April 22-25, 2019
Apr 22 16:28 Chris Wallace is a jackass Apr 22 17:42 Nadler subpoenas McGahn Apr 23 01:03 Bernie Sanders' wild ideas Apr 23 07:34 Ilhan Omar, prolific America-hater Apr 23 18:42 Elizabeth Warren's idiotic idea Apr 24 04:58 Bernie Sanders' warped thinking Apr 24 05:36 Warped Russiagate apologetics Apr 25 15:10 Democrats' Relitigation Nation
Prior Years:
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Chris Wallace is a jackass
This video is why I don't watch Fox News Sunday:
[Video no longer available]
Chris Wallace's interrogation of Rudy Giuliani was disgraceful. Wallace asked multiple multi-faceted questions of Giuliani, then cut Giuliani off before Giuliani could answer. At one point, Giuliani asks "Are you going to let me answer this one?" Wallace replies "I'm trying to ask you some questions", to which Giuliani replies "But you aren't letting me answer. That isn't fair."
At one point, Wallace exposed his agenda:
GIULIANI: These things -- well, wait a second. These things are being done by an innocent man.
WALLACE: This is called an interview. It's not your closing argument. You got to give me the opportunity --
GIULIANI: No, I'm here to defend the president.
WALLACE: I understand that and I'm here to ask you some questions.
GIULIANI: It gives distorted arguments made by prosecutor who had people who hated him.
It's exceptionally apparent that Wallace's agenda was to create controversy that increased ratings. The goal wasn't to let Mr. Giuliani answer the questions.
Wallace's questions were about obstruction. The case on obstruction essentially starts with Mueller's premise that he has the constitutional authority to exonerate. That's more than a little absurd since the definition of exonerate is "to clear, as of an accusation; free from guilt or blame; exculpate".
There isn't a prosecutor in this nation that's tasked with ultimately deciding guilt or innocence. That's a jury's responsibility.
That Wallace went hard after Adam Schiff isn't proof that Wallace is tough on both sides, though that's likely how pundits will spin it. It simply means he's a jackass. Not letting the person answer isn't helpful in gathering information, which is the moderator's chief responsibility. On that responsibility, Chris Wallace failed.
Posted Monday, April 22, 2019 4:28 PM
Comment 1 by KIMBERLY at 13-Dec-19 02:06 PM
Chris Wallace is a jackass. Great article. He is increasingly biased. He makes inflammatory statements which is exactly what you don't want from a host. I want fair and balanced. It is becoming harder and harder to find it, on either side of the aisle.
Nadler subpoenas McGahn
In his quest to return the House majority to Republicans in 2020, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler subpoenaed former White House Counsel Don McGahn , saying " The Special Counsel's report , even in redacted form, outlines substantial evidence that President Trump engaged in obstruction and other abuses. It now falls to Congress to determine for itself the full scope of the misconduct and to decide what steps to take in the exercise of our duties of oversight, legislation and constitutional accountability."
Frankly, I can't wait for that hearing. The Democrats are operating from the premise that President Trump's telling McGahn to fire Mueller right after the 'investigation' began is obstruction. It isn't. Without an underlying crime to charge President Trump with, there's nothing to obstruct. Further, there are mountains of proof that President Trump cooperated with Mueller's partisan investigators. The definition of cooperate is "to work or act with another or other persons willingly and agreeably." I can't wait to hear Democrats explain, especially Chairman Nadler, how a person can work "with another person willingly and agreeably" while obstructing , which means "delaying or preventing of business before a deliberative body."
Democrat Nadler then said "His [McGahn's] testimony will help shed further light on the President's attacks on the rule of law, and his attempts to cover up those actions by lying to the American people and requesting others do the same." Chairman Nadler, what attacks? I know Democrats (now) think that firing Jim Comey was an attack on the rule of law but it wasn't. Firing a corrupt and incompetent FBI director isn't an attack on the rule of law. It's the right decision. This video highlights the Democrats' hypocrisy on the issue of President Trump's firing of Comey:
[Video no longer available]
My question to Nadler and other Democrats is simple: which spin will you stick with? With all the Democrats' spinning, you'd think that it isn't easy to determine what's truth and what's spin. Actually, it's quite simple. If a Democrat's lips are moving while talking about President Trump, that Democrat is lying.
Posted Monday, April 22, 2019 5:42 PM
No comments.
Bernie Sanders' wild ideas
If Bernie Sanders is the Democrats' nominee, it'll be a fantastic night for the GOP. During a Monday night townhall in New Hampshire, Crazy Bernie said something totally crazy. He said that the Boston Marathon bomber should have the right to vote .
Specifically, Sen. Sanders, right now the leader in the Democrat primary in New Hampshire, said "What we're seeing is more young people getting involved in the political process, but not enough. In my view, if young people voted at the same percentage that older people voted in this country, we would transform this nation.
Then Sen. Sanders continued, saying "I think the right to vote is inherent to our democracy, yes, even for terrible people, because once you start chipping away : you're running down a slippery slope. I believe that people commit crimes, they pay the price, but when they get out of jail they certainly should have the right to vote. But I do believe that even if they are in jail paying their price to society, that should not take away their inherent American right to participate in our democracy."
