August 21-22, 2017
Aug 21 00:25 Is Brian Stelter delusional? Aug 21 06:02 Erin Murphy's high-tax agenda Aug 21 07:16 Keith Ellison, cop-hating racist Aug 21 08:08 The Democrats' gift to the GOP Aug 21 08:41 Mizzou's predictable collapse Aug 21 11:21 When Walz took on Obama Aug 21 13:14 Eighty battleground districts? Aug 22 01:20 President Trump's finest hour? Aug 22 06:51 Democrats criticize Trump speech
Prior Months: Jan Feb ~ May Jun Jul
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Is Brian Stelter delusional?
Brian Stelter, the host of CNN's Reliable Sources, said something that's a little frightening. On this morning's show, Stelter exposed the left's hatred for President Trump. During his show, Stelter asked "Questions that feel out of bounds, off limits, too hot for TV. Questions like these: Is the President of the United States a racist? Is he suffering from some kind of illness? Is he fit for office? And if he's unfit, then what?" Stelter continued, saying "Is the President of the United States suffering from some sort of illness? Is he racist? Is he fit to be commander in chief? And one more, is it time for objective journalists, I don't mean opinion folks I mean down the middle journalists to address these questions head on and how do they do it?"
I'll address that last question first. Other than James Rosen, Catherine Herridge, Salena Zito or Sharyl Attkisson, where can we find "objective journalists"? Does Stelter think that Jim Acosta or Jake Tapper are objective journalists? Acosta has exposed himself as thinking that people not born in Australia and Great Britain don't speak English. Elitism drips from his lips each time he talks. Tapper used to be somewhat objective but his objectivity disappeared when CNN hired him.
Next, what's interesting is that Stelter has confused partisan ideological differences with mental illness. It's proof that elitists think of themselves as being morally superior than their peers. How can I respect someone that thinks everyone that doesn't think like him is morally repugnant?
Let's be clear about something. While it's true that President Trump's credibility is getting questioned, the media's credibility is getting questioned, too, and perhaps to a greater degree. John Gilmore's article does a great job highlighting the Twin Cities' media bias. When Keith Ellison said that Kim Jung Un was acting more responsibly than President Trump, Twin Cities reporters didn't write a word about it. The Pi-Press published an article about Ellison's statements but it was a Washington Post article . Here's what Ellison actually said:
The more that the media attacks President Trump, the more his supporters support him. You'd think that well-educated would've figured this out but the media hasn't. Apparently, they aren't the brightest bulbs in the chandelier.
In summation, Stelter isn't delusional. He's just a well-trained hamster that doesn't question his orders from on high.
Posted Monday, August 21, 2017 12:25 AM
No comments.
Erin Murphy's high-tax agenda
One thing that isn't surprising is that DFL gubernatorial candidate Erin Murphy opposes families keeping the money they've earned. Recently, she said that the Republican tax cuts are "too expensive" because they take too much money away from planning for Minnesota's future. That's BS. It's most likely that the Republican tax relief package cuts into the DFL's ability to fully fund what might be called the DFL cities slush fund, aka LGA.
This article highlights the fact that "The mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul are looking to raise taxes on property owners." In 2013, the all-DFL legislature bragged that their tax increases and investments in education would shrink people's property tax burdens. In 2017, it's obvious it didn't stabilize property taxes. It's obvious that all it did was encourage another DFL spending spree. Further, it didn't spur economic growth.
Rep. Murphy certainly didn't spend time explaining what she meant when she said that the GOP tax relief package wouldn't help in "planning the future." Of the top-tier candidates currently in the race, Rep. Murphy would get the highest rating on ABM's scorecard for being the most hardline progressive.
The DFL loves LGA because it's essentially a way to pay off their political allies in the Twin Cities, Duluth and Rochester. LGA doesn't lower property taxes. The Dayton administration admitted that the Dayton administration " wouldn't guarantee that property taxes wouldn't go up if LGA was increased":
One thing that stunned me was Mary Kiffmeyer's statement that, in testimony before the House Taxes Committee, two people from the Dayton administration said that they couldn't guarantee that property taxes wouldn't go up if LGA is increased. Other legislators said that they've had small town mayors approach them, telling them that big city mayors don't speak for them.
What these Dayton administration officials verified was that LGA is used to increase spending. It doesn't do a thing to stabilize, much less lower, property taxes.
Rep. Murphy hasn't hesitated in advocating for increasing LGA payments to the Twin Cities. She's definitely an urbanite when it comes to budgetary matters. That isn't just her governing philosophy. It appears to be her campaign's strategy, too.
