February 11-13, 2020

Feb 11 03:14 Firing Nancy Pelosi is essential
Feb 11 09:30 Democrats don't run things
Feb 11 22:04 Michael Bloomberg, racist?

Feb 12 15:26 What is Adam Schiff hiding?
Feb 12 17:50 The Intercept vs. Mike Bloomberg

Feb 13 11:54 All investigations, all the time
Feb 13 14:51 Roger Stone shoe-on-the-other-foot thought exercise
Feb 13 18:24 Bernie's bad news

Prior Months: Jan

Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Firing Nancy Pelosi is essential

Last week's antics from Nancy Pelosi top off Pelosi's hyperpartisan actions throughout the last 3+ years. Though the MSM insisted that she was a master strategist, it's apparent that she isn't. That became obvious when she ran into a true master strategist named Mitch McConnell. In that match-up, Pelosi got her fanny spanked. Hard. (Perhaps that's why she mumbled during President Trump's SOTU Address?)

Speaking of which, why didn't Pelosi applaud when Jenayah Davis got an opportunity scholarship? Why didn't Pelosi applaud when President Trump rattled off a list of impressive economic numbers that prove that, under President Trump's policies, everyone's doing better with Trumponomics? Apparently, Pelosi can't stand prosperity if President Trump's policies caused it. How disgusting is that? Hint: very. How surprising is that? Hint: it isn't.

Miranda Devine's column exposes Pelosi as the hate-filled (but not too bright) leader of the Democrats:

If Pelosi meant to delay handing over the impeachment articles to the Senate as a strategic masterstroke to tie up ascendant socialist Sanders in the Senate and give Joe Biden three weeks on his own in Iowa, that, too, backfired big-time.

'Granny' Pelosi needs to retire. She needs to spend more time with her grandchildren. She lost the fight with AOC because she wanted AOC's supporters without AOC's ill-advised agenda. She lost that fight bigtime. She lost the impeachment fight, too. What's worst is that she hasn't gotten anything accomplished for the American people.

Despite Chairman Schiff's Democrats' dishonest attacks against President Trump, he just keeps making life better for Americans. Despite the MSM's tributes to her and the Democrats, Pelosi hasn't improved the lives of Americans. How does she explain that away?

I'll explain it simply. She's overrated plus she's a bitch. Here's how overrated she is:

Trump has gained 10 points since impeachment began in October. Nice one, Nancy. But nonwhites' approval of Trump also is at a high: 28 percent, up 10 points in a year.

When it comes to Trump's handling of the economy, he gets 67 percent overall job approval and a resounding 49 percent among nonwhites, the beneficiaries of lower unemployment and higher wages. So almost half of all black and Hispanic voters think Trump is doing a good job with the economy. That makes him hard to beat.

We The People expect better than this:
[Video no longer available]
What a loser. We need Kevin McCarthy as speaker next January.

Posted Tuesday, February 11, 2020 3:14 AM

Comment 1 by eric z at 11-Feb-20 11:24 AM
Is mcconnell up for reelection this 2020 cycle?

Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 11-Feb-20 11:47 AM
Yes & he's leading

Democrats don't run things

On the day voting happens in Vermont, we still don't have the final vote totals from Iowa. That's because the Sanders campaign and Buttigieg campaign have each asked for partial recanvasses of the results. At this rate, we might have Iowa's totals verified before the Convention in Milwaukee. I'm not betting the ranch on that but it might happen.

With that crisis still unresolved, Democrats are facing a somewhat similar crisis in Nevada:

Frustrated. Concerned. Nervous. Those are some of the words aides are using to describe the mood within some of the top Democratic presidential campaigns in Nevada with only five days until early voting is set to begin for the state's first in the West presidential caucus and still no details on how exactly it's supposed to work.
Campaigns here in the Silver State have been told that the Nevada State Democratic Party won't be using the same app and vendor that were in part responsible for bungling the results of Iowa's caucus last week, that the party won't be using any app at all, and that what the party does plan to use is best described as a "tool" or "calculator." Beyond that, aides aren't really sure what's in store for the state's Feb. 22 Democratic caucus.