That's breathtakingly stupid. Tonight on Fox News @ Night, Charlie Hurt said that good reporters look for early signs of a landslide in each election cycle. In Hurt's estimation, this is one of the signs that Democrats are too crazy for America. I totally agree with that. Hurt then said that Sen. Sanders isn't some freshman bomb-thrower in the House, an obvious jab at AOC. Sen. Sanders is the leader in New Hampshire.
[Video no longer available]
What type of lunatic makes that types of statement? The Democrat mouthpieces on TV keep 'reminding' us that they took back the House with moderate candidates. Then they remind us that the lunatics are a small percentage of Democrats. That might be true but the so-called moderates running sure haven't stood their ground against AOC and Ilhan Omar.
The early signs are there for an historic election night in 2020. There's a long time until then but there's reason for optimism for the GOP.
Posted Tuesday, April 23, 2019 1:03 AM
No comments.
Ilhan Omar, prolific America-hater
On March 23 and at a CAIR event, Democrat freshman Rep. Ilhan Omar talked about 9/11, saying that "some people did something". Then Rep. Omar lied while saying that CAIR was created after 9/11. In the exact quote, Rep. Omar said "CAIR was founded after 9/11 because they recognized that some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties."
After getting attacked for that insensitivity, Democrats rallied to Rep. Omar's defense. Eventually, Rep. Omar replied with this tweet:
This is dangerous incitement, given the death threats I face. I hope leaders of both parties will join me in condemning it.
My love and commitment to our country and that of my colleagues should never be in question. We are ALL Americans! pic.twitter.com/foTZMpiZKv
- Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) April 10, 2019
It's true that Omar is an American citizen. She couldn't be a member of Congress if she wasn't. Don't mistake her citizenship, though, with her " commitment to our country ". This article highlights Rep. Omar's lack of commitment to the US:
'In his selective memory, he forgets to also mention the thousands of Somalis killed by the American forces that day! #NotTodaySatan,' Minnesota Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar wrote in a tweet on October 16, 2017.
Here's that tweet:
In his selective memory, he forgets to also mention the thousands of Somalis killed by the American forces that day! #NotTodaySatan https://t.co/wrFocrZymQ
- Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) October 16, 2017
What a blithering idiot. Rep. Omar thinks that the people that freed 100,000 Somali people were the terrorists. WOW!!! If these attacks continue, Democrats will be staring at a landslide.
Posted Tuesday, April 23, 2019 7:34 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 23-Apr-19 10:04 AM
Really would like to know how many Muslims were in the WTC on 9/11. That's one of the great no-nos in Islam, so how can it be defended?
Comment 2 by Chad Q at 23-Apr-19 05:06 PM
Maybe Ms. Omar needs to be sent back to her country of origin. She is the poster child for not allowing asylum in the US and yet we keep letting more and more just like her in. Disgusting.
Elizabeth Warren's idiotic idea
Sen. Elizabeth Warren is nuttier than any other Democrat running for president with the exception of Sen. Bernie Sanders. Recently, Sen. Warren proposed a "$1.25 trillion education proposal."
The article starts by saying "On Monday, Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren released an ambitious $1.25 trillion education proposal that would address rising college costs and the student debt crisis. 'Higher education opened a million doors for me,' the senator wrote in a Medium post introducing the plan. "It's how the daughter of a janitor in a small town in Oklahoma got to become a teacher, a law school professor, a U.S. Senator, and eventually, a candidate for President of the United States. Today, it's virtually impossible for a young person to find that kind of opportunity."
Universities used to be required for people to 'get ahead'. That isn't as true anymore. I won't say that universities don't serve a purpose but they don't serve as much of a purpose as they did 25 years ago. Trade schools, apprenticeships and other types of training might be more helpful than a 4-year degree. Also, these alternatives often lead to solid middle class jobs without the student getting hit with a pile of debt.
Finally, many of the degrees that universities hand out like candy won't produce a job that'll pay off the student's loans. Students are starting to figure things out. Unfortunately, politicians haven't. Then again, I'm not surprised even slightly.
[Video no longer available]
What a dipshit! She wants to punish people who've been productive while letting the freeloaders, aka endowments and administrators, get off without punishment. Talk about sending the wrong signal.
Posted Tuesday, April 23, 2019 6:42 PM
No comments.
Bernie Sanders' warped thinking
When Bernie Sanders told CNN that terrorists serving a life sentence and rapists should have the right to vote, Jesse Watters said that it was essentially the equivalent of Willie Horton 2.0. For those who are too young to know who Willie Horton is and what role he played in presidential politics, check out the 1988 election between George H.W. Bush and Democratic Gov. Michael Dukakis. Hint: it didn't end well for Democrats.
This pandering (don't kid yourself; that's what this was) isn't helping Sanders win the Democratic nomination. When you're a Democrat and you've lost Cher, you're in a difficult position. That's where Sanders finds himself .
According to the article, "Cher took to Twitter Tuesday afternoon to sound off on Sanders' position in a since-deleted tweet. The Hollywood icon defended her stance, telling one of her critics that any convicted child molesters, rapists, or murderers of any race should not 'keep [their] right to vote.'" I wholeheartedly agree.
