers for making and selling legal products (if there was no wrong-doing or illegal activity by the gun maker); but Rep. Esty made the contrast to "we should be able to sue them, just like with the auto industry, to make safer products." So let's be clear: Rep. Esty and others are saying that, if someone legally buys a perfectly functioning gun (say at Walmart), and then that person uses that gun to kill an innocent child at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the parents of that child should be allowed to sue the gun manufacture for making and selling an "unsafe" gun? And if so, if someone legally buys a car (or a knife, or a baseball bat, or rat poison, or plastic bags, or rope or whatever) and kills someone, the manufacturer (of whatever product) should be able to also be sued? Or does this just apply to gun makers, and if so, why? Some gun opponents are saying this is an apples and oranges comparison...but why?

But that wasn't the only FAKE controversy from the New York Daily News interview. Bernie Sanders was also criticized in the corporate media for not knowing exactly how he'd break up the big banks. But a post at New York Times (April 6, 2016) writes: "Bernie Sanders probably knows more about breaking up banks than his critics give him credit for."

And I would add: Anyone with no more than a high school education can comprehend the basic premise that, if a small number of banks who make bad decisions (or engage in illegal fraud) are so big that they have the power to take down an entire economy (like they did in 2007/08), that they should be broken up — because they are "too big to fail". As to HOW to accomplish something of that magnitude would require specialized knowledge to make it work within our current legal system. When a president is elected, he has many advisors who are knowledgeable on specific areas of expertise to guide them through various legislative processes, who then either signs a bill that is passed by a majority in Congress, or the president issues an executive order if it is deemed constitutional. So to call Bernie Sanders' lack of understanding on this issue in the article at the Daily News really amounts to nothing more that sensational media tripe. No one person created the banking system that we now have, and no one person can reform it (let alone, have a full understanding of the intricacies involved). And the Dodd-Frank bill isn't an "end all" solution either, as it is limited in scope, and also requires an act of Congress — something President Sanders can't do on his own, because he wouldn't be a Socialist dictator. (At Bill Moyers.Com on April 4, 2016: Why Bernie’s Right About Glass-Steagall)

Following the New York Daily News interview and all the FAKE controversy that was generated, Bernie Sanders campaign released a statement telling us EXACTLY how he'd break up the big banks.

And this morning on MSNBC on their show Morning Joe, they gave Hillary Clinton a lot of time to launch further attacks against Bernie.

But today in The Guardian, they had something nice ;) —

"Bernie's a lingering headache for the Democratic establishment. Sanders is bringing out thousands of energized voters to his rallies, and he’s now won seven of the last eight contests. He’s also expected to win Wyoming this Saturday. All these victories make it hard for the establishment to call for Sanders to get out of the race, though they desperately want Clinton to be able to make a turn to the general election as soon as possible. The next big primary battle is in New York on 19 April – a state that both Democratic candidates can claim as home turf: Sanders was born there before moving up north, and Clinton represented the state in the Senate. For her part, Clinton spent Tuesday in New York, where she held a fundraiser in the evening. Maybe a shakedown of Wall Street bankers is how you win the hearts and minds of New York’s establishment class?" (And here's another post at The Guardian, this one about The Panama Papers, where Bernie gets his due.)

[* EDITOR'S NOTE: It should be noted that the entire time I was writing this post, Bernie was getting hammered non-stop, and with Clinton sound bites attacking him running continuously. NO EQUAL TIME HERE! The corporate media, almost all based in New York City in New York, for the most part, are all really going after Bernie BIG TIME now — even in many of their online articles — but if you read the reader's comments, most take Bernie's side. So to all of Bernie's supporters, fasten your seat belts, because it looks like it's going to be a very rough ride — so hold on tight!]

My other related posts about New York:

Other Odd and End Tid-Bit Notes:

The New York Daily News (November 10, 2007) Hillary Hits a Pothole (Editorial by Mortimer B. Zuckerman, owner of the New York Daily News)

New York Times (January 8, 1996) Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady — a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation — is a congenital liar.

CBS News (March 25, 2008) Hillary Clinton Under Sniper Fire In Bosnia

A poll of Democratic primary voters by Bloomberg politics found that Sanders leads Clinton on trustworthiness by a massive 64% to 25%.

