December 1-6, 2018
Dec 01 15:00 Ben Shapiro vs. Gonzaga University Dec 03 01:27 What's unconstitutional about that? Dec 03 15:28 President Trump's G20 victories Dec 04 09:53 Is Adam Schiff paranoid? Dec 05 11:21 Marie Harf throws one Democrat after another under the bus Dec 06 03:13 Please let the predictions stop Dec 06 09:37 Minnesota's unimpressive economy Dec 06 12:05 The imminent government shutdown Dec 06 20:30 Obama built the energy industry?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Ben Shapiro vs. Gonzaga University
Gonzaga University's 'leadership' rejected that school's College Republicans' chapter to invite Ben Shapiro to campus. According to Gonzaga University's vice president of student development, Judi Biggs Garbuio, "Mr. Shapiro's appearances routinely draw protests that include extremely divisive and hateful speech and behavior, which is offensive to many people, regardless of their age, politics or beliefs."
Garbuio added that "Gonzaga University is committed to the human dignity of every individual. This is the core of our mission based on the teachings of Christ Jesus, and the foundations of the Society of Jesus. We stand in solidarity with vulnerable members of our community who may be targeted for discrimination, ridicule, or harassment by others."
This is an old topic. This isn't the first time so-called intellectuals have cited a 'hecklers veto' in preventing Shapiro or other conservatives from appearing on campus. These intellectuals are lightweights who are frightened by the thought of defending their ideas on a substantive basis. Put in more blunt terms, these intellectuals are a bunch of sissies.
What's funniest to me is that the liberals who started the free speech movement at Berkeley would laugh at them for rejecting the opportunity to debate. Today's progressives aren't like yesteryear's liberals. Can you picture Alan Dershowitz or Christopher Hitchens turning down the opportunity to debate? I can't.
"Gonzaga's events policy requires us consider whether an event would pose substantial risk to the safety occurred to any member of our campus community," Biggs Garbuio said. "In light of what has occurred on other campuses, our security team has raised questions about whether we can adequately secure a campus venue."
TRANSLATION: We're too stupid to figure out how to have a clash of ideas while protecting our students. That's too complex for us.
Posted Saturday, December 1, 2018 3:00 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 02-Dec-18 07:27 AM
Progressives: The most accepting people in the world unless you disagree with their thoughts and ideas.
Comment 2 by eric z at 02-Dec-18 10:47 AM
Who's Ben Shapiro? A swamp critter, or what? Never heard of him.
What's unconstitutional about that?
After reading Councilman-elect Paul Brandmire's editorial , it's clear that a significant portion of our community isn't interested in listening. It's apparent, too, that another significant portion of our community doesn't understand the US Constitution.
In his LTE, Councilman-elect Brandmire wrote "when thousands of people from a very different background are transplanted into the middle of that region in a very short period of time without the population having any say in that decision, it's going to cause friction and take some time to adjust."
Later, Brandmire said this:
That is why I support the idea of closing the seemingly wide-open spigot of refugees coming here until we can assimilate those who are already here.
One of the commenters replied "Brandmire's side has been listened to, extensively, but as Don points out above, that side has pushed for an unworkable and un-Constitutional solution." Actually, "Brandmire's side" wasn't tolerated. They were ambushed. They were called haters and Islamophobes. They were treated like they weren't welcome in their own city:
[Video no longer available]
There's nothing unconstitutional about letting the federal government know we can't absorb all of the refugees they'd been sending us. There's nothing improper about telling the federal government that there's a limit to how many refugees St. Cloud can support. Finally, there's nothing unconstitutional to passing a resolution stating these things.
FYI- Monday night, I'll be addressing the St. Cloud City Council. I hope to highlight the fact that several of the councilmembers haven't listened to the people worth a damn. My councilmember, Steve Laraway, thinks that St. Cloud is a great place to live even though one-fourth St. Cloud's population lives below the poverty level. Dave Masters, who represents St. Cloud's First Ward, was offended by hats that said "Make St. Cloud Great Again" because, according to him, St. Cloud already is great. Masters thinks that despite the fact that St. Cloud's violent crime was almost double the rate of Minnesota's rate per 100,000 people.