Sanders' explanation is timid at best:
"This is what I believe. Do you believe in democracy? Do you believe that every single American 18 years of age or older who is an American citizen has the right to vote?" Sanders later said. "This is a democracy. We've got to expand that democracy and I believe that every single person does have the right to vote."
Actually, low voter turnout in a election is often a positive thing. When turnout is high, it's often because people are mad as hell at the politicians. Occasionally, turnout is high because one side or the other finds a charismatic candidate. That doesn't happen that often.
In 1994, Republicans turned out in huge numbers because they supported Newt's Contract With America. In 2010, Republicans turned out in big numbers because Democrat politicians ignored them while shoving the ACA down our throats.
The point is that turnout often drops when people are satisfied. When I led the Vote No movement against the first Tech High School bonding referendum, turnout was high. The school board didn't notice that their referendum was in trouble until the returns started coming in. By then, it was too late. The referendum was doomed because I helped expose the school board's agenda.
Watch Bernie make a fool of himself:
[Video no longer available]
Posted Wednesday, April 24, 2019 4:58 AM
No comments.
Warped Russiagate apologetics
I'm normally a fan of HotAir's Allahpundit. This isn't one of those times. After reading this post , I can't help but object to some of AP's statements.
For instance, I must object when AP says "Here's my question for Kushner, though: What would he have had Rod Rosenstein and Bob Mueller do? Granted, the Russiagate probe was bitterly divisive and contributed to Trump's delegitimization among his critics. But given all the contacts between Trump officials and Russians during the campaign, given Trump's weird apologetics for Putin and Wikileaks, given the fact that his campaign did benefit to some negligible degree from Russian interference, how could the DOJ not look into it?"
The answer is simple. The DOJ shouldn't have named a special counsel since it hadn't identified a crime that was committed. So what if Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats whine all day long? Who cares if Adam Schiff and other Democrats lie about having seen evidence of Trump-Russia collusion? I don't care if these Democrats stomped their feet and held their breath until they were blue in the face.
The special counsel law is pretty precise. If Shepard Smith wants to throw a hissy fit, that's his problem. When his contract expires, here's hoping he isn't rehired and that they replace him with Trace Gallagher or Ed Henry. They'd be miles ahead if they did that. Listen to Smith's temper tantrum:
[Video no longer available]
Why is anyone surprised that Putin tried contacting both campaigns or that Putin tried interfering in our election? That's as surprising as finding out that Bill Gates is rich.
Here's a question for lefty Smith: why isn't he interested in the Clinton campaign's using Russian sources for the infamous discredited dossier? It isn't news that both parties compile an opposition research file. What is news is that the Clinton campaign, then the FBI, relied on the dossier to trash a man with unverified information. Why isn't Shepard Smith upset about that? Why aren't other Democrats upset, too?
It's time for that no-talent hack (Smith) to get fired.
Posted Wednesday, April 24, 2019 5:36 AM
No comments.
Democrats' Relitigation Nation
During the 2016 general election campaign, Democrats criticized then-Candidate Trump for not saying he'd accept the results of the election. Immediately after she lost, Hillary Clinton started doing everything possible to undermine President Trump's election. Of course, we now know that she had lots of help from deep state actors like Andrew McCabe, Jim Comey, Jim Clapper, John Brennan, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok.
It's worth noting that Brennan accused President Trump of committing treason multiple times. Right after President Trump's summit with Russia President Vladimir Putin, Brennan tweeted that "President Trump's performance...rises to & exceeds the threshold of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' It was nothing short of treasonous."
President Trump's behavior wasn't treasonous just like Hillary's giving Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov the now-infamous reset button wasn't treasonous. For the former director of the CIA to make such a statement is anti-patriotic.
[Video no longer available]
Now that the Mueller report turned into a dud, Democrats want to relitigate that faux investigation, too. It's increasingly apparent that Democrats have turned into what I call Relitigation Nation. If they don't get the results they want, Democrats throw a hissy fit and insist that Republicans must be covering something up. This time, they've turned to a new version of smear campaigning under the guise of oversight hearings.
I've started talking about a new campaign, which I've titled 'No More Euphemisms'. The Democrats' thinly disguised oversight hearings are nothing of the sort. They're the start of the Far-Far Left's impeachment proceedings. Democrats have insisted on relitigating the conclusions of the Mueller report. The evidence doesn't support obstruction of justice charges. There was no evidence that "any American" conspired with or collaborated with the Russian government.
Remember when Michelle infamously said that "for the first time in my life, I'm proud of America and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change"?
[Video no longer available]
It's impossible to escape the fact that Democrats are the sorest losers in politics. If they don't get their way, they whine to high heaven. That isn't what leaders do. That's what sore losers do.
Finally, I won't put up with Biden's claim that re-electing President Trump will end America as it should be. The Obama-Biden administration tried to fundamentally transform the United States. No thanks! I prefer the president to enforce the laws of our nation consistently. I prefer an administration that doesn't selectively ignore the laws it doesn't like.
Posted Thursday, April 25, 2019 3:10 PM
No comments.