Have Democrats run anything beyond a lemonade stand? Here in Minnesota, examples of DFL competence in running things are rarities. MNLARS will (hopefully) be a distant memory soon after being a nightmare for 2+ years. MNsure was a disaster for a year. The Minnesota Human Services fiascoes happened over a period of years before being discovered. People remember the disaster that Healthcare.gov was.

"It's a little bit of a damper for our volunteers who are more hesitant to step up and say, 'Yes, I will confirm I will be precinct leadership on Feb. 22,' when they don't feel entirely certain about what's going to happen," one aide said. "Never mind the campaign, but with four days until early voting begins, the people who are going to participate feel like they need to have a credible explanation of how the early voting and caucus process are going to work."

Here we go again? Only a Democrat could turn simple arithmetic into this convoluted mess. This isn't how this should work. The only top-tier Democrats who've run anything are Pete Buttigieg and Mike Bloomberg. Everyone else is a senator. They talk for a living.

Both mayors are far outside the mainstream on the issues, which is why few people outside the Democratic Party take either of them seriously. Meanwhile, the nation keeps humming along under President Trump's leadership. He's actually run something and holds mainstream views. The economy is strong. We're safer than we were under President Obama. Emergencies are handled efficiently.

That's quite the contrast from the Party that can't even do basic math, aka the Democrats. Bernie hasn't run anything. Ditto with Biden, Klobuchar, Warren or what's his name that still hasn't dropped out (Michael Bennet).

Things are running well. People are making money. Income inequality is shrinking. People's 401(k)s are getting healthier. If it isn't broke, don't tinker with it. That's what Democrats did with the Iowa Caucuses. How'd that turn out? This is how that worked:
[Video no longer available]
The KISS method (Keep It Simple Stupid) still works best. I'm a huge fan of trailing edge technology. I love things that work and that have worked for years. There's nothing wrong with the Iowa Caucuses that a little uncomplicating can't fix.

On a national scale, the lesson to be learned is that Democrats don't run things. It isn't part of their DNA. Bill Clinton is the lone exception. Berniecrats think that he's too conservative. I guess they didn't like the prosperity.

Posted Tuesday, February 11, 2020 9:30 AM

Comment 1 by eric z at 11-Feb-20 11:22 AM
Caucusing seems to be on the wane. Plus side - it is harder to buy a caucus than a primary. Minus side - it is awkward and favors inner party operatives and their often stultified posturing. Both parties have that split.

If having primaries with spending limits - get rid of Citizens United, then we'd have the best of both options. Now Bloomberg will prove or disprove that billionaires do not have to buy elections for others and can just get rid of the middlemen and buy them for themselves. We'll see.

Gary - Perhaps you've written something Bloomberg plagiarized. You should check it out. After all, he's a Republican as you are.

Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 11-Feb-20 11:52 AM
No he isn't. Are Democrats in the habit of letting Republicans be their nominee? Even when he registered as a Republican, it was only to avoid the Democrat primary. Originally, Bloomberg was a registered Democrat.

Comment 2 by Chad Q at 11-Feb-20 05:16 PM
All the proof in the world that the democrats shouldn't be in charge of anything and yet there are idiots in New Hampshire who say they'd vote for a gopher before Trump.

Comment 3 by Gretchen L Leisen at 11-Feb-20 05:24 PM
My memory of Michael Bloomberg is that he was a Democrat who ran for Mayor of NYC as a Republican because the Democrats had an overwhelming number of candidates - so it was a prudential choice to avoid the messiness of the Democrat primaries. Bloomberg won the election and followed Giuliani's law enforcement policies which served Bloomberg very well. He was easily re-elected to a second term. Then Mike decided that he would like to run for a third term, but the law did not allow it, so he managed to get the city to change the rules so he could run for a third term. By that time Mike decided that he did not want to be called a Republican, so he changed his party designation to Independent when he ran for a third term. Finally, after he completed 12 years as mayor of NYC, he retired and changed back to his original party affiliation - Democrat.

Michael Bloomberg, racist?

