December 11-14, 2018

Dec 11 15:21 Pelosi's closed-door transparency

Dec 12 02:46 Pelosi's "manhood" problem
Dec 12 11:03 Walz misdiagnoses problem
Dec 12 15:09 Trump's true border battle
Dec 12 22:13 Patty Murray's hearing difficulties

Dec 13 16:00 Shutdown-mania gone wild

Dec 14 02:39 Proof that Democrats don't care about border security
Dec 14 12:41 Mueller v. Flynn, Sullivan

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

Pelosi's closed-door transparency

When it comes to talking out of both sides of their mouth, nobody's better at it than Nancy Pelosi. At the 6:34 mark of this video, Ms. Pelosi said "I don't think we should have a debate in front of the press on this but the fact is the House Republicans could bring up this bill and pass this bill, if they had the votes, immediately and set the tone" for the debate:
[Video no longer available]
Later in the meeting with President Trump, Ms. Pelosi said "There are no Republican votes for the wall." Earth to Ms. Pelosi: here's breaking news for you -- the House already passed the bill that includes $5,000,000,000 for President Trump's wall. Still later, Ms. Pelosi said "We're coming in here in good faith to negotiate with you to see how we can keep the government open."

What a pile of BS. What Ms. Pelosi means by "good faith negotiations" is that she expects President Trump to drop his funding for the wall. She and Sen. Schumer accused President Trump of wanting to shut down the government unless he got what he wanted. The Democrats' position is just as hardline as President Trump's. The difference is that President Trump highlighted how effective a border wall is. The difference is that Ms. Pelosi rejected President Trump's verified facts.

In fact, Ms. Pelosi insisted that Israel's wall wasn't effective. Seriously?! Any idiot that thinks that the Israelis don't know what they're doing when it comes to their security is either stupid or lying. Period. What's hilarious is when President Trump interjects that "It's called transparency, Nancy", then she replies "It isn't transparency when we don't agree on a set of facts."

Actually, whether both sides agree on a set of facts or not, negotiations held in front of the TV cameras is transparency. The root word for transparency is transparent. The definition of transparent is "having the property of transmitting rays of light through its substance so that bodies situated beyond or behind can be distinctly seen." Other definitions for transparent are "manifest; obvious; open; frank; candid."

What's more open or candid than a negotiation held in front of TV cameras? Frankly, Ms. Pelosi appears to want these negotiations to be held behind closed doors so she and Sen. Schumer can come out to the TV cameras and mischaracterize what was said behind closed doors.

Posted Tuesday, December 11, 2018 3:21 PM

No comments.

Pelosi's "manhood" problem

Apparently, Nancy Pelosi is still obsessed with President Trump's manhood. This article quotes Ms. Pelosi as saying "It's like a manhood thing for him. As if manhood could ever be associated with him. I was trying to be the mom. I can't explain it to you. It was so wild. It goes to show you: you get into a tinkle contest with a skunk, you get tinkle all over you."

The article also states that "Pelosi told Democrats the Oval Office meeting was a win for their party." President Trump essentially got Chuck and Nancy to admit that they aren't interested in the border wall's effectiveness. After President Trump rattled off how much the border wall has stopped border crossings where it's been built, Ms. Pelosi insisted that the wall was ineffective and expensive.

That's odd to hear considering the fact that Israel's wall has stopped the vast majority of the terrorists' attacks. As I said in this post , "Any idiot that thinks that the Israelis don't know what they're doing when it comes to their security is either stupid or lying. Period."

This article highlights the Democrats' priority:

Schumer and Pelosi put out a terse post-meeting statement: "We gave the president two options that would keep the government open. It's his choice to accept one of those options or shut the government down."

The truth is that the Democrats' top priority is keeping the government open while President Trump's top priority is to stop drug traffickers, Central American gangs and stopping terrorists.
[Video no longer available]
The wall is the right policy. The Berlin Wall worked nearly flawlessly. Israel's wall? Ditto. Along come Chuck and Nancy talking about President Trump's wall and it's suddenly ineffective? Democrats are arguing from a position of weakness. President Trump has the facts on his side. The other part of this is that President Trump understands how important stopping the gangs and the human traffickers are.

It's worth asking if the Democrats will ever put America's needs ahead of their ideological goals. At this point, I'm not confident they will.

Posted Wednesday, December 12, 2018 2:46 AM

No comments.

Walz misdiagnoses problem

If this article is an indicator, Tim Walz's economic record will be as lackluster as Gov. Dayton's.

The article states that "Outgoing Speaker of the House Kurt Daudt suggested the state improve at enticing young people into trades and manufacturing - two industries struggling to fill positions. Gov.-elect Tim Walz said some school districts lack the money to properly train an adequate workforce thanks to the state's over-reliance on local property taxes to pay for schools."

