January 11-13, 2020

Jan 11 01:24 Rep. Dan Crenshaw demolishes the Democrats' talking points
Jan 11 03:57 John Kerry, delusionist Democrat
Jan 11 12:17 Pelosi's spin is getting annoying
Jan 11 23:16 Iran's protests vs. Obama's agenda

Jan 12 02:38 Democrats' band of doves
Jan 12 13:01 Winkler steps in it again
Jan 12 18:27 Will Congress abolish the FISC?

Jan 13 03:47 The effect of push-polling
Jan 13 14:38 Iran's anti-Trump protests?

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

Rep. Dan Crenshaw demolishes the Democrats' talking points

Saying that Dan Crenshaw had had enough with the Democrats' talking points is understatement. Crenshaw's speech utterly demolished the Democrats' chanting points. Pete Buttigieg blamed the US for the loss of life onboard Ukraine Flight 752:


What a total loser. Then there's Elizabeth Warren :

'When President Trump first announced that he had Soleimani killed, I thought, Why now? We've know about Soleimani for years. What's the reason it's not last month? What's the reason it's not next month? And does this have to do with the fact that we're right here on the eve of impeachment,' Warren said.

Rep. Crenshaw had a reply:

"Ok, Elizabeth Warren, I've got an answer for you. The reason why now is because Soleimani just orchestrated an attack on our embassy, killed an American citizen and we have very good intel from the CIA, the DNI, from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They said was some of the best intel they'd ever seen, that there was an imminent attack coming within days. So, Elizabeth Warren, that is why."

In other words, President Trump ordered the killing of Gen. Soleimani to prevent a war. Further, President Trump ordered that killing based on strong intelligence. He didn't approve the killing because he's facing impeachment. He's already been impeached. He isn't getting convicted. What's there to worry about impeachment? Meanwhile, here's Rep. Crenshaw unloading both barrels, first on Buttigieg, then Warren:
[Video no longer available]
Notice what Crenshaw did that permitted him to effectively decimate Democrats. Rep. Crenshaw's command of the facts was superb. Then he explained why President Trump did what he did. Further, he was under control while he made his case against the Democrats. That's how you blow the Democrats' talking points out of the water.

The important thing to understand is that few Democrats are able to sound coherent if they aren't regurgitating Democrat talking points. Elizabeth Warren doesn't sound the least bit coherent when she's confronted about foreign policy. Her stump speech about Iran essentially is 'President Trump killed Gen. Soleimani to distract from the impeachment trial that he isn't worried about.' There's nothing substantive about Sen. Warren's foreign policy.

Posted Saturday, January 11, 2020 1:24 AM

Comment 1 by Chad Q at 11-Jan-20 11:17 AM
What emanate threat did the radicalized us citizen prove when Obama used a drone strike to take him out?

You take bad guys out when you have the chance, especially when they are planning attacks on you. If Clinton had done that back in the 90's, the world trade centers would probably still be standing, 9000+ lives would have been saved and countless others would not have been maimed in the Afghan and Iraq wars.

Comment 2 by Chad Q at 11-Jan-20 11:19 AM
Should be imminent, not emanate. Got to love spell check sometimes.

John Kerry, delusionist Democrat

John Kerry's op-ed might get mistaken as the rantings of a lunatic. It wouldn't get mistaken as the craftsmanship of a highly respected former US Secretary of State. Then again, Secretary Kerry wasn't a highly respected secretary of state at any point in his life.

Secretary Kerry's op-ed starts with "President Trump says that on his watch, Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. But if he had wanted to keep that promise, he should have left the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement in place. Instead, he pulled the United States out of the deal and pursued a reckless foreign policy that has put us on a path to armed conflict with Iran."

The JCPOA, which stands for Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action, never would've prevented Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. The best possible outcome was to delay Iran's legal acquisition of a nuclear weapon. What's worse is that Secretary Kerry agreed to sanctions relief for the Iranian theocracy without them even signing the JCPOA. That's a fact because Iran still hasn't signed the document.