BBC: With polls repeatedly suggesting that both Clinton and Trump are viewed unfavorably by a majority of Americans, with historically unprecedented negative ratings, America is heading towards a lesser of two evils style presidential election.

New York Times: Mr. and Mrs. Clinton have earned more than $125 million in paid speech income since leaving the White House in 2001.

Bernie and Jane Sanders, with his congressional salary and their combined Social Security benefits, made $205k in 2014 according to their tax return (Bernie's plan to raise the cap for Social Security taxes would mean raising his own taxes.)


  1. This is not about Bill Clinton's DNA and the stained blue dress...

  2. i feel i have a relevant comment on Esty... firstly she represents the town of Newtown Ct, which is a very well to do, meaning upper upper middle class to CEO's, town that prides itself on the quality of life of offered to its very high income residents. Recall that the father of the newtown shooter was a tax accountant for GE, which until very recently was headquartered in fairfield Ct. I'm sure his salary was easily in the 6 figures as GE has closed all their manufacturing plants in CT.
    So what you have is a group of citizens from a very wealthy suburb of NYC who are not concerned about the economic issues Bernie is raising and are a ONE issue voter block. All they care about is gun control. And rightfully so, but the truth is they mis-represent Bernies positions on guns egged on by the Clinton machine. They do not represent CT as a whole as a little research will show CT to be one of the most economically unequal states in the union.

    I feel for these people but remember they only care about "gun control" as they are almost entirely in the economically elite.

    That being said, i predict Bernie will win CT. How do i know this, i live 15 minutes from Newtown CT. And i see allot of lawn signs for Bernie and none for HRC.

    the lamestream media continues it's attack on the democratic socialist who happens to be the most progressive candidate for president in at least 50 years (LBJ) and or 80 years FDR.

    Esty can suck it!

  3. From Sanders newsletter today:

    Polls in Wisconsin haven't even been closed for 24 hours, and we're already seeing the start of the Clinton campaign's full-on attack before the New York primary. We knew they were getting nervous, but candidly, we didn't think they would go this negative so quickly. We have to be ready for what comes next.

  4. From Politico: Hillary Clinton proudly champions against the anti-establishment tide. Did she think Sanders is a real Democrat? “Well, I can’t answer that,” she said with a smile. Then she proceeded to answer the question. “He’s a relatively new Democrat, and, in fact, I’m not even sure he is one. He’s running as one. So I don’t know quite how to characterize him."

    [* Hillary always lies, even when she doesn't seem to have a reason to. Millions of Americans have heard Bernie say he is an Independent progressive who self-identifies as a democratic socialist who was only running on the Democratic ticket to move Hillary more to the left with his campaign because he was disappointed in Obama after his first term. He has always been against the establishment status quo such as "moderate" Democrats like Hillary — who is more like a Republican LITE — but still, Bernie almost always votes with the Democrats.]

    She even suggested for the first time (in public, anyway) that the septuagenarian from Vermont was feeding a simplistic, cynical line of argument to turn young voters against her: "There is a persistent, organized effort to misrepresent my record, and I don’t appreciate that, and I feel sorry for a lot of the young people who are fed this list of misrepresentations. I know that Sen. Sanders spends a lot of time attacking my husband, attacking President Obama. I rarely hear him say anything negative about George W. Bush, who I think wrecked our economy."

    [* Hillary always lies. There is no organized effort to misrepresent Hillary's record, we all have have the internet. We aren't fed a list of misrepresentations, we do research. And her husband and daughter have attacked Bernie several times, and first. And Bernie isn't running against George Bush, he's running against Hillary.]

    "There is, as you well know, a very negative, intense barrage of attacks on anybody who supports me. I did not see that in ’08,” she said.

    [* Hillary always lies. She been complaining about attacks against her for the past 40 years, and most were well deserved.]

  5. In an interview with MSNBC, Clinton slammed Sanders for the recent New York Daily News interview in which he struggled to specify exactly how he would break up big banks — a key issue in his campaign: “I think he hadn't done his homework, and he'd been talking for more than a year about doing things that he obviously hadn't really studied or understood,” Clinton said. [In a sneaky way, she was implying he was not qualified to be president, because she had been asked previously more than once by the MSNBC host.)