Posted Monday, December 3, 2018 1:27 AM
No comments.
President Trump's G20 victories
You'd never know it by the MSM's coverage but President Trump had a pretty successful G20 summit. Liz Peek's article highlights those victories. Ms. Peek wrote that "President Trump scored major successes at the G-20 summit that concluded over the weekend in Argentina. Specifically, the community of nations agreed in their official communique to 'necessary reform' of the World Trade Organization, a top White House priority, and recognized the decision of the U.S. to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord, and to still utilize 'all energy sources and technologies, while protecting the environment.' In addition, the Chinese promised to up their purchases of U.S.- made goods and to discuss other demands in exchange for postponing an expected hike in tariffs; President Xi also committed to designating the deadly drug Fentanyl as a controlled substance in China, and vowed to help with de-nuclearizing North Korea."
That's just the start. President Trump signed the new and improved trade deal between the US, Mexico and Canada. Later that morning, he met with Japanese Prime Minister Abe and Indian Prime Minister Modi. That sent a strong signal to China that South Korea, Japan and India have sided with the US, not with China. In terms of strategic importance, this development can't be emphasized enough. China is already buckling during these tariff fights.
Thanks to Trump's strategic pressure, China has started giving in to President Trump's trade demands. That's led to a major increase today for trade-sensitive stocks ."
[Video no longer available]
BTW, the Dow finished up almost 288 points today. They certainly liked what they heard from the G20.
To be sure, there's some noise coming from the Mueller witch hunt but that's just noise. It isn't anything that the American people take seriously. That being said, I don't doubt that Mueller will weave together a document that Democrats will pounce on. They don't have a choice on that. That being said, it's difficult taking him seriously.
Finally, this is good news if it happens:
Trade negotiations between the U.S. and China will yield immediate results that will come even during the 90-day negotiation period ahead, National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow said Monday.
Tariffs on agriculture and energy products will be lowered while nontariff barriers on American ownership of companies in China also will come down, Kudlow told the Fox Business Network. In addition, Kudlow expects progress on technology transfers and intellectual property.
"Those things should kick in soon. We should see palpable change on the Chinese side immediately," he said. "I don't want to be too specific, but I think the generic answer is we will see changes very quickly."
Posted Monday, December 3, 2018 3:28 PM
No comments.
Is Adam Schiff paranoid?
In his USA Today op-ed , Adam Schiff proves that a little paranoia goes a long ways. His op-ed is a litany of conjectures that can't be verified.
For instance, he wrote "A national security adviser who could be subject to blackmail by Russia is nearly a worst case counterintelligence scenario. But this week, we learned that the potential for compromise was even more significant than we thought. Donald Trump's longtime personal attorney, Michael Cohen, pleaded guilty to lying to the Intelligence Committee about his efforts on behalf of the Trump Organization to reach a deal and secure financing from a Russian bank under U.S. sanctions to build a Trump Tower Moscow."
Is it Mr. Schiff's contention that President Trump's cancellation of his meeting with President Putin was just pageantry? Thus far, President Trump hasn't shown any signs of being compromised. In fact, he's shown the opposite. Later, Schiff wrote this:
Cohen stated in court that he made those false statements to be consistent with the president's "political messaging," namely Trump's vociferous public denials of any business dealings with Russia. And in a recent sentencing memorandum, Cohen's attorneys concede that he remained "in close and regular contact with the White House-based staff and legal counsel" to Trump in the weeks during which his false testimony to Congress was being prepared.
Cohen is a proven liar. There isn't a reason why anyone should trust anything he says unless there's corroboration. After 2 years of investigating, that verification hasn't been found. While it's possible that there's something there, the odds of finding that something seem rather slim.
It's fair, though, to say that Mr. Schiff loves the sound of his voice:
[Video no longer available]
Now that's an ego as big as the Grand Canyon. The only thing bigger than Mr. Schiff's ego is his paranoia.