Another fatal flaw of the negotiations is that it was such a worthless agreement that President Obama refused to submit it as a treaty. Some of President Obama's staunchest supporters in the Senate refused to approve the deal.

Further, Kerry lied when he said that President Trump "pursued a reckless foreign policy that has put us on a path to armed conflict with Iran." Killing Gen. Soleimani took the US off a path to war with Iran. Iran has been making one provocative action after another to provoke the US into war. President Trump hasn't taken Iran's bait.

This moment was nothing if not foreseeable the moment Mr. Trump abandoned the 2015 agreement, which was working, and chose instead to isolate us from our allies, narrow our options in the region and slam shut the door to tackling additional issues with Iran through constructive diplomacy.

By putting new, tough, sanctions in place against the theocracy, President Trump is drying up the funds Iran has traditionally used to fund its proxies like Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen. The predictable thing is Kerry lying about the JCPOA. It's one of the worst agreements in US diplomatic history. Here's where Kerry gives it away that the JCPOA is worthless:

Diplomacy had achieved what sanctions alone had not: Iran couldn't have a nuclear weapon during the life span of the agreement ; and if it cheated, the world was resolved to stop it.

Then there's this:

In 2013, I sat down with Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran's foreign minister, for the first meeting between our countries' top diplomats since the 1979 revolution and hostage crisis. Iran at the time had enough enriched material for eight to 10 nuclear bombs and was two to three months from being able to build one.

In other words, Kerry negotiated a deal that gave Iran immediate sanctions relief, pallets that contained $1.7 billion in cash and time to build, then test, nuclear weapons and the delivery systems to use them. Other than that, Iran was neutralized.

What did we turn over to President-elect Trump in 2017? Iran was in compliance with the nuclear agreement. Our allies were united with the United States.

What Mr. Kerry omits is that Iran had sanctions relief that poured $150,000,000,000 (that's $150 billion > dollars) into revitalizing Iran's terrorist proxies around the region and around the globe. Thinking that nuclear weapons is all that Iran is interested in is foolish.
[Video no longer available]
That's what a fool looks like.

Posted Saturday, January 11, 2020 3:57 AM

No comments.

Pelosi's spin is getting annoying

Now that Speaker Pelosi has caved, Democrats, aka Nancy's support group, have started spinning things to make it sound like her impeachment delay succeeded. It's understandable why they'd spin that. They know that she needs to save face to avoid utter humiliation. If she wants to save face, she needs another Botox treatment, not this spin.

Byron York's article is aptly titled Pelosi caves. In the article, Chuck Schumer is quoted as saying "in the last two weeks, there's been a cascade of evidence that bolsters the case, strongly bolsters the case, for witnesses and documents." Consider this the Senate Democrats' equivalent of House Democrats' "bombshell testimony" coming from the Schiff Show. Spare me the spin.

During the Schiff Show portion of impeachment, we were told by the corrupt media that that day's testifiers would provide "bombshell testimony" that would devastate Orange Man Bad. By mid-afternoon each day, that day's star witness was the one decimated. By the time the Schiff Show transitioned into Nadler's articles of impeachment hearings, Democrats were sinking fast. Impeachment had backfired to the point that the House Judiciary Committee didn't bother calling fact witnesses. That's because Democrats were still looking for a fact witness that wouldn't hurt them.

There's speculation that Democrats might try a second round of impeachment. Democrat activists were the only people who took the first round seriously. Why think that anyone would take another round seriously? Doug Collins appears to have this right:

"I believe she finally ran out of options and realized there was no political gain anymore," Rep. Doug Collins, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said in a text exchange Friday. " The case never changed , and the outcome has not been altered , but it appears to have allowed them to talk more about it and try to influence public opinion away from the show in the House and the inevitable result in the Senate."