The opposition research dump against Mike Bloomberg isn't relenting. By now, everyone has heard about Bloomberg's statement about Stop-Question-And-Frisk in which Bloomberg talks about getting guns off the street by throwing kids against the wall. He said that in the context of minority neighborhoods:


Saying that this isn't a positive day for the Bloomberg campaign is understatement. Ed Morrissey's post highlights something much worse:


Bloomberg actually says on the radio that "I think we disproportionately stop whites too much and minorities too little." I don't think that Bloomberg is a racist, though it's clear he isn't connecting with minority communities. When he first got into the race, he went to an African-American church and essentially pandered to the congregation.

The other thing that's disgusting is how CNN tried defending Bloomberg. Each day, there's additional proof that CNN is the propaganda machine of the DNC.

Posted Tuesday, February 11, 2020 10:04 PM

No comments.

What is Adam Schiff hiding?

FNC is reporting that Devin Nunes and Chris Stewart, the ranking members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Intelligence Subcommittee on Strategic Technologies and Advance Research respectively, wrote a letter to Adam Schiff criticizing the Democrats "for not holding hearings on FISA in the wake of the IG report."

In their letter, Nunes and Stewart wrote "Under your chairmanship, the House Intelligence Committee has strayed far from its mandate of overseeing the Intelligence Community. In fact, we have gone months at a time in which we've hardly held any oversight-related briefings or hearings at all."

"During this period of inadequate oversight, numerous critical issues pertinent to this Committee's jurisdiction were ignored," they continued, noting that DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz issued his FISA report on Dec. 9 which identified "seventeen serious shortcomings related to the conduct" of the surveillance of former Trump campaign foreign policy aide Carter Page.

"The IG Report was followed by the release of a declassified assessment by the Department of Justice acknowledging that at least two of the four FISA applications lacked probable cause," they continued. "Despite the seriousness of these issues and our clear jurisdiction, you have failed to hold a single briefing or hearing on this matter."

It's obvious that Chairman Schiff isn't serious about the Committee's responsibilities. He's likely the worst chairman in the history of HPSCI, aka the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

It's been 2 months since the Horowitz Report was published on Dec. 9, 2019. Chairman Schiff hasn't lifted a finger to find out why the FBI used the discredited Steele Dossier in their FISA warrant application to surveil Carter Page. Chairman Schiff didn't lift a finger to find out why US intelligence agencies were weaponized to take down President Trump.

Further, the Horowitz report established as fact that the Nunes Memo was virtually 100% correct. The Horowitz Report discredited the Schiff Memo. The Schiff Memo took the opposite position on FISA warrant abuse, whether the Steele Dossier was relied on to obtain the FISA warrant and whether the FBI included exculpatory evidence as the Nunes Memo.

That's likely why Chairman Schiff isn't interested in conducting hearings into FISA abuse. If he held a hearing into FISA abuses, Republicans would certainly question the Schiff Memo's fictional assertions.

It's clear that Democrats are on the defensive. Republicans serving on HPSCI signed this blistering letter. Today, Republicans criticized Jerry Nadler's mishandling of the House Judiciary Committee. Nadler passed a bill to prevent President Trump from implementing a "Muslim ban". Republicans fought back , saying "This has nothing to do with religion. This has to do with securing our country," said Rep. Debbie Lesko, R-Ariz., taking on Democrats for calling it a Muslim ban. "...If it really was, as you call it, a Muslim ban, why wouldn't Indonesia be on this ban? I mean they have a lot of Muslims. This is just inaccurate. You are just spreading this falsity."

Nadler and Schiff undoubtedly got stung by impeachment. Now, they're just a pair of losers who didn't hesitate to impeach a president while ignoring tons of exculpatory evidence. They've been exposed as partisans who put partisan politics ahead of patriotism.

Back when this first got started, CNN ridiculed then-Chairman Nunes, suggesting that he was President Trump's hatchetman:
[Video no longer available]
The Horowitz Report didn't just dismantle Schiff's spin. The Horowitz Report utterly demolished Schiff's spin. Democrats are verifiably dishonest. Putting them in charge of protecting our liberties is beyond foolish. Chairmen Schiff and Nadler shouldn't be entrusted to run a lemonade stand, much less the HPSCI and the Judiciary Committee.

