August 13-14, 2019
Aug 13 05:42 Biden's fossil fuel threat Aug 13 05:52 Will John James flip Michigan? Aug 13 12:01 Lessons in the First Amendment Aug 13 12:48 Democrats' SCOTUS threats Aug 14 11:29 Tom Fitton vs. election corruption Aug 14 12:57 The Democrats' intimidation tactics Aug 14 22:34 Gun-toting Democrat terrorists Aug 14 23:17 Campus free speech rights
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Prior Years:
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Biden's fossil fuel threat
Anyone that thinks that Joe Biden's plan to eliminate fossil fuels is smart policy hasn't read Rep. Fred Keller's op-ed on the subject. First, Rep. Keller highlights the fact that Vice President Biden promised to eliminate fossil fuels during the last set of Democrat debates.
Next, Rep. Keller explains what fossil fuels mean to the economic well-being of Pennsylvania families. Rep. Keller explains how many jobs would be lost if Biden's plan became reality, how much families' electric bills would rise and how much school funding would drop as a result of Vice President Biden's plan. Biden insists that "We would work it out", supposedly with the natural gas workers whose jobs would get flushed down the toilet to appease the nutty environmentalist base of the Democratic Party.
[Video no longer available]
The complete elimination of fossil fuels spells more pain than just massive tax increases for working families. It means weakening our national security by eliminating our ability to be energy independent, killing a thriving energy economy and the hundreds of thousands of jobs it supports, and stopping investment in rural America.
Then there's this:
For example, last year, Massachusetts was forced to import natural gas from Russia due to New York's refusal to put in place pipeline infrastructure that can get natural gas to markets where it is needed.
Those concerned about Russian interference need to be concerned with Russia's ability to influence our country when Americans are forced to buy natural gas from Russian gas companies and when countries like Russia have leverage to increase the price of natural gas in the winter time and turn the lights off for millions of Americans.
Biden's idea is stupid. It isn't questionable. It isn't something that good people can disagree on. It's a stupid idea. Period.
Posted Tuesday, August 13, 2019 5:42 AM
No comments.
Will John James flip Michigan?
Early predictions by Chuck Schumer and other Democrats is that they'll retake the majority in 2020. Those predictions are foolish. Though Democrats have a couple pickup opportunities, they're staring at a blue-to-red flip in Alabama and an uphill fight for a red-to-blue flip in Arizona.
Then there's Michigan. According to this article , Democrat Gary Peters starts "his re-election campaign with relatively low name recognition in Michigan, according to a new statewide poll. A survey of 600 likely state voters conducted last week found that nearly 63 percent of Michigan voters recognize Peters, the state's junior senator, and about 36 percent have never heard of him."
Things go downhill from there for Democrat Peters. Peters is a do-nothing senator who's running against a young GOP candidate with a compelling storyline. His name is John James.
This can't be overlooked:
Brand also points to what James brings to the table. "John James is very compelling, and he has an incredible story to tell," he says. "People are super hyped about him - he's a hit."
James says he'll take what he learned in the first campaign and build off what worked. Although he says it would be easier for him to sit this election out, he's not interested in giving up. James and his wife, Elizabeth, have three young children, plus he's still running his family's transportation and warehousing business.
First, the fact that a sitting senator 5 years into his first term is largely unknown says everything about the Democrats' enthusiasm and the quality of the Democrats' candidate. Clearly, this is a placeholder candidate who will have a heavy lift for re-election. Next, enthusiasm is high, both from supporters and from the NRSC:
James is already pulling in sizable donations. In the first three weeks after his June announcement, James raised $1.5 million. Among his nearly 12,000 donors, 71% of contributions were $50 or less, pointing to the strength of his grassroots appeal.
Don't forget this:
Michigan GOP chairwoman Laura Cox and Republican National Committee chairwoman Ronna McDaniel speak highly of James, knowing he brings a much-needed shot of youth and diversity to the party. They are ready to put resources behind him, since James doesn't yet face a costly primary, as he did in 2018.
Finally, this is worth noting :
'While we have chosen a light-hearted way to highlight his low name-recognition and ineffectiveness, his failure to stand up for Michigan families in the face of devastating policies like Medicare for All and the Green New Deal is no laughing matter,' said NRSC spokesperson Nathan Brand.