The American people aren't paying attention. They're too busy enjoying their bigger paychecks, their latest promotions, their rising wages. They're too busy taking vacations. Washington pundits are paying attention but that's about it.

Now, the holdout is apparently coming to an end. A trial will begin. Pelosi will undoubtedly keep trying to mess with the president. But the trial will be out of her hands.

Let's hope for a quick trial. The Democrats' House impeachment managers don't have anything to present except hearsay testimony. The Trump legal team should present the transcript of the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call and the whistle-blower's complaint to provide a contrast between what actually happened and the Democrats' gossip. If Democrats succeed in calling witnesses, Republicans should call the whistle-blower as a witness. If he's called, the Trump legal team should insist that he give up the names of the people who leaked information to him.
[Video no longer available]
Further, we know that John Bolton won't testify. He might get called but President Trump will exert executive privilege. If Democrats want to challenge that in court, that's their option. It's also their option to pound their head into a brick wall. No serious judge will side with the Democrats in forcing the national security adviser testify about classified communications between the president and another head of state. It's time to put the Democrats' fiasco in the rear-view mirror.

Posted Saturday, January 11, 2020 12:17 PM

No comments.

Iran's protests vs. Obama's agenda

Iranian protesters are doing what President Obama didn't do. They're protesting against the Iranian regime and "demanding that Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei step down." In 2009, President Obama refused to side with protesters after the Iranian regime stole a rigged election. President Obama had an agenda to achieve and Iran's dissidents stood in the way of that.

In this article , national security reporter Eli Lake exposes the Obama administration's disgusting plans. In the article, Lake wrote "Obama wasn't just reluctant to show solidarity in 2009, [Obama] feared the demonstrations would sabotage his secret outreach to Iran . In his new book, "The Iran Wars," Wall Street Journal reporter Jay Solomon uncovers new details on how far Obama went to avoid helping Iran's green movement. Behind the scenes, Obama overruled advisers who wanted to do what America had done at similar transitions from dictatorship to democracy, and signal America's support."

Earlier this week, Republicans correctly said that Gen. Soleimani had blood on his hands, which is true. Thanks to Lake's reporting, it's apparent that President Obama has blood on his hands, too. If President Obama hadn't sabotaged the Green Revolution in 2009, it's definitely possible that the Khamenei regime would've fallen. It's possible that a nastier regime could've taken over but it's equally true that a more pro-young people regime would've won, too. Almost three-fourths of the people in Iran are 35 or younger. Masih Alinejad published this tweet from today's protests:


This is what patriotism looks like:
[Video no longer available]
Obama cared more about his legacy than he cared about helping these Iranian patriots topple an evil dictator. In fact, Obama let these people get trampled just so he could negotiate a terrible deal with Iranian monsters like Khamenei and Soleimani. Khamenei oppressed the people while Soleimani terrorized the region. Unlike President Obama, though, President Trump isn't worried about his legacy. He's worried about doing the right thing by the Iranian people. That's why he tweeted these messages to Iran's dissidents:




That's the difference between a true patriot who's fighting for what's right and a desperate politician who wants to build a legacy. President Obama didn't act like a patriot. If he had, Iran's people might've been delivered from their government's oppression and Obama might've built a legitimate legacy. Here's what Secretary of State Pompeo tweeted in support of Iran's people:


Can you picture John Kerry tweeting such a message? I can't either.

Posted Saturday, January 11, 2020 11:16 PM

No comments.

Democrats' band of doves

When it comes to dovish presidential candidates, this year's Democrats look more like 1972 than any other bunch of dovish Democrats. Kim Strassel's article highlights just how leftist this year's Democrat frontrunners are. Let's start with Bernie Sanders' dovishness.

