January 1-3, 2020

Jan 01 03:35 Daschle-Lott vs. McConnell-Schumer
Jan 01 04:04 NYTimes vs. Elise Stefanik

Jan 02 02:25 Soup lines America, Part II
Jan 02 17:34 CNN's impeachment stupidity
Jan 02 23:13 Gen. Soleimani killed in airstrike

Jan 03 00:44 Speaker Pelosi's statement on Soleimani airstrike
Jan 03 11:02 Ben Sasse vs. Chris Murphy
Jan 03 20:39 Putting Iran on its heels

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

Daschle-Lott vs. McConnell-Schumer

Reading through Nina Totenberg's article on how Tom Daschle and Trent Lott put together the rules that dictated how the Senate's impeachment trial would be held showed how partisan Democrats have gotten. It opens by saying "Twenty-one years ago Thursday, as the House approved articles of impeachment against President Bill Clinton, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott was sitting in his study in Pascagoula, Miss., 'looking out on a beautiful live oak tree.' With a sigh, the Republican leader picked up the phone to call Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, his Democratic counterpart. 'Whether we like it or not, this is sitting in our lap,' he told Daschle, 'and we've got to figure out how to deal with it.'"

That's lightyears different than what's happening today. Chuck Schumer is the first Democrat to openly state that Supreme Court justices should be confirmed or rejected based on partisan considerations. Now he's insisting on calling witnesses that House Democrats insisted weren't needed.

When House Republicans impeached President Clinton, they picked their impeachment managers, then immediately sent the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Newt Gingrich didn't attempt to leverage them for partisan advantage. When Republicans impeached Clinton, Clinton had been credibly accused of committing felonies. Gingrich didn't have to play games.

There was still a cordial between Gingrich and Dick Gephardt, then the House Minority Leader. Starting in 2017, Democrats publicly announced that they wanted to impeach President Trump. In March, 2017, Adam Schiff said on NBC's Meet the Press that he'd seen evidence that "was stronger than circumstantial" that President Trump had colluded with Russia to win the election. Seemingly on a monthly basis, Schiff lied to the press that President Trump had committed treason or colluded with the Russians or made other incendiary and inaccurate accusations.

Nancy Pelosi didn't give orders to Schiff and Nadler to rig the investigations. It isn't that she's a woman of integrity. She isn't. She didn't give that order because she didn't need to. She knew that they'd rig the impeachment investigations on their own.

Democrats now scream about process. Isn't that rich after all that Democrats like Schiff and Nadler did to rig the impeachment process? Senate Democrats now want to call the witnesses that House Democrats thought weren't needed. Sen. Schumer then pushed the envelope by insisting that the Senate conduct the investigation that House Democrats didn't conduct.

In this video, Schumer essentially admits that the House Democrats' case is built on hearsay testimony:
[Video no longer available]
That's a stunning, idiotic, admission on his part. Why didn't House Democrats compel the testimony with a lawsuit. Why didn't House Democrats put together the strongest case possible. Why did House Democrats think that the White House didn't have the right exert privilege? What is the House Democrats' precedent for impeaching a president for exerting privilege?

McConnell should do whatever his caucus wants him to do in setting up rules that guarantee the prosecutors and the defense a fair opportunity to present their cases. If he does that, nobody except Democrat partisans will care what happened by the time we get to the conventions.

Posted Wednesday, January 1, 2020 3:35 AM

Comment 1 by Chad Q at 01-Jan-20 07:46 AM
They repeated the lies long enough and they now all believe what they've been saying since 2017 yet the Mueller Report and their own dog and pony show impeachment inquiry have proved them wrong.

NYTimes vs. Elise Stefanik

The NYTimes published this op-ed yesterday. Apparently, their editors weren't working. Either that or their editors are just worthless. The op-ed states incorrectly that "G.O.P. women, at both the national and state levels, are on the brink of extinction."

That's either sloppy or intentionally dishonest. It's most likely intentional dishonesty because it didn't require any research to find facts that refute the statement. Elise Stefanik saw the op-ed and replied with a series of fact-based tweets. Here's one of Ms. Stefanik's fact-based tweets:




If that isn't enough, check out this Stefanik tweet:


This one is my personal favorite:


I love reading about a freshman Democrat heading for defeat first thing in the morning. The only thing that's better is hearing that 2 freshman Democrats are heading for defeat. The point is that the NYTimes' op-ed isn't accurate. (That's a shock, right?) The other point is that Elise Stefanik is definitely a rising star in the GOP. She's tough as nails and she doesn't back down. Finally, let's end with this Stefanik tweet:


Posted Wednesday, January 1, 2020 4:04 AM

No comments.