The Green New Deal isn't popular with manufacturers. Medicare for All won't be popular with union families because unions negotiated great health care benefits and left bigger pay raises on the table. Medicare for All isn't anywhere as good of coverage as the Cadillac plans that union workers negotiated.
This is one of the US Senate races that LFR will pay attention to in the upcoming year+. Clearly, it's a great shot at flipping a blue seat into the red column.
FYI - I'll also be paying attention to the Alabama and Arizona races. I don't think Democrats will flip Arizona from red-to-blue but I'm fairly confident that Republicans will flip Jeff Sessions' seat back to red.
Posted Tuesday, August 13, 2019 5:52 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 13-Aug-19 07:07 AM
Checked his campaign website. You can buy a tee shirt, but he has no issues page. Or did I err, and he's got one?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 13-Aug-19 01:11 PM
Nope. You're right. He doesn't have an issues page. I'm betting that he's getting that out via his campaign stops.
Lessons in the First Amendment
After reading this monthly column , which wasn't particularly well-written, I went to the comments section to see what foolishness was buried there. John Ellenbecker's comment is instructive. Let's pick it apart.
First and foremost the 1st Amendment is a limitation on the government, it IS NOT a limitation on citizens or the private sector. The government has made no attempt to shut Trump up. Second - none of us are trying to shut Trump up. We want him to keep talking and tweeting - it tells the world who he really is.
I agree with Mr. Ellenbecker that the First Amendment is supposed to be "a limitation on the government." I further agree that it isn't supposed to be "a limitation on citizens or the private sector." That statement is a bit surprising for a Democrat. I thought Democrats hated the Citizens United ruling.
What I don't agree with is the part where Mr. Ellenbecker said that the "government has made no attempt to shut Trump up." While that's technically true, it's also true that Joaquin Castro emphatically stated that he wanted President Trump's supporters to "twice about contributing to his campaign." As a congresscritter, Joaquin Castro is certainly part of the government. Further, Rep. Castro's stated intent was to silence President Trump's supporters.
Call me crazy but I'm pretty certain that constitutes "a limitation on citizens." It isn't surprising that Democrats are using these tactics against people who don't side with Democrats. Unfortunately, that's a time-tested Democrat tradition.
Posted Tuesday, August 13, 2019 12:01 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 14-Aug-19 01:41 PM
Attempts by other Representatives wanting to censure Rep. Omar seem to have been more of an intimidation effort than suggesting somebody's contributors think twice. But that's okay? Because of gender, or religion, or not liking what she'd said? Or a lower public office at issue? What?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 14-Aug-19 04:32 PM
Comparing the Democrats' well-documented attempts to intimidate people with Republicans' attempts to criticize anti-Semitism is laughable.
Democrats' SCOTUS threats
Democrats just threatened the US Supreme Court through a friend of the court brief.
Several high-profile Senate Democrats warned the Supreme Court in pointed terms this week that it could face a fundamental restructuring if justices do not take steps to "heal" the court in the near future.
The ominous and unusual warning was delivered as part of a brief filed Monday in a case related to a New York City gun law. Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., referenced rulings by the court's conservative majority in claiming it is suffering from some sort of affliction which must be remedied.
"The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it," the brief said. "Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be 'restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'"
The last part was quoting language from a Quinnipiac University poll, in which 51 percent favored such restructuring. In the same poll, 55 percent believed the Supreme Court was "motivated by politics" more than by the law.
Restructured? Packing the court by Democrats is what they're threatening. In fact, I'd argue that these Democrats are telegraphing what they'll do the next time they control the White House, House and Senate. Let's remember what the courts are to Democrats.
Without the courts, many of the Democrats' 'victories' (Roe v. Wade, gay marriage) would have happened. As the Supreme Court has gotten more conservative, Democrats have 'won' less and less.
Further, the Q poll reports that a majority of the people polled (55%) think that the Court was "motivated by politics." Democrats haven't explained how packing the courts with more far left politicians (think RBG, Sotomayor, Kagan) would make the court less "motivated by politics."