The thing that DFL politicians haven't admitted is that more people from all age and income groups are leaving Minnesota than are coming in. There's a worker shortage because people are leaving Minnesota.


This is also why MnSCU universities are struggling. Until Minnesota starts worrying more about growing the economy with pro-growth economic policies rather than growing government, this problem will persist.

Part of the problem, too, is that environmental activists have successfully lobbied for strangling regulations. Our regulatory regime is so strict that it's difficult to grow a business. More to the point, it destroys the incentive to even locate here. If you're thinking about starting or growing a business, do entrepreneurs gravitate towards states with high taxes and outrageous regulations? Or would you gravitate towards states with lower taxes and reasonable regulations?

Posted Wednesday, December 12, 2018 11:03 AM

Comment 1 by Chad Q at 12-Dec-18 06:08 PM
School districts don't lack the money to properly educate students, they just fail to properly educate the students.

Trump's true border battle

Anyone who's watched the video of President Trump's Oval Office ambush of "Chuck and Nancy" knows that opinions on who 'won' the first round are as varied as it gets. What isn't really debatable, though it's getting debated, is whether walls enhance security and whether Democrats are serious about securing the US-Mexico border.

President Trump noted that Israel's wall stopped almost 100% of the terrorists' attacks. Then he noted that illegal border crossings dropped by 95+ percent in areas where the wall got built. After getting ambushed by these verified statistics, Nancy Pelosi reflexively responded like a spoiled brat by mocking President Trump's manhood , saying "It's like a manhood thing for him. As if manhood could ever be associated with him. I was trying to be the mom. I can't explain it to you. It was so wild. It goes to show you: you get into a tinkle contest with a skunk, you get tinkle all over you."

That's what I'd expect from a spoiled brat throwing a temper tantrum. That isn't what I'd expect from the woman who will likely be the next Speaker of the House. Let me qualify that. That isn't what I'd expect "from the woman who will likely be the next Speaker of the House" unless that woman was Nancy Pelosi. Then I'd expect it.

That being said, what's important is whether walls work or whether Democrats are serious about border security. We've already verified that walls work. Next, let's examine whether Democrats are serious about border security. The Democrats didn't hesitate a split-second in spending $5,000,000,000 for Cash for Clunkers but they're unwilling to spend $5,000,000,000 for a border wall? It isn't like Cash for Clunkers was successful. It wasn't.

Further, does anyone think that Democrats dare defy open border leftists like George Soros, Tom Steyer and other open border special interests? Not a chance. This isn't about the Democrats displaying fiscal responsibility. This is about Democrats totally obeying their special interest puppeteers. Bill O'Reilly nails it on what's happening in this video:
[Video no longer available]
Check out what Brandon Judd told Bill O'Reilly on whether walls work:
[Video no longer available]

JUDD: I spent the majority of my career on the southwest border in Tucson, AZ, and I can tell you that where walls were built, they were extremely effective. Where they weren't built, illegal immigration was absolutely out of control.

Then Judd adds that walls stop approximately 95% of illegal aliens coming in. Later in the interview, Judd replies to Mr. O'Reilly's question on whether the wall is popular with border patrol agents. Judd replied that they surveyed the border patrol agents and "96% of agents" want the wall.

Simply put, Democrats don't want the wall even though it's effective and the border patrol is asking for Congress to fund it. Does that sound like Democrats are serious about border security? Or does it sound like they're saying the right thing to avoid taking a massive political hit? I'm betting it's the latter.

Posted Wednesday, December 12, 2018 3:09 PM

No comments.

Patty Murray's hearing difficulties

It's apparent that Sen. Patty Murray, (D-WA), is a little hard of hearing. Yesterday, Sen. Murray took ton Twitter, where Sen. Murray wrote "Democrats could not have been any clearer. We oppose President Trump's wall. We reject his divisive rhetoric & scare tactics. There is no reason for a shutdown right now. I join Leaders @SenSchumer & @NancyPelosi & my colleagues in calling on GOP to make the right choice."

She's right. Democrats couldn't have been clearer in their opposition to President Trump's wall. Democrats couldn't have been clearer in declaring that they really aren't serious about border security. That's apparent because Democrats haven't talked with the professionals that patrol the border day-in, day-out for months and years. That's apparent after watching this interview:
[Video no longer available]
Brandon Judd is a retired border patrol agent, which means he's an expert. When Mr. Judd states that "I can tell you that where walls were built, they were extremely effective. Where they weren't built, illegal immigration was absolutely out of control", that's something politicians should pay attention to. Mr. Judd is the expert. They aren't. When Mr. Judd told Mr. O'Reilly that they surveyed border patrol agents and that "96%" of border patrol agents want the wall because it's effective, that should've settled the issue.