Posted Tuesday, December 4, 2018 9:53 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 06-Dec-18 07:10 AM
Saying Trump Tower was bugged was not paranoia?
The money paid those ladies is fact, not fiction, not paranoia. Hard cash, six-figures. There is a money trail.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 06-Dec-18 09:12 AM
Saying that his campaign was surveilled would've been laughed at in 2016 but it was. If you want to get hung up on the specifics, whatever. The fact is that the Obama administration surveilled the Trump campaign. How would you feel if Bush was in the White House & he surveilled the Obama campaign? When it comes to civil rights, it shouldn't be about whose ox is getting gored. If it's illegal, which this was, then it's illegal for all.
As for paying off women for their silence of a non-crime, that isn't a crime. It's just unsavory.
Marie Harf throws one Democrat after another under the bus
If you didn't see Outnumbered this morning, you missed Marie Harf throwing one Democrat under the bus after another . During Harf's attempt to minimize Ocasio-Cortez's frequent mistakes, she threw Rep.-Elect Cortez, DNC Chair Cortez and the media wing of the Democratic Party under the bus in a 4-minute video.
That being said, Kennedy's statements stole the show for that segment. She started by saying that "It's the downfall of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, because it's built on a foundation of yogurt. It's incredibly problematic because she doesn't have a working knowledge of basic economics. Socialism is an economic system. You have to have an economic argument in order to a) sell it and b) make it work. She can't do either because she doesn't understand how the world works, how people make money, how money is created and the creation of money is actually a positive sum effort when more people thrive when more people make money."
Republicans should understand that just highlighting the fact that Democrats are becoming more socialist by the month won't help them win back suburban voters. They need to highlight how socialist policies have failed in the past, then highlight how true capitalism, not crony capitalism, has succeeded. Highlight the fact that legitimate capitalism incentivizes everyone to make profits while crony capitalism picks winners and losers based on connections, not innovation and the ability to recognize markets.
Here's the video of the segment:
[Video no longer available]
Make sure to watch the entire thing. It's priceless, especially Ari Fleischer's comments at the end on why Ocasio-Cortez is getting so much coverage.
Posted Wednesday, December 5, 2018 11:21 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 05-Dec-18 05:06 PM
This woman is vacuous. She got elected because she was selling what everyone around her wanted, a free lunch, but doesn't know there's is no such thing as a free lunch. Sadly there are going to be more and more like her elected (just look at the 4 idiots elected to the house in MN).
Comment 2 by eric z at 06-Dec-18 07:07 AM
"DNC Chair Cortez" seems to intend to say Perez, but that is only a detail. Chad Q. are you saying Ocasio-Cortez is the Devin Nunes of her party? Thick headed, but gaining attention one way or another? Single Payer works in all civilized nations where it is policy, from Canada to Norway. Cradle to grave healthcare as a right will happen, even under Fascisism in this nation. The problem was implementing the Heritage Foundation Romneycare business as a sop to the insurance privateers. That now is an impediment to getting it right.
Comment 3 by Chad Q at 06-Dec-18 08:04 PM
No, I'm saying the democratic socialist is dumber than a bag of hair and her constituents are too. Nunes is a genius compared to this woman and day in and day out she keeps proving that a college education does not mean you are educated.
Single payer does not work from Canada to Norway (even those countries are trying to change the system) if you read the real information and not just the info spoon fed to you through the MSM. Health care is not a right and never has been. You will rue the day if health care every becomes a "right" as you will no longer have the right to do as you wish as the government will tell you what you can eat, drink, etc. As the lying Obama insinuated when he was ramming Obamacare down our throats, maybe you will just get a pill to get you by until you die because your life won't be worth it to give you a new hip, knee, heart valve, etc. The death panels your kind mocked Palin for will be come a reality.
Comment 4 by eric z at 07-Dec-18 08:43 AM
Chad - A bleak perspective. Canadians seem happy. Have you links you could give on Canada and Norway seeking change? Or for either, if not for both? And "rights" do not equate to government control, or do you have some Second Amendment notion in mind? Do we still have militias?