Strassel writes "Voters now know that a President Bernie Sanders would not take action against Iran or other rogue regimes, no matter how many red lines they cross. Mr. Sanders will take no step that might bring us anywhere closer to 'another disastrous war' or cost 'more dollars and more deaths.'" Honestly, I'm not certain Bernie would have any red lines. Thankfully, we won't have to worry about that since he doesn't stand a chance of winning the general election. That being said, he's got a decent shot at winning the Democrats' presidential nomination.

Then there's Elizabeth Warren:

A President Elizabeth Warren would similarly offer a pass to leaders of U.S.-designated terrorist groups, at least if they have an official title. The Trump strike, she said, amounted to the "assassination" of "a government official, a high-ranking military official."

Richard Nixon was right when he said that "the world is a terrible neighborhood to live in." Anyone that thinks that these Democrats are prepared to be commander-in-chief is kidding themselves. People this dovish aren't prepared for the harsh responsibilities of making difficult decisions on a moment's notice. This interview is proof that Elizabeth Warren isn't bright enough to be commander-in-chief:
[Video no longer available]
Anyone that thinks that the US isn't safer as a result of killing Maj. Gen. Soleimani doesn't pass the commander-in-chief test. Sen. Warren thinks we aren't safer now than we were 3 years ago. Right after 9/11, we were told that killing terrorists created more terrorists. After the US took out the Taliban and things settled down a little bit , we were told that the Arab street respected "the strong horse." It's time to stop thinking that these Democrats have a clue about national security/terrorism. They don't. They're idiots. The guy in the White House is the only person currently running that I'd trust with these matters. Trusting Bernie, Biden, Buttigieg or Warren with national security, terrorism or foreign policy is foolish.

Posted Sunday, January 12, 2020 2:38 AM

Comment 1 by eric z at 13-Jan-20 10:41 AM
The second Bush sure taught us well about the greatness of rewards a nation accrues via war-mongering. Yeah, Gary. We need more of the same. Never mind clean energy and good roads, instead, kill Muslims as the way to spend tax money. The GOP knows best.

Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 13-Jan-20 01:51 PM
Yes, let's ignore the myth that green energy will save our economy. That's a total myth on steroids. Notice that the resurgence in high-paying manufacturing jobs didn't happen as a result of a focus on green energy. It happened as the result of the biggest boom in domestic energy production. As a result of that domestic energy production, we don't need Middle East oil.

As for killing Muslims, I guess you didn't notice that President Trump is trying to withdraw from Bush's wars. How convenient. I'm sure that's purely coincidental.

Winkler steps in it again

Back in June, 2013, Rep. Ryan Winkler stepped in it when he criticized Republican-appointed Supreme Court Justices for ruling against the Voting Rights Act, which I wrote about here . At the time, Winkler tweeted "#SCOTUS VRA majority is four accomplices to race discrimination and one Uncle Thomas." He obviously was referring to Justice Clarence Thomas with his Uncle Thomas quip.

Despite that exercise in racism, the DFL didn't see anything wrong with making him the House Majority Leader after the 2018 midterm elections. He still isn't bright enough to stay out of trouble. This past week, counties across Minnesota voted on whether they were willing to accept primary refugees. This week, Beltrami County voted 3-2 to not accept additional primary refugees. After the vote, Leader Winkler threatened counties that voted not to accept refugees with funding cut in this tweet:


Talk about strong-arm tactics. Considering his past racist comments, this shouldn't surprise people. Still, it's something that shouldn't be tolerated. State Sen. Justin Eichorn published this statement criticizing Rep. Winkler:

I am deeply disturbed by DFL House Majority Leader Winkler's threat to cut off funding to Beltrami County simply because the county did not vote the way he wanted. This hostile behavior from the Majority Leader has no place in government, and we should not move towards a society that requires quid pro quo or else. Rather than engaging in this destructive behavior, I encourage the Majority Leader to visit Beltrami to learn the importance of state aid for the area and why continued support will be critical in the future.