In a fact-based, best-practices world, shouldn't building the wall be the easiest decision imaginable? Sen. Murray's argument is that the people that flipped the majority in the House did so as a protest against the wall. Anyone with a memory knows that most of the districts that flipped didn't flip because of the wall. Those districts mostly flipped because of health care.

I think it's quite possible for Republicans to win this fight if they put together air-tight arguments like what I've put together. When people hear that the experts think that walls work, people will wonder why Democrats aren't listening to the experts. When people hear that a wall makes the border patrol's job easier, people will question why we haven't already built the wall.

Let's also highlight the fact that Democrats who say that spending $5,000,000,000 on a border wall is spending too expensive didn't hesitate in spending $5,000,000,000 on a worthless program called Cash-for-Clunkers. The chief differences are that Cash-for-Clunkers was proposed by President Obama, whom Democrats love, whereas the wall was proposed by President Trump, whom Democrats hate.

Finally, here's a question for Sen. Murray and the Democrats. What's more important? Passing a bill that gains bipartisan support but doesn't fix the problem? Or is it more important to listen to the experts and fix the problem ASAP? I'm kinda strange but I'd rather pick listening to the experts and fixing the problem the first time.

Do you understand that, Sen. Murray?

Posted Wednesday, December 12, 2018 10:13 PM

No comments.

Shutdown-mania gone wild

The Agenda Media, aka the MSM, is buzzing about President Trump's mistake (in their collectivist minds) of saying he'll take the blame for a government shutdown. Think of the press's reports as 'Shutdown-mania running wild'.

It isn't that there aren't consequences for President Trump if there's a government shutdown. Generally speaking, Americans want their government working. That doesn't mean they aren't understanding if there's a good reason for the shutdown.

When Sen. Cruz shut down the government over the ACA, people figured (correctly) that he was just grandstanding. President Trump shutting down the government over building the wall isn't grandstanding. People understand that illegal immigration is out of control. They also know that it's costing them tons of money in terms of the raised taxes to pay for schooling and welfare programs.

Democrats are trying to convince people that they're serious about securing the border. If they're so serious, why haven't they funded the wall that the border patrol is extremely effective? Democrats insist that we accept as fact the words from climate scientists, aka experts, as though they were words chiseled in stone tablets. When it comes to the border, however, Democrats ignore the experts, aka border patrol agents.

I'd call that hypocrisy but that's obvious. The inescapable truth is that it's right to listen to experts. There's no reason not to trust the people who maintain sanity on the border. They're the experts. I have an opinion on the border but people like Thomas Homan, the former acting Director of ICE, have an informed opinion of what works and doesn't work. Here's what he said on the matter:
[Video no longer available]
Approximately 4 minutes into the interview, Homan laid it out plain and simple, saying "this is people putting politics ahead of national security, public safety, ignoring their public responsibilities. These people in the Oval Office -- Pelosi and Schumer -- both have protective details at great taxpayers expense but they don't want to use taxpayers' money to protect taxpayers."

Rather than asking whose fault it is in shutting down the government, which is slightly immaterial, Republicans should argue what's the right policy. Then they should call in people like Director Homan and other border patrol experts to testify on this. Let's see Democrats argue that Director Homan is wrong. Let's see Democrats state that Brandon Judd shouldn't be listened to. I'd love hearing one border patrol agent after another explain how effective the wall is.

While that's happening, I'd love watching Democrats assume the fetal position while they take their political lumps. It's time to fix this crisis. It's time to stop letting Democrats get away with playing euphemism games. It's time for truth to prevail.

That's the only way to stop shutdown-mania.

Posted Thursday, December 13, 2018 4:00 PM

No comments.

Proof that Democrats don't care about border security

If you're looking for proof that Democrats want to secure the US-Mexican border, you'll search quite a long time. That's because proof that Democrats care about border security doesn't exist. Yes, they'll mouth the words so they don't get exposed as open borders activists but they won't mean it.

Part of being legitimately worried about border security means being worried about letting narcotics into the country through porous borders. Part of legitimate border security is wanting to stop human trafficking, especially the prevention of teenage girls from being sold into sex slavery. Democrats don't talk about those things. The Democrats' proposals wouldn't prevent these human tragedies.

Let's admit something immediately. There isn't a silver-bullet-single-solution that will fix the border security problem. It doesn't exist so let's stop pretending that it does. Let's admit another thing immediately. Walls work:


I said earlier this week that anyone that thinks they know more about national security than Israel is foolish. They don't unless they're members of the US Special Forces or SEAL Team 6 or something like that.