Ocasio-Cortez seems at peace with Pelosi, which might suggest a sell-out to the Republican-lite forces. That's my greatest doubt. After Michele Bachmann, no Congress critter can be called dumb by anyone who embraced the Bachmann tenure. Or have you a different perspective that way?
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 07-Dec-18 09:56 AM
Do we still have militias?Yes, but that isn't the point. The Founding Fathers put the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights to tell people that they have the right to defend themselves.
Please let the predictions stop
If I got paid $10 for each article I've read, pundit I've heard and montage I've watched that's predicted Mueller was on the verge of slamming the jail cell on President Trump, I'd be rich. This article is just the most recent I've seen.
Jill Abramson's article starts by saying "The rogues' gallery exposed in Robert Mueller's court filings last week make the Watergate burglars look positively classy. Even veteran lawyers who were involved in the investigations of Richard Nixon say they've never seen this level of chicanery. Most importantly, last week's events showed that Special Counsel Mueller is getting closer to exposing the scope and depth of it all. His most recent filings make clear that considerable evidence touches the president himself."
There's no doubt that some of the people who've been investigated (I'm thinking Manafort and Stone mostly) are worthy of society's disdain. To be blunt, they're skunks. If both rot in jail the next 50 years, I won't lose a split-second of sleep over it.
That being said, that being said, neither lead to the promised land. Neither connect President Trump to anything corrupt or criminal. Without proof that President Trump engaged in criminal activity, Mueller's glass isn't half-empty or half-full. It's just empty. As he frequently does, Newt Gingrich nails it with his analysis:
[Video no longer available]
There's no doubt that Ms. Abramson wishes for Mueller to nail President Trump. Notice how she slithers her opinions into the article as verified fact:
As a candidate, Trump repeatedly reassured voters that he had no business dealings in Russia. But as he uttered those lies, he knew Cohen was planning to sell Russian kleptocrats $250m units in a future Trump Tower Moscow by luring Putin into the project with a free $50m spread. This was all unfolding as emails from Democratic officials, hacked by the Russians, disrupted the Democratic convention and the Republican party was making its party platform much kinder to Russia.
I'd love seeing the documentation or text messages that shows Trump knew what Cohen was doing. Until they have that, they've got nothing. Period. Hatred of a person isn't proof of a crime getting committed.
At some point, the Mueller 'investigation' will end. At that time, those of us who appreciate integrity will start telling historians who will listen that Mr. Mueller is a skunk who doesn't have an ounce of integrity. He's just a malicious man who's upset that he wasn't hired when Jim Comey got fired.
Posted Thursday, December 6, 2018 3:13 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 06-Dec-18 06:57 AM
Flynn got a favorable recommendation on sentencing from the Mueller team. Do you view it as fair? Are you like me, (how would I know, the detailed evidence is still pending)? Aside from generalized reporting about the condo deal in Moscow, which never happened with sanctions still in place, are there any other allegations? Foreign visitors to DC using the Trump hotel there seems thin. It was there, it was open to business, it got used, so? As to Flynn, what struck me is the story is still that Pence was misled and not intentionally lying to press and public. It is like saying Pence is not a target of the investigation.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 06-Dec-18 09:15 AM
Mueller sent a nice letter but the truth is that he wasn't likely to get sent to prison because he was a first-time offender. Sentencing guidelines would've treated him gently whether he cooperated or not.
Minnesota's unimpressive economy
According to this article , the Center for the American Experiment is ruffling a few feathers with its recent report on Minnesota's economy. Economist John Phelan, the author of the report, wrote that "The state's economy is growing, but it's growing below the national average."
Later in the article, it says "Phelan cited data that has become popular with conservative economists: gross domestic product per worker. By that measure, Minnesota ranks 28th among the 50 states and Washington, D.C., and is well below the national average. It's in stark contrast to the figures cited by economists, including gross domestic product per capita. By that measure, Minnesota is indeed above the national average and ranked 15th. The difference is that per capita measures the state's economy against its entire population, while per worker measures it against only those who are employed."