Ultimately, local control is one of the most important principles in our country. When President Trump empowered counties to have a voice in the decision-making process for the federal refugee resettlement program to empower them to make choices that are best for their area, that is the choice that the Beltrami County Commissioners made last night.

I'd add that President Trump's executive action is simply enforcing federal law.

Specifically, the Refugee Act of 1980 requires consultation "with representatives of voluntary agencies and State and local governments." That's found in 8 U.S. Code §?1522 Clause B. Here's the exact text of that part of the bill:

The Director shall develop and implement, in consultation with representatives of voluntary agencies and State and local governments , policies and strategies for the placement and resettlement of refugees within the United States.

It doesn't say should, may or has the option of. It says that the federal government " shall develop and implement : policies and strategies for the placement and resettlement of refugees within the United States."

I don't doubt that Rep. Winkler doesn't like Beltrami County's decision. Elections have consequences, though, so if he doesn't like the vote, he can run against one of the people who didn't vote the way he wanted them to vote. Otherwise, he should shut his pie-hole. At minimum, he should deliver a speech saying that he's retracting his threat.

The DFL governor has let the Minnesota Department of Human Services operate a slush fund within various programs, starting with the Child Care Access Program, aka CCAP, and programs for opioid addiction. The fraud in those programs literally run into the tens of millions of dollars. Now, the DFL House Majority Leader is threatening independent units of government because they didn't do what he expected them to do.

This is gangster government at its worst. It should be utterly rejected this November.

Posted Sunday, January 12, 2020 1:01 PM

No comments.

Will Congress abolish the FISC?

During his interview with Maria Bartiromo this morning, Devin Nunes talked about the corruption within the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, aka the FISC. House Intelligence Committee Republicans have been questioning the FISC's integrity. Thus far, the FISC's replies suggest a cover-up. Rather than answering Republicans' questions, the FISC has stonewalled and given platitudes for answers. At this point, there's a strong chance that FISA won't be renewed when it expires this year.

Rep. Nunes expressed his frustration with the FISC during his interview with Bartiromo:

"It's hard to imagine a worse person the FISC could have chosen outside [James] Comey, [Andy] McCabe, or [Adam] Schiff," Nunes said. Speaking to Fox News contributor Sara Carter, Nunes added: "It's a ridiculous choice. The FBI lied to the FISC, and to help make sure that doesn't happen again, the FISC chose an FBI apologist who denied and defended those lies. The FISC is setting its own credibility on fire."

It's important to fill in the details:

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) has stunned court-watchers by selecting David Kris, a former Obama administration lawyer who has appeared on "The Rachel Maddow Show" and written extensively in support of the FBI's surveillance practices on the left-wing blog Lawfare, to oversee the FBI's implementation of reforms in the wake of a damning Department of Justice inspector general report last year.

The development on Friday, first reported by independent journalist Mike Cernovich, has roiled Republicans who have demanded accountability at the FBI. House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes, R-Calif., told The Daily Caller that Kris' appointment was "shocking" and "inexplicable."

Quite frankly, this is what's meant by the fox meeting the henhouse. By all accounts, Kris is the personification of the Swamp. Putting the Swamp in charge of reforming the Swamp is something that only the Swamp would think is reasonable. The truth is that this truly jeopardizes FISA.
[Video no longer available]
If this is how unserious the FISC is, then they shouldn't expect support from either side of the political aisle. There's too much trust invested in the FISC to let it be untrustworthy. In fact, a total overhaul of that institution is warranted:

Earlier this month, the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) ordered the FBI to re-verify all previous warrant applications involving the FBI attorney who falsified evidence against the former Trump campaign aide Carter Page. However, Fox News has learned the court did not order the FBI to double-check warrant applications involving other officials who made key omissions and errors in warrant applications as the bureau sought to surveil Page.

The FISC's failure to request a comprehensive evaluation of previous submissions has stunned court-watchers who have questioned whether enough is being done to deter future misconduct by the FBI. In the past, the FISC has gone so far as to prohibit some FBI agents from appearing before the court after finding impropriety.