Soup lines America, Part II

Democrats keep pushing the theme that the economy isn't helping the bottom half of Americans. This puff piece is the latest to make that claim. What's interesting is this paragraph:

Emerging financial challenges such as the explosion of student debt, and until the past few years highly disappointing levels of wage growth , meant many Americans may have had less to invest in the first place.

What happened "the past few years"? Wages were relatively stagnant during the Obama administration. Wage growth acceleration started kicking into high gear when President Trump signed the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act into law 2 years ago. Since then, wages have risen for the first time in years.

Frankly, this is just another attempt to criticize the Trump-GOP economy. This is just a variation of the articles/segments talking about the impending recession. Democrats are perfectly willing to talk down the economy and put people out of work in their attempt to defeat President Trump. Remember this?
[Video no longer available]
It's time to ask a simple clarifying question. Why do Democrats hate President Trump so much that they're willing to wish economic turmoil on their fellow citizens? Patriotic citizens don't wish for their neighbors, co-workers and relatives to get hurt financially in the hopes that they'll get rid of a president they don't like. Only Democrats do that.

There's another foundational question each citizen should ask. Why would we want someone running the government who hates American politicians more than they love their nation? Anyone that wants the nation to suffer just to grab additional political authority doesn't have the character required to run this great nation.

The Democrats' dishonesty is hurting them electorally. Schiff's dishonesty will cost them the House. What the Democrats' dishonesty doesn't hurt them, the Democrats' policies will hurt them. The Democrats' presidential candidates have said that they'll get rid of fossil fuels. Why would voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana and West Virginia vote for Democrats? In 2016, Hillary thought of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin as her "blue firewall." That firewall doesn't exist anymore because Democrats don't pretend to like blue collar workers anymore.

The economy isn't working for everyone but it's working for the vast majority of people. Wages are rising fastest for the lowest income earners. The bottom 25% of wage earners have had their wages increase faster than supervisory personnel. It's time to celebrate, not criticize, this economy.

Posted Thursday, January 2, 2020 2:25 AM

Comment 1 by Chad Q at 02-Jan-20 05:18 PM
The economy isn't doing well for democrats because people are coming off the poverty and food stamp rolls and that isn't good for the "government solves all your problems" politicians. Sad day when we are at full employment, very few are making the state or federal min wage because employers are hurting for workers, and all the democrats can do is complain. BTW, student debt is just another democrat caused problem.

CNN's impeachment stupidity

Listening to CNN isn't wise in any situation. Listening to CNN talk about impeachment is the ultimate in foolishness. CNN is foolish because it's citing former Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake as a source .

According to Sen. Flake, "at least 35 would do so if they were allowed to cast their ballots in secret." Considering the fact that Sen. Flake hates President Trump and has said outrageous things about President Trump, Sen. Flake is the least reliable source other than an anonymous source.

Let's challenge that line of thinking. Imagine a situation where nobody knew who voted to convict President Trump. Then picture Trump supporters realizing that over half of GOP senators had just voted to convict him without taking accountability. How many Republicans would get primaried and defeated this year?

The 'wimp factor' for removing a president without admitting which senator voted for or against conviction would be high. Trump supporters would be irate if the Senate voted to convict President Trump by secret ballot. It's difficult to picture something more typical of the Swamp. That means those political careers would be over whether they voted to convict or not.
[Video no longer available]

Hamilton went further and argued that "there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt." For this reason, he believed the Senate would be the appropriate venue to hold a trial for impeachment, with the belief that senators would act as an impartial jury not swayed by public opinion or one's allegiance to a candidate or party.

It isn't that Madison, Hamilton and Jefferson trusted senators to be impartial. They put their trust in requiring a two-third's majority in the Senate. The supermajority was the key because a politician is still a politician.

Trusting Jeff Flake's opinion on President Trump is foolish. It isn't as foolish as trusting Adam Schiff but it isn't wise, either.

Posted Thursday, January 2, 2020 5:34 PM

No comments.

Gen. Soleimani killed in airstrike

Gen. Qassim Soleimani, the leader of Iran's Quds Force, was killed tonight by a US airstrike "at Baghdad's international airport Friday." This went official when "Iranian state television and three Iraqi officials" confirmed Soleimani's death.