Posted Monday, August 21, 2017 6:02 AM
No comments.
Keith Ellison, cop-hating racist
This article certainly will help raise Keith Ellison's profile in DC. That's the good news for Ellison. The bad news is that it's shining a spotlight on the idiotic things that Ellison's saying these days.
When Ellison sat down with the Fix, he said "I think you have to put it in context. You know, it happens within the context of a president that is knocking down every check and balance on the presidency. He's attacking the press, which is one of the elements of our democracy that shines a light on government to hold him accountable. He's pushing through members of the judiciary based on them promising to support certain things, and by escaping the normal rules Supreme Court justices have to follow."
I didn't hear Ellison criticize President Obama spied on the AP and FNC's James Rosen. If Ellison is the civil rights warrior he claims to be, then a president investigating journalists should be something to speak out about. It isn't surprising, though, that he didn't speak out.
As for Ellison saying that President Trump is "pushing through members of the judiciary based on them promising to support certain things", what proof does Rep. Ellison have of that? Is it possible that Rep. Ellison doesn't have proof but is trying to gin up hatred against President Trump for purely partisan political reasons?
Here's a perfect example of the media's bias:
FIX: White supremacists used to hide behind hoods - now they're showing their faces and giving interviews. Why do you think they feel so emboldened?
In baseball terms, that's what's known as a belt-high hanging slider. Here's Rep. Ellison's reply:
I think the white supremacists are feeling emboldened because they received the signal from the president of the United States that it's all right for them to be active, to be aggressive, to be threatening. They feel greenlighted.
Rep. Ellison thinks that President Trump "greenlighted" racists. I don't have to guess about this Ellison statement :
At the event, Ellison told the Pioneer Press he believed the prosecution of Olson was political. In his speech, Ellison noted he didn't know much about the SLA and he thought Olson was being prosecuted in the court of public opinion because of some of her political beliefs.
"I'm a supporter of anybody who's subject to political prosecution based on their being in a vilified group," he told the Pioneer Press. "Your chances of getting a fair trial are low. I've been waiting for the evidence against her. I don't think they would not cheat to prosecute this woman."
I don't have to guess what Rep. Ellison meant about this statement, either:
Ellison also spoke favorably of convicted cop killer Assata Shakur and expressed his opposition to any attempt to extradite her to the United States from Cuba, where she had fled after escaping prison.
"I am praying that Castro does not get to the point where he has to really barter with these guys over here because they're going to get Assata Shakur, they're going to get a whole lot of other people," Ellison said at the event, which also included a silent auction and speech by former Weather Underground leader Bernardine Dohrn. "I hope the Cuban people can stick to it, because the freedom of some good decent people depends on it."
It's fair to say that, in those speeches, Rep. Ellison greenlighted the killing of police officers. Ellison's statements weren't veiled threats against police. Ellison's statements were quite explicit. How dare he call our president a racist after exhorting crowds to kill police officers.
Here's Assata Shakur, aka Joanne Chesimard, in her own words:
That's who Rep. Ellison has fought for.
Posted Monday, August 21, 2017 7:16 AM
No comments.
The Democrats' gift to the GOP
Here's hoping that Democrats take Al Hunt's article seriously. The title of Hunt's article is "Democrats Need a Message, Not a Program." It starts by saying "Democrats are in terrible shape. Republicans control all three branches of government in Washington, 34 of 50 governorships, and 68 of the 99 state legislatures. As they plot a comeback, Democrats have one obvious asset: the reckless presidency of Donald Trump. That's not enough to close such a huge gap. And the battles that have started to rage inside the party over policies to promote and strategies to pursue are mostly missing the point."
Thanks for the pep talk, Al. There's nothing that'll get a crowd excited faster than telling people they're failing miserably. Hunt went wrong when he said "Most other political-party comebacks also were marked not by some innovative policy agenda but by connective messages and powerful personalities like Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Trump. It's not about ideology or 17-point policy prescriptions." Hunt is partially right in that political comebacks require a powerful personality to lead them. He's wrong, though, in saying that it isn't about ideology or policies.
President Trump won the presidency because he connected on policies with coal miners and other blue collar workers in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and, to a lesser extent, Wisconsin. Winning those states had everything to do with the policies Trump advocated.
Most other political-party comebacks also were marked not by some innovative policy agenda but by connective messages and powerful personalities like Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Trump. It's not about ideology or 17-point policy prescriptions. State governments also often serve as farm clubs to develop candidates for higher office and national prominence. Before they start quarreling about policy papers, Democrats need to restock their Triple-A teams.