What's needed is a reform-minded person to fix the FISC. In fact, I'd argue for hiring someone from outside the FISC to help with the reformation. Andy McCarthy or Trey Gowdy would be at the top of that short list, as would Michael Mukasey. This isn't the type of thing that I'd entrust to leftists. They aren't trustworthy. Before reforming the FISC, I'd put together a commission to determine what reforms and safeguards were needed. Mssrs. McCarthy, Gowdy and Mukasey need to serve on that commission. Ditto with Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh.

Eliminating the FISA Court likely isn't a legitimate option. That being said, keeping it in its current structure isn't a legitimate option, either. This needs to get fixed immediately. And I mean fixed, not tampered with.

Posted Sunday, January 12, 2020 6:27 PM

Comment 1 by eric z at 13-Jan-20 10:37 AM
Eliminate it. Secret court proceedings invite abuse, which arrived, on time, in droves. The more a government has secret governing, the more abuse will arise. The "Patriot Act" is an abomination, and was such from Day One. People were lied to about there being a serious national threat, in order to put the damned stupid thing in place. Dump it.

Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 13-Jan-20 01:45 PM
Abuse didn't just arrive, Eric. Jim Clapper, Jim Comey and John Brennan thought that they knew what's best for the American people. Then they developed a plan to sabotage a major party's presidential candidate. This cabal tried staging a quiet coup against this president. They should rot in prison for the rest of their lives. These are Democrat operatives who tried subverting the American election system. These Corruptocrats did as much harm to the 2016 election as Russians did.

The effect of push-polling

When you combine obviously biased 'reporting' with obviously biased polling, don't be surprised if the polling is essentially worthless. That's what happened with this ABC News/Ipsos Poll . Q1 of the poll is "Do you approve or disapprove of the way President Trump is handling the current situation with Iran? The result of the poll was that 43% approved and 56% didn't approve. Q2 of the poll asked "Do you think the U.S. airstrike in Iraq that killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani has made the United States: Less safe - 52%, More safe - 25%, didn't make a difference - 22%."

Polling that asks slanted questions like that is angling for a specific set of responses. In this instance, that's precisely what ABC got. Further, the polling was done on Friday and Saturday. Finally 525 adults were surveyed. That means that this poll was junk. The MOE was 4.8%, which is terrible.

Q3 and Q4 deserve a category unto themselves. Q3 asks "How concerned are you about the possibility of the United States getting involved in a full-scale war with Iran? A: 32% replied that they're "very concerned" and 41% are "somewhat concerned." Q4 is about Speaker Pelosi's handling of impeach. It asked respondents "On another subject, three weeks ago the House of Representatives voted to impeach President Trump, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not immediately deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate that would trigger a trial. Which of the following statements comes closest to your point of view even if neither is exactly right?"

"The fact that Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats did not immediately transmit the articles of impeachment shows that the allegations against President Trump are not serious and that the Democrats are just playing partisan politics" A: 37%
"By not immediately transmitting the articles of impeachment, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats are doing their constitutional duty to ensure that there is a full and deliberate trial in the Senate and that the jury in the Senate is impartial." A:39%

The frightening thought is that votes cast by these uninformed idiots count just as much as the votes of informed citizens. Still, how can serious people think that we're on the brink of full-scale war with Iran? Then again, how can anyone think that Speaker Pelosi is an honest person? After watching this video, it's impossible for me to think that she's honest:
[Video no longer available]
Early in the interview, Pelosi said that Sen. McConnell will be involved in a cover-up if he doesn't allow witnesses. If that's true, then Adam Schiff is a co-conspirator. Chairman Schiff didn't call Bolton, Blair, Mulvaney and Duffey and he didn't subpoena them, either. Further, Democrats should've called for a special counsel to investigate the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call. Congressional partisans like Chairman Schiff aren't qualified to investigate corruption. There's a reason why people don't take partisan congressional investigations seriously.