    Sanders later said to a cheering crowd of more than 10,000 people at a rally in Philadelphia: "I don't believe that she is qualified." He listed the reasons as to why she's not qualified, pointing to her super PAC's acceptance of millions from special interest groups; her prior support for trade agreements, her vote for the disastrous Iraq War and her support of the Panama free trade agreement: "I don't think you are qualified if you supported the Panama free trade agreement. Something I very strongly opposed and which as all of you know has allowed corporations and wealthy people all over the world to avoid paying their taxes to their countries."

    In an interview Bernie Sanders was asked about calls for an apology for his support on a gun bill he voted for 30 years ago (a law that Bill Clinton signed into law). Personally, I find it appalling that Hillary Clinton would use the parents of the children who were killed in the Sandy Hook massacre as campaign props and weapons against her political opponent. Bernie Sanders wasn't parading horribly maimed soldiers from the Iraq war onto his podium at campaign rallies to ask Hillary for an apology for her vote on that war.

    His response is here at YouTube:

  6. UPDATE!!!

    Bernie Sanders vs. Hillary Clinton in 3 Simple Charts.

  7. The Missing New York Daily News Cover

  8. Big Hillary Clinton supporter / endorser New York City mayor might be going to prison:

    Bill de Blasio fundraising under investigation

    Bill de Blasio Is Having A Rough Week

    Federal Probe Targeting Bill de Blasio Could Impact Hillary Clinton Campaign

    De Blasio handling corruption scandal like a true scoundrel

    he FBI Is Investigating De Blasio's Fundraising, Too

  9. New York City Mayor Bill deBlasio and wife are liars and pimps for Democratic corporate whores.

    New York Mayor Bill de Blasio made $231,145 last year. Bernie Sanders wants to lift the cap for Social Security taxes from $118,500 to $250,000 to expand Social Security and shore up the trust fund. That's why Bill de Blasio won't vote for Bernie Sanders.

    Hillary Clinton doesn't want to lift the cap because shes say she doesn't want to raise taxes on "the middle-class". Members of Congress make $174,000 a year, so Hillary Clinton doesn't want to raise their taxes either. That's why Bill de Blasio supports Hillary Clinton.

    Wage data from Social Security shows 92% of wage earners make less than $174,000 a year — and 98.8% make less that $250,000 a year. To Hillary Clinton, that's "middle-class".

    In 2008 Obama wanted to raise this cap too, but Hillary didn't ... because she wants to "break the barriers" and make us "whole again" because "the system shouldn't be rigged to just benefit those at the top".

    50% of wage earners make LESS than $28,851 a year

    This morning Bill de Blasio's wife is on CNN with Wolf Blitzer pimping for Hillary Clinton — saying we need a "progressive" president — while lying about Bernie Sanders.



  10. Two articles on the NY vote fraud:

  11. At least five family members of Sandy Hook victims have appeared at events for Hillary Clinton. Among them is Erica Smegielski whose mother was killed in the shooting and who also stars in a TV spot supporting Clinton.

    For some, the Clinton campaign is providing a fresh national platform to make their case. But for others affected by the shooting seeing and hearing about the Sandy Hook tragedy on the news again is jarring, particularly connected to a presidential campaign.

    Clinton, who often localizes the primary contests, has begun focusing on the school massacre in Newtown, Conn. Jane Sanders chided Clinton for holding events with Sandy Hook families. “I just don't like to see it be politicized. I think that Secretary Clinton's gun record is a lot more spotty than Bernie's."

    That comment prompted Smegielski to issue a public invitation to Jane Sanders via Twitter. “Will you be in CT this weekend? You’re welcome at my house any time. I would love to open dialogue on this issue.”

    Jane Sanders noted that her husband has, since 1988, "been consistently supportive of instant background checks, opposed to assault weapons, the sale and manufacture of assault weapons, for closing the gun show loophole, ending the strawman problem. And I think that's been since 1988."

    By contrast, she remarked that when Clinton ran for Senate in New York, she was very pro-gun control.

    "When she ran for the presidency against Barack Obama, she was very anti-gun control in 2008," Sanders remarked. "And now that she's running against Bernie, she's back to for gun control."

    The bottom line, Sanders said, is that both candidates agree that guns are an issue but that they disagree on the solution.

    It's very sad, because once Clinton gets her votes from Connecticut, she'll move on and forget — just like she forgot Flint, Michigan.