The Pentagon said Thursday that the U.S. military has killed Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran's elite Quds Force, at the direction of President Donald Trump.

An airstrike killed Soleimani, architect of Iran's regional security apparatus, at Baghdad's international airport Friday, Iranian state television and three Iraqi officials said, an attack that's expected to draw severe Iranian retaliation against Israel and American interests.

The Defense Department said Soleimani "was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region." It also accused Soleimani of approving the attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad earlier this week.

Predictably, partisanship is running rampant after the airstrike. In fact, Democrat partisanship was running rampant after this week's attack on the US Embassy in Iraq. Here's what Sen. Chris Murphy, (D-CT), tweeted after the attack on the Embassy:


Tonight, Sen. Murphy, apparently tired of talking out of one side of his mouth earlier this week, talked out of the other side of his mouth tonight while criticizing President Trump for killing Gen. Soleimani:


In other words, in Sen. Murphy's perspective, President Trump was impotent earlier this week and a full-fledged war-monger tonight. The Defense Department issued this statement after the airstrike:

At the direction of the President, the U.S. military has taken decisive defensive action to protect U.S. personnel abroad by killing Qassim Soleimani, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.

General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region. General Soleimani and his Quds Force were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition service members and the wounding of thousands more. He had orchestrated attacks on coalition bases in Iraq over the last several months - including the attack on December 27th - culminating in the death and wounding of additional American and Iraqi personnel. General Soleimani also approved the attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad that took place this week.

This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans. The United States will continue to take all necessary action to protect our people and our interests wherever they are around the world.

The Commander-in-Chief doesn't need congressional authorization to protect diplomats or soldiers. President Trump did the right thing in ordering this airstrike.

Posted Thursday, January 2, 2020 11:13 PM

No comments.

Speaker Pelosi's statement on Soleimani airstrike

Either Speaker Pelosi is taking lessons from Sen. Chris Murphy or Sen. Murphy is taking lessons from Speaker Pelosi. Whichever direction it's coming from, it's clear that both Democrats are both talking out both sides of their mouth. Earlier this week, Sen. Murphy accused President Trump of making the US "impotent" throughout the Middle East. Thursday night, Sen. Murphy accused President Trump of "knowingly setting off a potential massive regional war."

At least, it took Sen. Murphy a couple of days to talk out of both sides of his mouth. It didn't take Speaker Pelosi a full paragraph to talk out of both sides of her mouth in this statement :

American leaders' highest priority is to protect American lives and interests. But we cannot put the lives of American servicemembers, diplomats and others further at risk by engaging in provocative and disproportionate actions.

Got that? President Trump's "highest priority is to protect American lives and interests" without "engaging in provocative and disproportionate actions." Speaker Pelosi doesn't explain how to do that. She's just certain that President Trump failed.

What's disproportionate about killing a terrorist who is organizing terrorist attacks against US diplomats and military personnel? Should President Trump have done nothing to prevent these terrorist attacks? That's what President Obama would've done so that isn't the right path.

Tonight's airstrike risks provoking further dangerous escalation of violence. America - and the world - cannot afford to have tensions escalate to the point of no return.

Apparently, Speaker Pelosi prefers talking tough while doing nothing. That's what's known as a doctrine of appeasement. That's what Jimmy Carter tried in 1979. That resulted in 52 US hostages being held in the US Embassy in Teheran for 444 days. Five minutes after President Reagan was sworn in as the 40th president of the United States, the plane carrying those hostages cleared Iranian air space.

Jimmy Carter, like Pelosi and Obama, are Democrats who believe in appeasement. President Trump isn't a Democrat. He doesn't believe in appeasement.
[Video no longer available]
Is retaliation likely? That's definitely possible. Is there a better option than the option used Thursday night? That's a matter of opinion.

Posted Friday, January 3, 2020 12:44 AM

No comments.

Ben Sasse vs. Chris Murphy

Last night, Democrat Chris Murphy issued a statement that accused the Trump administration of bringing the US to the brink of a region-wide war. Earlier this week, Murphy accused President Trump of implementing policies that made the US "impotent." Apparently, Murphy can't decide whether President Trump is making the US impotent or whether he's bringing the US to the brink of war.

Lost in all of this is the fact that Gen. Soleimani was in Baghdad and that US intelligence found out that he was plotting harm against US diplomats and soldiers. What would Sen. Murphy want us to do? Send a plane filled with cash to buy off the Iranian terrorists like the Obama administration tried? How did strategic patience work out?