After 8 years of getting pounded at the local level, Democrats don't just need their Triple-A rosters. It's that they need to stock their Double-A teams, too, because they're depleted. It doesn't help to have this politician as one of the chief faces of the Democratic Party:
With messengers like Keith Ellison, why would anyone think that the Democratic Party is a legitimate political party?
Posted Monday, August 21, 2017 8:08 AM
No comments.
Mizzou's predictable collapse
According to Jillian Melchior's WSJ article , the University of Missouri-Columbia has gone to hell in the proverbial handbasket. In fact, it's gone there rather quickly.
According to Melchior, it "began in October 2015, when student activists claiming that 'racism lives here' sent administrators a lengthy list of demands. Among them: The president of the University of Missouri system should resign after delivering a handwritten apology acknowledging his 'white male privilege'; the curriculum should include 'comprehensive racial awareness and inclusion' training; and 10% of the faculty and staff should be black." Predictably, the University caved in epic fashion.
Melchior reports that "As protesters occupied the quad, administrators bent over backward to accommodate them, even providing a power strip so they could charge phones and a generator so they could camp in comfort. A communications instructor, Melissa Click, appeared on viral video calling for 'muscle' to remove a student reporter from the quad. By Nov. 9, both the president and the chancellor of Mizzou, as the flagship Columbia campus is known, had resigned."
Then there's this:
As classes begin this week, freshmen enrollment is down 35% since the protests , according to the latest numbers the university has publicly released. Mizzou is beginning the year with the smallest incoming class since 1999. Overall enrollment is down by more than 2,000 students, to 33,200. The campus has taken seven dormitories out of service .
After watching this video, it's obvious that the lunatics run the asylum:
Posted Monday, August 21, 2017 8:41 AM
No comments.
When Walz took on Obama
I remember the good old days when Tim Walz stood up to President Obama for violating reporters' civil rights. When President Obama spied on the AP reporters and James Rosen of Fox News, Rep. Walz tore into President Obama out of principle. Oh wait. That's right. Walz was silent throughout. Apparently, being a civil rights violator wasn't that big a deal when the Leader of the Free World had a D behind his name.
Now that the leader of the free world is a Republican, Walz is faking as much outrage as possible . It's faked outrage because Walz didn't speak out immediately. Instead, he waited a week before speaking out.
According to this tweet , Walz said "Rep. Jerry Nadler, House Democrats & I are introducing a resolution to censure Donald Trump for his complete failure in moral leadership." In this tweet, Walz said "I call on @SpeakerRyan, @SenateMajLdr and all Republicans in Congress to join us and #CensureTrump. We have a moral obligation to do so."
Talk about laying it on thick. This might help clarify things:
The United States Constitution, while specifically granting impeachment powers to both the Senate and the House of Representatives, and also granting both congressional bodies the power to expel their own members, does not mention censure. Congress adopted a resolution allowing censure, which is "stronger than a simple rebuke, but not as strong as expulsion."
Members of Congress who have been censured are required to give up any committee chairs they hold, but are not removed from office. In general, each house of Congress is responsible for invoking censure against its own members; censure against other government officials is not common. Because censure is not specifically mentioned as the accepted form of reprimand, many censure actions against members of Congress may be listed officially as rebuke, condemnation, or denouncement.
I'd love to hear Rep. Walz explain what censuring a president means. Is it strictly a political stunt? With a censure of a member of congress, it's spelled out that the congressman or senator "are required to give up any committee chairs they hold."
By comparison, Congress can't take away the president's responsibilities without the House impeaching him, then having the Senate convicting him of at least one article of impeachment. Simply put, this is a political PR stunt. Congress doesn't have the authority to take this step. The Constitution is exceptionally clear on this. Further, this is the reason why Congress is calling for President Trump's censure:
House Democrats maintain Trump's initial response to the violence in Charlottesville was "inadequate."
Seriously? It's impossible to take politicians seriously when they're nothing but a bunch of wimpy whiners. Minnesota, take a long look at Rep. Walz. He doesn't respect the Constitution. He's a partisan hack. There's nothing serious about him. Finally, he's Nancy Pelosi's lap dog, which is what he's always been.
This just proves my point:
A censure, as defined by Cornell Law School, is a Congressional reprimand of a president. It is described as the "political equivalent of a strongly-worded letter" and the resolution, if passed, would have no legal effect.