Build walls where they're likely to work. Use technology where it's most likely to work. Change the asylum laws that are creating a backlog in the courts. Punish the people who don't obey the law.

This is fixable if Democrats and some RINOs are willing to apply common sense and a little humility to the problem.

Posted Friday, December 14, 2018 2:39 AM

Comment 1 by eric z at 14-Dec-18 07:28 AM
Gary, have you thought about bilingual posting?

Mueller v. Flynn, Sullivan

While leftists hyperventilate about impeaching President Trump and imprisoning Paul Manafort, a powerful yet relatively unknown figure has stepped onto the stage. His name is Judge Emmet Sullivan.

While Mueller has been operating " as a law unto himself ", according to the WSJ's Kim Strassel, the truth is that Judge Sullivan isn't likely to let Mueller run roughshod.

Ms. Strassel wrote "agents (including the infamous Peter Strzok) showed up within two hours. They had already decided not to inform Mr. Flynn that they had transcripts of his conversations or give him the standard warning against lying to the FBI. They wanted him 'relaxed' and 'unguarded.' Former Director James Comey this weekend bragged on MSNBC that he would never have 'gotten away' with such a move in a more 'organized' administration. The whole thing stinks of entrapment, though the curious question was how the Flynn defense team got the details."

This interview by Kennedy of Mollie Hemingway is chilling to legitimate civil rights advocates:
[Video no longer available]
Thankfully, Judge Sullivan has stepped into this situation. It's clear that Mueller and McCabe haven't paid attention to the Constitution or the principles of justice being blind. When the history books get written, Robert Mueller's and Jim Comey's legacies should be that of scofflaws who didn't care about the Constitution.

Posted Friday, December 14, 2018 12:41 PM

No comments.

Popular posts from this blog

January 19-20, 2012

Image
Jan 19 02:57 Minnesota Majority report an indictment against Minnesota's election integrity Jan 19 03:41 Ron Paul's Logic Jan 19 08:08 Newt thrives despite Mitt's hatchet job efforts Jan 19 09:19 Potential Game-Changer: Perry dropping out this am Jan 20 05:12 Newt takes Sen. Santorum to proverbial woodshed Jan 20 00:56 ABC, CNN, crawl into bed with National Enquirer Jan 20 04:00 Child Care small businesses file federal lawsuit Jan 20 04:41 Mitt's biggest policy blunder Jan 20 18:58 Gingrich, Reagan re-united Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Newt takes Sen. Santorum to proverbial woodshed Rick Santorum was really feeling it Thursday night. Then he said something that's certain to cause him pain this morning. Here's what he said that got him in trouble: SANTORUM: But you also have to admit that this freshman congressman who wasn't supposed to win a race came and did something you never did, which is blew the li...
Read more

March 21-24, 2016

Image
Mar 21 01:28 SCSU's budget cuts? Mar 21 02:29 When will the Range change? Mar 21 08:54 DFL's Marty in charge of environment Mar 21 11:45 OLA report, DFL & Meyer Associates Mar 23 12:48 Liberals' definition of moderate Mar 23 14:37 DFL activists: Government is racist Mar 24 08:59 IRRRB: Revamping vs. scrapping Prior Months: Jan Feb Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 SCSU's budget cuts? Cuts in Athletics at SCSU - Will it Really Save Money? by Silence Dogood With a $6,000,000 "structural deficit" and the need to "rebuild reserves by at least $3 million," SCSU has a $9,000,000 hole in its' FY17 budget. It doesn't take a Noble Prize in economics to figure out that reductions in expenditures (i.e., cuts) are going to be made at SCSU. On the Wednesday before Spring Break, SCSU President Dr. Earl H. Potter sent an email to the campus community announcing cuts to the athlet...
Read more

October 31, 2007

Oct 31 01:01 Media Matter's Alter Ego? Oct 31 03:32 Iraqi Civilian Casualties Dropping Oct 31 10:52 Hillary's Panderfest Blows Up in Her Face Oct 31 13:15 Brod, Emmer Call For Investigation of Mark Ritchie Oct 31 19:43 Ritchie's 'Episode' a Tempest in a Teapot? Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Prior Years: 2006 Media Matter's Alter Ego? One Media Matters-like organization is already too many. It appears as though there's another liberal apologist blog out there. Their name is News Hounds . The post that caught my attention dealt with last weekend's interview of Justin and Darryl Sharraltt on Hannity's America. To say that their post didn't attempt to refute Justin's story is understatement. In fact, they jump right into criticizing Mr. Hannity: Last night's (October 27th) Hannity's America was a strange magazine format which combined stories about mediums and haunted houses...
Read more