The goal of these Democrats isn't to make the courts less "motivated by politics." It's to pack the courts so the Court's rulings are friendlier to Democrats . That's what raw partisanship looks like. This is too:
The Democratic senators' brief was filed in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York, which dealt with legal limitations on where gun owners could transport their licensed, locked, and unloaded firearms. They are urging the court to stay out of the case brought by the NRA-backed group, claiming that because the city recently changed the law to ease restrictions, the push to the Supreme Court is part of an "industrial-strength influence campaign" to get the conservative majority to rule in favor of gun owners.
In New York, Democrats apparently think that you have the right to keep and bear arms but only in parts of the city that the government approves of. How does that comply with the text of the Second Amendment? Here's that text:
Notice the final part of the Amendment, which says "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It's indisputable that the NY law infringes on the people's right to keep and bear arms.
It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out that the Democrats' goal is to threaten and intimidate Supreme Court justices. Larry Holmes could figure that out. That's what Democrat machine politics looks like. It's all about exercising raw political power. It doesn't have anything to do with doing what's right for the people.
Posted Tuesday, August 13, 2019 12:48 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 14-Aug-19 09:07 AM
The trouble here is that Democrats/liberals believe they ARE on the side of "the people" and if the people disagree, well, they're either stupid or evil or both, and Democrats KNOW better, so shut up.
"Giving money and power to government [Democrats] is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." -- P. J. O'Rourke
Comment 2 by eric z at 14-Aug-19 01:31 PM
And the Kavanaugh cramdown was of course not an exercise of naked political power of the kind this post criticizes.
What of shrinking the Court to a chief justice and six associate justices, based on seniority?
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 14-Aug-19 04:26 PM
The Kavanaugh confirmation was based on him being eminently qualified & then some, combined with the accusations created against him being utterly fictitious.
There's no question that elections have consequences but comparing the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings with the Democrats' not-veiled threats to simply change the composition of the court if they don't get the rulings they're demanding is ludicrous. The Democrats who signed that brief don't want a judicial process. They want a specific political outcome. Those are 2 entirely different things.
Tom Fitton vs. election corruption
When it comes to fighting corruption of all sorts, Tom Fitton's Judicial Watch is downright impressive. Recently, Judicial Watch won their lawsuit against Los Angeles County. As the result of the lawsuit settlement, Los Angeles County has agreed to "sent notices to as many as 1.5 million inactive voters on its voter rolls. This mailing is a step toward removing the names of voters who have moved, died, or are otherwise ineligible to vote."
That isn't everything that California agreed to do:
The massive mailing is the result of a settlement agreement with Judicial Watch requiring the County to remove as many as 1.5 million inactive registrations. In addition, the California secretary of state has alerted other California counties to clean up their voter registration lists to comply with the federal National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), as the secretary promised to do in that same settlement agreement.
Fitton talked about the lawsuit in this tweet:
Nationally, there are about 3.5 million EXTRA names on voting rolls. LA County began process of removing 1.59 million of them. Thanks to @JudicialWatch federal lawsuit and legal settlement. https://t.co/oeUt9Mc7BL pic.twitter.com/5RBSugGZxG
- Tom Fitton (@TomFitton) August 14, 2019
Last night, Christopher Hahn, a former senior staffer for Chuck Schumer, insisted that we don't have an illegal voter problem. I wasn't surprised that another Schumer shill would lie on national TV on important matters like civil rights. I expect it. This settlement says that Schumer's shill is full of it. Removing 3,500,000 names off voter rolls who shouldn't be there is a huge thing.
Further, this isn't a conspiracy theory. It's a conspiracy. The 1,600,000 names improperly on LA County's voter rolls clearly are a problem. As a result of this settlement, those figures become findings of facts. This isn't conjecture . They aren't theories . They're as real as gravity .
I expect that other lawsuits will get filed by Judicial Watch and that they'll win the vast majority of those lawsuits. LA County didn't settle with Judicial Watch out of the goodness of their heart. They settled because they knew they were likely to lose.
Posted Wednesday, August 14, 2019 11:29 AM
No comments.