In other words, it's a political stunt.
According to this video, Walz wasn't even honest about introducing a resolution to censure President Trump:
That's pretty pathetic.
Posted Monday, August 21, 2017 11:21 AM
No comments.
Eighty battleground districts?
According to Peter Doocy's article , Democrats are targeting 80 Republican districts. Doocy wrote "It's ambitious, to say the least. Right now, national Democratic organizers believe that battlefield encompasses an eye-popping 80 districts across America - even though they've lost all four of this year's special election contests for seats held by Republicans."
I'm a bit skeptical of those figures. Last year, Nancy Pelosi predicted "they'd take the House back" and "win 30 seats." I said it then and I'll repeat it now -- that's a partisan pipe dream. Republicans will grow their majority in 2018. They won't lose their majority.
Caleb Burns is an election law attorney. He's quoted as saying "Big data has been harnessed to draw these maps with real precision, on a block-by-block, house-by-house basis. We've seen over the last eight years, the number of competitive districts go from about a hundred to about two dozen.' The article then says "this means the list of realistic pickups for Democrats remains short."
The thing to pay attention to isn't the number of seats the Democrats target at the start of the campaign. Each year, Democrats start with high hopes and wild predictions. Each cycle, Democrats limp away with their confidence shattered and their credibility in tatters.
Until they moderate their policies and tell the environmentalist wing of the Democratic Party to get real, Democrats will have difficulty winning legislative, House and Senate races. It's that simple.
This isn't about redistricting or gerrymandering. It's about people perceiving Democrats as not being willing to listen to them. President Trump won Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan as much because the people in those states trusted then-Candidate Trump when he told them he'd bring their coal mining and their steel jobs back. That's a place where the Environmental Left won't let the Democratic Party go.
Posted Monday, August 21, 2017 1:15 PM
No comments.
President Trump's finest hour?
The biggest thing that came through during President Trump's speech on Afghanistan was that Gen. Obama's (my term, not Trump's) policies are history. President Trump couldn't have state things more emphatically than when he said "First, our nation must seek an honorable and enduring outcome worthy of the tremendous sacrifices that have been made, especially the sacrifices of lives. The men and women who serve our nation in combat deserve a plan for victory. They deserve the tools they need and the trust they have earned to fight and to win. Second, the consequences of a rapid exit are both predictable and unacceptable. 9/11, the worst terrorist attack in our history, was planned and directed from Afghanistan because that country by a government that gave comfort and shelter to terrorists. A hasty withdrawal would create a vacuum that terrorists, including ISIS and al Qaeda, would instantly fill, just as happened before September 11. And as we know, in 2011, America hastily and mistakenly withdrew from Iraq."
In those words, President Trump said that withdrawing from Iraq in 2011 was a mistake because it created "a vacuum that terrorists, including ISIS and al Qaeda, would instantly fill." Later, President Trump said "No one denies that we have inherited a challenging and troubling situation in Afghanistan and South Asia, but we do not have the luxury of going back in time and making different or better decisions." I won't be surprised if 'Gen. Obama', John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Marie Harf deny that President Trump inherited "a challenging and troubling situation" in southwest Asia but that's to be expected.
A key part of President Trump's speech, at least for me, was when he explained his thinking for the strategy:
My original instinct was to pull out, and historically I like following my instincts. But all my life, I have heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the oval office. In other words, when you are president of the United States. So I studied Afghanistan in great detail and from every conceivable angle. After many meetings over many months, we held our final meeting last Friday at Camp David with my cabinet and generals to complete our strategy. I arrived at three fundamental conclusion about America's core interests in Afghanistan.
President Trump admitted what we all know: that he's changed his mind on Afghanistan. He attributed his change of mind to sitting "behind the desk in the Oval Office." I suspect most thoughtful people would accept that thinking.
The haters, though, won't cut President Trump any slack. As the saying goes, haters gotta hate. It's sad that too many people hate first, then think of the consequences later. In many ways, though, this was President Trump's greatest speech. This riff was especially powerful and inspiring:
American patriots from every generation have given their last breath on the battlefield - for our nation and for our freedom. Through their lives, and though their lives - were cut short, in their deeds they achieved total immortality. By following the heroic example of those who fought to preserve our republic, we can find the inspiration our country needs to unify, to heal and to remain one nation under God. The men and women of our military operate as one team, with one shared mission and one shared sense of purpose.
They transcend every line of race, ethnicity, creed, and color to serve together and sacrifice together in absolutely perfect cohesion. That is because all service members are brothers and sisters. They are all part of the same family. It's called the American family. They take the same oath, fight for the same flag, and live according to the same law.