Posted Wednesday, February 12, 2020 3:26 PM

No comments.

The Intercept vs. Mike Bloomberg

The Intercept is a lefty publication but it isn't afraid of exposing corrupt lefties. Lee Fang's article is a timely example of that. In the article, Fang writes about the second-worst NYC mayor in recent history, aka Mike Bloomberg.

In the article, it quotes Bloomberg, a Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-independent-turned-Democrat, as saying "I inherited the police practice of stop-and-frisk, and as part of our effort to stop gun violence it was overused. By the time I left office, I cut it back by 95%, but I should've done it faster and sooner. I regret that and I have apologized - and I have taken responsibility for taking too long to understand the impact it had on Black and Latino communities."

That halfhearted apology would be respected more if he didn't omit important information. Fang wrote this:

The statement drew immediate backlash over its twisting of history. In 2001, New York City maintained an aggressive program of stopping and searching people throughout the city, with an overwhelming focus on young African American and Latino men. But, under the Bloomberg administration, the program vastly expanded , from around 97,296 stops in 2002 to a height of 685,724 in 2011, a more than sevenfold increase during the former mayor's tenure.

That paints quite the different picture. That different picture gets even more different in light of this information:

Far from changing course over the mayor's focus on "racial equity," as he has since claimed, the practice was clawed back by several lawsuits, which charged that the law enforcement program violated the basic constitutional rights of residents. U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, in a scathing decision , noted that over the course of 2.3 million frisks, weapons were found only 1.5 percent of the time. The decision pointed out that over half of the stops included African Americans and about third Latino, with less than 10 percent targeting white people.

Bloomberg's apology is halfhearted because he's attempting to hide the whole truth from voters. He's just another career politician trying to con the people. It's difficult to trust him. That's the personification of the Swamp. That's the personification of the Democrat establishment, too.

Bloomberg didn't stop the policy of Stop, Question and Frisk. A judge ruled the technique unconstitutional. That's what stopped the program. It didn't happen because of Bloomberg's enlightenment. This NYTimes article quotes Donna Lieberman, the executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, as saying "What the statement fails to capture is the magnitude of stop-and-frisk and the several years-long period during which stop-and-frisk was through the roof."

I'm betting that people wouldn't have a problem with a well-run program that wasn't this racist. I'm betting that people were disturbed when they heard this:
[Video no longer available]
Throwing kids against the wall to get guns off the streets? What part of that sounds like a well-run, disciplined, well-supervised plan? It's wrong to let the MSM off the hook for calling the program Stop-And-Frisk. That isn't its proper name. Its real name is Stop, Question and Frisk.

The bottom line is this: Mayor Bloomberg abused a legitimate program that reduced violent crime. Then he compounded the problem by making these exceptionally racist statements. The more we learn about him, the less appealing Bloomberg is. Let's remember, too, that establishment Democrats are looking to him as their political savior.

Posted Wednesday, February 12, 2020 5:50 PM

Comment 1 by eric z at 13-Feb-20 09:38 AM
So, really worried about Bloomberg's ability to outspend the Don. Is it time for an old saying, silk purse, sow's ear?

"Second worse" NYC mayor. Yes, Rudy was worse by a mile.

Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 13-Feb-20 12:14 PM
Bloomberg doesn't have a message. Imagine the ads from the Trump campaign highlighting the Big Gulp restrictions, Bloomberg's outright racism & his desire to eliminate fossil fuels. That might play in the primaries but it won't play in the general.

Comment 2 by eric z at 13-Feb-20 10:09 AM
So, really worried about Bloomberg's ability to outspend the Don. Is it time for an old saying, silk purse, sow's ear?

"Second worse" NYC mayor. Yes, Rudy was worse by a mile.

Also Bloomberg is a Republican, but giving lip service to a notion he is something else. Just think, two "Mayor B" candidates, one wealthier by far than Trump, the other a total upstart with academic credentials but a college town mayor being all in that portfolio, aside from McKinsey, military ticket punching, and a Rhodes Scholar (just like Bill Clinton). Both Mayor B candidates are chasing the Bern. Part of an inner party coordinated effort to smack down Bernie and Liz for wanting a new and better dawn.