We were told that this was a national emergency that couldn't wait. Pelosi insists that GOP senators will pay a price if witnesses aren't called. Coming from the woman who turned impeachment into a political weapon because Democrats can't win this election if their lives depended on it, that's rich. Pelosi and Schiff are nasty partisans who don't have a bit of integrity between them.

There's a new Democrat coalition. It consists of corrupt Democrat politicians like Pelosi and Schiff, partisan Democrat journalists like George Stephanopoulos and intentional push-polling aimed at providing a dishonest picture. Republicans have to defeat that coalition just to stand a fighting chance. That's why President Trump hasn't listened to people instructing him to stop tweeting. Without Twitter and other social media platforms, he would've gotten buried by now.

Finally, thank God he's a fighter.

Posted Monday, January 13, 2020 3:47 AM

Comment 1 by eric z at 13-Jan-20 10:32 AM
"Uninformed idiots" = disagree with Gary? That's strange. It is not a characterization I embrace, in disagreeing.

Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 13-Jan-20 01:40 PM
Uninformed idiots = people that think we're on the brink of all-out war with Iran despite President Trump consistently saying that we aren't interested in regime change & after he's campaigned on that policy, then implemented that policy since getting elected. At what point will these people find out that President Trump means that he isn't interested in regime change? Better question: when will Democrats stop lying about these life-and-death matters to score cheap political points? It's time for Democrats to get re-introduced to the truth & doing what's right for America. Right now, these Democrats aren't interested in either.

Comment 2 by Gretchen Leisen at 13-Jan-20 10:42 AM
While our POTUS's tweets may be unsettling for some folks, it is the only weapon that PDT has to exert any control over the news media's narrative. On occasions I wish he had not tweeted a specific comment, but usually he hits the bulls eye when he responds to the news media and the distortions they continuously spew over the air waves.

Let's face it - their hatred of everything Trump is due to their leftist values, plus the fact that finally someone is fighting back and he has an entire army of citizens supporting him.

Iran's anti-Trump protests?

Last week, we were told by the Agenda Media that the Iranian people hated President Trump because he killed Gen. Soleimani. This weekend, Iranians ripped the mask off the Democrats' attempt to spin their anti-Trump story. It's clear that Iranians hated Gen. Soleimani as much as Iranians hate Ayatollah Khamenei .

Democratic congressional leaders and presidential candidates who were unsparing in their criticism of President Trump for the escalation with Iran over the past two weeks largely have gone silent now that the protests on the streets of Tehran and beyond have turned their rage toward the regime and not the Trump White House.

Even as videos emerged online Monday that purportedly show Iranian police and security forces firing live ammunition to disperse protesters, so far among the 2020 Democratic candidates only former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., have spoken out in support of the people.

The Democrats' hatred of President Trump helped fuel the Democrats' anti-Trump spin rather than cheering the killing of a terrorist mastermind. How sick that these Democrat presidential aspirants hate President more than they hate a cold-blooded Iranian terrorist mastermind.

Democrats will have difficulty gaining traction until they start a) backing away from the partisan socialist ledge, b) siding with the American people again and c) running away from Bernie Sanders' socialist policies and AOC's environmentalist policies. But I digress.

The story starting this week is that the Iranian people are, without American provocation, rising up against their religious leadership. These Iranian protesters are protesting the mullahs because they're frustrated with out-of-control inflation and unemployment. People are noticing the Democrats' behavior:




Yashar Ali isn't a conservative, though he's certainly an Iranian patriot. He's upset that Democrats won't pick the Iranian patriots' side in this fight. Democrats won't pick Iran's side because that's the side President Trump is on. Lord knows that Democrats can't side with President Trump on anything. That's why they'll get thrashed this November.

Posted Monday, January 13, 2020 2:38 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