The Democrats' intimidation tactics
Within minutes of the mass shootings last weekend, Democrats were blaming President Trump's rhetoric for the shootings. Saying that their antics were disgusting doesn't suffice. When Joaquin Castro outed his own constituents , he insisted repeatedly that "No one was targeted or harassed in my post." I said then that he lied through his teeth. Now, I've got verification in the form of this article :
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) workers are facing a rapidly escalating series of threats, including protesters menacing their children and shots being fired at their offices, amid a rising tide of anti-ICE rhetoric from the left fueled by congressional Democrats, media voices and presidential hopefuls.
Other than FNC, nobody else in the media is covering this. Unfortunately, the Democrats' threats don't stop there:
Footage published Tuesday by Breitbart News shows protesters in Florida from groups such as Never Again Action and Black Lives Matter Alliance of Broward County threatening workers and former employees of the GEO Group, a private contractor used by ICE.
One protester threatened the family of GEO Group's former general counsel, John Bulfin. "We know where all your children live throughout the country : John Bulfin you have kids in [bleeped out], you have kids in [bleeped out]," the protester yelled. "We know everything about you and you won't just be seeing us here."
Joaquin Castro's denials notwithstanding, it's exceptionally clear that these Democrat-affiliated hate organizations won't hesitate in threatening and intimidating political opponents.
No one was targeted or harassed in my post. You know that. All that info is routinely published.
You're trying to distract from the racism that has overtaken the GOP and the fact that President Trump spends donor money on thousands of ads about Hispanics 'invading' America. 1/2 https://t.co/TwUDC4m5tO
- Joaquin Castro (@JoaquinCastrotx) August 7, 2019
In this video, Joe Scarborough lied when he said that Republicans insisted that the information that Rep. Castro published was secret:
[Video no longer available]
That's an outright lie. Period. Republicans repeatedly said that the information on the "San Antonio 44" would be used to harass those donors. In fact, Republicans were remarkably consistent in repeating that claim. Now, we've got proof that those people have gotten harassed. Additionally, we've got verification that Democrat-affiliated anarchist organizations are threatening and intimidating ICE agents and their families.
In the video, Castro tries absolving himself of guilt by saying that "this information was first put up by a local Indivisible group." Here's what Indivisible stands for :
Close your eyes for a minute and imagine this: it's 2021. Trump lost and an inspiring progressive takes office. Democrats held the House and retook the Senate. On day one, the new Congress passes sweeping democracy reforms to roll back decades of Republican attacks on our democracy. We smash voter suppression and expand voter access, end gerrymandering, take on money in politics, admit new states, and take back the courts. In short, we unrig the rules and put democracy back in the hands of the people. Then we turn to a major progressive legislative agenda - immigration reform, climate change, health care, and more.
Let's admit that this isn't a centrist agenda. I'm betting that the vast majority of these items wouldn't poll above 20%. That's who's supporting Joaquin Castro. That's who's supporting Democrats. Remember that Joaquin Castro is described as a moderate.
From what's written, I'd argue that he's a far left nutjob whose brother stated on national TV that he'd decriminalize illegal immigration. That's the veiled way of saying he's for open borders. There's nothing moderate about these positions.
When you couple outright threats and intimidation with policies that deliver outright lawlessness and corruption, that's something that must be rejected forcefully and immediately.
Posted Wednesday, August 14, 2019 12:57 PM
No comments.
Gun-toting Democrat terrorists
Let's be clear about something regarding the thugs who shot at San Antonio's ICE Facility. They aren't protesters. They aren't activists. They're full-fledged domestic terrorists. Now the FBI is investigating the terrorist attack , as it should.
The people working in that building are federal employees, making it the feds' jurisdiction. Obviously, I don't know who fired the shots but it isn't a stretch to think that the terrorists are affiliated with the Democratic Party. Democrats have said nothing about organizations like Antifa, #BlackLivesMatter and Indivisible. So-called protesters visited Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's home in Kentucky, where one of the terrorists said that she wished that someone would stab the motherf----r in the heart:
[Video no longer available]
Let's hope that terrorist is arrested, tried, convicted and sent to prison. But that's a different terrorist attack. Let's return to the one in San Antonio. Here's what we know at this point:
The FBI said Tuesday it is investigating after shots were fired in the early morning hours at a San Antonio office building that houses Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). No one was injured in the shooting, officials said.
Investigators say that around 3:00 a.m. Tuesday, shots were fired into a window of a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement office and Removal Operations Field Office.