The two Mayor B guys are a pair of white corporatist tools, but one may get the nomination in the course of suppressing progressive change. Wall Street clearly is hedging its bet on Biden.

Gary, do you think Bloomberg will be able to buy the nomination or will he fail? He could get it, and Tom Perez likely would approve. Wall Street too.

"CHANGE" surely was a slogan and nothing more. You put in your eight years doing as told, and end up with Martha's Vinyard waterfront mansion ownership.

Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 13-Feb-20 12:10 PM
Eric, de Blasio is the worst by far. NYC isn't as safe or as prosperous. That's why people are leaving. Bloomberg doesn't connect with people the way that Bernie or President Trump do. He's a suit, albeit a very expensive custom-tailored suit. Bloomberg is as appealing as a cactus.

Stop with the 'Bloomberg is a Republican' BS. He started as a Democrat. Then he wanted to run for mayor of NYC but there were a bajillion Democrats already running. Out of convenience, he ran as a Republican.

Bernie is the front-runner. Period. Warren is history. I won't say that Buttigieg is toast yet because I'd love to see him get sliced & diced by Trump. Plastic Man vs. Trump = Pop the Popcorn matchup.

I don't see Bloomberg getting the nomination. I don't get the impression that he's a debater + he's a phony. I can picture Bernie attacking him. It isn't pretty. Warren would carve him up, too. You're right, though. Perez would love it if Bloomberg got the nomination.

All investigations, all the time

It's pretty apparent that Democrats enjoy investigating President Trump. Similarly, it's apparent that they haven't done anything to make people's lives better. Sen. Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are calling on Michael Horowitz to investigate why the sentencing recommendation was reduced for Roger Stone . They've implied that President Trump improperly interfered in the matter.

The problem they've got is that the DOJ got involved in reducing the recommendation before President Trump criticized Judge Amy Berman-Jackson. It'd be quite the trick for William Barr to reduce the sentence recommendation at President Trump's behest before President Trump made the request. That doesn't matter to Sen. Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. They just want to convince people that President Trump is a scoundrel who should be impeached again.

Not to be left out is Adam Schiff. He just got humiliated (if that's possible with pathological dirtbags) through President Trump's impeachment acquittal but he's spoiling for another fight :

"I'm struck by the fact that it's all out in the open. I mean, we will certainly learn about what's taking place behind the scenes, the sort of clandestine effort to weigh in and help the President's friends and hurt the President's enemies," the California Democrat told CNN's David Axelrod on "The Axe Files" podcast. "But the fact that this is being done in the open in a way makes it more insidious, because it is normalizing this attack on the independence of our justice system."

The fact that the prosecutors told DOJ one thing, then did another in front of the judge apparently doesn't mean anything because Orange Man Bad. Now there's accusations that one of the jurors was biased . There's nothing insidious about this. Period. Full stop.

It's time to get Mr. Schiff a new dictionary. The definition of insidious is "stealthily treacherous or deceitful or operating or proceeding in an inconspicuous or seemingly harmless way but actually with grave effect." How can President Trump, who has a bajillion Twitter followers, use Twitter and still be inconspicuous or stealthy? That's right up there with Schiff saying during the impeachment trial that the cover-up is hiding there right in plain sight.

Schumer didn't have a problem with Democratic Sens. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, Dick Durbin of Illinois, and Pat Leahy of Vermont writing a letter to the Ukraine prosecutor to help the Mueller investigation that was improperly predicated. Before the special counsel was appointed, it was known that Russian collusion didn't happen. There was Russian interference in the election but the FBI knew that there wasn't collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign.
[Video no longer available]
Democrats can't help themselves. If there's anything in the news about President Trump, Democrats insist that he needs to be investigated. The Democrats' first instinct is to investigate, not to legislate. What a bunch of sick puppies. That's why firing Pelosi as Speaker-in-Name-Only is essential. That's why keeping Sen. Schumer as the minority leader is essential, too. Pelosi, Schumer and Schiff aren't patriots. They're money-grubbing conspiracy theorists who don't have the spine to stand up to the Resist activists.

That's the new definition of today's Democrats.