They are bound together by common purpose, mutual trust, and selfless devotion to our nation and to each other. The soldier understands what we as a nation too often forget, that a wound inflicted upon on a single member of our community is a wound inflicted upon us all. When one part of America hurts, we all hurt.
And when one citizen suffers an injustice, we all suffer together. Loyalty to our nation demands loyalty to one another. Love for America requires love for all of its people. When we open our hearts to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice, no place for bigotry, and no tolerance for hate. The young men and women we sent to fight our wars abroad deserve to return to a country that is not at war with itself at home. We cannot remain a force for peace in the world if we are not at peace with each other.
As we send our bravest to defeat our enemies overseas, and we will always win, let us find the courage to heal our divisions within. Let us make a simple promise to the men and women we ask to fight in our name, that when they return home from battle, they will find a country that has renewed the sacred bonds of love and loyalty that unite us together as one.
If that part of President Trump's speech doesn't inspire you, then you need to re-examine yourself. It's that simple.
Posted Tuesday, August 22, 2017 1:20 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 23-Aug-17 10:14 AM
His finest fifteen minutes was dictating that Don Jr, release about meeting the Russkies about adoption. Five minutes, perhaps less? Brief in any event, because he missed a point or two, in haste.
Democrats criticize Trump speech
It isn't surprising that high-profile Democrats criticized of President Trump's speech on Afghanistan. For instance, Pelosi said "Tonight, the President said he knew what he was getting into and had a plan to go forward. Clearly, he did not. The President's announcement is low on details but raises serious questions."
The theme of details was clearly a chief talking point for Democrats. Rep. Ruben Gallego, an Arizona Democrat and Marine Corps veteran, said "Tonight, the American people should have heard a detailed, realistic strategy with achievable objectives and measurable benchmarks. Instead, we got only vague promises and wishful thinking."
Actually, that's fiction. President Trump said that his administration was shifting away from an artificial timeline-based strategy to a conditions-based strategy. That alone is a major detail shift. Further, President Trump authorized his generals to make decisions in the field without having to get his approval prior to taking action. That's another major detail and a major shift away from the Obama administration's policy. John McCain highlighted that in his statement after the speech:
"I believe the President is now moving us well beyond the prior administration's failed strategy of merely postponing defeat."
Those are major details accompanied by a substantial shift in how the military will fight this war. Another major difference the Trump Doctrine and the Obama doctrine is that Trump is fighting to win. President Obama never left the impression that winning was a major consideration. Rich Lowry's article highlights things perfectly:
Pressure on Pakistan is a major element of the new strategy. We'll see what comes of that. It seems to me that pressuring Pakistan to be more responsible in Afghanistan is the equivalent of pressuring China to force North Korea to be more responsible: Every administration wants to find a way to do it, but no one ever does. The warm words about India surely got the attention of Islamabad, though.
At the end of the day, this is Trump concluding that he doesn't want to lose a war on his watch, and if that means jettisoning some of his presuppositions, he's willing to do it. If only President Obama had handled the question of whether or not to pull out of Iraq the same way.
NRO's Quin Hillyer highlighted another important detail in his article :
And, of utmost importance, Trump is putting less strictures on our rules of engagement, so our forces in the region and on the ground can react more swiftly and more appropriately to both threats and opportunities.
Simply put, this is additional proof that Democrats feel the need to disagree with President Trump no matter what he proposed. If Democrats don't switch out of criticize-Trump-all-the-time mode, they'll never be taken seriously. Democrats will be seen as the party that's only capable of criticizing President Trump.
The media isn't helping Democrats even though they're singing from the same hymnal:
CNN's Athena Jones said "It was a long-awaited new strategy delivered in a speech that was long on broad themes but that was short on specifics." Later, Ms. Jones said "He didn't lay out details on troop levels and he didn't explain how this new strategy, which borrows heavily from other ones, would help insure a victory, which has eluded this country for 16 years."
This is what happens when you hire news readers instead of hiring experts who know what they're talking about. Changing the rules of engagement, aka ROE, so that soldiers can take the fight to the terrorists, is a giant step in the right direction to winning, not just fighting with one hand tied behind their backs.
Finally, I'd love hearing Ms. Jones highlight what parts of President Trump's new strategy "borrows heavily from" other's strategies. Ms. Jones' segment is more myth than reporting.
Posted Tuesday, August 22, 2017 6:51 AM
No comments.