Later, a press conference was held:
The FBI special-agent-in-charge Christopher Combs called it a "targeted attack." "To fire indiscriminately into any building especially a federal facility is not an act of protest- it's an act of violence," Combs said at a press conference. "And in in this case it's an act of violence that could have resulted in the assassination of a federal employee. That cannot happen in San Antonio."
Isn't it interesting that this terrorist attack took place in San Antonio, the home of Joaquin Castro, the man who outed Trump supporters? Isn't it interesting that twin brother Julian Castro, a politician who is running for president as a Democrat, thinks that illegal aliens shouldn't be charged with a crime for illegally entering into the United States?
[Video no longer available]
If Democrats keep ratcheting up the immigration rhetoric by saying that detention facilities are like Nazi concentration camps, the depravity level will drop further. If Democrats keep talking about ICE ripping families apart, the next attack against an ICE facility might include fatalities. At this point, Democrats appear to be in a race to the bottom of the depravity barrel.
How low can Democrats go? God help us with that. It's a frightening though.
Posted Wednesday, August 14, 2019 10:34 PM
No comments.
Campus free speech rights
Free Speech: A real option or a pipe dream?
By Ramblin' Rose
The South Dakota legislature passed HB 1087 this session, and last week, the Board of Regents approved three free speech policies for its campuses.
According to the National Review, 'The bill, S.D. 1087, requires public institutions of higher education in the state to 'maintain a commitment to the principles of free expression' and to foster civil, intellectually diverse environments. It protects student organizations from viewpoint discrimination, requires an annual report to the legislature on campus intellectual diversity and speech suppression, and safeguards the use of outdoor spaces as forums for free speech.'
The bill was not supported by the educational system, including leaders of student government. The governor signed the bill into law in March, 2019.
The modifications approved by the Board of Regents on August 8 and 9, 2019, require:
- Funding for student organizations be made in a 'nondiscriminatory manner.'
- Public universities will provide a report to the executive director of the Board of Regents about the ways in which the institutions are working to 'promote and ensure intellectual diversity.'
- That report must also include any campus events that 'impeded intellectual diversity and the free exchange of ideas.'
Some recent events that precipitated this legislation include:
- USD prohibited in 2015 of the viewing of a film on the 'honor killing' of women in Islamic cultures as anti-Muslim bigotry.
- In 2018, university officials removed an American flag that a SDSU student had hung in his dorm to commemorate family friends who had died in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
- Last February, USD administrators 'urged' a change of name for a campus 'Hawaiian Day' observance because they determined it was insensitive to indigenous Hawaiians.
Political fights continue around this issue. More than two dozen states have introduced 'free speech' legislation (including Minnesota); more than a dozen of those have those bills signed into law (not Minnesota).
As a skeptic, I wonder about the impact that these laws will have on campuses. Since the majority of faculty members and administrators are left-leaning liberals, will they implement the laws? Will they hire conservative faculty? Liberal professors outnumber conservatives across the nation by five to one; in the humanities and social sciences, the disparity is even greater. That affects the research that is approved/allowed and the ideologies presented as 'truth' in classes. I know that students must respond as the professors want or their grades are affected. Walking the halls of institutions of higher learning, one hears the left-wing lies presented as valid facts. Students must accept and regurgitate those views or fail the courses. Young minds are susceptible, and many are quickly converted. Brave souls are dismissed or rebuked - students and faculty.
Heterodox Academy, a non-partisan collaborative of more than 2,500 professors, administrators, and graduate students, espouses that 'Intellectual diversity (or viewpoint diversity) occurs when members of a community approach problems and questions from a range of perspectives. An open expressive climate exists when members of a community, regardless of their beliefs, perspectives, or other prior commitments, feel equally able to ask questions, share ideas, and otherwise participate in learning and knowledge production without risk of censure.'
I question if legislation can accomplish that when liberalism is so engrained in all levels of education and solidly in control of higher education in every state. Will the First Amendment be honored in education, or will PC dogma continue to dominate?
God help education, learners and teachers express the truth and debate differing points of view with civility.
Originally posted Wednesday, August 14, 2019, revised 17-Aug 5:46 PM
No comments.