Posted Thursday, February 13, 2020 11:54 AM

No comments.

Roger Stone shoe-on-the-other-foot thought exercise

With more information coming out about Tomeka Hart , the foreperson on the Roger Stone trial, it's time to question Democrats like Sen. Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. It's another classic case of Democrats jumping to conclusions before gathering facts. Doesn't that sound familiar? Hint: YES ! But I digress.

Before illustrating just how two-faced Pelosi is, let's play a clip of her from this morning's press conference:
[Video no longer available]
Next, let's play a short game of Alan Dershowitz's shoe-on-the-other-foot game. Let's swap out Roger Stone's name and swap in Peter Strzok's name. Next, let's swap out President Trump's name and swap in President Obama's name. I'm betting that the odds of Democrats complaining about President Obama making comments about reducing the prison sentence for Peter Strzok is virtually nonexistent.

I'm not basing this entirely on theory. I'm basing that opinion at least partially on President Obama's statements prior to the infamous Beer Summit with President Obama, Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Cambridge police Sgt. James Crowley. Shortly thereafter, President Obama was asked what he thought of the confrontation. Here's what he said:
[Video no longer available]
For Pelosi to call for Bill Barr's resignation is ridiculous. For these DOJ lawyers to make such a harsh recommendation is ridiculous, too. If these attorneys hadn't quit, they should've been fired. Period. Today on Dana Perino's program, Trey Gowdy, a former U.S. Attorney who never lost a case, said that he never made a sentence recommendation. When asked if he thought the sentence was too much, Gowdy explained the sentencing guidelines before telling Dana Perino that he knew violent criminals who got less than the 7-to-9 years.

In recent days, pundits have started speculating whether Joe Biden's cheese has slid totally off the cracker. That's a fair question. It's equally fair, in my opinion, to ask if the cheese is sliding off of Nancy Pelosi's cracker. In my estimation, she's starting to lose it.

Posted Thursday, February 13, 2020 2:51 PM

No comments.

Bernie's bad news

Matt Vespa's article is the worst news Bernie Sanders has received in quite some time. Inside his article is this tidbit of information:

Nevada's powerful Culinary Workers Union will not endorse in the presidential primary, while criticizing Bernie Sanders' signature Medicare for All proposal, according to three sources with knowledge of the decision. In declining to pick a candidate, but sharply criticizing Sen. Bernie Sanders' signature policy position, Medicare for All, the union created an opening for Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar, two moderate Democrats with little demonstrated support in the state.

That's truly throwing Bernie under the bus. Taking direct aim at Bernie's signature issue isn't what he'd like to hear. The question is whether this issue will sink him in other states. This suggests it will:

In Pennsylvania, some top union leaders were also adamant that they would tell their people to stay home or vote for Trump should Sanders or Warren become the 2020 Democratic nominee. In the Keystone State, Sanders' commitment to a universal ban on fracking, which will kill hundreds of thousands of jobs in the must-win state, is just a bridge too far.

LFR has frequently said that the Democrats' opposition to fracking and fossil fuels is their Achilles heel. That's the thing that puts Democrats in God's little acre: just east of the rock, just west of the hard place. Some issues have multiple solutions. Energy is a binary choice. If you oppose fossil fuels, you're the enemy. Period.
[Video no longer available]
This is predictable. Bernie truly believes in Medicare-for-All. What he can't do anything about is the fact that unions have often negotiated for Cadillac plans, which aren't taxed, while settling for lower wages. Meanwhile, Bernie is on the wrong side of the fossil fuels issue. Dan Crenshaw and Kevin McCarthy are offering a better way forward :

Congressmen including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, of California, and Dan Crenshaw, of Texas, are pitching the legislation as a common sense alternative to Democrats' calls for limiting the use of fossil fuels. "There's this false choice between doing nothing and over regulating," Crenshaw said. "That would do nothing, because the United States is only 15 percent of emissions."

International corporations like Exxon-Mobil and Chevron favor a carbon tax, likely because that's a competition-killer. That doesn't do anything to fix what's wrong. Expect union rank-and-file to agree with Republicans on this issue.

Posted Thursday, February 13, 2020 6:24 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