It's safe to say that Ben Sasse isn't President Trump's biggest fan. That being said, it's safe to say that he didn't take any BS from Sen. Murphy , either:


When American lives are at risk, we have the right to defend ourselves. Protecting troops doesn't require a declaration of war or even an authorized use of military force or AUMF. A declaration of war is needed if the C-in-C wants to expand it to a war.

Thus far, it looks like President Trump isn't interested in expanding this into a full-fledged war. Major Gen. James A. "Spider" Marks [Ret.], now a military analyst with CNN, criticized Murphy , too:

"What I would say to Senator Murphy is, why don't you just be quiet," Marks said, questioning the notion that the strike has made the world "more dangerous." "Look, when has Iran ever demonstrated self-restraint? I mean, that's the question I have. So, is the world more dangerous today? Maybe it's more dangerous, but when has it not been dangerous? When have we not been a target of a regime like exists in Tehran? I mean, it happens as a matter of routine," said Marks.

Murphy isn't supporting our troops and diplomats when he's playing the part of partisan hack. That's what Murphy did last night. Murphy, like far too many Democrats, care more about scoring partisan points than he cares about being a patriot.

It sounds like Pelosi and Schumer weren't notified of the attack beforehand. That's perfectly appropriate since neither has proven trustworthy with national security secrets. Pelosi and Schumer are partisans first. I don't know that I could call them patriots.

There's no doubt that Ben Sasse is a patriot. I don't always agree with him but he wants what's best for America.

Posted Friday, January 3, 2020 11:02 AM

No comments.

Putting Iran on its heels

I've spent much of today listening to Democrats talking about the inevitability of Iran striking back as retaliation for the Trump-ordered airstrike against Gen. Soleimani. Tonight, President Trump decided that flipping the script on one of Iran's proxies was in order . First reports are that "Iraqi official claims 5 Iranian-backed militia members killed in airstrike north of Baghdad. An airstrike Friday hit two cars carrying members of an Iran-backed militia north of Iraq's capital, Baghdad, killing five members, an Iraqi official told The Associated Press. The official added that the identities of those killed were not immediately known. It was not immediately clear who launched the strike."

This article has different information. It said "A fresh airstrike, targeting high-profile members of Iraq's Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), an umbrella group of Iran-backed militias, has been reported. The PMF members were travelling in a three-car convoy north of Baghdad, when the strike occurred, killing six persons, multiple reports said. Three other persons were critically injured. No one has claimed responsibility for the strike."

There isn't much doubt who carried out this attack. There's only one nation with the capability and motivation to carry out an attack like this. When the US designated Iran's Quds Force as a terrorist group, they also put Iran on notice that killing a US soldier was the Trump administration's red line. Further, President Trump has demonstrated that he isn't like President Obama when it comes to suffering terrorists lightly when they cross his red lines.

To paraphrase the late Charles Krauthammer, "it isn't that there's a new sheriff in town. It's that, after 8 years, there's finally a sheriff in town." Everyone who studied President Obama knew that his default position was to do nothing. The Democrats' spin was to call it "strategic patience." It's time to tell these pacifists to take a hike. That's what Pete Hegseth did during this segment of The Five:
[Video no longer available]
Marie Harf is essentially the female version of Baghdad Bob. Pete Hegseth had enough of Harf's questioning. The tipping point was when she questioned Hegseth about the possibility of escalation. At that point, Hegseth had enough and replied that Iran has been escalating tensions for months. Then he asked her if President Trump should just let Soleimani kill American soldiers and diplomats. Hegseth questioned why a US president would let something like that happen when he had the actionable intelligence that would prevent the killing of diplomats and soldiers. Harf, of course, didn't have an answer for that question.

Hegseth put the Democrats' appeaser on her heels just like President Trump is putting Iran's Quds Force on their collective heels. Wise generals pick their battles. Harf is neither smart nor a general. She's just a former mouthpiece for a failed presidential administration.

Posted Friday, January 3, 2020 8:39 PM

Comment 1 by John Palmer at 04-Jan-20 09:55 PM
Gary you're not wrong very often but there is another country that could have pulled the strike agains the PMF. The country is Israel.

Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 05-Jan-20 02:40 AM
That's true, John. Israel is certainly capable of carrying out a strike like that. That's why I said that the US had the capability and the motivation to carry out that strike. Further, I'd argue that President Trump would confer with Israel and tell them to stay out of this delicate (to put it mildly) situation.

Another possibility is that Jordan took out PMF.

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