Economists can argue which is the better way of measuring economic growth. The only thing that people care about are whether lots of good-paying jobs are getting created. They aren't. If the economy was creating lots of good-paying jobs, there wouldn't need to be a push for a $15/hr. minimum wage because the economy would be creating lots of jobs that pay more than that.
Further, companies and people are moving out of Minnesota for places like North Carolina, Georgia, Texas and other states because Minnesota's business climate sucks. The DFL argues that we just need a well-trained work force. I don't disagree that we need skilled workers but I'll vehemently disagree that that's all we need. I was stunned to hear during the campaign that Minnesota's lowest income tax bracket was higher than the top bracket in 20+ states.
That's before we talk about Minnesota's regulatory regime. Saying that it's stifling is understatement. It's designed to prevent competition and prevent economic growth. Most of it is built to appease the environmental activists and encourage lawsuits.
Given the high taxes and punishing regulations, why would anyone build or expand their business in Minnesota? They'd have to be masochistic.
Posted Thursday, December 6, 2018 9:37 AM
No comments.
The imminent government shutdown
After watching Kimberley Strassel's interview on Fox & Friends, the more convinced I am that we'll see a government shutdown over President Trump's wall. If/when that happens, expect the MSM to write tons of breathless stories explaining how Republicans are losing the shutdown fight. Republicans should ignore those stories because they can win a fight over the border wall as long as the caravans keep popping up.
The Democrats' only hope on this is to muddy the subject up by talking about immigration. A shutdown will focus the people's minds on the wall, though, because President Trump will talk constantly about funding the wall.
Since he's got the biggest megaphone in the Western Hemisphere, he'll dictate the agenda. Pundits will insist that Republicans always lose shutdown fights. Historically, that's true. Then again, let's not forget the #SchumerShutdown.
Why they've typically lost is another story. They've typically lost because the Democrat president had the biggest megaphone. With that not being the fact in this instance, the odds change.
It's worth noting that most of the government is funded. The MSM won't get away with stories about this or that department that helps widows and children closing until the evil Republicans fund them. Those types of departments are funded so those stories won't appear.
Next, lots of people are experiencing the burden these asylum-seekers are causing. When they disappear into the US, they carry with them costs for health care, education, etc. The immigration activists don't admit that but it's a fact.
[Video no longer available]
Don't be surprised if President Trump puts on a full-court press on this one.
Posted Thursday, December 6, 2018 12:05 PM
No comments.
Obama built the energy industry?
Who would've guessed that President Obama is responsible for the recent US energy boom? I didn't know that but it must be true since he's declaring himself the champion of building the industry .
[Video no longer available]
What a dirtbag! Doesn't President Obama know that there's this thing called Youtube that either verifies or rejects the truthfulness of people's statements? Watch the statements in the above video, then compare the president's statements in this video:
[Video no longer available]
In the 2nd video, President Obama said that "For decades, we have known that the days of cheap and easily accessible oil were numbered. For decades, we have talked and talked about the need to end America's century-long addiction to fossil fuels."
Let's be emphatic about this. It's impossible to advocate for "the need to end America's century-long addiction to fossil fuels" while also insisting that you're the man who pioneered the current energy boom. The 2 statements don't fit together.
When President Obama's economic policies failed, he blamed the economy on President Bush. When President Trump implemented the policies that turned around the stagnant economy he inherited from President Obama, President Obama insists that he created the oil boom.
PARTING QUESTION: If President Obama created the energy boom, why did millions of rural energy voters turn against the Democrats and vote for President Trump?
BONUS QUESTION: If President Obama is so proud of his role in turning the US into a net exporter of fossil fuels, why didn't he approve the Keystone XL Pipeline?
Frankly, it's disgusting that President Obama is this dishonest.
Posted Thursday, December 6, 2018 8:30 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 07-Dec-18 05:25 PM
Well he did kind of create the energy boom with all his regulations on federal lands no allowing drilling which meant that people had to frack to get oil.
People say Trump is an egomaniac when in reality it is/was Obama. The guy can't say two words without one of them being "I".
